Talk:Savernake Forest

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Wire723 in topic Grid refs

Misc edit

If the links to the owners all work, then this could be more about the forest, less about the noble owners. --Wetman 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Around 2005 the Forestry Commission started to be more pro-active in this forest, protecting and promoting the venerable beeches and oaks. Also, details of the use of the forest in the period 1939-1950 would be interesting. Cheesby (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Having just looked at the official site for Savernake I see that the wikipedia page (as of 8-June-09) is virtually a cut-and-paste from the history page of the official site. Cheesby (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tweaked the history section and added a forest section Cheesby (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Considered the issue of settlement (Farms, Manors, hamlets etc) in the Savernake region. Seems too large a topic so provided a "further reading" section for anyone interested. The source, A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume 16: Kinwardstone Hundred (1999), is available on-line and includes some old parish maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesby (talkcontribs) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tweaked the original photo (the six trees) and added a few more. Cheesby (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

How big is it? edit

A reader visiting this page will want to know, "How big is it?" The article does not clearly answer this question. Buried in a lower section is the phrase "was then some 40,000 acres (160 km2), nearly ten times its present size", suggesting that it's about 16 km2. Would somebody please get a clear figure for the area, and put it in the lead section? Mgnbar (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Size of Savernake Forest edit

The article gives several and confusing numbers relating to size. It gives 4500 acres and 7 square miles. These numbers match. But the article then quotes 18 km squared. This would be 18 km X 18 km . 18 Km squared is actually 324 sq Km and about 80 000 acres.It should read 18 square km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

18 km2 is the standard way to express square kilometres, see that article for more information. —hike395 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Grid refs edit

The section "Forest features" holds more than 30 grid references (but only very few other references). What do we think about that? Personally I find this rather overdone, and it makes the reading rather nasty. But on the other side it can be of help, of course..... --Dick Bos (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

All those gridrefs should go. The section reads like a guide for visitors. -- Wire723 (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply