Talk:Savernake Forest

Misc

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 (talk • contribs) 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?

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

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

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]