Talk:British National Vegetation Classification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks all who helped me edit this page, it is my first attempt, you may have guessed.
- You're very welcome. I dare say the 'pedia could do with more botanists and ecologists. Then again, the 'pedia could do with more of anyone willing to contribute
. You might consider registering, so that we know you by a name instead of a an impersonal IP address. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? if you're interested. Also you can sign your edits to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). —Rory ☺ 22:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] move to wikisource?
- These comments moved from Talk:Woodland and scrub communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system.
No, it wasn't accidentally placed. The pages appear to possibly be cut-and-pasted from somewhere. A government document perhaps? Or some other document? Possibly copyrighted? Or is this original research? In most of these cases (except a copyright violation, of course) might this material be better placed in wikisource and not wikipedia. I guess I'm just confused as to where this information is coming from. Also, if it should stay in wikipedia, might the reader be better served if a lot of this information were merged together into fewer pages? Ewlyahoocom 09:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the above. Hopefully I can set your mind at rest with the following explanation. The NVC is one of the topics I am concentrating on at Wikipedia as it is an important topic, otherwise unrepresented here, and I have the necessary knowledge to write about it (and probably few other Wikipedians do, or have the inclination to write about it). The topic itself is pretty big - there is a lot to say on the methodology, the history, each of the groupings, and each of the (200+) individual communities. For that reason I felt I had to split the subject matter up over many pages. I'd welcome observations on the structure chosen - i.e. a series of "central "pages, a set of pages per community type, and then one page per community - I feel it is a fairly natural structure, but maybe there are other ways of doing it? The primary source document is the 5-volume set British Plant Communities although other source documents will be used in due course to supplement the info in there. It's a kind-of government-related document, I suppose in that JNCC is a government body. I do not believe we have a breach of copyright issue here, in that the information I have included to date merely extracts the key informationm from, synthesises and interprets what is in this work. If you compare a community entry in BPC with a community page here, you'll see what I mean. It's definitely not original research - all content here to date has come from this primary source document. Do please come back with further comment if that doesn't alleviate your concerns. SP-KP 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This project now has webspace at Sourceforge [[1]] --Jkh.gr 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
