Talk:Weald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From wold.doc, incorporate as appropriate: A '''wold''' once meant a dense [[forest]]. Now that most forests, sadly, have been cut down, it may refer to open countryside or moorlands and especially the rolling uplands known in northern England as the [[Yorkshire Wolds]]. Wold is another form of the word [[weald]]. Both words descend from an ancient [[Indo-European Languages|Indo-European]] root meaning "forest" or "wild." It is closely related to the [[German language|German]] <i>Wald</i> and [[Old Norse language|Norse]] <i>völlr,</i> both of which descend from the same *Indo-European root and which are sister languages to [[English language|English]].
- Um, isn't this all there already? Zack
Contents |
[edit] Please don't split this article
I've removed the following suggestion: "This article should be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page." For a reason not to break down articles into meaningless shards, something any child could do, which scatters any context, look at the separate entry Wealden iron industry. Does it make any sense to the reader separated like that? Wouldn't it be better here, as part of the history of The Weald? Our job is to give some context and meaning to the subjects in the entries. Any subsection anywhere could be made into an entry by a thoughtless person. --Wetman 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it is much more plausible to have anything that has to do with the Weald, in one article. After all, the 'Weald' as such is the famous one in the Sussex and Kent area. Although there are other place-names with the name 'weald' as part of the name, they are not the ones the designation 'wealden' refers to. The 'Wealden iron industry' should be part of the article, too. A disambiguation article is too long-winded. Dieter Simon 23:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] record 23%
I hope someone will explain what 23% forest coverage is a record for. Britain? England? Districts of what size? —JerryFriedman 18:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, Jerry,Yes, I remember this now. I found this in the UK National Parks website. [1]and the relevant para had this: "The Weald retains one of the highest levels of woodland cover in the country at over 23 per cent." Record is probably a little exaggerating, but not much. It was a matter of paraphrasing. Perhaps it should be changed. Dieter Simon 00:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Dieter. It's great when somebody knows where information came from! I hope my change worked. —JerryFriedman 20:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Change looks good. Many thanks Dieter Simon 22:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] 70 miles?
I don't know how long the Weald really is, but I'm pretty sure it's a bit more than 70 miles. About twice as long, surely? Can someone who knows please check this? Tasiel 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Pevensey to the border of Dorset is no more than 90 miles as the crow flies, and that was the greatest historic extent of the Weald. Southern England really isn't that large a place. –EdC 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation?
How do you pronounce it? Weeld? Weld? Wald? --AW 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Like "wield/weeld". Dieter Simon 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
