Talk:Weald

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please don't split this article

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi, Jerry,Yes, I remember this now. I found this in the UK National Parks website. 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Dieter.  It's great when somebody knows where information came from!  I hope my change worked.  —JerryFriedman 20:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Change looks good. Many thanks Dieter Simon 22:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  record 23% 

message: How do you pronounce it? Weeld? Weld? Wald? --AW 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like "wield/weeld". Dieter Simon 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Crawley down perhaps, but not Crawley. Citation: Go there for yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.6.112 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crawley has a traditional character? 

message: The History section states:
Over the centuries, deforestation for the shipbuilding, charcoal, forest glass, and brickmaking industries has left the Low Weald with only remnants of that woodland cover.
This, according to Oliver Rackham, is the exact opposite of the case.  The reason why a high level of forestation has been preserved in the Weald and the Forest of Dean was the usefulness of the woodland for the above industries, as opposed to clearance for farming.  It is agriculture which has been the major threat to woodland in the Weald, as can be seen, for example on the heavily arable plains of the Rother.  Once I have the correct citation from Rackham, I intend to edit this sector of the history, unless there is any objection --James  Harvey  —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to History

message: The content of that article really belongs here (most of it's here already).  Please see discussion in Talk:Forest of Andred.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No negative comments for two weeks, so proposal implemented, and Forest of Andred redirected here.  Discussion from Forest of Andred copied below.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree. I stumbled on this page categorised under Hills of Surrey, which is of limited relevance. These names are already covered in the history section of Weald. --Charles (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with [[Forest of Andred]]

message: I was just looking for some clarification that Burgess Hill was situated on the Weald; I have always believed this to be the case, and therefore it should go alongside other major Wealden settlements, being larger than Crowborough, and of a similar size to Haywards Heath?
Responses greatly appreciated,
thanks.
80.229.16.243 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is in the Weald.  In fact if you look at the OS 1:250,000 map, there's a "Low Weald" label just next to Burgess Hill. Go to http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap, search on Burgess Hill, select the fourth-largest map scale, then pan east a bit.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Burgess Hill

message: During the Medieval period, wasn't the Weald the centre of some sort of resistance movement led by a "Willikin of the Weald"?AT Kunene (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the Weald and have never heard of such a legend.--Charles (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: see William of Cassingham  Putney Bridge (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willikin 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion