Talk:Coppicing

message: The new images are great - but I'm worried that there are now more images on this page than are necessary. Do we really need them all? Do they all add something? Your views sought. Naturenet | Talk 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a consensus of other editors may determine that. I think, to see an old  coppice stool after many years though might just give an idea what they really look like after time has elapsed. Perhaps a gallery format might do the trick? Or should we add more text to even things out? Dieter Simon 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, if others think there too many images, I will remove one of the two photos of the same Banstead stool. Dieter Simon 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reflowed how the images are displayed. I hope you like it. 71.199.123.24 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images? 

message: Is clearcutting an aspen stand coppicing? If it qualifies it must be one of the most commonly coppiced forests, at least in the united states. 128.101.70.98 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aspen is different from the coppiced trees described here because all of the current examples shoot from stools, and aspen root sucker shoots.128.101.70.96 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspen 

message: I'd like to add a link to our blog, which is all about the coppice woodland we are managing near Rye, East Sussex, UK, but every time I add it it gets removed automatically because it has "blogspot" in the link name. Who can approve it to be added, or should it not be added? The address is http://peplers.blogspot.com/
Cheers, Mike—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.246.74 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike – it's a very interesting page, and you are clearly doing great stuff (if only more Wealden woods were managed so well!).  However, not sure it's really encyclopaedic.  It doesn't support facts on the page, nor does it provide additional detail, and it's liable to change by the day.  I'd say it's not really an appropriate link, but look at Wikipedia:Spam and see what you think.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog link

message: Greetings the link to BCTV is no longer active (Coppicing how-to at the BTCV). Perhaps another suitable link could be added instead.
Cheers, Karl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.229.30 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead link 

message: I am studying a Masters course in forestry. AND it is made really clear that there are 2 DIFFERENT Silvicutural techniques: COPPICING and COPPICING WITH STANDARDS - yet as of now the second redirects here and there is no explanation of coppicing with standards. Can a seperate article be made to explain these just as other techniques have their own articles? I do not want to get into an edit war over this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.67.7 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. With access to academic forestry sources you sound like just the person to improve this article. Is coppicing with standards so different that it can not be covered in the same article?--Charles (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppice with Standards 

message: Lately there had been several articles in news and online about coppicing with eye toward carbon absorption. Would have to find these articules to clarify the new purpose of coppicing. Samuelsenwd (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppicing with carbon absorption purposes 

message: This image:
To me looks like it belongs in pollarding, but I have a very English understanding of coppicing and this is a German image. Anyone agree or disagree? Naturenet | Talk 14:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Look like pollards to me.Charles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIllow photo 

message: A copse is a small stand of trees that may OR MAY NOT have been coppiced. A coppiced copse is used for HARVESTING trees. A non-coppiced copse is a decorative or natural formation. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/copse This entire article is talking about harvesting trees, so it puzzles me why someone felt the two articles should be linked? Imagine if they coppiced this copse every year: http://gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/gettysburg-battlefield/the-copse-of-trees/  2601:245:C100:5E5C:6DE2:6E33:B9F4:4593 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the "copse" redirect? 

message: @Kevmin: the Japan Times "article" (it's just a gallery) does not mention "daisugi", it simply talks about how Japanese red cedar trees ("sugi" in Japanese) are copicced, and shows some photos. Please check the sources you claim support a statement before accepting them. Scrabcrab (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Daisugi" is a documented forestry practice that has been discussed in books and journal articles in English for decades, inevitably with an even longer history to be found in sources in Japanese.--Kevmin § 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, interesting. I saw lots of people calling it a hoax and saying that the only source for it is Boredpanda. I tried to look for other sources but all I found was Boredpanda and other clickbait blogs and YouTube videos like that. Information about it is apparently so scarce that one of the suggestions if you type "daisugi" in a search engine is "daisugi hoax". How did you manage to find those sources? Scrabcrab (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the sources by looking at google scholar and google books, rather than looking in basic web results.--Kevmin § 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

text: * Id say the only reason Coppicing is only covering European practice is due to the innate bias of en.wiki towards English sourcing and English topics, Daisugi is a form of coppicing/pollarding.--Kevmin § 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Daisugi"