Talk:Laurisilva

message: it should be noted that it is also common on the island la Palma, although I don't have exact figures. It sweeps the right altitude zones and barrancos from the region around El Tablado, eastward towards Los Sauces and from here southwards towards the Cumbre Nuevo  Nepenthes 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noted

message: We are confusing two things, the type of forest and a concrete forest. Laurisilva forest from Madeira is only one of the several laurisilva forest so when appear "Laurisilva of Madeira as inscribed on the World heritage" we are confusing to the people, this one is the article about all laurisilva forests. regards --Bentaguayre (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widely realised that the article needs attention, but it is important to remember that the situation concerning palaeontological and ecological considerations is not simple. Beware for example of categorisations such as: "Trees, which have long sized leaves and which don´t lose them on the winter, are a subtropical to tropical types of trees, not of temperate type." That is simplistic. For a start, trees in regions of heavy rainfall will commonly have such leaves, even in temperate zones, such as in parts of South America, Australasia and Southern Africa. Sometimes these are invaders or descendents of plants from earlier climates, but that suffered no special selective burden from their leaf shape, which incidentally can be as important for shedding wind as water. Consider a few hundred spp of Eucalyptus for starters. Then again, you speak of continental Europe, which generally is cold temperate or Mediterranean and fairly dry, sometimes arid. There is quite a wide range from warm temperate to cold temperate climte, after all!  I am not taking any special position here, but prediction of the spread of forest on the basis of climate is a chancy thing at best. In general, we would do well to examine any generalisations we make (apart from this one of course) with care.  JonRichfield (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs attention now. As it stands, it is misleading. Misleading components should be removed, now, before another generation of students is mislead. Unsourced statements should be deleted because it is far better to have a small article than a misleading one. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing things

message: I would like to merge this articles into the very similar article under the English name Laurel forest. There is no reason that Laurisilva couldn't be adequately discussed on that page as a subsection. Both pages, as they currently stand, need extensive trimming to remove duplication and unsourced statements. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is reasonable. There is no obvious devaluation of the topic implied by merging. In fact, it could lead to improvement. I certainly have made additions to one of the articles and later discovered that either all the information was in the other article, or that because it was not, there was a gap which could mislead a reader of one article only. I suggest that we give it a month or two of thinking hard about why NOT to merge, then proceed if nothing turns up. Of course, there still should be a redir for people searching for the name Laurisilva (I had never heard of it before encountering it here.) JonRichfield (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll make Laurisilva into a redirect to here, and if there is anything of value there that isn't duplicated here, it can be retrieved from the page history. After searching, I'm sure that Laurisilva is a word borrowed from another language. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify the above, Laurisilva is now a redirect to Laurel forest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal