Talk:New Forest

message: I believe that New Forest is the location for these oaks, can anyone verify :
----
New College, Oxford, England has a dining hall that was built 350 years ago. Its roof is supported by a series of 40-foot long beams made of brown oak which recently were found to be decayed and in need of replacement. The college authorities contacted a contractor who specialized in this type of work and indicated that they wanted the new beams to be similar to the original ones, preserving the architectural integrity of the building. They were told that brown oak of the needed dimensions was not available anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Not wanting to take no for an answer, New College contacted the local Oxford forester to see if this were true.
"We've been wondering when you'd ask," said the forester.
It seems that when the dining hall was built, the architect went to the person who was then the Oxford forester and asked him to plant a stand of brown oaks, because he knew those ceiling beams would need to be replaced in about 300 years.
----
The trivia section of the New College web page dismisses this story because the 1862 remodelling was preceded by one a century before. The oaks did not come from New Forest. 169.207.90.173 09:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Oaks

message: The change just made to the map (adding the Lord Lieutenency area of "" to Hampshire) need explanation for me - why are they necessary? As a local they make no sense. --Webmink 00:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The map shows the area of the 'hampshire' lord lieutenecy; it doesn't show the administrative county (the area covered by Hampshire County Council), which does not cover the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton. In other words - the area shown is not Hampshire as the term would be used administratively (where it would be described as Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton), and according to Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places), administrative counties should be used; in this instance, they aren't, and so should be qualified by this description. 80.255 12:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, got it. I've made the change reflect the way locals would talk about it and hopefully stuck within the conventions you refer to. --Webmink 20:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Forest National Park

message: Just to clarify deletion just done from the Wildlife section...
I've removed the sentence:
:"There was a program to liberate mink into the New Forest as well in the late '90's, but they have been largely culled due to the surprisingly devastating damage they did to some livestock."
This statement is untrue in several important respects.  There has been no official programme to introduce American mink Mustela vison to the New Forest, nor to anywhere else in the UK – certainly not in the past few decades, and I don't think ever.  Most introductions have been opportunistic escapes from fur farms.
There were indeed releases close to the New Forest in about 1997, from a mink farm at Crow near Ringwood (about a mile from where I live).  However, these were hardly a "programme", but were vandalism done by so-called animals rights activists.  Most of the mink actually returned voluntarily to their tiny cages, or provided a slight and temporary deadening effect on local road-noise.  There was some effort to kill the survivors, but it was not organised, and so could not really be called a cull.  Finally, few people would be at all surprised at mink being devastating to poultry, and indeed to wildlife.
Personally I don't think there is any need to mention mink at all in this article – feral mink are not really any more or less prevalent here than elsewhere in the UK.  If it is mentioned at all, I think it should be along the lines of "In the late 1990s Ringwood, on the edge of the New Forest, was the location of an illegal mass release of several thousand farmed American mink by animal liberation activists.  Most of the animals were soon recaptured or killed, but some probably strengthened existing populations in the area."  Richard New Forest 09:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release of mink in New Forest 

message: Does anyone else think that New Forest (National Park) should be created, and all mention of the national park (apart from a wikilink) moved to the new article? It's a very recent development in the life of the forest, and doesn't have the same boundaries or legal status as the ancient forest. (On the other hand, the forest doesn't have a definite boundary in any case.) --Northernhenge (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. The article currently mixes the topics of the New Forest as an area, and the New Forest as a National Park. The German Wikipedia so far is the only to distinguish both (here and here), but I feel it should be done everywhere as they are two distinct topics. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Any progress on this front? There is a lot of misinformation (which I can only assume is a result of confusion between the two) in the article which should be addressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.82.36 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article? 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I've uploaded a location map of the New Forest to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated  template, but this can easily be done if desired. 
If this is created, it allow enable creation a map of the New Forest similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location map 

message: http://www.newforestcentre.org.uk/uploads/publications/65.pdf
may be of some use.©Geni 18:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source

message: Comments such as "Many houses with common rights are now owned by migrants to the area (largely from cities) who have no interest in keeping the practice going, and are often only there for part of the year anyway." The assertion of new ownership is not backed up by figures and the attitude of the new owners is purely the authors opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.97.89 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Rights

message: In my opinion, the map size needs to be decreased a little on the 'History' section of the article as it has misaligned the text for the section. I feel that this may make the presentation of the article a little unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map has misaligned text on 'History' section 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion