This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the biota of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Thanks all who helped me edit this page, it is my first attempt, you may have guessed.
You're very welcome. I dare say the 'pedia could do with more botanists and ecologists. Then again, the 'pedia could do with more of anyone willing to contribute . You might consider registering, so that we know you by a name instead of a an impersonal IP address. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? if you're interested. Also you can sign your edits to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). —Rory☺ 22:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
No, it wasn't accidentally placed. The pages appear to possibly be cut-and-pasted from somewhere. A government document perhaps? Or some other document? Possibly copyrighted? Or is this original research? In most of these cases (except a copyright violation, of course) might this material be better placed in wikisource and not wikipedia. I guess I'm just confused as to where this information is coming from. Also, if it should stay in wikipedia, might the reader be better served if a lot of this information were merged together into fewer pages? Ewlyahoocom 09:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the above. Hopefully I can set your mind at rest with the following explanation. The NVC is one of the topics I am concentrating on at Wikipedia as it is an important topic, otherwise unrepresented here, and I have the necessary knowledge to write about it (and probably few other Wikipedians do, or have the inclination to write about it). The topic itself is pretty big - there is a lot to say on the methodology, the history, each of the groupings, and each of the (200+) individual communities. For that reason I felt I had to split the subject matter up over many pages. I'd welcome observations on the structure chosen - i.e. a series of "central "pages, a set of pages per community type, and then one page per community - I feel it is a fairly natural structure, but maybe there are other ways of doing it? The primary source document is the 5-volume set British Plant Communities although other source documents will be used in due course to supplement the info in there. It's a kind-of government-related document, I suppose in that JNCC is a government body. I do not believe we have a breach of copyright issue here, in that the information I have included to date merely extracts the key informationm from, synthesises and interprets what is in this work. If you compare a community entry in BPC with a community page here, you'll see what I mean. It's definitely not original research - all content here to date has come from this primary source document. Do please come back with further comment if that doesn't alleviate your concerns. SP-KP 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)