Talk:Clearcutting/Archive 1

I took out the following paragraph:

"The issues surrounding forestry have been greatly skewed by the media who loves to portray the logging industry and loggers as evil destroyers of virginal forest. This is the same media that relies on wood pulp to produce its papers. The Sunday edition of the New York Times alone is responsible for the deforestation of millions of trees."

NPOV it certainly is not. I dare say this article needs a lot more work, but by someone more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. --MockTurtle 10:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed this article from the agriculture category because clearcutting is only marginally related to agriculture. Sowelilitokiemu 08:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal observation

As a child, I lived in Cave Junction, Oregon for a few years, when the timber industry was booming. That was from 1959-1962. They practiced clearcutting there in those days. There were reportedly 30 sawmills operating in the Illinois Valley, fed by a steady stream of logs from Siskiyou National Forest. Now there's only one mill, and it's barely surviving, getting its logs from private holdings. I've returned there from time to time, and now, nearly half a century later, one can still see the "windows" cut into the forest on the mountainsides. All that grows in the cleared areas is brush and "trash" trees. It will probably take many more generations before the forest heals itself. The timber industry did themselves in with their practices! --Quicksilver^{T @} 12:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Timber growth in the Siskiyou is est. 739 million board feet annually. Highest harvest was 309 million bf in 1973. Harvest today is about 13 million bf. The decrease is due to the Forest Management Act of 1993 limited harvest to improve wildlife habitat. Personal observations are biased by individual POV and often not useful. KAM 17:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Selection cut

Hi guys. I made a link on selection cut. Any expert on this field ought to develop the article. I myself have no knowledge in this.

It would be appropriate to have selection cut article in pair with the clearfelling article. (Wikimachine 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Selection cutting --GoDot 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'Clearcut' is much more common than 'clearfelling'

How about we move the content to the clearcut page, and redirect all the links there. I can imagine lots of urban users who have never heard of clearfelling. -The Gomm 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

{{unreferenced}}
"Clearfelling",[1], and "clearfell"[2] are not in the Oxford English Dictionary. Neither term is in The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 nor in WordNet (r) 2.0 (these are databases of many on-line dictionaries, chiefly via dict.org[3]). Neither term is in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.[4], [5]

Merriam-Webster has clear-cutting (clear-cut)[6] and clear-felling (clear-fell, both chiefly British)[7], Encyclopedia Brittanica has "Marking, felling, and processing".

That the article is using actual English words is increasingly unlikely, particularly without references (hint).

"Clearcut"[8] is not in the OED, "clearcut" is in the Collaborative International, and WordNet, linking to "clear-cut".

"Clear-cut"

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

v. t.

To cut (a region of forest) clear of all trees. It is a method used for efficiently logging a portion of forest, but often has undesirable effects on the environment.

WordNet (r) 2.0:

2: having had all the trees removed at one time; "clear-cut hillsides subject to erosion"

Merge

"Clearfelling" and "Clearcutting" articles duplicate each other: fixed. However, neither title is a common English word for a not-uncommon concept in American English, particularly in the western U.S. and Canada. This is confusing to readers without prior familiarity with terms and misspellings, as well as being inappropriate to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia recommends following the "Principle of least astonishment": Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment.

Size

Further, until Logging becomes inconveniently large, terms would be more useful within the comprehensive article, per Wikipedia:Article size.

3 Splitting a page

3.1 No need for haste

"Do not take precipitous action [...] There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors." [This is also a basic courtesy, particularly with articles that have many editors and development over more than a short time.]

"A rule of thumb
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (see above for what to exclude):

> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)"

Long articles
"The size of a page in the main namespace (and when not disabled also in the other namespaces) can be found by searching for it (if the search isn't disabled); it is a by-product of that feature (remember to use the Search button, not the Go button!). For long pages it appears also on editing, with the message MediaWiki:longpagewarning – for example:

This page is 37 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

[Appears when size exceeds 32 KB.] [9]

--GoDot 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)