This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland articles
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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies 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.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Thanks for pointing that out. You're right, to match the claim and this source, the article should include the word 'perhaps'. Claims of this nature are not difficult to find in the literature, and I'm sure with a bit of searching I could find something better. However, you've suggested that we should just remove it completely, and that's an option worth considering too. Putting the issue of whether we can find a source to one side for the moment, can you let me know your reasons for suggesting that we remove it? I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way - I added the source because it had been pointed out that the claim needed one, but maybe deleting the claim is a better option. SP-KP (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it can be fully sourced I would be fine with it's inclusion - my issue stems from the debating over the term British Isles vs Great Britain and Ireland, while is is still there it is open to debate. As for including the word 'perhaps' you would also need to remove Ireland. Codf1977 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Proposed merge of Institute of Terrestrial Ecology atlases here
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
These two articles contain much of the same information with missing data in each and some considerable redundancy between them. It would serve understanding of the topic greatly if they were merged, or at the very least harmonised, where appropriate, both in substance and layout. VelelaVelela Talk 20:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It has been suggested that the phrase British Isles should be included in this article. The use of this term in this article is being discussed at WT:BISE#Atlases of the flora and fauna of Britain and Ireland. If you would like to contribute to the debate please do so.