Talk:Evergreen forest

US Centric approach?

...or maybe just northern hemisphere. As is so common in Wikipedia, an ignorant editor (and subsequent modifying editors) from one part of the world has ignored, or been ignorant of, another huge part of it. In my country, Australia, and, as I understand it, all of the southern hemisphere, almost all forests are evergreen. Most are not coniferous. (See the lead.)

It makes this article largely rubbish.

Yes, I know eucalypts crack a mention late in the article, but that only contradicts the lead. A big rewrite is needed here. Who wants to take it on?

HiLo48 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if I make a comment here today another editor may finally notice. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in turning this into a sensible article? HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bump HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone EVER look at this Talk page?

See above

Sub-heading: Species of trees

This section has become a garbled mess, and is also uncited. Would interested editors attempt to fix this, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)