Talk:Lawn

Skip to table of contents

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Home Living Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles 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.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lawn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

In the criticisms sections, it's wrong to say that they filter groundwater, because those who criticize lawns aren't comparing them to dirt lots, they're comparing them to unmanaged grassland. ASWilson 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can anybody provide a link to statistics quantifying how many lawns there are, or better still, how much labor and materials go into lawns? It seems like it is on the scale of the Apollo Program!

I read this in an article of a streetwise newspaper (located in Chicago) in Nov. 07: The predecessor of Bocce was a game in Egypt (where you roll a ball as close as you can to a target), was picked up by Greece, then was picked up by the Romans, who spread it through Europe, which was then later a favorite of the English aristocracy. But Bocce was originally a game played with balls on clay or sand, and the English had no such land, so they made close cut grass to play their game, which later became "bowling" from the french word for ball (boule I think). And from there, close cut grass for games became a thing of the rich Europeans (~1600s), and then became the modern lawn of the U.S. today. If you go to China or India or whereever, lawns as they are here are not a common thing - but are more common now than they were before because of westernization. So it's interesting that lawns really are cultural, and trace their roots back to the game Bocce. In fact, before the 1600s or so (think Feudal Europe) noone even cared about lawns, so they're actually a relatively recent thing historically in culture.Ashi Starshade (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out a section on the page today offering to explain the "grass is always greener" idiom. I was skeptical about it and the little diagram (which I otherwise enjoyed) didn't win me over. Could we get some sort of reference supporting this claim from a popular science publication of some sort? --Blick 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the explanation I've always heard. I don't have any references to hand to cite, though - MPF 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a scientific reference, but WIKI itself has the "grass" in the List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language - but I think that leaving the drawing in (along with comments here) might eventually get us a reference better. Pls undo my edits if you don't agree - Hulkster 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only sceptical, but fairly convinced of the oposite: that the idiom doesn't draw from a fact.

I highly doubt that the origins of this idiom are as elaborate as proposed. Grass usually covers the ground below very well so the block representation isn't very realistic. Even snug lawns (typical of Britain) usually have good soil coverage.

More likely, the idiom is simply a paralell to the human trait of baseless feelings of inferiority to others. --Swift 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One positive benefit of a healthy lawn is that of a filter for contaminants and to prevent run-off and erosion of bare dirt.

In comparison to bare dirt, a lawn may be 20 degrees cooler on a hot day...

Well it is usually not true that if there were no lawn, there would just be bare dirt! You must also compare the natural vegetation. P.S., degrees C or F? Jidanni 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the page has a strong US slant which needs to be addressed. The ext links in particular all had a strong US east coast POV (not even valid for the whole US, let alone the rest of the world), so I've removed them as being unhelpful. - MPF 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Near a year is enough for this tag hanger to have fixed the deficiencies he objects too. Removing today. // FrankB 19:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure don't see many lawns in Asia, where most of the world's people live. Perhaps add a table of lawn lunacy intensity per country. Jidanni 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might list what they do in other countries in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.30.239 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do mention lawns' role in global warming and their carbon footprint. Jidanni 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds too much like a How To section in my view. However I dont know how to add that. Anyone else agree? ClamsonJ (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I put a {{howto}} tag on it. Joe 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, same as the sod section, I don't see how including an external link to a page that gives valid lawn care tips without any sales information could be considered vandalism. Here is the page in question: http://www.evergreenturf. com/lawn-care/ index.php or http://www.bcinstantlawns.com or http://www.fraservalleyturf.com or http://www.golawngo.com 70.184.122.73 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be having lots of spammy contents with unwanted / un-reliable references than that of useful contents

I think this article has to be re-written from the scratch —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction: Additions regarding social and environmental significance.

History: Expansion on the history of the lawn, its social significance and effects, and the spread of the industrial lawn. Divided into proposed sections: Origins (etymology, manor houses, 17th C. Jacobean gardening, early landscape gardening), 18th and 19th Century, 20th Century, and 21st Century.

The Lawn in Popular Culture: Addition of this new section with a subsection titled Social Implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalisbury (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Concerns: Added sections on Chemical and Erosion impacts.

We are a group of students taking an Environmental History of North America course at UBC, and we are working on this article as part of an education program called Wikipedia:Canada Education Program HIST 396, the banner to inform the community should be added soon. Masalisbury (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to reflect the global nature of this article, we've divided the History section into regions. We're hoping this will clarify the information presented by both ourselves and others as well as to make it easier to find relevant information. The three regions we think apply to this article are Europe (particularly England and France regarding their influence in the development of lawn landscaping), North America (it's influence in the creation of the lawn we know today and its spread), and Australia (also notable for their lawn culture as a result of North American influence and English colonization, as well as increasing environmental concerns associated with water use).

We're also thinking we might still add a Social Impacts section, but would definitely appreciate any input from the community. The information we've considered adding to that proposed section would include the engendering of the lawn and how it has come to symbolize a number of cultural aspects. Though our information regarding both of these topics is limited to North America, we think it would be valuable for others interested in this topic/article to add information from other areas of the globe. Masalisbury (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lia.Fosse added a couple of paragraphs on this matter. I reverted, with the Edit summary "Reverted addition of exclusively American content in this global article. Seems undue, and difficult to check source." That still reflects my opinion. Lia.Fosse then just reverted my revert, with the same Edit summary he had used in the first place.

Apart from the bad manners of completely ignoring what I had written, I find this type of revert extremely annoying. This is meant to be a collaborative project. Lia.Fosse's actions are anything but. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Lia and I are working on a class project as mentioned above. We are trying to retain the global nature of this article as best we can in the material we would like to add. Perhaps we should add a section specifically on the lawn in the USA? I do think Levittown is an important development regarding the ubiquity of the lawn and is worth being mentioned. I appreciate your input, and again I just wanted to apologise for the confusion. Masalisbury (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought I had not saved it properly, I didn't realize that I was directly going against your revert. Like Megan said we are editing the page for a class project - The addition regarding Levittown was very well sourced, I would be happy to make a list of the sources I used. The most helpful book was one called American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn by Ted Steinberg. Lawn People by Paul Robbins was also helpful. What do you think of Megan's suggestion regarding having a section specifically for lawn in the US? Levittown, while american, was instrumental in creating the lawn that we are so familiar with today and I do feel that it should be included in this article, but realize that I may not have gone about it the right way. Give us your thoughts HiLo48! Thanks. Lia.Fosse (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in Australia. Lawns have historically been very popular here too, although recent major droughts have led to some changes on that front. I know that our tradition came from the UK. (Cricket grounds, lawn tennis, and all that.) It may have come via the USA. I simply don't know. Obviously the Levittown activity affected American lawn usage, but did it go beyond that? Unfortunately the source used, being a printed book, is virtually impossible for any casual reader to check, especially outside it's land of publication, although I don't doubt your good intentions in using it. So yes, I am concerned about purely American content with no indication of its relevance to the rest of the world. A section specifically about Lawn in the USA would help, but even then it's in danger of unbalancing the article in this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see what you are talking about. However, in the spirit of collaboration, I think it is important for you to understand that we have these printed books, recommended to us by our professor, available to us and are using them to add valuable verified information to this article. Wikipedia is all about everyone coming together, with different sources available to them, and putting those sources together in an unbiased manner. Now, about the American/North American content, that is something we have to write about given the subject matter of our class for which we are doing the assignment. The mass produced suburban landscape is something that was fine tuned in the US, unlike anywhere else in the world, and the suburban aesthetic developed in North America in the early 20th Century influenced its appearance throughout the world. We would definitely love to see you add information on the lawn in Australia, and we would love to be able to focus on other areas in the global context as well, but we are bound by the guidelines of our class assignment. We are planning on creating a specific section pertaining to North America to avoid further confusion in the community. Lia.Fosse (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, while I understand your concern about US-centric material, America does occupy a large place in the history of the lawn. I think the students were correct to identify the post-war suburban movement as important in the development of the modern lawn. And an offline source really isn't grounds for reversion, unless you have some indication that it is an unreliable source. Are you really suggesting that editors should not use print sources because a user in Australia might have trouble accessing a copy? This would involve some major WP policy changes. The Interior (Talk) 06:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that's a disingenuous suggestion. It was the combination of US-oriented material AND my inability to see the source to see if it explained how those US events may have had global impact. I'm pretty sure I explained that. All we have is a number of editors here telling me that what happened in Levittown was important globally, and that's not really good enough. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to verify what the book says - it is available in Australia [1]. My opinion is based on my reading of a separate source, The lawn : a history of an American obsession, which covers the Leavittown development also. So we have more than a couple editors "telling" you something, we have a couple editors who have read reliable sources on the topic asserting that the sources find certain events important in the history of the topic. I'm a bit confused as to what kind of bar you are setting for inclusion. The Interior (Talk) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is that new source, and what does it tell us about how that "American obsession" impacted on the rest of the world. I'm not arguing that it didn't (I don't actually know), just that to include the American stuff without some well sourced connection with the rest of the world seems undue. That link may well exist, but it hasn't been shown here yet. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all topics will have a uniformly global emphasis. Certain things are more important in certain cultures, and our coverage will reflect that without shortchanging our global mandate. Lawns are not a central feature in Chinese homes, for example, or homes in Brazil. But they are a dominant landscape feature in North America, and Australia. In both places, they are associated with suburbia (true in Australia, right?). This is what the Levittown connection is about. If several reliable sources are making this connection, it's not undue for us to include it. I'm not sure what you mean by "where is that new source". It's sitting at the Vancouver Public Library, where I returned it after researching the history of lawns for an ill-fated documentary project on the the European chafer beetle. The Interior (Talk) 07:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should also look at this content in context with the larger expansion being planned by the students; what may seem undue on its own will read differently when it is part of a larger treatment of the history of the lawn (see outline above). Can we re-assess this when the rest of the content comes in over the next week or two? The Interior (Talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the "American lawn culture" section it says "The Levitts understood that landscaping could offset the normal depreciation of a home, adding to the appeal of their developments". As a non-American I have no idea what is meant here by "the normal depreciation of a home". The definition of depreciation is "a reduction in the value of an asset over time, due in particular to wear and tear" - how does the addition of a lawn help to stop depreciation of the value of a property? And anyway, in my experience, the value of real estate doesn't tend to depreciate as long as the property is well maintained. Richerman (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

I think the problem is wider than just that example, as the article doesn't take a fully global perspective, and I suspect that much of it has been written from a North American point of view. Another example: the classification of grasses as either "cool season" or "warm season" means nothing to lawn cultivation in the UK. A couple of years ago I tried to broaden the article's perspective, but I didn't get very far due to lack of sources. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richerman: Hi. You're answering your own questions. You said you don't understand normal depreciation, while defining it. So yes that's it. And there are external factors that define potential financial depreciation of one home, such as the value of the whole neighborhood, climate change, or just whatever any assessor values the home at. And, doing things like adding a lawn *is* part of maintenance. You're saying you don't understand how addition impacts subtraction. I don't know about the rest of the article, but in the thing you're directly mentioning in your comment here, there's absolutely nothing about what you're citing that's specific to people or place, or has anything to do with America. — Smuckola(talk) 00:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, I asked the question because the statement makes no sense and so I thought it must be something different than I understood it. It says "Abraham Levitt and his sons built more than seventeen thousand homes, each with its own lawn." Levitts were selling properties with lawns, so you would buy a property with a lawn included in the initial cost. If you were to buy it without a lawn and add one later you would be improving the property and possibly offsetting any depreciation due to wear and tear, but if you pay for it at the outset there is no improvement and no offsetting - lawns, once established, don't improve with age. In fact if you didn't look after the lawn, and allowed it to become overgrown with weeds, which many people do, it would add to the depreciation of the asset. They may be improving the area initially by landscaping it, but that just makes the area more desirable and allows them to charge a higher price. Gardens (yards?) may add something to the value of the properties and the neighbourhood once the trees and shrubs mature, but not lawns on their own.

Having said that I don't think that the lack of globalisation of the article is an unfixable problem. It's really just a case of moving the country specific text into the right section as I've done with the "History of grass seed used for lawns" section which was entirely about the history in the US. Richerman (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of searching I've found the original quotation - which is not in the citation given, it's here. It comes from Levitt's book, that they presumably gave the new homeowner, Care of your lawn and landscaping, and it refers to the "lawns trees and shrubs becoming more valuable both esthetically and monetarily over the years". It's just a bit of hype by the builders really - similar to the usual "congratulations on buying our high quality product." I'll make some changes to the article to reflect this. Richerman (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080517155602/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/LAC.20080422.PESTICIDES22/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080422.PESTICIDES22/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008111550/http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/brown.html to http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/brown.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206232730/http://hgstrust.org/history/index.html to http://www.hgstrust.org/history/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017021941/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-oldnumbers/p-oldnumbers-1617.htm to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-oldnumbers/p-oldnumbers-1617.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226090458/http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/274/explore-31/historical-profiles-176/people-at-the-cutting-edge%3A-lawnmower-designers-483.html to http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/274/explore-31/historical-profiles-176/people-at-the-cutting-edge%3a-lawnmower-designers-483.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809074903/http://www.ci.akron.oh.us/Customer_Service/Customer_Service.html to http://ci.akron.oh.us/Customer_Service/Customer_Service.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_31
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://knowledgenetwork.alumni.msu.edu/msuaa/lawn-care-university.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Placard against pesticides on a window (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This book is cited in multiple references and appears to be a turning point in the modern lawn, so I'm assuming it should be included here and/or on Lawns in the United States. As of now it's only mentioned in one article that I can tell. Mapsax (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of British Columbia supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn stripes are a very common visual technique with lots of info one can Google. Please add a section about them, or a whole separate article. Jidanni (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article unencylopediac? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns that recent additions by PrestotheUnicorn (talk · contribs) may closely paraphrase one of the cited articles, "The Lawn-Chemical Economy and Its Discontents".^[1] Several of the points added are near-direct rewording of the article, but the larger concern I have is that the other sources cited are also a direct mirror of the Robbins & Sharp article.

Examples:

Wikipedia article: The tradition of North American lawns traces back to 18th-century English garden landscapes influenced by Italian landscape artistry.^[1] These landscapes initially featured vast grassy spaces intermingled with hedges on opulent estates, evolving over time towards a more untamed and romantic aesthetic (see Stoppard 1993^[2] for a compelling account).^[1]

Robbins & Sharp: The North American lawn monoculture is rooted in English garden and manor-house landscape fads of the 18th century, themselves a product of Italian landscape painting. In these landscape designs, grassy pastoral spaces, interlaced with hedges, dominated estate horizons until their replacement by a wilder romantic aesthetic (see Stoppard 1993 for a compelling account).

Wikipedia article: Chemical-based care methods surged, diverging from earlier recommendations favoring natural weed control strategies.^[3][4]

Robbins & Sharp: As late as the 1930s, lawn-maintenance texts insisted that toleration of weeds was reasonable, that hand-pulling and the keeping of chickens were the most practical solution for weeds and grubs, and that use of chemicals might detract from many of the lawn’s functions, including the source of edible greens (Barron 1923; Dickinson 1931).

This is especially problematic if the editor has cited these sources without checking themself that they back up the specific claims. Someone with a better understanding of Wikipedia's guidance on close paraphrasing may also be able to weigh in with advice!

(Also, in my edit summary, I said I was restoring to the "correct" version. That was a poor choice of wording; I meant that it was the version I had originally intended to restore.)

Wracking ^talk! 05:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "lawn", referring to a managed grass space, dates to at least the 16th century.

The word "laune" is first attested in 1540 from the Old French lande "heath, moor, barren land; clearing"

Not really:

( Beginning on Slade... )

Its nature is still more characterised in ‘Robert de Greneslade,’ that is, the green-slade; ‘William de la Morslade,’ the moorland-slade; ‘Richard de Wytslade,’ the white-slade; ‘Michael de Ocslade,’ the oak-slade, and ‘William de Waldeslade,’^[115] the forest-slade (weald); ‘Sladen,’ that is, slade-den, implies a woodland hollow. As a local term there is a little difference betwixt it and ‘launde,’ only the latter has no suspicion of indenture about it. A launde was a pretty and rich piece of grassy sward in the heart of a forest, what we should now call an open wood, in fact. Thus it is we term the space in our gardens within the surrounding shrubberies lawns. Chaucer says of Theseus on hunting bent—

To the launde he rideth him ful right

There was the hart wont to have his flight.

In the ‘Morte Arthur,’ too, we are told of hunting—

At the hartes in these hye laundes.

This is the source of more surnames than we might imagine. Hence are sprung our ‘Launds,’ ‘Lands,’ ‘Lowndes,’ ‘Landers,’ in many cases, and our obsolete ‘Landmans.’ The forms, as at first met with, are equally varied. We have ‘atte-Lond,’ ‘de la Laund,’ and ‘de la Lande,’ while the origin of our ‘Lunds’ shows itself in ‘de la Lund.’

Bardsley: English surnames: 1875 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59959/59959-h/59959-h.htm

Claverhouse (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]