Talk:Green Mountains

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

Geography Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

United States: Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Top-importance).

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Backpacking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking articles

Regional map

Regional map much needed + ASSERT EXPERT TEMPLATE and 'geo-stub for attention
(One showing other NEARBY mountain regions WITH DIFFERENTIATION)
I was trying to see the Catskills extent relative to the map in Appalachian Plateau... but others would have a similar need trying to distinquish between the Green Mountains,VT; The Berkshires in MA; and Adirondack Mountains. et. al. don't you agree? FrankB 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never put stub templates on a talk page! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- And never put expert, cleanup, or other maintenance tags on talk pages – they go on the article itself. KrakatoaKatie 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Mountains

I'm not aware of any ski slopes on Mount Abraham and will change that, if there are some correct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.179.110 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Snow

I'm not really sure why there is a reference to Mt. Snow in the 'See Also' section, since there isn't any particular reason why it needs more attention than any other Green Mountain. Vter4life 07:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physiographic sections

What is a "Physiographic section?" How does that category help anybody with anything? I don't understand. (You might want to describe this on the category page). Student7 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just starting out adding in physiographic information. This is a huge 'category' that is very poorly defined here on Wikipedia. As I progress (and hopefully others like yourself will see these and help contribute), the entire range of subjects will become more complete. As a start, you can see Physiographic regions of the world and Physical geography. If you're interested, any help on the subject would be greatly appreciated. wbfergus^Talk 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently know what you are doing. At least I hope you do! :) So that we might help, what, exactly, is this speciality? Geography? Geology? Civil Engineering? Cartography? Obviously articles can be in different classes and serve different purposes. My point in asking is this: should this fact be listed under geography in place articles? If so, how? And maybe why? Student7 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part (there are exceptions), physiographic areas are based upon landforms and the geologic structures that they are contained on. The geology usually helps define (through terrain features and rock types and ages and mineral content) the types of flora and fauna that are abundant in these reagions. Weather (climate) and hydrology (watersheds) also play a role in defining these areas as well. They are roughly analogous to ecosytems. So, there's really no 'easy' place to state this information in an article. I suppose on a case-by-case basis it would rewuire finding the most appropriate place for it within the current content. Eventually though, it may warrant its own distinct section within articles. Hope this helps some, it's a convoluted subject. Right now I'm still trying to get as many areas as I can wikilinked on the Physiographic regions of the world page, and adding the categories as I run across those pages that are linkable. Next, I'll need to finish fleshing out the main table with additional information and references, then as time permits add more content to the various linked pages. At least that's my plan so far. :^) wbfergus^Talk 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Aeolus

It probably shouldn't be listed here; in its own article, we say it's in the Taconic Range. OK to delete it here? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody having objected in five months, I went ahead and fixed it. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Mountain State.

This website won't tell me if G.M.S. is northern or southern half of the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.25.181 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does tell you it is in Vermont. You would have to link there to find out. Right now, we have no policy to explain to a reader of an article on a large country, what general section of the country a landmark is in. This would have to be pursued on a policy page, perhaps for Project Geography. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treeline

For the most part, however, the Green Mountains, especially the northern sections, support a dense boreal forest up to the 3,000–3,500 feet (910–1,100 m) elevation treeline. This forest is well established in the Green Mountains. Throughout the winter months harsh temperatures, snowfall and winds would destroy other species. Much of the "green" in Green Mountains is due to this boreal forest.

This looks dubious to me. If treeline were at 3,000 to 3,500 feet elevation, there would be a whole lot more peaks in Vermont with alpine vegetation than there are! In the White Mountains, treeline is usually described as being at 4,200 to 4,800 feet, depending on site aspect and other considerations. Given that Vermont's latitude is similar to New Hampshire's, one would expect the treeline to be comparable as well. As for the "green" of the Green Mountains being due to the boreal forest, I'd say it's much more likely to be due to the northern hardwood forest--birches, beeches, and maples are much more distinctly green (in spring and summer, anyway) than the boreal spruces and firs are, and in any case even in the Northern Green Mountains, according to www.vtfpr.org/util/NERB158.pdf‎ , spruce-fir forests make up only about a fifth of the forest cover, with northern hardwood forests making up almost three quarters. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Mountains. 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/20111014034322/http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/ to http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/

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) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and physiography section

There is no real discussion of geology in this section. One would expect some discussion of how these mountains formed, their age, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacarr (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]