Talk:Green Mountains

message: 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? <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional map

message: 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)
thread_title: Highest Mountains

message: 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)
thread_title: Mount Snow

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Physiographic sections

message: 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)
replies: text: Nobody having objected in five months, I went ahead and fixed it. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Aeolus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Green Mountain State. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treeline 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geology and physiography section