Talk:Snowbelt

message: could use a map like the other belt pages
-Shouldn't "Snow Belt" be two words as well? Pumpkingrrl 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the unsupported allusion to "Deep North" as I could not find a single use of that expression as used in this article. The person who added it to the article has added other questionable alternate names and nicknames without citation from reliable sources. 147.70.242.40 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Deep North"??

message: The current map shows only the OH, PA, and NY sections of the Snowbelt. The article includes several other areas in IN, MI, WI and Canada that receive lake effect snow. The map should include those areas as well. BobDively 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: This article is poorly written, sourced and has a lack of matching graphics's/visuals. It needs a major overhaul and some proper structuring using headings and sub-heads. I will do my best to bring it up to par with other articles of a similar nature. For one, Canada is largely forgotten in the article even though it has a significant number of snow belts. Secondly, this article should be strongly tied into lake effect snow since that is the major driving force for these snow belt regions. Third, there is virtually no systematic order within the article dealing with lakes or regions. Also highly localized ideas such as that of ski country are used. (Theonlysilentbob (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul Needed!

message: This page probably ought to be two separate pages: a) snowbelt, an area that receives significant lake-effect-type snow and which could include areas in Japan, Russia, Europe, etc.; and b) The Snowbelt - the region that Americans and Canadians associate with the areas downwind of the Great Lakes. BobDively (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is only about the region in North America, while lake-effect snow is the general article about the weather phenomenon in all world regions. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A snowbelt vs. The Snowbelt

message: This page does not show how the climate extremes in the snowbelt disproportionately affect Trans Women of Color. Please fix. 12.160.25.154 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Trans Women of Color

message: In order to address the current marker on the page on how US-centric this article is, I suggest adding a (North America) or (Great Lakes) to the name, so that the new name of the article would be Snowbelt (North America) or Snowbelt (Great Lakes).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panian513 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Name Change 

message: The Frost Belt is conceptually parallel to and contrasting with the Sun Belt. The Snow Belt and the Frost Belt are not equivalent. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Frost Belt needs its own article, not re-direct 

message: I got onto this page from a link in the introduction to the, "Lake-effect snow," page, which lists a number of snowbelts in other areas of the world, and was confused to find myself being presented with a North American "local" article, on, "The Snowbelt," meaning, "The Snowbelt of the Great Lakes, North America."  
The article on, "Lake Effect Snow," refers to "Snowbelts" as a phenomenon occurring in many places, not as a single region in North America.  There is a lack of consistency both between this article and that link, and internally in this article, between the introduction and the other countries section.
If the article had a USA centric marker, I would argue that it really should not have been taken off.  There is only a very short section on other countries which is not at all integrated into the article.  The introduction only mentions the Great Lakes snowbelt in North America, and the information is arranged with everything except what deals with the North American Great Lakes Snowbelt as a short afterthought, rather than part of the article's real subject.
To rewrite this article with a truly international view would require:
1. rewriting the introduction to refer equally to all snowbelts, not just the ones around the Great Lakes in North America.
2. Altering the location information to refer to all mentioned snowbelts with a list of  the countries or regions in alphabetical order, with the skiing industry information integrated into the relevant section.  As geographical features do not stop at political borders, it might be most logical to arrange it by a list of the bodies of water that cause it, that is, "Baltic Sea Snowbelt," "Great Lakes Snowbelt," "Sea of Japan Snowbelt," rather than trying to do it by country. 
I did consider trying to do this myself, but I do not know enough about either the subject or about accurately making the formatting changes required.
Alternatively, this article could be renamed with a location specifier (as suggested by Panian513), such as "Snowbelt, Great Lakes, North America," and separate articles started on other snowbelts, plus a summary-and-list-of-articles article.
In my opinion, this would probably be better as it is usually easier to add and find information on anything geographical in separate articles, and more attention is likely to be given to non-North American articles, than to international subsections of an article that includes a North American section, but it is a more complicated change.
I do not mean this to be critical.  I may perfectly reasonably refer to the little river in my village as, "The river," when talking to another person in my village, and one North American may quite reasonably refer to the North American Great Lakes Snowbelt as, "The Snowbelt," when talking to another North American.  A greater knowledge of things pertaining to our own cultures and nations is inevitable, and correctly altering references and assumptions for international reading is complicated, regardless of starting point!
FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is still USA-centric