Talk:Catskill Mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catskill Mountains article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Expansion

I am starting a major expansion of this page as a tribute to the late Catskill historian Alf Evers (1905-2004), who I think would have been honored. I dedicate this article to him. -- Daniel Case

I think I should make the history section a separate article. Any other thoughts? -- Daniel Case 05:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, several months later, I've done it. New article on history is now in See Also -- Daniel Case 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falls

I love the Kaaterskill Falls pic, but it's not really directly relevant to the article content. Perhaps we could start a separate article on the falls? -- Daniel Case 04:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I've reworded and punctuated the first paragraph or so under ==Name==. -- Anonymous

It will pay to check whether the original meaning or intent is still there. I found that there was a lot packed into it, especially the first paragraph, and for someone with absolutely no pre-knowledge on the subject it was a tad difficult to parse -- Graibeard 09:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC) --talk

[edit] -kill suffix

Where does the suffix of Cats-kill come from, and what does it mean? I can't locate where this suffix came from. I recently visited this area of New York and noticed several areas with the kill suffix -- 68.250.2.248 00:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (Bob Cesario)

It's old Dutch, and means river or stream. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External link geared towards a religion/culture

Does the external link "The Catskills Institute - the Catskills in American Jewish Life" really belong in the article? I don't know if it's entirely appropriate to have a link geared towards a specific religion only (in an article that is not about religion). Moreover, the link is already part of the article History of the Catskill Mountains where it might be somewhat more relevant than in this article. --Amit 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is about the Jewish religion as much as it is about Jewish culture, which is very much a part of Catskill history. You may be right, though, that it is a better fit to the history article than to this one. I wouldn't object to it being removed from this article. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the link is also in the Borscht Belt article where it seems yet more relevant. The link has now been removed from this article. --Amit 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional map

  • Regional map much needed + ASSERT EXPERT TEMPLATE and 'geo-stub for attention

(One showing other NEARBY mountain regions WITH DIFFERENTIATION)

I agree.. so I made one. It took me a while to figure out the Berkshire/Taconic/Green arrangement, among other things. The map could be improved, but I hope it is useful as is. If I get a chance I'll work on improving it. A more detailed map could show escarpment lines, the Delaware Water Gap, names of major cities, etc. ..also, this page has quite a few photos for the amount of text, so I just placed the map at the top of the Geography section. It seems ok, but move things around if it is awkward. And let me know if anyone has specific ideas for improving the map, etc. Pfly 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "True geological mountains"

Hi. I've removed the part in the first sentence about the Catskills not being "true geological mountains". This is because there is no such thing. The author may have been thinking of orogenic belts, but that makes no sense as many undisputed mountain ranges are also not orogenic belts (the Basin and Range). All things we call mountain ranges on the planet are uplifted areas which have significant topographic relief because of erosion. Even the Himalayas were once a plateau undergoing dissection. Certainly the Catskills can be differentiated from them now, but only on geomorphological grounds - not geological - and there is no doubt both types class as mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.21 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's been in the article for over two years now, added by Pollinator. I've resisted the urge to take it out because I lacked the geological expertise to make the point that it doesn't really matter (My main argument is, try climbing them — a variant on "if it walks like a duck ..."). Thanks. I would suggest making this point somehow in the article, but it seems the section on history takes care of that. But perhaps you and Pollinator can work some language out. Daniel Case 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't blame Pollinator for putting it in - "mountains" bereft of the funky tectonism you see in orogenic belts (folds and faults and all that) are frustratingly boring if that's what you're into. But hey - they're still steep and hilly, and that's all most people are interested in! I'll try and remember to return and discuss the change if anyone takes issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.21 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)