Talk:North Woods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007) |
[edit] Definition
This article is purportedly about a region including portions of three states, yet no information is offered to define its boundaries and no citations are offered to support those boundaries. I think the whole concept is close to being non-notable in its current form.--Appraiser 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen descriptions elsewhere which define the area as a transition zone between the deciduous forests to the south and the true boreal conifer forests to the north. That transition zone however is not limited to these three states. I will see if I can dig them up. Kablammo 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put in some text and a cite as a placeholder; more work is needed. Kablammo 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good source, adequately defining what is meant by the term "north woods" in terms of flora and fauna. Perhaps a more robust description based on those could substitute for geographic boundaries. Since it has been added to the MN template as a "region", it should be added to Regions of Minnesota too, at some point.--Appraiser 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Great North Woods (North Woods in New England and upstate New York). A merger may be in order. And the North Woods Conservancy [1] includes southern Ontario. All are part of the same biome (or transition area between biomes). There is also an article on the Maine North Woods. The first 100 Google returns for "North Woods" show that the term is used for all of these areas; I found no geographic references to other areas. The term Great North Woods appears to be a marketing/tourism slogan, as many references to the eastern part of the North American north woods do not use the modifier "great". Kablammo 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I could definitely see a case for combining all of these, although trying to do so might cause regional squabbles.--Appraiser 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just expand this one to its actual extent, including the entire swath of transitional forest from the Plains to the Atlantic. Kablammo 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I could definitely see a case for combining all of these, although trying to do so might cause regional squabbles.--Appraiser 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Great North Woods (North Woods in New England and upstate New York). A merger may be in order. And the North Woods Conservancy [1] includes southern Ontario. All are part of the same biome (or transition area between biomes). There is also an article on the Maine North Woods. The first 100 Google returns for "North Woods" show that the term is used for all of these areas; I found no geographic references to other areas. The term Great North Woods appears to be a marketing/tourism slogan, as many references to the eastern part of the North American north woods do not use the modifier "great". Kablammo 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good source, adequately defining what is meant by the term "north woods" in terms of flora and fauna. Perhaps a more robust description based on those could substitute for geographic boundaries. Since it has been added to the MN template as a "region", it should be added to Regions of Minnesota too, at some point.--Appraiser 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Stub-Class Wisconsin articles | High-importance Wisconsin articles | Unassessed Minnesota articles | Unassessed Michigan articles | Unknown-importance Michigan articles | WikiProject Michigan articles | Wikipedia requested maps in Minnesota | Wikipedia requested maps in Wisconsin | Wikipedia requested maps in Michigan