This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arctic Cordillera article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of ecoregions in North America (CEC)#Arctic Cordillera was copied or moved into Arctic Cordillera with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There is a stub article called Innuitian Mountains. Are the Innuitians the principal part of the Arctic Cordillera or not? Do these terms overlap?
There is also a physiographic region or province called (I think) the Innuitian Region. This has no wikipedia article. Should it? What are the layers of distinction here?
BeeTea 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the Innuitian Mountains and the Arctic Cordillera overlap, Innuitian map and Arctic Cordillera map Black Tusk 05:41, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this as a Start Class, as it treats some areas of the topic sufficiently, but does not discuss others (such as discovery, naming, exploration history etc.) I have assessed this as low importance, as I do not feel that many readers would be familiar with the topic of the article. Cheers,
CP 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Reassessed to Mid class. Cheers,
CP
23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a minor point, but I suggest changing the order of the altitudes in the article from "feet (metres)" to "metres (feet)". I remember it being mentioned in other articles that the methods of calcuation as used by the nation in question should be shown first. Canada uses metres, not feet. -- Bentonia School 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I made and added the map. I am uncertain if it is perfect, and am happy to adjust it based on feedback. Matt ( talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is fake -__-"
The map that currently sits in the article is incorrect, since it does not include the Torngats, which, according to the text, are included in the cordillera. They extend into Quebec, as well as Labrador and Newfoundland.
Grandma Roses ( talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely comfortable with our claim that the Arctic Cordillera is "one of Canada's two major mountain systems, the other being the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada." The Coast Mountains are much higher than the Arctic Cordillera (indeed, they have Canada's highest mountain) and their length is comparable to tthat of the Arctic Cordillera. It's true that they lie close enough to the Rockies that many Easterners assume they're part of the same range, but they're generally considered a distinct mountain system.
I also think we probably can't claim that the Arctic Cordillera contains "Some of Canada's highest but least known peaks"--in ordinary English that construction would imply that it contains peaks that are BOTH among Canada's highest AND among Canada's least known. Little-known the Arctic peaks may be, but they're not really among the highest in the country. Barbeau Peak is the only Arctic peak among Canada's 100 highest, and it comes in at #87 on that list. (The list was generated using a stringent 500-meter prominence criterion; if it had been less stingent even more peaks in the Rockies and the Coast Mountains would have been included, bumping Barbeau off the list entirely.)
65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This article confuses teh mountain system with the similarly-named Ecozone as defined by Envirnoment Canada and the two components should be clearly separated; the Arctic Cordillera is a landform, the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone is an ecozone, and they are categorized differently. Environment Canada itself does not call the Ecozone just plain-jane Arctic Cordillera (except on abbreviated-names on maps which are ecozone-based). All Ecozone articles should state ecozone in their titles. Combination of definitions and parallel terms as if they were the same thing, or attempts to integrate defintions and descriptions from different fields/systems is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:Synthesis. The Arctic Cordillera is a landform and that's waht this article shoudl be about; geology information should be in either Geology of the Arctic Cordillera or Geography of the Arctic Archipelago ("of Canada", properly, or "Canadian Arctic Archipelago" as there are/may be otehr uses for that term). I don't have time to do this split right now, but if someone active on this page sees the point, please do the split, or I'll be back at some point to do it. I'm changing all possible titles in Category:Ecozones of Canada to conform to the neceaasry naming convention. Geography, ecology and geolozy are different disciplines; any attempt to integrate them is outside the purview of Wikipedia's responsibilities.....and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines Skookum1 ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Kinda got a problem with this:
I know that "North America" can be taken even to include Greenland and the other offshore islands, but that's not the usual sense of it, especilaly when the word "shore". The only part of North America as such that's involved is northern Labrador...not sure how else to reword that....and it's only one of this article's various issues; just struck me on a glance tonight when placing the fact template on "Arctic Rockies". Skookum1 ( talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine and dandy for Environment Canada's Ecozone department webpage writers to coin a term, with quotation marks indicating it's a fabriactino, it's another thing to say "sometimes calle" as if it were a fairly commohn usage. These are teh same folks who worte up pages on the "Boreal Cordillera" and the "Taiga Cordillera' without mentining a signel ordinary geographic toponym in the process (except the Rockies maybe); re-coining the landscape is not "sometimes known as". This is rebranding, like "Kootenay Rockies". Does that EC page has a cite for hwere they got it from? Maybe, maybe, but I doubt it. It's like putting "Canada's Himalayas" on a brochure about the Coast Mountains or "the Quebec Alps" in the Laurentians. Using a famous/famliar catch-name to gussy up something is not the same as "sometimes known as ". Skookum1 ( talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[unindent]I've asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to drop by; he actually lives "up that way" (though CB's nowhere near Baffin or Ellesmere) and usually knows about northern data resources. I still maintain an ecozone is not a mountain range and vice versa, no more than an ecozone is a forest; it's categorization here that counts, and not confusing one kind of content with another. There's some toponymic term, proper term, for up there; if Arctic Cordillera's not it, then it's only an ecozone article; but there's quite likely a mountain-range name for this idnependently of the Ecozone system; otehrwise this is just as made-up-a-name as Boreal Cordillera or Taiga Cordillera (aka Northern Rockies/Cassiar Mountains and Mackenzie Mountains/Selwyn Mountains). I don't believe in mixing mud puddles....it's not encyclopedic. Maybe this Arctic Cordillera thing is derived form Bivouac; I didn't work on that part of the map, makes me wonder what the National Geographic Atlas uses though....(that and certain other digital map resources were used as "archival" there) Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just took this phrase out of Adam Range and Precipitous Mountains:
Which is clearly bunk, given the existence of the Appalachian Mountains, the Ozarks, the Adirondacks...in the case of the Adam Range, this appeared to use the Canadian Biodiveristy Centre's McGill page/link but I didn't bother to read that page to see if that's where this claim from. But it appears to be eco-boilerplate pasted across a number of these articles and needs to be removed. if it's in the biodiversity.ca webpage then that's yet another eco-zoid website with bad geography that shouldn't be considered a "reiiable source" (even if it IS hosted by a university). Skookum1 ( talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...once I can stomach the amount of work needed, and wading through the eco-bumpf this article is full of. In fixing some today I noticed this paragraph:
Which is clear enough proof that we're talking about two different entities here, the Arctic Cordillera mountain range and the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone. This should no more be one article than Cascade Range and Cascades (ecoregion) should the same article. It's a lot of work to split it all up, as it's so interwoven in this case..... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate or relevant for the article to include speculation that the biodiversity of the region could increase as a result of global climate change? Even if this is true it is not a fact pertinent to the region as it exists. And the same could also be said of nearly any other high-latitude zone on the planet. However, no corroborating facts are included (such as a loss of glaciers, a rise in average temperatures, or the emergence of other flora or fauna in the region) to make this worthy of inclusion. This section does a disservice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.116.32 ( talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of th content in this article has been incorporated into the Pond Inlet article which is currently under construction. The content will be revised as more precise RS are found. Oceanflynn ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arctic Cordillera article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of ecoregions in North America (CEC)#Arctic Cordillera was copied or moved into Arctic Cordillera with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There is a stub article called Innuitian Mountains. Are the Innuitians the principal part of the Arctic Cordillera or not? Do these terms overlap?
There is also a physiographic region or province called (I think) the Innuitian Region. This has no wikipedia article. Should it? What are the layers of distinction here?
BeeTea 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the Innuitian Mountains and the Arctic Cordillera overlap, Innuitian map and Arctic Cordillera map Black Tusk 05:41, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this as a Start Class, as it treats some areas of the topic sufficiently, but does not discuss others (such as discovery, naming, exploration history etc.) I have assessed this as low importance, as I do not feel that many readers would be familiar with the topic of the article. Cheers,
CP 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Reassessed to Mid class. Cheers,
CP
23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a minor point, but I suggest changing the order of the altitudes in the article from "feet (metres)" to "metres (feet)". I remember it being mentioned in other articles that the methods of calcuation as used by the nation in question should be shown first. Canada uses metres, not feet. -- Bentonia School 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I made and added the map. I am uncertain if it is perfect, and am happy to adjust it based on feedback. Matt ( talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is fake -__-"
The map that currently sits in the article is incorrect, since it does not include the Torngats, which, according to the text, are included in the cordillera. They extend into Quebec, as well as Labrador and Newfoundland.
Grandma Roses ( talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely comfortable with our claim that the Arctic Cordillera is "one of Canada's two major mountain systems, the other being the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada." The Coast Mountains are much higher than the Arctic Cordillera (indeed, they have Canada's highest mountain) and their length is comparable to tthat of the Arctic Cordillera. It's true that they lie close enough to the Rockies that many Easterners assume they're part of the same range, but they're generally considered a distinct mountain system.
I also think we probably can't claim that the Arctic Cordillera contains "Some of Canada's highest but least known peaks"--in ordinary English that construction would imply that it contains peaks that are BOTH among Canada's highest AND among Canada's least known. Little-known the Arctic peaks may be, but they're not really among the highest in the country. Barbeau Peak is the only Arctic peak among Canada's 100 highest, and it comes in at #87 on that list. (The list was generated using a stringent 500-meter prominence criterion; if it had been less stingent even more peaks in the Rockies and the Coast Mountains would have been included, bumping Barbeau off the list entirely.)
65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This article confuses teh mountain system with the similarly-named Ecozone as defined by Envirnoment Canada and the two components should be clearly separated; the Arctic Cordillera is a landform, the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone is an ecozone, and they are categorized differently. Environment Canada itself does not call the Ecozone just plain-jane Arctic Cordillera (except on abbreviated-names on maps which are ecozone-based). All Ecozone articles should state ecozone in their titles. Combination of definitions and parallel terms as if they were the same thing, or attempts to integrate defintions and descriptions from different fields/systems is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:Synthesis. The Arctic Cordillera is a landform and that's waht this article shoudl be about; geology information should be in either Geology of the Arctic Cordillera or Geography of the Arctic Archipelago ("of Canada", properly, or "Canadian Arctic Archipelago" as there are/may be otehr uses for that term). I don't have time to do this split right now, but if someone active on this page sees the point, please do the split, or I'll be back at some point to do it. I'm changing all possible titles in Category:Ecozones of Canada to conform to the neceaasry naming convention. Geography, ecology and geolozy are different disciplines; any attempt to integrate them is outside the purview of Wikipedia's responsibilities.....and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines Skookum1 ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Kinda got a problem with this:
I know that "North America" can be taken even to include Greenland and the other offshore islands, but that's not the usual sense of it, especilaly when the word "shore". The only part of North America as such that's involved is northern Labrador...not sure how else to reword that....and it's only one of this article's various issues; just struck me on a glance tonight when placing the fact template on "Arctic Rockies". Skookum1 ( talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine and dandy for Environment Canada's Ecozone department webpage writers to coin a term, with quotation marks indicating it's a fabriactino, it's another thing to say "sometimes calle" as if it were a fairly commohn usage. These are teh same folks who worte up pages on the "Boreal Cordillera" and the "Taiga Cordillera' without mentining a signel ordinary geographic toponym in the process (except the Rockies maybe); re-coining the landscape is not "sometimes known as". This is rebranding, like "Kootenay Rockies". Does that EC page has a cite for hwere they got it from? Maybe, maybe, but I doubt it. It's like putting "Canada's Himalayas" on a brochure about the Coast Mountains or "the Quebec Alps" in the Laurentians. Using a famous/famliar catch-name to gussy up something is not the same as "sometimes known as ". Skookum1 ( talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[unindent]I've asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to drop by; he actually lives "up that way" (though CB's nowhere near Baffin or Ellesmere) and usually knows about northern data resources. I still maintain an ecozone is not a mountain range and vice versa, no more than an ecozone is a forest; it's categorization here that counts, and not confusing one kind of content with another. There's some toponymic term, proper term, for up there; if Arctic Cordillera's not it, then it's only an ecozone article; but there's quite likely a mountain-range name for this idnependently of the Ecozone system; otehrwise this is just as made-up-a-name as Boreal Cordillera or Taiga Cordillera (aka Northern Rockies/Cassiar Mountains and Mackenzie Mountains/Selwyn Mountains). I don't believe in mixing mud puddles....it's not encyclopedic. Maybe this Arctic Cordillera thing is derived form Bivouac; I didn't work on that part of the map, makes me wonder what the National Geographic Atlas uses though....(that and certain other digital map resources were used as "archival" there) Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just took this phrase out of Adam Range and Precipitous Mountains:
Which is clearly bunk, given the existence of the Appalachian Mountains, the Ozarks, the Adirondacks...in the case of the Adam Range, this appeared to use the Canadian Biodiveristy Centre's McGill page/link but I didn't bother to read that page to see if that's where this claim from. But it appears to be eco-boilerplate pasted across a number of these articles and needs to be removed. if it's in the biodiversity.ca webpage then that's yet another eco-zoid website with bad geography that shouldn't be considered a "reiiable source" (even if it IS hosted by a university). Skookum1 ( talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...once I can stomach the amount of work needed, and wading through the eco-bumpf this article is full of. In fixing some today I noticed this paragraph:
Which is clear enough proof that we're talking about two different entities here, the Arctic Cordillera mountain range and the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone. This should no more be one article than Cascade Range and Cascades (ecoregion) should the same article. It's a lot of work to split it all up, as it's so interwoven in this case..... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate or relevant for the article to include speculation that the biodiversity of the region could increase as a result of global climate change? Even if this is true it is not a fact pertinent to the region as it exists. And the same could also be said of nearly any other high-latitude zone on the planet. However, no corroborating facts are included (such as a loss of glaciers, a rise in average temperatures, or the emergence of other flora or fauna in the region) to make this worthy of inclusion. This section does a disservice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.116.32 ( talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of th content in this article has been incorporated into the Pond Inlet article which is currently under construction. The content will be revised as more precise RS are found. Oceanflynn ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)