Talk:Boreal forest
Title might want to be changed to Boreal Forest of Canada. EN wiki says. Baozon90 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree, as I was expecting to see coverage of Russia, China, Scandinavia, the U.S., etc. Having maps showing the entire nation of Canada doesn't make much sense, either, does it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"Cities" section
editPer 7+2, there should be no more than 9. Which should be included? One slightly out-of-the-box thought would be to include a Chinese city like Changchun. There is lots and lots of evergreen forest right in that city (unless they've cut it all down since my visit in 2004, but I doubt that). Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Churchill, Manitoba, nicknamed " the Polar Bear Capital of the World", should be included. Ibaman (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- As of now the list is largely made up of Canadian cities. I'd suggest the following: Canada and Russia, as the biggest boreal countries could have three each (one from the western, central, and eastern part of the countries?), then something from the Nordic countries, Changchun, and maybe something from Alaska. Ypsilon (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The 7+2 rule only applies to intermediate regions, not bottom level regions or in this case travel topics. I actually think the section should be removed. What the article should contain are sites of interest, wither national park articles, geographical features and tourist attractions that represent the ecosystem. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- You have a point. I don't think in any case we'd want a long list of cities, but your point of view is worth pondering. I'll think about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The 7+2 rule only applies to intermediate regions, not bottom level regions or in this case travel topics. I actually think the section should be removed. What the article should contain are sites of interest, wither national park articles, geographical features and tourist attractions that represent the ecosystem. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- As of now the list is largely made up of Canadian cities. I'd suggest the following: Canada and Russia, as the biggest boreal countries could have three each (one from the western, central, and eastern part of the countries?), then something from the Nordic countries, Changchun, and maybe something from Alaska. Ypsilon (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- There are major Canadian cities like Edmonton, Ottawa & Montreal that are certainly in territory that was originally forested, though I'm not sure if technically "boreal". Probably more in Russia. Helsinki? Oslo? Getting a short list of suitable cities looks tricky. I'm therefore inclined to agree with T100's suggestion. Pashley (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to see Boreal forest, there is little point in heading for major cities, other than for transport further. Of course they have resources to arrange tours to nearby forest areas, but towns and villages living from nature tourism should be much better destinations. And I think there are a hundred of these already in the Nordic countries. Few of the cities in the list now have a oneliner hinting on why they would the place to go to see forest. So, yes, I support removing the cities section. --LPfi (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You folks make good points. I certainly don't object to removing the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Southern hemisphere?
editThe article currently covers only the Northern hemisphere. That's certainly correct for the main focus, but do the corresponding Southern latitudes have anything similar? It look as though South America, New Zealand & maybe Tasmania have land at about the right latitudes. Pashley (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not the Arctic
editIt seems this is written with a different perspective than mine: "or be willing to pay the shipping costs involved in bringing farmed produce all the way up here." Southern Finland may be just on the border to the boreal region, but still, we grow wheat (and I have understood somebody had success growing corn in Ostrobothnia!); driving a lorry to Jyväskylä or even Kuhmo (or putting the grain on he train) is not that big an enterprise. Most fruit has to be imported of course, but high food prices are rather due to high taxes and wages. I suppose somebody from Ontario would think likewise. --LPfi (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- BUMP! Do people in Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Saguenay eat what the local indigenous people eat (the local wild game and forest plants and mushrooms) or pay the shipping costs involved in "bringing farmed produce all the way up here". At least I suppose the former is rather an exception in towns at these latitudes – in Tampere game and local mushrooms are certainly more expensive than beef from Argentina and button mushrooms farmed in the Netherlands (or beef, potatoe and mushroom from Finnish farms and bread from Finnish grain) . –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)