Talk:Monteregian Hills

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Quebec / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mt Orford[edit]

Neither the Université Laval page linked in the external site section, nor this McGill university page http://www.mcgill.ca/gault/sainthilaire/natural/geology/ gives Mt Orford as a Monteregian. I've thus removed it.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic Stuff[edit]

I've cleared a bit the volcanic references. The text could probably use a much more detailed geological history ; until someone writes it (no time here), "remnant of ancient volcanoes" is a bit too questionable (mcgill university, Laval university and natural ressources canada all state "not volcanoes" on their sites ; so far only a diving site mention them as volcanoes), as well as references to the last eruption in the infobox.

I've also removed "list of volcanoes in Canada" (since the Monteregians have already been removed from the list of volcanoes), but kept Volcanism in Canada (since volcanism was definitely involved in the forming of these mountains). --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 02:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-inserted referenced material and added refs. Vsmith 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diving site? See: [1] In some cases, magma erupted at the surface, feeding volcanoes that have now completely disappeared. Seems they are the intrusive roots of long eroded volcanoes - maybe the text needs rewording to emphasize that more. As no surface volcanic evidence remains, removal from the list of volcanoes is justified. Vsmith 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diving site (an oceanic research site, actually, my mistake) in question (reference #2 in the list) was the only evidence provided by the article when I edited. This new site is more interesting. However, http://www.mcgill.ca/gault/sainthilaire/natural/geology/ McGill University states a version that cast doubt on the "they are remnants of volcanoes" thesis.

Also, the wording of the site you quoted never states all the Monteregian are the remnants of volcanoes. What can be stated for a fact is that they are all the result of ignaeous intrusions. Since we don't know which, if any of them are the results of volcanoes that actually erupted, when exactly they did, or really any other sort of detail on that, stating "last known eruption" - particularly as the Monteregian Mountains *themselves* never erupted is also misleading. The article as it stands simply does a poor job of reporting what natural history of the mountains Québec universities seems to agree on (per the Université Laval and McGill university website) --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted controversy and removed last erupted from infobox. Vsmith 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked the text to make the second point of view (not volcanoes) looks like less of an afterthought, by moving the "New England hotspot" information before the competing theories, then saying "variously interpreted as..." rather than "Haver been interpreted as", then later adding another sentence saying "Others have interpreted...".--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mont Tremblant part of the Monteregians? Also, I wasn't wrong about my "magma chamber idea" Guillaume. One of the reference sites says: The hills that are visible today represent the magma chambers and part of the conduits through which the molten rock rose toward the surface. It is also appropiate saying there the remnants of volcanoes because magma chambers are part of volcanoes. Black Tusk 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll note, I conceded the point that they might be the remnants of volcanoes (MIGHT, as McGill university still state otherwise), once better evidence than an article concerned with underwater geography of the new england shelf with a single throw-away line about the Monteregian being former volcanoes came to light. (Also, the NRCan site does not say all the Monteregians are former volcanoes). The Canadian Encyclopedia (here http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007093 ) state it is one big unknown as there are no remnants either way.

Mont Tremblant is generally acknowledged as a mountain of the Canadian Shield. It is also far north of the Monteregian "Axis", and, much more importantly, not listed as a Monteregian by either the Laval or McGill universities sites linked to in the article. So I'd tend to say it shouldn't be in the article.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 03:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just added some information about the New England hotspot on the Volcanism in Canada article yesterday (The formation of the Monteregians etc.). Mont Tremblant is thought to have once been (or part) a volcano as well,[2] probably formed the same way as the Monteregians. Black Tusk 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. A blogspot.com address isn't very solid evidence - particularly not when its a blog dedicated to local news from a region that's a few hundred miles away from the topic of the articles. I tried googling up additional information, without success. I think until more solid information can be found, it is probably best to avoid characterizing Tremblant as a volcano. This site is the first I hear of any link whatsoever between the mountain and volcanic activity of any sort (as opposed to the Monteregians, where their origin as lava inclusion is well documented; the only debate being whether these lava inclusion were ever part of active volcanoes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Monteregian Hills?[edit]

I was just going over the sources, when something struck me. Of all the sources, NONE refer to the Monteregian as "Monteregian Mountains" or "Monteregian Mountain Chain". All use "Monteregian hills". The Canadian Encyclopedia (http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007093 , fifth paragraph), the Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053514/Monteregian-Hills), the University of Massachussets at Lowell (http://faculty.uml.edu/Nelson_Eby/research/monteregian%20hills/monteregian%20hills.htm) as well as various scientifical publication (http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_abst_e?cjes_e95-109_32_ns_nf_cjes9-95 ) all appear to use "Monteregian Hills". Googling up Monteregian Mountain Chain gives 424 entries ; Monteregian Mountains gives 9, whereas Monteregian Hills give 9440 entries.

Is there any particular reason this page is at Monteregian Mountain Chain?--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to such a move as it would be the more widely used name. Not much in the way of a mountain chain - just a semi-linear string of erosion resistant stocks of weird rocks of related age and origin. Vsmith 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Black Tusk 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks nothing like any mountain chain I ever heard of. Each of them is isolated, going from 30 meters above sea level to 300, 400 meter all on its own. It's what makes them impressive despite the small size. (And yes, I know this is OR & POV - just commenting to illustrate the point, not planning to put any of this in the article) --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vsmith 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monteregian Hills. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]