Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.50.143.34 (talk) at 14:17, 18 May 2010 (→‎Volcano lists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVolcanoes Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

This project is among the worst in Wikipedia in terms of organization, participation, and documentation. To shame. We've got a barebones crew of active editors doing all the work, with a large bank of just-joined-did-nothing editors. I'm proposing, nay, doing, a restructuring of the project. The results so far are based at User:Resident Mario/sandbox. ResMar 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and transfered. I'm filling out the redlinks. Step 2 will be a purge of inactive users. ResMar 04:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.....how are you going to figue out who is active or inactive? BT (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits within 4 months. ResMar 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but just because they have edited within 4 months dosen't mean they are active with this WP. For example, a user might have edited Wikipedia within 4 months but may have not edited volcano articles for over 4 months. BT (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But where will the list of members be now? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be better to move inactive folks to a second list than to delete them entirely. What if they decide to come back? Awickert (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have this on my watchlist. I don't count myself inactive, though I may be sparse a lot of the time. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Members. Turns out that only about 1/2 of the members are still active. If they decide to return, they can very easily edit into the page and add themselves back to the main list. ResMar 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To BT: I know, I know, but when you try and kick vandal hunters or whatever froma project they get pissed and then wikidrama sets on and ugh...not doing it. ResMar 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a to-do list or a page of requested articles on this WikiProject? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanism article created

I was surprised this remained as a redirect to the volcano article as its first edit on September 6, 2002. This is completely unnesessary since volcanism is not just included with volcanic eruptions of volcanoes. It is the process that places from the mantle of a planet and rises within the crust of a planet as a volcanic eruption. But volcanism also does not always reach the surface. The rising magma can cool and solidify within the crust of a planet to form intrusive features such as batholiths, dikes and sills. I wonder what else I can find that does not need to be as a redirect..... BT (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm surprised too. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano lists

I think is a bit of WP:POV involved here. Where do the classifcations come from in the cinder cone, shield volcano, lava dome lists? Active, dormant and extinct can easily be misleading, given the fact many people classify the status the volcanoes differently. A dormant volcano can easily be refered to as extinct if it has not erupted for some time. One could say a volcano is active only because it is erupting or has erupted recently, another could say an active volcano is one that has any kind of activity, such as hot springs, earthquakes and fumaroles. Therefore, I think listing volcanoes by classification is a bad idea and should be listed by country or some other basic listing. BT (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Kelut, Indonesia is listed incorrectly as being located in the United States in the list of cinder cones.

If one uses the USGS classification, which may be arbitrary to those outside of the US, I would think that would work, I can't find my book , to verify some things speednat (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I am basically saying is that there is no standard classification for volcanoes. In some sources, you will see Mount Rainier is considered to be active and others say it is dormant. Mount Meager is the same; some say it is potentially active and others say it is dormant and so on. The status of a volcano can easily be misleading. BT (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the active dormant and extinct classifications on the list of cinder cones list. I do not have time to change the other lists. BT (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lava tubes

I wouldn't imagine that lava tubes or lava caves would be in the scope of Wikiproject Volcanoes, but Lava River Cave is now listed as falling under the scope. However, the defined scope of this project does not specifically list caves, let alone lava tubes. The scope says volcanic rocks are the closest relation. Lava tubes were made by lava, but they're not lava anymore, so that is not the closest relation in the scope. Lava tubes are typically basaltic. Does the scope of Volcanoes want to expand to include all lava tubes? And for that matter, wouldn't it be prudent to include dikes, fissures, kipukas, tephra, etc? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is related to igneous petrology is obviously within the project's scope. The stuff you metioned are already part of the project; there is the Mackenzie dike swarm, Franklin dike swarm, Grenville dike swarm, Independence dike swarm, Kangamiut dike swarm, Long Range dikes, Matachewan dike swarm, Mistassini dike swarm, Sudbury dike swarm, Bridge River Ash, Huckleberry Ridge Tuff etc. Perhaps the scope should be reworded. It seems like most articles about dikes, tephra etc were not created before the project was created so I would revise the scope as necessarily. BT (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lava tubes etc are likely already in the project's scope. The project page states: All articles about volcanoes, volcanic fields, volcanic belts, volcanic arcs, mid-ocean ridges, rift valleys, hotspots, and other volcanic structures. Also articles about magma, lava, and volcanic rocks, along with volcanic eruptions and deposits (lava flows, tuffs, tephra, etc.). Lava tubes, dikes, tephra etc would fall into this scope. BT (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the scope stands now, dikes are not apart of the definition. So you are right about the need to update the scope. Lava tubes are not a volcanic structure proper, but the repercussion of one. They have long ago ceased to be lava, however they do fit the scope by being volcanic rock. Which to my understanding is the only relation to the Volcanoes wikiproject. But is that enough to include it under a project titled Volcanoes? Would a person wanting to learn about Volcanoes glean much from a lava tube article? I would argue that lava flows would be the primary interest first, not volcanoes. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. This WikiProject aims to enhance information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related articles. It mentions so on the project's scope on the main page. Dikes, lava tubes etc are all part of volcanology and as far as I know, they are categorized as such. BT (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how wikipedia categorizes lava tubes, but in the broader scientific world, or is that narrower?, ahem, they fall under vulcanospeleology. But I was really looking for more than your thoughts BT. I was looking for a broader consensus than just a conversation between you and I. If everyone here thinks that the project should include lava tubes, then let's hear it. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This ain't no thoughts or opinions. It's a pure fact. Volcanology, igneous petrology and related subjects have always been part of this Wikiproject and covering such topics is the point of this Wikiproject. Look up volcanology in the dictionary and it should say something like: the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena. Endangering the scope of this Wikiproject by someone that is not even part of the project is not needed..... BT (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BT, I'm not sure why you used the words endanger. I came here for a consensus on the matter. Wikiprojects are exactly just thoughts and opinions, and sometimes backed up by references (of varying quality). Wikiprojects are defined by users and the scope too. I believe you were defining the word "volcanology", while I was only inquiring about the scope of this wikiproject. I am looking for the opinions of those people who created the scope of this wikiproject. So far, all I've heard is yours. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. I normally stick with facts. Lava tubes and dikes are mentioned on project's scope and I am done "arguing" with this discussion. BT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinatubo FAR

I have nominated Mount Pinatubo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD for {{Infobox crater}}

I have nominated the newly-created {{Infobox crater}} for deletion. (I first asked the creator to withdraw it.) Please see and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox crater. Summary: editors have already worked to alleviate confusion over unqualified use of the term "crater". The mass category renaming CFD for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters renamed 77 categories like "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." after volcanic crater articles were moved to subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. Let's not re-introduce that confusion. Ikluft (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet intrusions

The change from "Articles about sheet intrusions (e.g. dikes, dike swarms, sills) are definately within the scope of this project because of their connection with large igneous provinces and volcanic activity." to "Articles about sheet intrusions (e.g. dikes, dike swarms, sills) where they are connected with large igneous provinces or other volcanic activity." on the project page is a bit questionable since all igneous dikes and sills form in volcanic zones that are volcanically active. They are also products of volcanism themselves because dikes and sills form when magma flows under the surface. This issue is also unfair for volcanic zones that are no longer active. BT (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I think dikes and sills can be emplaced without any concurrent volcanism (e.g. doi:10.1126/science.1101304). Personally I don't mind if we expand the scope to include these too, but I think it's enough of a leap to mention here first. I don't think we need to justify the choice in the list itself, i.e. everything in your version after the word "sills" could go. -- Avenue (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either. The reason I said "since all igneous dikes and sills form in volcanic zones that are volcanically active" was because all sheet intrusions I have read about or seen for myself occur in or near volcanic areas. So I guess that's not a very good sentence. But after I did a bit of research, all what I could find for igneous dikes and sills was information related to volcanoes, volcanic areas and other volcanological stuff apart from what they are etc. BT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a source above that describes current dike emplacement in an area that has had no volcanic activity for over a million years, as far as I know, and I gather dikes are common in areas without volcanism but with extensional tectonic activity (e.g. Lake Baikal). But perhaps this is beside the point. While I don't believe our scope has previously extended to intrusions just because they are "in or near volcanic areas", I would personally be happy to interpret our scope as including all igneous formations, including sheet intrusions, regardless of whether they have been associated with volcanic activity. I see this as a generous interpretation of the "volcanism" part of our scope. I do not mean that we should cover every landform made of igneous rock, such as each individual glacially carved granite mountain, but individual plutons, sills or dikes seem fine to me. Broader patterns such as dike swarms or batholiths are even better. -- Avenue (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your source, but just because an area has not had volcanic activity for over a million years does not mean that particular area is extinct. Take a look here. It seems like the Franklin Glacier complex in British Columbia began its formation between six and eight million years ago and then had another period of volcanic activity between two and three million years ago. It seems like there was about three million years of dormancy between those two eruptive periods, although the geology of this volcanic complex is poorly known.
Personally, I think it would be nice to include all igneous formations like you stated, especially because igneous petrology is a scope of this wikiproject. There is probably no need to include glacially carved granite mountains anyway because mountain ranges that include granite mountains are generally grouped into large igneous formations (e.g. the Coast Plutonic Complex, which makes up much of the Coast Mountains). And even though dikes and possibly other intrusions are common in areas that don't have volcanism, volcanic activity can still be nearby. For example, eruptions are not known to have occurred in the Baikal Rift Zone (which includes Lake Baikal), but recent eruptions have took place adjacent to the rift zone and are likely related to rifting of the Baikal Rift Zone. BT (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topics list

I've updated the volcanos section of one of my missing topics lists - Skysmith (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption template? Eruption category?

As there is an earthquake template for 2010, I was wondering if there shouldn't be a yearly or decadely eruption template and eruption category as well...

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. A template for an eruption article would be ideal and there is a category for eruptions as Category:Volcanic events. But there arn't any categories for yearly eruptions (e.g. Category:Volcanic eruptions in 2010) as far as I'm aware of. Probably because there is not enough eruption articles. BT (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a list article List of volcanic eruptions in 2010 is in order, and the template and category be based by decade? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?Eyjafjallajökull?

This now very famous doesn't have an article, but takes up most of the Eyjafjallajökull glacier article... probably should be split, for the very least, weighting reasons... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanologist article review request

One of the articles tagged within the scope of this WikiProject is being reviewed at the moment. I'm leaving a note here to ask whether anyone active in this WikiProject has time to review the article (David A. Johnston) and leave suggestions, either on the article talk page or at the review. As one of the contributors to the article, I will say at the review that I've left this notice here, but if you do leave comments at the review it would be helpful to those assessing the review if you leave a note saying how you became aware of the article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion of Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

Editors interested in Volcanic Explosivity Index may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged protection

The Spring makes everything new :) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Flagged_protection:_update_for_April_22, Flagged protection on English Wikipedia is coming soon now. I'm expecting to lower the vandalism volume :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nunivak Island

Nunivak Island: The location dot does not appear in the location map of the infobox template. Can somebody tell me, what tweak is responsible for that? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, but I still do not know where is the problem :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanism on Western USA

I got a map and used it on Basin and Range Province#Volcanism, some abbreviations are on Laurentia#Volcanism on the western edge of the North American craton. Let's see if the community is happy with it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The western edge of Laurentia is not just located in the western United States. It is also located in western and northern Canada. BT (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok :) southwestern edge so. The extension is on the Basin and Range Province, and this Province is in USA and Mexico. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at File:North america craton nps.gif. The craton seems to extend along eastern British Columbia and Yukon, but I'm not too convinced on how many volcanics are located there. The Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field in eastcentral British Columbia might be located somewhere along its western margin. BT (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My personal interest is the extension, the deformed craton. The accretionary belt of the subduction zone is not so special. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here: you should check out NAVDAT as well, if you feel ambitious and want to use their (gignatic) database to make your own figure. They have pretty nifty animations too that you could look at (and perhaps beg to have given a wikipedia-friendly license. My only warning would be that they show the location at which they collected the rock, which (in the case of tuffs) could be pretty far from the actual volcano. But overall, it's a very impressive database. Awickert (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the North American craton is deformed. The portion you are interested in is only a portion of the craton that has undergone deformation in the past 600 million years. There is many other rift zones in the craton. BT (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mogollon-Datil volcanic field

I created a stub: Mogollon-Datil volcanic field and rated it low importance. As the magma body of the Socorro Caldera (Rio Grande rift) is uplifting the surface at a rate of 2 mm/year, I'd like to rate it a mid important article. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists - Sortable tables and the convert template

I've updated List of submarine volcanoes to use the {{convert}} template, and have removed the rowspan/colspan so that the table can be made "sortable". Is that beneficial? If so, I'd recommend the rest of the lists be updated (eventually) to use those conventions. (I have no scripting prowess, so cannot offer to help update them en masse). It just took a few minutes of copy&pasting, once I had the convert-template figured out; the only detail that was troublesome was changing the "significant figures" value for each (needs to be 2 or 3 sigfig, depending). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo volcanic field

Names of volcanic fields are a pain. Almost each eruption, each caldera, each vent, each tephra gets a new name. Sometimes more than one. And on top of it, almost each paper uses the name of another landmark of the site to name the volcanic field. :[

The San Juan caldera cluster and the Socorro-Magdalena caldera cluster are quite amazing, and each caldera cluster must have a single magma source.

Geronimo volcanic field (also known as the San Bernardino volcanic field) is located at the northern end of the San Bernardino Valley, and the article is a stub. I propose to rename the article Boot Heel volcanic field (also known as Geronimo-Animas volcanic field), and make the Geronimo volcanic field article a section of it. The article would be still a stub.

References:

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. --Burntnickel (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rinjani-edited page

I have just done some work on the Rinjani page including 2010 information up to date at beginning of may 2010 and extending the history and descriptive information. I hope it does not upset anyone but it seemed a little tired and was not up to date. Perhaps it needs a look over by those with a honed focus on the subject.Felix505 (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)felix505[reply]

I have done some more work on it including a table of eruptions and added some more general and also some more recent activity information. I hope it is OK but it would be best if someone else looked it over I thinkFelix505 (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volcanoes&oldid=362814225"