Jump to content

Talk:2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

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

Title

[edit]

Can we get specific with the title and call it Cumbre Vieja? "La Palma" is the name of the island, which could refer to the two large volcanoes ... using La Palma makes the title sound misleading. I suggest renaming it 2021 eruption of Cumbre Vieja or 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption.--CactusTaron (Nopen't) 23:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. Would be too confusing at this early point. Given the information and the few and currently somewhat ambiguous English wiki articles on the whole island, I'd rather say stick with "2021 La Palma" eruption for now. Even more so as the 1971 eruption is titled Teneguía, but described there as a vent of Cumbre Vieja in the text, this one might possibly get its own name too. Even IGN (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) uses "eruption on the island of La Palma" for now. I'd wait until geologists and volcanologists agree on a proper name. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A rename makes sense to me - it's a specific volcanic ridge eruption, not an island-wide eruption. We can always have redirects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: why did you re-add the word "volcanic" to the article title? It's superfluous unless Cumbre Vieja is going to have some other kind of eruption in 2021. As a rule, articles in Category:Volcanic eruptions don't have the word "volcanic" in their title; including Featured Articles 1257 Samalas eruption and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. jnestorius(talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: "volcanic" is a defining characteristic. I'm surprised the other articles you mention don't include it! Note that it does seem to be used in the category names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: "defining characteristic" is relevant for MOS:LEDE and WP:CAT but not WP:NAME; e.g. we have Abraham Lincoln, not President Abraham Lincoln. jnestorius(talk) 19:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: If Lincoln was President from birth to death, and was never anything else, then including that in the article name would make sense to me - but he wasn't. In this case, this is really known as a volcanic eruption, it's not just Cumbre Vieja being upset at a supermarket. The name 'Cumbre Vieja' also isn't too well known, unlike 'St. Helens', so it makes sense to point out that it is actually a volcano (although 'Salamas' sounds like a genus of a lizard, so I'd suggest 'volcano' would also make sense there!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: It is not the job of the article name to point out that it is about a volcano. 2018 FIFA World Cup Final is not called 2018 FIFA World Cup Final football match even though it was a football match from start to finish and never anything else. Wikipedia talk:Article titles has 59 pages of archives, where points similar to those you make have been debated over the past 19 years; one may personally disagree with the current consensus but one cannot simply express surprise and then proceed to ignore it. jnestorius(talk) 22:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: Yes, but everyone knows what FIFA is (I know, and I really don't like football!). Searching the archives, I can't see the consensus you're talking about with regards volcanic eruptions. Hopefully others will comment here on their perspectives. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic why is Cumbre Vieja not at Cumbre Vieja volcano? Not everyone knows it's a volcano. jnestorius(talk) 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a geographic place, not an event, but I wouldn't be opposed to a move if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The eruption on 20 September 2021
The eruption on 20 September 2021

Created by Vacamiera (talk) and many more. Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 19:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

AFAIK an article featured in ITN only becomes ineligible if it's a bolded link. If it's just mentioned in Ongoing events then it should still be eligible, similar to how articles featured on Recent deaths can still appear on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination still needs a QPQ. Please see RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits which agreed on a timeline of one week to do so. Flibirigit (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: QPQ done, I didn't do one earlier as I wasn't sure whether this would get anywhere. Also, that RfC should really be linked to from WP:QPQ, this is the first I've heard of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also mentioned in WP:DYK itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the QPQ. A full review is still needed. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibirigit (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: Thanks, looking forward to the rest of your review! @Narutolovehinata5: Aah, it's in the footnote rather than the main text! I missed that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not commit to doing a full review. Anyone else is welcome to review. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vacamiera and Mike Peel: Starting afresh. This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I detected one copyright issue; the first paragraph in the "Previous eruptions" section is copied directly from this source. I have removed a sentence with two tags, but there remains a "citation needed" tag in another. A QPQ has been done. Things have moved on, so how about a new hook connected with the unfortunate village of Todoque? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for the review! The paragraph with the copyright issue has been reworded. I removed the other sentence with a citation needed tag. I've added ALT3 about Todoque. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoter's comment to @Mike Peel and Cwmhiraeth: I've modified the credits—take a look at the relevant prep to see how.

ALT0 to T:DYK/P1

Lava covered area - map box or map frame with OSM or Copernicus GeoJSON data?

[edit]

How about adding a map frame or map box with highlighted area of the area covered by lava flows?

I'd add it, but I am not sure if the Copernicus EMS license is good enough for Commons (while it seems so to me to be "public/attribution", I am no lawyer and one comment on OSM asked to not use the Copernicus data on OSM). But even if adding the Copernicus json data to Commons for direct showing in a map frame (which would be easier to update than the current composite picture from 20 September by @Corintyns) might be shunned, what about adding a Wiki ID to the OSM polygon? That way it could be linked and shown as a polygon overlay in a map frame and be more up to date. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited an El Pais article which has a wonderful satellite picture from Copernicus, showing the lava flow to the sea. Checking the licensing, this seems to be free for non-commercial use which is problematic due to Wikipedia's insane policy, forbidding the use of such. But perhaps there's a fair-use way round this. @Mike Peel: may know more...? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Technicality nitpicker and Andrew Davidson: This sounds like a good idea. It's the concept of 'non-commercial' that is insane, not Wikipedia's rules. If Copernicus is indeed providing freely licensed information (which it *should* as a public body, but [2] is ambiguous), then that's great. In general though, we should probably be working with our OSM colleagues on this to import data from their maps into the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson NC licence is quite a 'can of worms' as NC could be interpreted very differently as per any local legislature (on the internet where anything could be "commercial") - which I guess is why it's problematic and not allowed on WikiCommons & OSM.
It seems there are some sources that should have workable licenses - perhaps even the IGN data itself (not really sure about Copernicus, as it's somewhat ambiguous as @Mike Peel noted - interpreting the text might need a license lawyer). But the map and shape at lapalma.es seems to be specifically quoted as CC-BY-4.0? That should be compatible at least for the WikiCommons, as I understand it, unless it's mis-quoted... And I believe there was at least a few shape files or at least some photogrammetry produced by local government from drone imagery, which might have had its own license (possibly some OpenData one, as most of Spain is indeed pretty much open). Technicality nitpicker (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried uploading an EMS map file but found that we already have it and the good picture too. (right). Bravo! Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the number of CNs on 'lava flow..' I've been getting updates from https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/lapalma/sep2021seismic-crisis/current-activity.html Not sure if it meets the mark for RSS but it may be of help. Links there also to Involcan, Canary Islands.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human impact

[edit]

Perhaps a paragraph about the economy, lost banana plantations & other agriculture (although it's mostly the bananas I guess) directly affected by lava flows and ash fall would be good to mention in that section? It's after all 1) direct human impact 2) mostly measurable 3) quite sourced (plenty of Spanish articles on it). Unfortunately, my Spanish is pretty bad and I'd rather leave that to a more local editor than just barging in as a foreigner... Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this may take a while for people to analyse the damage. Would be nice if a few images could be added to show how this looks right now. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damage caused by the volcano

[edit]

Several media report about the eruption having destroyed close to 2000 buildings so far. Would it be possible for some images to show this and upload to the wikipedia article as-is? Note: I refer primarily to how it looks "on site", less so about voyeurism about destroyed buildings per se. Satellite images are nice but it's not quite the "view" you normally have when you are right there. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that images would add to the article given the level of destruction, the images would have to conform with wp:fairuse. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is volcano still VEI 2

[edit]

Is the volcano still VEI 2? --2A02:2F01:631C:8700:4852:D841:27F4:43AE (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now officially a VEI 3, as it was just now changed, on November 20th. The scientific committee of the Canary Islands Volcanic Emergency Plan (Pevolca) has raised its rate of explosiveness from 2 to 3, on a scale of 8, due to it surpassing 10 million cubic meters of ejected pyroclasts. This is a confirmed report, as can be found in many spanish media sources today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMTHEONLYREALITY (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

End of Eruption

[edit]

Today I read a comment in a youtube chat on 'Levonel' volcano livestream that "Wikipedia just put an end date for the eruption as 13-12-21' Maybe the Spanish version, but English chat. The earthquakes have stopped today the last being at 7:37 https://www.volcanoesandearthquakes.com/map/lapalma. It is the strongest indication that the eruption has now ended. I won't update for now.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also El Pais on the 15th. I think it becomes official after 10 days since the last event, so it should be confirmed some time next week, unless it decides to restart before then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon! Earthquake activity has continued after a 12 hour lull including M3.2 today. I can find no 'official' report of the eruption ending. btw 'seismic activity' certainly had not ended on 15th I don't know how El Pais reported that?! Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It did end but that earthquake activity might be more related to the magma chamber readjusting to the lack of magma still given this is the first time it had erupted that much material in more then 500 years HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has reported (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59791541) that the last volcanic/seismic activity occurred on 13 December and local officials waited a few weeks to declare the end of the eruption on 25 December. Pauses between phases of a single eruption are very common and therefore an announcement that the eruption has ended may be premature (the claimed end date is only 98 days after the eruption started). It does not follow the commonly used scientific definition of the end of a volcanic eruption (no volcanic activity for 90 days) which is used by e.g. the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program and the US Geological Survey. Any mention of the ending of the eruption in December should be clearly attributed to Spanish government sources e.g. "Canary Islands regional security chief Julio Perez" as in the BBC source, not volcanological sources. GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nature article on surprising low viscosity basanite

[edit]

This https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30905-4 says

Indeed, the rheological measurements suggest that the 2021 Cumbre Vieja basanite is among the least viscous basaltic magmas observed on Earth

- and I know that 'among' is not very specific but there is quite a lot more detail in the article which is probably of interest. EdwardLane (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Cumbre_Vieja_volcanic_eruption&oldid=1196880238"