Talk:Viedma (volcano)

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Viedma (volcano), or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Argentina may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

¿Argentina? ¿Chile? - The international territory is not delimited yet on the South Ice Fields. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.86.219 (talk) 21:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Cambio en la página

He corregido, pués el volcán aparecia asociado a Argentina, sin embargo, está en una zona no demarcada por lo tanto ninguno de los dos países puede adjudicarselo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.223.36.177 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance from the GVP database

@Chaiten100:, I've reverted this edit. That the volcano no longer appears on the Global Volcanism Program database does not automatically mean that the volcano does not exist; it could also mean that there is a database hiccup. Per WP:NOR we need sources which explicitly says that it does not exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert to my original edit? I have re-read the source papers which are cited on this page, and it is clear that Viedma is not a volcano. The GVP catalogue owners tweeted that they had removed the volcano from the catalogue in January; it is no longer listed by GVP as it is not a volcano. Chaiten100 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, link to the Tweet? While it's clear that Viedma nunatak is not a volcano - something reflected in the article - it's not so clear that there isn't a volcano at Viedma (glacier) and a number of sources call a volcano there "Viedma", so one has to be clear whether we are talking about the nunatak or the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are discussing is remarkably similar to the case of El Arenal, a mountain in the Northern Patagonian Ice Field once believed to be a volcano. Was there not remote sensing study that looked into the lavas of Viedma? Or was that Lautaro perhaps? Mamayuco (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:I have now found the GVP tweet and updated the links to clarify the status of Viedma, and the fact that it is no longer recognised as a volcano, thanks. I hope this looks OK now.Chaiten1 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that tweet only says that the Viedma Nunatak is not a volcano. Which the article already says. I don't think that's enough to discredit the entire volcano and the GVP is not quite the last word on such matters. I've done a somewhat smaller edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no published peer-reviewed evidence that Viedma *ever* was a volcano. It is all speculation or inference - which has been superceded by more recent field investigations in the area. This is why it is not in the GVP database anymore - so I just don't understand why you would not wish the wikipedia page to adequately evidence the past history (that it was thought to be a volcano), and the continued uncertainty over its status. Chaiten1 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for all these sources that discuss a "Viedma" volcano, you mean? Not all of them did refer to the nunatak as the volcano. Just because the nunatak isn't a volcano does not mean that all mentions of a "Viedma" volcano are false - there is an entire section discussing subglacial vents, fissure vents etc. I think you are inferring too much from the GVP's actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]