User talk:Volcanoguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blairmorite[edit]

Hello Volcanoguy. I don't have an image of blairmorite, but I know someone who does. I'll contact him and ask if he would contribute it. Georgialh (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Georgialh: thanks. Are you aware of information regarding the source/origin of volcanism that created the Crowsnest Formation? Volcanoguy 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I haven't been able to find much in the literature about the petrogenesis of the Crowsnest Volcanics (CNV), which really surprises me, given that the mineralogy is so unusual and volcanic rocks are so rare in Alberta. The Bowerman article[1] was the one of the best ones that I found.

I was one of the co-authors on a short article re the CNV for CSPG Reservoir (I don't know if it's appeared yet; I've been in the field all summer and have been pretty much out of touch). Here's an excerpt:

The Crowsnest Volcanics were laid down in a series of eruptions during Albian time. Radiometric dates range from about 93 to 101 Ma[2]. Goble et al. (1999)[3] concluded that alkaline intrusive rocks at Commerce Peak to the south near the Flathead River may have been associated with the Crowsnest eruptions, and Amajor (1985)[4] concluded that the Crowsnest eruptions and/or vents close to them were probably the source of bentonites in the Viking Formation (subsequent radiometric dating shows a compatible date of 100 Ma for these regional marker beds). Palinspastic reconstructions indicate that the eruptions probably occurred in what is now the Cranbrook area. It's estimated that the volcanics originally covered an area of about 1800 km2 and their volume exceeded 209 km3. By comparison the damage area of the 1980 Mount St Helens blast was 600 km2.

I'd like to get down to check out the Commerce Mountain outcrops some time, but it's a bit remote with access via sometimes-active logging roads. Maybe next spring.Georgialh (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Georgialh: by the way, I have created an article for blairmorite. I am not sure if you are aware but I also started the Northern Alberta kimberlite province, Birch Mountains kimberlite field, Buffalo Head Hills kimberlite field and Mountain Lake cluster articles. Lately I have been working on British Columbia's Itcha Range. Volcanoguy 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Georgialh: it is also worthy to note I could not find much information about the origin(s) of the Northern Alberta kimberlites either. Perhaps volcanic rocks in Alberta have not been studied much because of their rarity? Volcanoguy 10:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Alberta is indeed impoverished when it comes to volcanics. There's the CNV, the kimberlites, and maybe we can count the Purcell Sill. Other than that, there are beds of volcanic ash ranging in age from Early Cretaceous to Quaternary (e.g., the Mazama ash), but that's about it. You would think that the rarity would inspire Alberta's geology students to be fighting for the privilege of working on them, but I suspect that there's no funding for such things.
As for blairmorite, I'm told that igneous rocks are supposed to be named for their minerals rather than for places, so blairmorite should properly be called analcimite. I haven't checked into that, though. And when asking around about the CNV I triggered a small dispute as to whether there are any actual "trachytic flows" in the CNV, or whether it's all pyroclastics. The question remains unresolved.
I'll see what I can dig up on the Alberta kimberlites. Georgialh (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Georgialh: Re the ash beds: there are articles for the Mazama Ash and Bridge River Ash. The Winagami sill complex also has an article.
I remember reading igneous rocks are supposed to be named for their minerals but is that an official policy? Are there any disputes over that policy? The name blairmorite for an analcime-rich volcanic rock goes back to the early 1900s. Also, kimberlite is named after the town of Kimberley in South Africa. Volcanoguy 05:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, that can't be an official policy. There are too many igneous rock names to use mineralogy alone. Johannsen (1933) lists more than 1,200 names.[5] I'll put his definition of blairmorite up on the blairmorite page. He says it was named by someone named Knight, and to see Johannsen vol IV, p. 256-260 for a full description, but I only have a partial photocopy of his Appendix III: Definitions of Rocks. I'll try to get to the Univ library one of these days and look it up.
Most igneous rocks have been named for places where they occur, like syenite (Syene, Egypt). Charnockite is named for the tomb of Job Charnock. So blairmorite should be legit, even though someone did take me to task for using it a while ago. Georgialh (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Georgialh: another problem naming igneous rocks for their minerals is that most igneous rocks do not have their own unique minerals. Volcanoguy 05:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Bowerman, M., Christianson, A., Creaser, R.A. and Luth, R.W. (2006). "A petrographical and geochemical study of the volcanic rocks of the Crowsnest Formation, southwestern Alberta, and of the Howell Creek suite, British Columbia.". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 43: 1621-1637. Retrieved 2013-11-03. 
  2. ^ (Leckie, D.A. 1993. A guidebook on Lower Cretaceous sedimentology and stratigraphy of southern Alberta - tectonic and eustatic implications and economic significance. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2683, 73 p.
  3. ^ Goble, R.J., Treves, S.B. and Murray, V.M. 1999. Cretaceous intrusions in the Commerce Mountain and adjacent areas of southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 36: 1939-1956.
  4. ^ Amajor, L.C. 1985. Biotite grain size distribution and source area of the Lower Cretaceous Viking bentonites, Alberta, Canada. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 33: 471-478.
  5. ^ A. Johannsen, 1933. A descriptive petrology of the igneous rocks. 4 volumes. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Your GA nomination of Itcha Range[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Itcha Range you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Most certainly didn't take 7 days! I've posted a review, with very little needed to change. This is an excellent article that will get it's green button quickly. I've added a few additional comments in case you are considering starting the path to a FA nomination, as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Itcha Range[edit]

The article Itcha Range you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Itcha Range for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Blairmorite Image[edit]

The image is up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgialh (talkcontribs) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boulder Creek (Lillooet River), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pemberton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Disaster management.

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disaster management for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 20:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hydrothermal vents[edit]

Hey Volcanoguy. The reason for removing the "parenthesis" was purely out of simplification and I did not feel that this was an issue. Adding parenthesis is an act of noting the subtle differences on disambiguation pages or qualifying articles based on existing and/or competitive subdivisions. Removing the parenthesis from the article does not make it less a common name, whereas the short format Magic Mountain or Lost City does show ambiguousness: the name change just removes the ambiguity created by the Wikipedia markup. As much as it is common to use parenthesis to qualify on disambiguation pages, it is not necessarily needed on article pages. The original article already used "Hydrothermal Vent" in its title, I just removed extraneous text. Any search for "Magic Mountain" would have returned a disambiguation page showing the obvious links, and any search for Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Vent, would go directly there without the parenthesis. If you feel that it is overstepping, I invite you to revert, I will not insist (I'm not a purest). Thanks. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zeorymer: there is a difference between "Magic Mountain" and "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field". What I am trying to say is that it is more commonly referred to as just "Magic Mountain", not "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field". "Magic Mountain" is a disambiguation page and the Magic Mountain field is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that is why "(hydrothermal field)" was added in the title. Volcanoguy 15:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Your right in addressing that there is a difference between "Magic Mountain" and "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field", but not in the way you stated. Regardless, as I stated, this is not an issue. As they say "be bold". I invite you to revert those changes. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Itcha Range[edit]

The article Itcha Range you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Itcha Range for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maitland Volcano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific notation[edit]

Hi, you left a plea for help at the Math Wikiproject page which should have been directed to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics since it didn't really involve the math articles. But to answer your question - you are dealing with Scientific notation, very common in the physical sciences and engineering. For your specific example, ~10-4 km3yr-1, the twiddle (~) means approximately, 10-4 = 0.0001 (see the article), and km3yr-1 gives the units which in this case are cubic kilometers per year (it is a rate of flow, so expressed as a volume per some time period). I haven't seen the -1 exponent used in a units expression very often, but that is a stylistic convention. I would have expected to see it written as km3/yr. I hope this helps. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wcherowi: I'm just a bit puzzled since I am not used to seeing things like that. You can find the paragraph I quoted here on pages 1284 and 1285. It says "the eruption rate increased markedly (e.g., ~10–4 km3 yr–1) when volcanism began at Level Mountain at 15 Ma." Okay. After that it states "when Mount Edziza began to erupt (ca. 7 Ma), rates of magmatism for the northern Cordilleran volcanic province increased to ~3 × 10–4 km3 yr–1." I'm guessing this is a greater measurement since they say the magmatism rate increased. But how much of a difference is that to ~10–4 km3 yr–1? Then after that it says the "rates of magmatism have remained relatively constant at 10–4 km3 yr–1", which is similar to what is given for when volcanism began at Level Mountain. I say similar because they don't give the twiddle (~) for that rate. Then it says "current rates of magmatism for the northern Cordilleran volcanic province are much less than those estimated for Hawaii (10–1–10–3 km3 yr–1; Shaw, 1987) or the Cascade volcanic arc (0.2–6 km3 yr–1; Sherrod and Smith, 1990)." How much of a difference are the Hawaii and Cascade Arc magmatism rates to the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province rates of 10–4 km3 yr–1 and ~3 × 10–4 km3 yr–1? Volcanoguy 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

After Edziza erupted the flow rate increased to 0.0003 km3/yr (300% of what it was before). The Hawaii estimate is given as a range from 0.1 to 0.001 km3/yr (are you sure you copied that correctly? Ranges are usually given from smaller to larger values, and this isn't) and the Cascade arc ranges from 0.2 to 6.0 km3/yr. The Hawaii values range from 1000 to 10 times those of Cordilleran, while the Cascade values are 2000 to 60,000 times as large. All these values are approximate estimates, so I wouldn't put much store in the fact that some of them are reported without the twiddle. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wcherowi: sorry for the long response time; I have been busy collecting information to rewrite the Level Mountain article. Yes the Hawaiian values were copied correctly, don't know why the range is given from larger to smaller values. Volcanoguy 08:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Maitland Volcano[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ray Mountain[edit]

Hi -- can you add any sources to your article on Ray Mountain? I went looking and was unable to find any, and was about to propose the article for deletion until I noticed that you are still active on Wikipedia. The article has been unsourced since 2006. Thanks! —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tim Pierce: I just added a source. Volcanoguy 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Mountains under 1000 metres[edit]

Hi Volcanoguy, I see you reverted again my attempt to clarify this category (which I created a while back) with a lower limit. So where do you see the lower height limit for a mountain? 900 m? 500 m? 300 m? 100 m? 10 m? 1 m? Clearly the lower we set it the more 'bumps' get included. But IMHO we should try and base it on some standard in the English-speaking world. The US doesn't have one, Britain and Ireland do. I'm not sure about Canada, Australia or South Africa, etc. Alternatively, if we can't agree where the limit is, confusion will reign and we may as well delete it. Thoughts? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the point there is no universally accepted definition of a mountain. The UK and Ireland may have a definition for what a mountain is in their country but that definition is not the same worldwide. So you have landforms below 600 metres outside of Ireland and the UK called mountains as well. I don't know what the problem is to just include landforms that are called mountains. I am keeping a WP:NPOV view here as the category should be used fairly without bias. Volcanoguy 08:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The point which the text acknowledged clearly. And since there is no universal definition, there can be no such thing as a NPOV - wherever we decide the lower cutoff is will be our POV. In my case, I have based it on the only official definition I can find, backed up by a Dictionary of Geography source; you've just fixed it at 1 m, since no cutoff means anything counts. So several hills were included in the category that even failed the old US definition of a mountain being 1,000 feet and others were part of "Foo Hills" , so clearly not considered mountains either. There's not much point having a category if people can't see what's "in" and what's "out" of it. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: I am still in disagreement with you. If a geographic feature is known as a mountain it's a mountain, simple as that. As a result such things belong in mountain categories, including Category:Mountains under 1000 metres. You are defining what a mountain is based on an Ireland/UK definition, which is a bit on the POV side since you are not representing a worldwide view on the issue. If there is no universal definition for something you are not supposed to use a definition that is only for two countries in Europe. To tell you the truth there are geographic features called hills that have elevations greater than 600 metres as well. What are you going to do there? Volcanoguy 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If a mountain is known "by whom" as a mountain? Is the Teckberg a mountain? The Täfelberg? The Wilseder Berg? And having listened to your argument, I've moved on from using the UK/Irish definition guideline universally and changed the guideline to absolutely reflect a worldwide view - inviting other editors to suggest refinements. Of course, you will always get the occasional hill called "Foo Mountain" and occasional mountain called "Foo Hill" but then a Bombay Duck is not a duck... --Bermicourt (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I should have said that I also replied to your comments on the talk page of the category - you may not have seen my latest form of words which are genuinely trying to be inclusive of different national perspectives. Bermicourt (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)