Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Volcanoes / Canada (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Volcanism of Canada task force.
MSH82 st helens plume from harrys ridge 05-19-82.jpg
WikiProject Volcanoes

Main page
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5




Featured work
Open tasks
Popular pages

Anyone good at determining what article names should be?[edit]

I recently created a stub on the Gedamsa Caldera, based on GVP and did a bit of searching without much success to expand the content - after a bit of poking around I spotted that it is also spelled Gadamsa or Gedemsa - it looks like most of the other sources use the "Gedemsa" name,very few sources with the "gadamsa" name, so I guess that needs moving from the GVP name, and leaving the gvp name as a redirect?

Volcanology or Volcanism[edit]

I noticed that articles describing the distribution of volcanoes in a country are all now titled 'volcanology of', e.g. Volcanology of Italy, rather than 'volcanism of'. All of these articles basically describe volcanism rather than volcanology - there's very little in these articles about the study of volcanoes as such. The question is - why use the incorrect term volcanology? Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They were renamed so they would be coeval with other scientific articles (e.g. Geology of the United States). I do not see how it is incorrect to title it Volcanology of XXXX. According to the dictionary, volcanism is the phenomena connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity whereas volcanology is the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena. Obviously volcanism is a phenomenon of volcanology. Volcanoguy 06:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Took me a while to get my head around the reasons I thought Mike's question seemed correct, I think you've hit the nail on the head there Volcanoguy when you say "volcanism is the phenomena connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity whereas volcanology is the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena" if we break that up we get either
  • Volcanology of Italy - which is about the scientific study in italy of "volcanoes and volcanic phenomena"
  • Volcanism of Italy - which is about the phenomena in italy connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity
I think the latter is probably what we had in mind, though if there are distinctions between the various volcanic study methods in different countries, that may also be something of interest (not being facetious) but probably just an article's worth (I'd guess). It's pretty subtle and it might be that UK vs US english speakers use the words distinctly. EdwardLane (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The point is that volcanism is a volcanic phenomenon and is therefore a topic of volcanology. I don't really see the point in having separate articles for both volcanology and volcanism. Volcanoguy 10:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, I hear what you are saying, and I don't think it's a massive issue, just trying to see if my UK english is interpreting things differently. It seems to me that "volcanism of italy", and "volcanism of iceland" would tell me respectively about the volcanic phenomenon in italy and iceland. While I would expect articles titled "volcanology of italy", and "volcanology of iceland" would tell me about the scientists studying things and their methods in italy and iceland, but not tell me about the volcanic phenomenon (except where it was mentioned incidentally to illustrate some point or other) - but that's not what those articles are about (and I doubt there is enough desire/content to make such - though if there are big differences there might sensibly be a seperate article called "differences in volcanolgy internationally".) - so I'm inclinded to think that those articles probably ought to be renamed as "volcanism of ..." does that make sense ? EdwardLane (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To tell you the truth I don't really care if the title is "Volcanology of" or "Volcanism of" I just see "Volcanology of" as a more appropriate title for Wikipedia's standards. You say articles titled "Volcanism of" would tell you about the volcanic phenomenon but expect articles titled "Volcanology of" to tell you about the scientists that have studied this science. If that is the case then why do other science articles such as Geography of Canada or Geology of Mars talk about features, history, structure, etc. instead of scientists? All of the ology articles I have seen on Wikipedia describe the features of that particular science. Volcanoguy 11:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Archive_4#Article_titles where this was briefly discussed leading to the renaming of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with returning to volcanism of ... for the articles per the comments above and google searches of "volcanology of" and "volcanism of". Vsmith (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Eruptions or Paroxysms[edit]

Hi Folks, Just been looking briefly at Calbuco (volcano) as the bbc is reporting a 3rd eruption, but (as I mention on the calbuco talk page) I think of fresh eruptions as being after a hiatus or period of dormancy - but I wonder how short a hiatus needs to be to make it a new eruption rather than a paroxysm of the same eruption. Is that determined by the lack of new magma arrival/forming in situ long enough for an eruption to stop (and stop for how long) ? Is there a technical line drawn in the sand anywhere ? EdwardLane (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently expanded/created articles[edit]

I've recently created/expanded the Uturunku, Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex, Aguas Calientes caldera and Agua Poca articles, about South American volcanism. I wanted to know what the folks of this WikiProject think of these articles as they are now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating/expanding these articles - some good, much-needed additions to Wikipedia's coverage of the volcanism of South America. I've had a quick look at them and I've made some changes, mostly to the introduction sections, which I hope are constructive. I'll try to find some more time soon to look at the other sections of the articles' text.
One point I want to mention is that in the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex article, the first sentence is "The Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex (Spanish: Complejo volcánico Altiplano-Puna), also known as APVC, is a complex of volcanic systems in the Puna of the Andes." You link Puna to the Puna de Atacama article, but I think there are more Punas or a bigger area of Puna involved in this complex, e.g. in Bolivia, not only the Atacama Puna. Therefore, if you were using Puna de Atacama as only one example, I think it would be better to create/link an article that was about Punas in general. I did not understand the concept of Puna from the current text. From my limited knowledge of Punas (obtained from some web pages), Puna seems, to be synonymous with either (a) all of the Altiplano or (b) only grassland parts of the Altiplano, but I am very unsure about this. I suggest that you could try to clarify Puna in the article.GeoWriter (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am no professional editor, so I generally don't mind copyedits. These edits seem good to me. As for the Puna question, the sources were using the term not for a part of the Altiplano, but for the highland to the south of it, on the Chile-Argentina border. Incidentally, I have a longer list of articles to write or expand, my time permitting (while being at an university broadens one's ability to access non-opensource sources, it also uses up a lot of free time). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoes in China[edit]

Hi folks, I was just idly looking for interesting volcanoes in china, when I realised that they are almost absent from wikipedia. I've started tryingt o piece things together but if anyone wants to make any of the many red links below into articles that would be a start I guess.

I discovered this template which was incomplete

and this list which was slightly less incomplete List_of_volcanoes_in_China

but then I stumbled onto a bunch of redlinks in List_of_protected_areas_of_China

and that suggested there should probably be

and then I've stumbled over Zhanjiang which says Huguangyan National Geopark: This scenic area is a national geological park famous for its natural volcano relic. It has the most typical and largest maar (volcanic) lake in the world.

and also enping is known for the many hot springs in its countryside. - it's got a listing on the list of protected areas in china too, there are probably.

OK I think that's probably too much - apologies if I've overdone it EdwardLane (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There are lots and lots of volcanoes that could get better articles. The number and content of reliable sources way outweighs the amount of what is in use on Wikipedia. I took a stab at expanding the South American coverage; I suspect that some of these articles could be expanded/created with Chinese and English sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

yes there is a lot to cover - but I think I'll see what gvp have to offer on the volcanic groups, that should be a decent start EdwardLane (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I've added a bit to the list of volcanoes in china article with references that link to the relevant gvp articles - but it's a lot of red links at the moment. and I've added a 'non reliable' sources into my earlier comment, I'm guessing those should not be used ? EdwardLane (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)