Talk:2018 lower Puna eruption

Article creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Fettlemap (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I created this article so that information too detailed for the parent Kīlauea article could be added here. I moved a substantial part of the material in this article from the Kīlauea article. The article has been tagged for merger, which I obviously oppose. Jusdafax (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep separate This current eruption cycle has been uniquely destructive to the human population there, unlike most eruptions which normally pour lava into the Pacific. 30 structures destroyed, brand new rifts, and evacuation of the area. There has already been discussion about whether or not the area should be permitted to rebuild. This cycle is likely to generate lasting changes in the area, to both the population of the area, and regulation of permits to build on active volcanoes going forward. This is a new article documenting an ongoing situation, and is likely to be expanded. Let's keep this article separate, and allow it to expand. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please vote on other talk page. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations

There are two of the same citations. #10 and #14, I don't know how to change it. Sorry.KittenDude172 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@KittenDude172:, Just made the change, let me know if that's what you were looking for. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much! KittenDude172 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge from earthquake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal withdrawn. It is clear that consensus to merge is not going to be reached at this time. Hopefully the people who opposed the merge will now expand the standalone earthquake article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Scott: I think your editorializing ("Hopefully ...") warrants sliding under your close to clarify a point: there is no onus on those of us who opposed a merger at this time to expand the earthquake article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Following the discussion at Talk:Kīlauea#Merge tag which agreed not to merge this article to Kīlauea, I propose a merge of 2018 Hawaii earthquake into 2018 lower Puna eruption as the earthquake appears to be a related event that caused only a fraction of the damage of the eruption. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support based on established Wikipedia custom, as with 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, in which eruption-related earthquakes are described as contextual events in the process of the eruption event. Bigturtle (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (unless a better case is made) as "appears to be a related event" is an insufficient basis (lots of topics are related; that's why we cross-link), and inconsistent with having the Puna eruption separate from Kilauea, even though they are strongly related. The comparison with Mt. St. Helens is inapt as (according to that article) there were thousands of quakes, none greater than M 5.1, while the Hawaii quake is a pretty significant 6.9. And in no way shows an "established Wikipedia custom". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I chose cautious language as I am a long way from the subject, so just because I have not seen any reports that the earthquake was a completely independent event is not conclusive to me that there had not been such reporting. I have seen that there were lots of smaller ones before and after the largest one that the article is about. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course the quake is not "completely independent" of the eruption. But neither is the eruption "completely independent" of Kilauea, which was not merged.

The 2018 Hawaii earthquake article is short because, like many earthquake articles, it is a stub. While its notability might be questioned, a magnitude of 6.9 Mw is pretty significant. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support – the earthquake doesn’t seem to be that independently notable from the eruption. The 2018 Hawaii earthquake article is short and is either composed of information already present in the 2018 lower Puna eruption article or can easily be fit into the latter article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support – the earthquake doesn’t seem to be that independently notable from the eruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.59.182.2 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The earthquake article is rather bare bones in content. Merging them together would give readers more clarification to the event. INeedSupport (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The earthquake is probably related to the eruption in some way, but nobody has proven a causative link. The earthquake is independently notable, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines. There will be scientific papers written about this soon enough - a reverse fault event on the flank of a volcano is unexpected and how that fits in with the eruption we can only speculate at this stage. Mikenorton (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in the earthquake article at present to indicate to most readers that it was a different kind of earthquake than would normally be associated with magma movement and volcanic activity. The "type" in the infobox is not sourced or explained in the text. I did a trial merge in my sandbox and found that more text about the earthquake and the background to the eruption would help to make the page layout properly with the map, charts and two infoboxes on a range of window sizes. More text about the earthquake might demonstrate that it needs to be kept separate, too, as the current article doesn't demonstrate independent notability and only just scrapes across the line for the notability guideline. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It was the largest for 43 years - not a run of the mill volcano tectonic event. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There's "nothing in earthquake article at present" about the nature of the quake because at this point (as Mike said) it would be speculative. But there are some very intriguing possibilities. E.g.: part of the flank of the island, having been undercut along the coast, may have slipped downhill just a little bit, with the tension across the East Fissure Zone opening it up enough to permit magma transport. Which is to say: perhaps the eruption is a consequence of the earthquake. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were to speculate, I would suggest that the recent earthquake resulted from internal faulting within the Hilina Slump. There is a suggestion in our article (Morgan et al. 2003) that movement at the toe of the slump is currently being impeded and any further extension in the rift zone would have to be accommodated by shortening nearer the coast. That may be what we are seeing. Any substantial earthquake affects the plumbing of the volcanoes - see the 1868 Hawaii earthquake. This is all, however, pure OR. Mikenorton (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. ScottDavis has brought to my attention the Hilina Slump, which (after a little Googling) appears to be an instance of what I considered (just above) to be entirely speculative. What may be happening is that part of the island (volcano) maybe slumping, as has happened before, which caused the earthquake, and opened the fissure zone enough for the eruption. And could create a large tsunami. Which raises the possibility that both this article and the earthquake article are subordinate to the slump, and should be merged there. And leads to another reason to oppose this (or any) merge at this point: it is too early to tell just what all is happening, or going to happen, and so too early to determine the proper relationship. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Generally I'd suggest to follow the line of Hawaiian Volcano Observatory which reports earthquakes, events at the summit as well as at the lower rift zone in an often connecting view. At this point there seems to be enough evidence, that the deflation at the summit, the lowering of the lava both in Halemaʻumaʻu and Puʻu ʻŌʻō, and the fissure eruptions are connected somehow and are accompanied by earthquakes. The latest reports about magma of higher temperature from Puʻu ʻŌʻō feeding the fissures just add to that. However, J. Johnson (JJ) has a good point, too, not everything should be merged hastily. Therefore I just linked 2018 lower Puna eruption in Hilina Slump, because Hawaiian Volcano Observatory obviously reacted to recent speculations. For readers of this encyclopedic article all the recent volcanic activities (earthquakes, lava, plumes) should be described with a chronological frame, though it can be stated clearly as well, if the causal interdependence of concurrent occurrences is not proofed. --ThT (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been avoiding linking anything to Hilina slump so far because it is in quite deplorable shape. (But we're working on it! Real Soon Now!) My studies to-date suggest that the quake and the eruption are not directly connected, but only indirectly through their connection with the slump. If the quake is deemed not notable enough for its own article then it should be merged with Hilina slump, where discussion of the 1868 and 1975 quakes provide a broader context. Although (frankly) I am not entirely convinced that this quake is not connected with the current eruption, which gets back to: it's too early to decide. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why I suggested to concentrate on concurrency for the decision about merging the articles, while describing dependencies between phenomena in the article itself in detail. However, the explanation of the USGS mentioned here should be included in this article as well as in Hilina Slump. Therefore I requested an archived version for stable citation: Kīlauea Eruption FAQs: General Questions at the Wayback Machine (archived 22 May 2018). --ThT (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The USGS posted a FAQ on the current Kilauea activity on their social media, one of which addressed their interpretation of the earthquake: "The "lurch" of the M6.9 earthquake was prompted by pressure in the east rift zone due to the magma intrusion. And we have seen strong earthquakes (usually M5) after similar, albeit, smaller intrusions in the recent past (like in 2007 and 2011)." That is, the earthquake was a precursor of the eruption caused as magma move in the east rift zone, but the earthquake was not directly connected to (and definitely did not directly cause) the eruption. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @J. Johnson and Mikenorton: According to the United States Geological Survey the quake was related to the new lava outbreaks: The "lurch" of the M6.9 earthquake was prompted by pressure in the east rift zone due to the magma intrusion., cf. Kīlauea Eruption FAQs: General Questions at the Wayback Machine (archived 22 May 2018). The before unanswered question of simultaneity or dependency seemed to be the only reason for opposition to the merge. therefore I'd like to ask the opponents, if they want to reconsider their votes in the light of the new information from the USGS. Best, --ThT (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw something like that. But note: I am not saying that the earthquake and the eruption are not connected, nor am I saying that saying that these two articles should never be merged. What I oppose is merging them now, before there is more information. Indeed, why the haste to merge? Given all that this article covers, the earthquake seems quite a minor aspect. So mention it, but why does that require suppression of the earthquake article? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The southern flank of the island is undergoing semi-continuous gravitational collapse. The latest earthquake is just part of that process, albeit that it may well have been triggered (as opposed to caused) by the recent eruptive phase - note the use of the word "prompted". As J. Johnson has said above, there's no rush to decide on this. Mikenorton (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I cannot see any haste here, but an interesting discussion based on published facts. However, the phrase suppression of the earthquake article seems to uncover some psychological reason for opposition which carries away from a fact based discussion. As stated before, earthquakes are an essential part of volcanic activities, and as far as I understand this specific article about the current eruption events was established separately from the Kīlauea article because of the damaging effects to lower Puna. This is a more general (and in my view more encyclopedic and reader oriented) approach as the rather specific geological scope considering the quite sophisticated debate about detailed inter-dependencies. With a more general view the articles overlap to a large extent (considering general volcanic activity and its damage to lower Puna), and there's no need for a separate entry for every concept (WP:MERGEREASON) like Hilina Slump related earthquakes vs. eruption events. According to WP:PM I'll notify appropriate Wikiprojects to get a wider range of opinions. --ThT (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The effect of a merger would be to delete the earthquake article, which, coupled with this insistence on doing that now, does seem rather like "suppression". I do object to your characterization of "some psychological reason for opposition which carries away from a fact based discussion." We could as well wonder about "some psychological reason for hastiness". While I question whether there is any particular need to delete the quake article, my opposition is primarily on whether that needs to be done now, before we have all of the facts. I don't believe more opinions on this would be as useful as knowing more about the basis (psychological or not) of your opinion. And not so much the broad generalities of WP:MERGEREASON as the the specifics of why this merger must be done now. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to make it entirely clear, the earthquake was purely tectonic in nature although it may have been triggered by the current volcanic activity. It was nothing like the sort of minor earthquakes that are caused by the movement of magma through the crust during an eruption. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:Please don't make inaccurate claims about the merging procedure which might lead readers of this discussion to wrong conclusions. During a merge the article 2018 Hawaii earthquake would not be deleted, but changed into a redirect. This would preserve all prior versions of the article 2018 Hawaii earthquake in the version history. The merging procedure includes the citation and linking of the source article at the talk page of the destination page (see How to merge), which ensures the accessibility of the source page including the history of versions after the merge. --ThT (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears we have variant conceptions of what constitutes a "deletion". Retaining the past history of an article, while redirecting the Wikipedia entry for 2018 Hawaii earthquake from the actual article of that name to a section in a different article, amounts to deletion of the article. That the contents of the article are retained elsewhere is beside the point; they would no longer constitute a distinct, stand-alone article.

But all of this is rather beside the point, as in the end I don't necessarily care whether the earthquake article is merged and/or deleted. My objection is this rush to do this (see below). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mikenorton:Is there any reliable source for your statement the earthquake was purely tectonic in nature? --ThT (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The earthquake was the result of movement on a fault plane that dips (incline from the horizontal) at 20 degrees to the northwest - this is all backed up by the ANSS (USGS) source, particularly the "Finite Fault Model" sub-page. The area of significant slip (> 1m) extended about 60 km horizontally and 5-10 km down the fault plane - that's just estimating from the "Cross-section of slip distribution" diagram on that sub-page. Volcano tectonic earthquakes are a result of magma either injecting into the volcano or withdrawing from it causing a lot of minor seismic events as the rock is forced to change shape to accommodate the changes. Mikenorton (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be the same source (M 6.9 - 19km SSW of Leilani Estates, Hawaii (2018-05-04 22:32:54 UTC)) which reads in the Tectonic Summary: [...] This earthquake is directly associated with volcanic activity at Kilauea volcano, and the evolution of its rift system and volcanic edifice. [...] Best, --ThT (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a very general statement - what it doesn't say is that it's associated with the current volcanic activity. It's all about the continuing episodic collapse of Kilauea's southeastern flank (the volcanic edifice in question), which is directly associated with the rift zone. Mikenorton (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: This merge proposal was a consequence of the discussion of the merge proposal to combine merge the eruption article to the parent volcano article. It does not propose to delete any content, simply to arrange it in a different way, by more closely associating the two things that occurred on the south side of the island in the same week as they appear to be tightly connected. The discussion is not completed, and at least three articles have improved as a consequence of the discussion. There is no haste to merge before the conversation concludes. My "trial merge" linked above was to see what it would look like (at that stage), and I discovered it would look a lot better if there was more content about the earthquake so that the infoboxes did not butt up on wide screens. The major encyclopaedic value presently in the earthquake article is in the infobox and two charts. A merged article needs more prose to balance all the boxes. I'd like to see the earthquake article expand more to either a) support an aesthetically pleasing merged page or b) demonstrate that the article has sufficient material unrelated to the coincident eruption that it is easy to see why a reader would want to read one but not both articles. Note that earthquake categories could be applied to either the merged article or to the redirect page itself (redirects appear in category lists in italics). --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your conception of "hasty" is "before this conversation closes", my conception is "before the facts are in, and/or there is an opportunity to evaluate the prospects for expansion." And when I say "before the facts are in", I am not referring this discussion, but to scientific studies. (Which could take a year for initial results.)

As it stands, I agree that the earthquake article is pretty anemic. (As are many earthquake articles.) And if it wasn't for its fairly significant magnitude I would even favor deletion as non-notable. (With re-creation if further information or studies are forthcoming.) My issue here is NOT what happens to the article, but why its disposition must be decided before we know what is happening out there. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The conversation could conclude that there is value in maintaining a separate earthquake article. You and the others working on this and related articles might develop the article sufficiently that it will be obvious that it needs to remain distinct. There is no fixed timeframe on merge discussions, unlike deletion discussions that are only open for a week. Nobody has proposed deletion of any of these articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A merge – see WP:MERGE – is where "the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Which implies that one article (page) is deleted. (The redirect which typically replaces the deleted artice not being an article itself.) On the otherhand, if all you had in mind when proposing this "merge" was to incorporate material from the other article, perhaps you could have said that. (To which I think there is no objection, even if there is some trivial duplication.)

Whether there is value in maintaining a seperate earthquake article: that is a good question, but (as I have been saying) premature. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Merge - Keep the Earthquake infoboxes, though. Volcanic eruptions are almost always preceded by Earthquakes, and this earthquake appears to be a precursor to the current eruptive phase. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose They may be geologically related, but they had very different impacts. The effects of the eruption are pretty much concentrated in the south east corner of the Big Island. The Earthquake, while not destructive everywhere, was felt as a very significant one by people all over the island. This was certainly the case in Kona, 80 miles away, where I happened to be at the time. The earthquake led to people evacuating buildings. The eruptions are obviously not doing this in Kona. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 Are you able to add to the earthquake article some material about the ongoing effects and consequences? None of the references are presently later than May 5 and don't mention that there were any bigger effects than a road was closed (is it still closed because of earthquake damage?) and some buildings received minor damage, and that is cited to a news article that is primarily about the eruption. I've heard reports of helicopter evacuations relating to the eruption, but no significant emergency response about the earthquake as would be common for large earthquakes once the news gets out. The magnitude of this earthquake was larger than the 2011 Christchurch earthquake for example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no more than anyone else. I was only visiting, and had the good(?) fortune to be there for several days around the time when the current dramas began. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with comparing magnitudes is that no magnitude scale captures all aspects of the event/quaking. In particular, the M_w scale used for general isn't always the best measure of shaking. (Or of the liklihood of generating a tsunami; see M_t.) Also, the significance of a quake is to a large extent a function of its impact on the built (or at least inhabited) environment. Without any effect (cultural or scientific), yeah, there could be question of non-notability. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Both viewpoints make a strong case here. I’m now opposed to the merger, after much thought, for the simple reason that this article on the ongoing eruption keeps growing. Indeed, rather than start a new subsection on the Puna Geothermal Venture, where today a (capped) well was covered with lava, I decided to create, as you see, a new article to keep this one from being additionally expanded with material too detailed for its scope. Point being, the eruption shows no sign of slowing down, and this article is going to keep pace. Incorporating the earthquake article is not the way to go at this time. I thank those expressing their views, but under the circumstances let’s agree to close this discussion as “no consensus,” pull the merge tag, and see what happens in the weeks, and maybe months ahead. A merger may be appropriate down the road. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  In my view the creation of the article Puna Geothermal Venture is a different case, because the PGV not only existed before the actual eruption events but had obvious notability as well. Regarding the discussion here I still miss more reader-oriented and encyclopedic aspects as mentioned in WP:MERGEREASON. Also the two main opponents stated clearly, that they don't oppose the merger itself but rather object to merge the articles at this time. Therefore I still see a possible way to reach consensus and will follow the recommendation (Wikipedia:Merging#Caveats) to add a listing to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. --ThT (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. According to Wikipedia:Merging#Caveats the merger was added to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Awaiting consensus on May 28th. Inspired by the remark of Jusdafax "see what happens in the weeks, and maybe months ahead" and following my suggestion to include some reader-oriented and encyclopedic aspects I propose to integrate statistics of pageviews into the discussion here. --ThT (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? I think the "what happens" we watch should be any developments affecting notability, not WP page views. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So far the discussion here concentrated on quite specific geological questions. Thinking of Wikipedia:Readers first I just wanted to include some more general viewpoints. Of course that doesn't mean to depend on statistics only, but it might be helpful to incorporate some thoughts about the audience (Wikipedia:Reader) as well. --ThT (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The ultimate question here is whether the earthquake is sufficiently notable for its own article, per the WP:Notability guideline. Which says: "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.". If anyone – in "the audience" or not – can inform us on this, fine. It is quite clear (WP:BLUE) that the earthquake quite simply lacks the public interest that makes the eruption notable. But whether it might have scientific interest is something that will be hard to gage until an article or two come out – or don't. And that could take a year or two. I don't believe WP page views have anything to do with it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with J. Johnson. I strongly suggest that in the clear absence of consensus to merge that we close this proposal. The continued tag at the start is unsightly, especially since we also have a second one, and the merge proposal tag is disrupting the readability of the article. Add to that the fact that the eruption shows no signs of stopping and article here continues to grow. A mention of the earthquake in this article is enough, and there may be more to add to the earthquake article, as J. Johnson astutely notes. For these reasons we should close now. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if there should be no haste to merge as said before by some opponents to the merger, I think there should be no haste to close this discussion either. This article and the discussion about the merger is not for science exclusively but for a good piece of encyclopedic knowledge for readers. Therefore I suggest either to wait for a summary of the eruption episode by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory or to follow WP:MERGECLOSE: In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has been established; such a request may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard. --ThT (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been much discussion, by a fairly small number of editors, over the past three weeks. WP:MERGECLOSE suggests (but does not mandate) a 30-day discussion period. I initially proposed the merge primarily as a process action following the earlier discussion, but believe that Wikipedia:MERGEREASONs 4, 2 and 3 apply to this proposal. The eruption is the larger event that provides context for the 6.9 earthquake (and the 5.0 and 5.4 ones that do not have separate articles). The eruption text is 4 paragraphs (three of them short), plus the infobox and two charts which would be retained in a merge. It is now clear that the earthquake article is not being expanded, and it is unlikely that any future scientific publications will not also treat it in the context of the eruption. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support because both events are related, while the eruptions have proven far more notable than the quakes and therefore renders two separate articles redundant. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beemer69: Being related is an insufficient reason for a merge as there are tons of WP articles about related subjects. Would you agree to merge Kīlauea with Hawaii hotspot? I think not. Volcanoguy 07:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Simply because the significance of the 6.9 earthquake was a separate event albeit related to the 2018 Puna Eruption but not by cause or as a catalyst. The size of this particular earthquake was very prominent and distinguished itself as much larger than any earthquakes since the 1970s. The effects were felt across the entirety of the big island and it deserves its own historic note. (User talk:Sirsentence) 11:26, 4 June, 2018 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two topics both have their own notabilities. Volcanoguy 06:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Do people in Hawaii still speak of that earthquake as "the 2018 earthquake"? I looked at the USGS map and there have been a lot of significant earthquakes in the last 30 days (which no longer includes "the 2018 earthquake", but includes ten over M5.0), although I don't think any have been quite as strong. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Scott, I’m asking you, as the proposer, to withdraw this merger proposal. The merger tag at the top of the article has been there over a month now, and in my view there is no consensus for a merger. I prefer not to add to the administrator case load by adding to their requests for closure at WP:AN, but given the clear lack of recent movement, with no supporting !votes in the last two weeks, I’ll have to file a request this weekend if you disagree with my observation. Again, there is no consensus to merge in my opinion, and the stale proposal should be closed, and the tag removed. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image claiming to show Puʻu ʻŌʻō location is wrong

The image purports to show the location of Puʻu ʻŌʻō, but the spot marked on the image is too far east and probably meant to be the Leilani Estates/2018 eruption line of fissures. The image interior caption, viewable when the image is clicked on, also claims that Puʻu ʻŌʻō erupted after the 6.9 earthquake, when in fact the opposite is true: Puʻu ʻŌʻō shut down concurrent with the crater floor collapse. Since this is all unhelpful disinformation, I have removed the image, though it can be replaced once the issues are corrected. Jusdafax (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The new map added by Phoenix7777 is factually correct and improves reader understanding, thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest making a redirect from "2018 Hawaii volcanic eruption" to this page

This article does not currently show up if someone searches for "2018 Hawaii volcanic eruption". Could someone either create an automatic redirect or adjust the tags so that this one shows up in the suggested pages? Many visitors will be searching by "Hawaii" rather than "lower Puna". 38.108.59.142 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, good idea. When I created and named the article I took into consideration that Kīlauea had been erupting nearly continuously since 1983 and was still erupting at the summit caldera and Pu’u O’o, so since this was a different location, it deserved its own article to, among other reasons, not fill up the Kīlauea article. Kīlauea’s caldera is of course still belching intermittent if gigantic ash clouds over ten miles away, and the lower Puna fissures are a different issue. There is a link at the Wikipedia Kīlauea article to this one, but a redirect is a great call to help out the Googlers. I’d try making a redirect myself but don’t want to mess it up! Jusdafax (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Video

video

Edit by: 17:59, 22 May 2018‎ Victorgrigas

filename: Hawaii Mount Kilauea's eruption opens new lava vent.webm

VOA News, 14 May 2018

--Helium4 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Current disaster template

I added Template:Current_disaster to this article. I believe this template should be present as long as lava is flowing into inhabited areas or otherwise significantly affecting daily life in the region. The count of structures destroyed, roads blocked, etc., may change quickly. Per the template description, readers should be reminded that the article may not have the most current information, and other sources should be consulted. If the eruption ceases, or if the lava is flowing on less hazardous paths, I would recommend removing the template (it can always be restored if the eruption changes character again). GeoGreg (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Upper Puna" and "Lower Puna"

The terms "Upper Puna" and "Lower Puna" are used in these articles and in news reports, but what is the dividing line between the two parts of Puna? I can't find a clear source for this. One might think the boundary is Kīlauea's East Rift Zone, but I get the impression Lower Puna also includes nearby communities to the north like Pāhoa, and indeed the current most active lava channel is flowing much of its path through areas north of the rift. How far north does Lower Puna extend? - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be better if the title were to be renamed "2018 Puna eruption". I don't see a good reason why there should be a lower and upper distinction. Volcanoguy 20:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My decision to name the article “Lower Puna” was based on common usage, as used in our own article on Puna, Hawaii. Kīlauea’s active lava eruptive source until May 2018 was located at the summit caldera at 4,000 foot elevation. That’s Upper Puna. Leilani Estates, where erupting vents first opened in early May this year, is below 800 foot elevation. Making the distinction avoids confusing the current eruption location, which is ongoing for nearly two months now, with the previous sites uprift. Jusdafax (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Burning Methane vs. Burning Sulfur Controversy in USGS Photograph

This article uses a controversial description of a USGS photograph showing blue flames. The erroneous description states that it is burning methane, without proof or evidence to back that remarkable and controversial claim, given the absence of methane. It is far more likely to be burning sulfur, which produces a blue flame in the dark, is red when molten, and produces sulferous compounds such as sulfur dioxide gas (for which this article presents USGS personnel dtetecting using SO2 Monitors). Nowhere does this article produce evidence of methane, by way of methane or hydrocarbon gas detectors. This article produces copious evidence for Sulfur Dioxide emissions in the forms of Laze and Vog and therefore burning of sulfur into sulferous compounds. The photopgraph in question is suspicious because it only presents a night view of blue flames, which is precicesly when burning sulfur is visible as a blue flame. In efforts to present evidence that this is in fact burning sulfur rather than burning methane have met with fanatical and fantastic opposoition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This report quotes a geologist from the USGS saying that this is burning methane. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for bringing this up. The US Geological Survey has confirmed that the blue flames are burning methane, not sulfur. See the following sources: Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Volcano Watch article from May 24, 2018 ("Subsurface natural gas can also seep passively to the surface. With heat from molten lava, methane can burn with blue flames—like those recently observed on and near the current lava flows.") You can also see the USGS's multimedia page at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory. If you look at media from May 23, 2018 (you might have to scroll back a bit, or just use the search feature), the description of the media showing the blue flame reads, "A blue burning flame of methane gas was observed in the cracks on Kahukai Street during the overnight hours. When lava buries plants and shrubs, methane gas is produced as a byproduct of burning vegetation. Methane gas can seep into subsurface voids and explode when heated, or as shown in this video, emerge from cracks in the ground several feet away from the lava. When ignited, the methane produces a blue flame." I'll add these references into the article later today. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

And also this article from National Geographic. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

At the bottom of the National Geographic Article, the truth is squeezed out: "At the Kawah Ijen volcano in Indonesia, blue flames are a more common sight. There, the phenomenon is caused by sulfuric gases ignited by hot vents. Blue flames have also been documented at the Dallol volcano in Ethiopia, where they are created by sulfur dust in the region's soil." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"When lava buries plants and shrubs, methane gas is produced as a byproduct of burning vegetation" That's completely insane. Green shrubs and plants instantly converted into Methane Gas? There is no white paper on the planet that discusses, shows or even attempts to prove this outrageous fallacy. I challenge the credibility of this outrage. This is burning sulfur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur#/media/File:Burning-sulfur.png Now you show me green shrubs turning directly into methane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Why is the USGS lying to the public and producing false claims and frauulent reports without any evidence to back up their outrageously false claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Jim Kauahikaua, a USGS geologist in Hawaii seems to be the main source and author of the Burning Methane narative, while failing to give or offer up data of any sort of rmethane levels recorded. He had also stated that it was rare for him to see blue flames coming from a volcano, which may suggest his unfamiliarity with the idea of burning sulfur at volcanoes. To wit: "This is only the second time in his career that he's seen blue flames during an eruption, Kauahikaua said." The Kawah Ijen volcano on the island of Java, in Indonesia, does have blue flames at night and reddish-brown fumes during the day. For day/night views of the sulfur mining operation see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpK6-L-4hOk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Controversy Update: USGS Website appears to have taken down its claims for the burning methane narrative. ==> Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Volcano Watch article from May 24, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.181 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read up about some basic chemistry, you'd know well that methane is a common product of pyrolysis of organic matter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

New timeline article

I think there should be a more detailed timeline article of the events, going day by day. That would be interesting and very informative. Alex of Canada (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

USGS has been very good about keeping this pdf timeline up-to-date: [1]. It would be a good source to start with. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The little island

The little island formed July 13 or 14 and had been turned into a peninsula by the 16th...the current text implies it formed on the 16th.The Weather Channel article link isn't working for me.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A news item involving 2018 lower Puna eruption was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 6 May 2018.

Can it please show what exactly it said, if there's going to be that template on this page? Alex of Canada (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Kīlauea Iki

Kīlauea Iki has no recent significant edits. Has it been affected by this eruptive event? All of the other Kilauea articles seem to have received significant effect. It seems unlikely that it is still possible for tourists to walk across the floor of Kīlauea Iki. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Kilauea Iki is well outside the the major area of deformation at the summit, so it hasn't seen major collapse like Halema'uma'u or the main caldera have. Also, USGS has been using Volcano House as an observing area during the current round of activity and they reported that Volcano House has largely been unaffected by the activity. Kilauea Iki is even further away from the activity than Volcano House so I would assume it is also largely unchanged, though I have no source to back this up. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Include strombolian in infobox?

This paper states that the eruption at a portion of fissure 17 was strombolian. Does this mean strombolian should be added to the eruption type, or was strombolian activity too minor compared to the more typical Hawaiian activity? It was a lava bomb from this vent that broke the man's leg. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Slowing down the animated gif?

Re: the 2018 Lower Puna Eruption article

2018 lower Puna eruption

The animated gif at the top of this article shows the fissures and lava flows. But it currently changes frames so quickly that the labels within it aren't readable.

I suggest changing the speed, and submit a slowed-down version of the gif at the URL at the bottom of this post.

No other changes have been made to the gif.

https://ibb.co/3rD6Rtz CrabappleServiceberry (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)