Talk:Volcano

History of volcanology section

The heading is off topic. I have not added off topic template which was my first reaction as actually what is needed is a complete rewrite as a History of Volcanoes section with references to total misconceptions, before there was a science of volcanology. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

pls lemme edit 96.27.136.162 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Active worlds in the Solar System" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Active worlds in the Solar System has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 10 § Active worlds in the Solar System until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

I maybe have found a mistake which is "the double s" in the last line of the introduction- See "the double s" volcanoes on other celestial bodies. 2405:201:C40D:C8C7:E4E2:3AE1:D089:99E (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. _ZZ^Z'S 14:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

User did not understand the use of the § symbol displayed before a subsection redirect is my guess 17:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC) ChaseKiwi (talk)

That's just an internal section link using the section sign - see MOS:SECTIONLINKS. Mikenorton (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

New lead image?

I believe the current lead image doesn't show the structure of the volcano very well, not to mention that it doesn't have the best quality. I propose we replace the lead image with a better photo that shows the shape of the volcano, preferably cone-shaped with an eruption column or visible lava. It should have some quality, preferably be a FP, QI, or VI. For example, File:Mayon Volcano eruption at Daraga Church.jpg could be a replacement. _ZZ^Z'S 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Litli-Hrútur 2023

Certainly better image. The structure is irrelevant but the lead pictures I agree should be eyecatching and as its hard to have both hot lava and an exceptional eruption column in one, I wonder if two thumbs at top would be better. Another recent good picture gives both the lava and a nice separate cone in background: ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not like the File:Mayon Volcano eruption at Daraga Church.jpg photo because too much of the volcanic cone is obscured by a pyroclastic flow. In my opinion, the photo would be a good candidate for showing a pyroclastic flow in e.g. the pyroclastic flow article, but not so good for showing the shape of a volcano in the volcano article. I prefer another image of Mayon: File:Mayon 2 Allan Jay Quesada.jpg, which shows the conical shape of the volcano landform, clearly visible dark-coloured lava flows extending from the summit crater down the cones flanks, as well as a plume of gas escaping from the summit crater. From a photography perspective, it is high resolution and well exposed. I agree that more than one photo in the lead section, each showing different features of volcanoes, could work well because it is indeed difficult to show multiple features in a single photo. The table of contents of this article is long, so in the desktop version of the article there is plenty of white space that could be used for photos. I suggest that rather than removing the current Sabancaya photo, it should be kept but with one or a few new photos placed above it. GeoWriter (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Another possible candidate for a lead image is File:Augustine volcano Jan 24 2006 - Cyrus Read.jpg. This photo shows the stereotypical cone shape without obstruction, shows solidified lava flows on the cone flanks, has an active gas plume of steam at its summit (the photo was taken on a relatively quiet day about halfway through a 4-month-long eruption), and has quite good pixel resolution: 3,264 × 2,448 (4.85 MB) (an improvement compared to the current Sabancaya image which is 2,048 × 1,366 (1.52 MB)). GeoWriter (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the Augustine volcano for top image. For skins that do not display table of contents white space we have no more than two or three thumbs. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I also like the proposed image. The only problem I have with it is that it has blown highlights. It is certainly not the best image, but it will do. _ZZ^Z'S 15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that I should now replace the Sabancaya photo with the File:Augustine volcano Jan 24 2006 - Cyrus Read.jpg photo. Of course, if any other good photo is found in the future, we can update the lead image yet again, but at least we will have moved on from the Sabancaya photo. GeoWriter (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the only participants unanimously support your proposed image, despite the blown highlights, I'll go ahead and replace the image. If anyone changes their mind or has a better image, address it here instead of replacing. _ZZ^Z'S 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)