Talk:Parícutin

Monogenetic?

The article contains a definition for MONOGENETIC which is at odds with the definition on the linked article for monogenetic volcano and also at odds with the description with the definition at paricutin.com Enhandle (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)enhandle

The wording was certainly imprecise; I've tried to improve it. But are you sure the articles are inconsistent? I don't see it. Perhaps you might be getting confused between the definitions given for monogenetic volcano and for monogenetic volcanic field. --Avenue (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Regional Volcanoes

I found a particular sentence in the article confusing, specifically: "Parícutin is merely the youngest of more than 1,400 volcanic vents that exist in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and North America". I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the information presented in a manner that "gels" conceptually, so that I can feel as though I've understood the point being made. I guess I'm having trouble following how I should take one very specific point of detail (the Belt), and then "and" it together with a broad, general grouping such as "North America".

For starters, isn't the Belt part of North America? Doesn't that make it a redundancy, having mention of both? Beyond that, with only the one numerical figure provided, the uncertainty as to relative "weight" becomes apparent. I don't know how "big" the Trans-Mexican Belt is in terms of volcano count, vs. how many are found in other locations on the continent. But reading the sentence has left me a tiny bit frustrated, wondering. Is there any way that part of the article can make its point more clearly? FeRD_NYC (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That sentence could use some rewording too. It would probably be better if it were wriiten like this: "Parícutin is the youngest of more than 1,400 volcanic vents in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt of Mexico". Volcanoguy 17:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Level

I find this sentence a little difficult: " In 1952 the eruption ended and Parícutin went quiet, attaining a final height of 424 meters (1,390 ft) above the cornfield from which it was born." My problem - and I hope it isn't just nitpicking - is that although I can see what it means, it's a bit of an odd way of putting it because the cornfield was no longer there. If it said it rose to a final height above some bigger feature, such as a plateau or floodplain, that was still there then I can see how it would work but here we are referring to a reference height - which is fair enough - of something which no longer exists. I'm wondering about trying changing it to something - if I can find it - which (I hope) doesn't lose the sense but is more factual and doesn't use the rather journalese shorthand of referring to the field as if it is still there, and perhaps growing corn (goak here), in the comparison. What do you think? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it is a bit odd too. However, I do not know how to reword it since I do not know too much about Parícutin. Volcanoguy 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted a reword, see what you think. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent Facts

"Only two people were killed by pyroclastic lightning..." "...three people died after being struck by lightning generation by pyroclastic eruptions." This is one of my biggest pet peeves about Wikipedia—writers who state something in one paragraph that conflicts with a statement in a later paragraph. It happens all the time. Has no one else read the article and noticed this error? 73.173.114.38 (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dubious -- Youngest Volcano

I don't like to remove cited material, but I think on this occasion, this is demonstrably wrong, because Eldfell is younger, forming in 1973. Op47 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have no such hesitations. Cited or not, it is demonstrably wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.106.237 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parícutin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928012852/http://mapserver.inegi.gob.mx/geografia/espanol/estados/mich/elecaciones.cfm?c=1208&e=16&CFID=83246&CFTOKEN=47858644 to http://mapserver.inegi.gob.mx/geografia/espanol/estados/mich/elecaciones.cfm?c=1208&e=16&CFID=83246&CFTOKEN=47858644

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The reference at the end is: Thomas P. Lewis, Hill of Fire (pictures by Joan Sandin). Harper Collins 1971. ISBN 0-06-444040-0. A.Kracher (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Height

In the Info box, it reports a prominence 208m, but in the text is say 465m. This should be resolved. Mukogodo (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)