Talk:Viedma (volcano)

¿Argentina? ¿Chile? - The international territory is not delimited yet on the South Ice Fields. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.86.219 (talk) 21:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Cambio en la página

He corregido, pués el volcán aparecia asociado a Argentina, sin embargo, está en una zona no demarcada por lo tanto ninguno de los dos países puede adjudicarselo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.223.36.177 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance from the GVP database

@Chaiten100:, I've reverted this edit. That the volcano no longer appears on the Global Volcanism Program database does not automatically mean that the volcano does not exist; it could also mean that there is a database hiccup. Per WP:NOR we need sources which explicitly says that it does not exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please revert to my original edit? I have re-read the source papers which are cited on this page, and it is clear that Viedma is not a volcano. The GVP catalogue owners tweeted that they had removed the volcano from the catalogue in January; it is no longer listed by GVP as it is not a volcano. Chaiten100 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Um, link to the Tweet? While it's clear that Viedma nunatak is not a volcano - something reflected in the article - it's not so clear that there isn't a volcano at Viedma (glacier) and a number of sources call a volcano there "Viedma", so one has to be clear whether we are talking about the nunatak or the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What you are discussing is remarkably similar to the case of El Arenal, a mountain in the Northern Patagonian Ice Field once believed to be a volcano. Was there not remote sensing study that looked into the lavas of Viedma? Or was that Lautaro perhaps? Mamayuco (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:I have now found the GVP tweet and updated the links to clarify the status of Viedma, and the fact that it is no longer recognised as a volcano, thanks. I hope this looks OK now.Chaiten1 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but that tweet only says that the Viedma Nunatak is not a volcano. Which the article already says. I don't think that's enough to discredit the entire volcano and the GVP is not quite the last word on such matters. I've done a somewhat smaller edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no published peer-reviewed evidence that Viedma *ever* was a volcano. It is all speculation or inference - which has been superceded by more recent field investigations in the area. This is why it is not in the GVP database anymore - so I just don't understand why you would not wish the wikipedia page to adequately evidence the past history (that it was thought to be a volcano), and the continued uncertainty over its status. Chaiten1 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Except for all these sources that discuss a "Viedma" volcano, you mean? Not all of them did refer to the nunatak as the volcano. Just because the nunatak isn't a volcano does not mean that all mentions of a "Viedma" volcano are false - there is an entire section discussing subglacial vents, fissure vents etc. I think you are inferring too much from the GVP's actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)