Talk:Volcanism of Java

Improper tone

This article is written in the form of a narrative, improper in an encyclopaedic setting. Replaced the very general cleanup tag with a specific tone one. --Joshua Boniface 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mount Merapi

Mount Merapia section directly contradicts the article to which it links. rhaas 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD?

This article is a disgrace! Should either be re-written or it deserves AFd - for no refs, no sources, very poor writing,and other crimes not worth drawing attention to. SatuSuro 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

YEs - completely agree. This article is rubbish but the topic is very important. I made a start, but when i get the time i will work on it much more - anyone else of course feel free in the meantime. I think i will start by ripping out most of what is here, merge this page with the page for the Category:Volcanoes_of_Java and provide GENERAL info on the significance of volcanoes to Java (ecologically, culturally, historically, etc) rather than reams of info on specific mountains which would belong on individual mountain pages. I have some reasonably academic sources at home on this - but time is the issue. Merbabu 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and agreement.. Time is always the issue :) I am about to uncover materials in the near future. SatuSuro 09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this article is necessary, as each volcanoe has its own article page. It would be better to put this article as category page as Merbabu suggested. I am going to help, but in the specific each volcanoe section. I voted for AFD. — Indon 07:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It was important for an overview (sigh) with a list and links, but now its gone for afd (sigh) - the context of the original message above was - either re-written.. or afd for the very specific reason as an overview article, it can place linking information that would otherwise be repeated in all the separate volcano articles. The problem with putting up for afd is that editors with no knowledge of java (is it coffee? or the programming language) or volcanoes tend to join in (sigh). Merbabu had agreed but the topic is very important which I agree having lived in the shadow of an active javan volcano (sigh) Here we go again! SatuSuro 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Afd?

Its not on the log - it would be better to have a discussion here first. It should be retained as an overview article:

• List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct
• Map of Volcanoes
• General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone)
• General bibliography

It should not be deleted for those reasons  :) SatuSuro 08:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about shifing that sort of info to the category Volcanoes of Java - and then linking this page to the category? Is there anything stopping us making an article out of the category page? That way we have this general info and can "automatically" update the list - AND it is all in one spot. One problem with wikipedia is you often get this kind of repetition. But, once again, it is the time to do it. Merbabu 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article as a "mother" article can link to the others - IMHO you cannot simply put the info into the the catgory page, but maybe you can. SatuSuro 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea of using the category page only occured to me the other day - seems to make better sense than two similar pages (ie, this one and the category). Who says we can't? ;-). Anyway, i started the process the other day. Just to be clear, i would not suggest moving much of the info that is in this article - quality is an issue. Rather, start again with the type of info that you and i (and hopefully some of the others soon) have suggested here. Merbabu 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Volcanology of Canada which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)