Talk:Volcanism on Io

Good Article Nomination?

Since it looks like the peer review process appears to be slowing down, perhaps we should take this article to the next step in the process, a Good Article nomination? Would give the article another pass through another set of reviewers, the GA folks. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested, it might even be worth taking it straight to the FA folks...get the strictest review possible. It isn't necessary to go peer->GA->FA, unless simply by choice. I apologise for not working on the article lately (though it appears you have things well under control)...I just haven't had time to devote to sitting down and working through everything. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post a link to the review to the Geology and Volcano Wikiprojects, then wait a few days to submit it for FAC. --Volcanopele (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Radioactive heating

I just removed radioactive heating as the earth's heat source driving volcanism, and replaced it with a very hot interior and mantle convection transferring that heat upward. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but radioactive heating only really matters in the crust. I may have gotten too specific into volcanism; delete if necessary. Awickert (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, volcanism is driven by a warm interior and mantle convection. But the source of THAT heat is primarily radioactive isotope decay. True, it isn't the only one, heat from accretion for example, but that passages purpose was to explain the heat source on Io, and to say that the source of heat causing melting in the interior comes from tidal heating. This differs from the earth, where tidal heating (from the sun and moon) is negligible. So I would disagree with this edit, mostly because I think that is a bit too much explanation for the lead section of an article about Io's volcanism. --Volcanopele (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I ended up reverting, but beefed up that bit with a reference and a few more wikilinks. Again the idea is to compare heat sources, not drivers. --Volcanopele (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in general you're right on the decay - I just checked a few references too - I wasn't sure if it was still the most important, or if it was just the early quickly-decaying isotopes that gave a big bang at the start and outweighed the present-day additions (so I was interpreting "radioactive decay" to be present, not cumulative, but removing that assumption makes the statement work. But in any case it turns out that present-day radioactive decay heat production is 80% of what drives the mantle, and 20% is from earlier heat (also mostly from earlier radioactive decay) so it's good - sorry about the slip-up!

But for the article, what I was originally trying to address (and got side-tracked) is that a non-expert reader would think that radioactive decay is directly melting rock and causing volcanism. Perhaps "This differs from the heat source for Earth's volcanism, which comes primarily from radioactive isotope decay." could be replaced with something like, "This differs from the Earth, where volcanism is caused by mantle convection, which is an effect of internal heating by radioactive isotope decay," stressing the "internal". Awickert (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be a bit much for the lead, but how about: "This differs from Earth's internal heating, which is derived primarily from radioactive isotope decay." Not saying that you aren't bringing up good points, I just think that it might be too much explanation about Earth's internal heating in a lead section about Io's volcanism. I would definitely look at the "Heat Source" section. I have no problem with detailing an explanation of the differences there. --Volcanopele (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good for the lead. I'll make an edit on the "heat source" section, to try to better-express what you're saying there, because it sounds like you're talking about convection and upwelling as a source, and not just as an effect from internal heating. Check my edit and tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awickert (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mantle convection is a driver for initiating volcanism on the surface, but bringing magma to the lithosphere and surface. This is true on Io AND Earth But you need a heat source initiate and sustain this convection. On Io, the heat source is tidal heating. On Earth, it is a combination of radioactive isotope decay, residual heat from the compression of Earth's interior during accretion, and heat from impacts. The "Heat Source" section refers to the source of the internal heat (what causes partial melting and mantle convection), not the driver that brings magma to the lithosphere and the surface. Perhaps a mention of that should be provided, but the driver of Ionian volcanism doesn't really differ from that of hot spot volcanism on Earth. --Volcanopele (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on most of what you're saying - but I'm confused because you included mantle convection and upwelling in what you wrote, and are now saying that it shouldn't be there. My concern in the edit is that your text made it look like the source, and not the transport mechanism, was upwelling and convection.

As to what you're saying here, hot spot volcanism on Earth is not a part of the standard Earth convective system - that which has its surface expression in plate tectonics - it is instead the result of single upwelling plumes of hot material (which probably create very tiny convective cells, but aren't part of the main convective system). And that's what I tried to differentiate in the article. So although Io has hot spots, at least to my knowledge, it doesn't express itself across the whole body and surface as a coherent set of plate tectonics as a result of the convection. And if hot spots are the main source, than it would be more of a model of local vertical mixing through plumes than whole-body vertical mixing through tectonics and general convection. So does Io have convection, or just a series of hot spots? And this is what would differentiate the mechanism, and not only the source from that of Earth. Awickert (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I also deleted the reference to the Moon because it's geologically +/- dead at the moment, and has no volcanism or whole-planet convection, so for the contrast we would like to draw with Io, the Earth makes a better example. Awickert (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful

Great article, and plaudits for making it legible to the layperson. I feel thoroughly educated! Seegoon (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Name?

Forgive the ignorance if this is a mistake, but shouldn't the article be named Vulcanism on Io? BigHairRef | Talk 02:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling in articles tend to reflect the spelling of the majority of the references uses. In this case, an 'o' is used instead of 'u' in nearly all the references used for this article. --Volcanopele (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never before in my life seen the word Volcanism. It must be a sloppy modern coinage. Though I note that both spellings have Wikipedia pages that redirect to Volcano. --Llewdor (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For at least two of the references used for this article, the book Volcanism on Io by Ashley Davies, and the chapter "Active volcanism: Effusive eruptions" in Galileo after Io by John Spencer and Rosaly Lopes, the spelling used is Volcanism. Merriam-Webster.com also uses this spelling and attributes the origin to 1864. Quite frankly, I have rarely seen it spelled vulcanism. --Volcanopele (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I too have rarely seen any other spelling than "volcanism". This spelling also avoids confusion with that thing you do to rubber: "vulcanization". Rachel Pearce (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Single column

What particular formatting problems occur with more than one column? bibliomaniac15 03:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There were issues with the image used in the Plumes section and the references section when more than one column was used. Now that the Plumes section is much longer, the issue has been resolved, so using more than one column is probably fine now. --Volcanopele (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now that the images have been rearranged, the technical problems are resolved. However, using two columns does tend to make reading citations that much more difficult for users on smaller screens, and even for higher-resolution monitors, does not appreciably reduce the total room needed to display them. I recommend leaving at single column. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

I really enjoyed this article! Amandajm (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Love planets

Io is really beautiful, in a volcano sense of way. Albertgenii12 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"outburst"

Hello,

First, let me congratulate the authors for this good article.

I'm not a native speaker so it is perhaps obvious, but I failed to understood the usage of the term "outburst eruptions" define in the article (and quoted below):

“These eruptions, sometimes called "outburst" eruptions from their Earth-based detections, are characterized by their short duration [...]”

Does it means that "outburst eruptions" is only used for detection performed from Earth ? and not from a spacecraft like galileo for example ? Thanks for your help.

PST (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it means that rather than lasting a long time, these eruptions are only known to have short periods of activity. In English, events occurring over short periods of time are called "outbursts", like when someone suddenly starts yelling for a moment, usually for no apparent reason. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Outbursts were especially bright (in the near-infrared portion of the spectrum) eruptions observed by ground-based observers between the Voyager and Galileo missions. These are explosion-dominated eruptions, the currently accepted term for this type of volcanic eruption on Io. So the term "outburst eruption" was used for the ground-based observations, but obviously these same type of eruptions were seen by Galileo (at Thor and Gish Bar, for example). So basically, "outburst eruptions" is another term used for "explosion-dominated eruption", and it is used in the article to make it clear to readers who might be aware of the subject already that these two terms are equivalent. In general though, the term "outburst" is generally used for ground-based detections. As Huntster pointed out, it derives from the informal usage. --Volcanopele (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying VP. I don't even remember writing the above...I'm rediculously sleep-deprived. :( — Huntster (t @ c) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got the point. Thanks a lot for your time. PST (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously silly point

Since Geology is the study of Earth, wouldnt Volcanology of Io be part of the Iology of Io? I believe "Selenology" is sometimes used for the "geology' of the moon, and "Areology" would be a term for Martian Geology. is this silly, or serious?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2012 (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 00:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Volcanic eruptions on other bodies

Doesn't the sun still experience eruptions? 174.103.211.189 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It is not a volcanic eruption though, it is a coronal mass ejection. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template {{gaps}}).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.

Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "1 000 000" instead of "1,000,000").

Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.

Thank you. RGLago (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)