Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Volcanoes talk page (Discussion page).
 |
|---|
(threads older than 120 days are automatically added by MiszaBot II (talk · contribs))
Pinatubo FAR
I have nominated Mount Pinatubo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Lava tubes
I wouldn't imagine that lava tubes or lava caves would be in the scope of Wikiproject Volcanoes, but Lava River Cave is now listed as falling under the scope. However, the defined scope of this project does not specifically list caves, let alone lava tubes. The scope says volcanic rocks are the closest relation. Lava tubes were made by lava, but they're not lava anymore, so that is not the closest relation in the scope. Lava tubes are typically basaltic. Does the scope of Volcanoes want to expand to include all lava tubes? And for that matter, wouldn't it be prudent to include dikes, fissures, kipukas, tephra, etc? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Anything that is related to igneous petrology is obviously within the project's scope. The stuff you metioned are already part of the project; there is the Mackenzie dike swarm, Franklin dike swarm, Grenville dike swarm, Independence dike swarm, Kangamiut dike swarm, Long Range dikes, Matachewan dike swarm, Mistassini dike swarm, Sudbury dike swarm, Bridge River Ash, Huckleberry Ridge Tuff etc. Perhaps the scope should be reworded. It seems like most articles about dikes, tephra etc were not created before the project was created so I would revise the scope as necessarily. BT (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lava tubes etc are likely already in the project's scope. The project page states: All articles about volcanoes, volcanic fields, volcanic belts, volcanic arcs, mid-ocean ridges, rift valleys, hotspots, and other volcanic structures. Also articles about magma, lava, and volcanic rocks, along with volcanic eruptions and deposits (lava flows, tuffs, tephra, etc.). Lava tubes, dikes, tephra etc would fall into this scope. BT (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As the scope stands now, dikes are not apart of the definition. So you are right about the need to update the scope. Lava tubes are not a volcanic structure proper, but the repercussion of one. They have long ago ceased to be lava, however they do fit the scope by being volcanic rock. Which to my understanding is the only relation to the Volcanoes wikiproject. But is that enough to include it under a project titled Volcanoes? Would a person wanting to learn about Volcanoes glean much from a lava tube article? I would argue that lava flows would be the primary interest first, not volcanoes. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point. This WikiProject aims to enhance information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related articles. It mentions so on the project's scope on the main page. Dikes, lava tubes etc are all part of volcanology and as far as I know, they are categorized as such. BT (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how wikipedia categorizes lava tubes, but in the broader scientific world, or is that narrower?, ahem, they fall under vulcanospeleology. But I was really looking for more than your thoughts BT. I was looking for a broader consensus than just a conversation between you and I. If everyone here thinks that the project should include lava tubes, then let's hear it. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This ain't no thoughts or opinions. It's a pure fact. Volcanology, igneous petrology and related subjects have always been part of this Wikiproject and covering such topics is the point of this Wikiproject. Look up volcanology in the dictionary and it should say something like: the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena. Endangering the scope of this Wikiproject by someone that is not even part of the project is not needed..... BT (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- BT, I'm not sure why you used the words endanger. I came here for a consensus on the matter. Wikiprojects are exactly just thoughts and opinions, and sometimes backed up by references (of varying quality). Wikiprojects are defined by users and the scope too. I believe you were defining the word "volcanology", while I was only inquiring about the scope of this wikiproject. I am looking for the opinions of those people who created the scope of this wikiproject. So far, all I've heard is yours. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. I normally stick with facts. Lava tubes and dikes are mentioned on project's scope and I am done "arguing" with this discussion. BT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- BT, I'm not sure why you used the words endanger. I came here for a consensus on the matter. Wikiprojects are exactly just thoughts and opinions, and sometimes backed up by references (of varying quality). Wikiprojects are defined by users and the scope too. I believe you were defining the word "volcanology", while I was only inquiring about the scope of this wikiproject. I am looking for the opinions of those people who created the scope of this wikiproject. So far, all I've heard is yours. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- This ain't no thoughts or opinions. It's a pure fact. Volcanology, igneous petrology and related subjects have always been part of this Wikiproject and covering such topics is the point of this Wikiproject. Look up volcanology in the dictionary and it should say something like: the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena. Endangering the scope of this Wikiproject by someone that is not even part of the project is not needed..... BT (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how wikipedia categorizes lava tubes, but in the broader scientific world, or is that narrower?, ahem, they fall under vulcanospeleology. But I was really looking for more than your thoughts BT. I was looking for a broader consensus than just a conversation between you and I. If everyone here thinks that the project should include lava tubes, then let's hear it. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point. This WikiProject aims to enhance information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related articles. It mentions so on the project's scope on the main page. Dikes, lava tubes etc are all part of volcanology and as far as I know, they are categorized as such. BT (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As the scope stands now, dikes are not apart of the definition. So you are right about the need to update the scope. Lava tubes are not a volcanic structure proper, but the repercussion of one. They have long ago ceased to be lava, however they do fit the scope by being volcanic rock. Which to my understanding is the only relation to the Volcanoes wikiproject. But is that enough to include it under a project titled Volcanoes? Would a person wanting to learn about Volcanoes glean much from a lava tube article? I would argue that lava flows would be the primary interest first, not volcanoes. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lava tubes etc are likely already in the project's scope. The project page states: All articles about volcanoes, volcanic fields, volcanic belts, volcanic arcs, mid-ocean ridges, rift valleys, hotspots, and other volcanic structures. Also articles about magma, lava, and volcanic rocks, along with volcanic eruptions and deposits (lava flows, tuffs, tephra, etc.). Lava tubes, dikes, tephra etc would fall into this scope. BT (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
TFD for {{Infobox crater}}
I have nominated the newly-created {{Infobox crater}} for deletion. (I first asked the creator to withdraw it.) Please see and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox crater. Summary: editors have already worked to alleviate confusion over unqualified use of the term "crater". The mass category renaming CFD for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters renamed 77 categories like "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." after volcanic crater articles were moved to subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. Let's not re-introduce that confusion. Ikluft (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sheet intrusions
The change from "Articles about sheet intrusions (e.g. dikes, dike swarms, sills) are definately within the scope of this project because of their connection with large igneous provinces and volcanic activity." to "Articles about sheet intrusions (e.g. dikes, dike swarms, sills) where they are connected with large igneous provinces or other volcanic activity." on the project page is a bit questionable since all igneous dikes and sills form in volcanic zones that are volcanically active. They are also products of volcanism themselves because dikes and sills form when magma flows under the surface. This issue is also unfair for volcanic zones that are no longer active. BT (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but I think dikes and sills can be emplaced without any concurrent volcanism (e.g. doi:10.1126/science.1101304). Personally I don't mind if we expand the scope to include these too, but I think it's enough of a leap to mention here first. I don't think we need to justify the choice in the list itself, i.e. everything in your version after the word "sills" could go. -- Avenue (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert either. The reason I said "since all igneous dikes and sills form in volcanic zones that are volcanically active" was because all sheet intrusions I have read about or seen for myself occur in or near volcanic areas. So I guess that's not a very good sentence. But after I did a bit of research, all what I could find for igneous dikes and sills was information related to volcanoes, volcanic areas and other volcanological stuff apart from what they are etc. BT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I gave a source above that describes current dike emplacement in an area that has had no volcanic activity for over a million years, as far as I know, and I gather dikes are common in areas without volcanism but with extensional tectonic activity (e.g. Lake Baikal). But perhaps this is beside the point. While I don't believe our scope has previously extended to intrusions just because they are "in or near volcanic areas", I would personally be happy to interpret our scope as including all igneous formations, including sheet intrusions, regardless of whether they have been associated with volcanic activity. I see this as a generous interpretation of the "volcanism" part of our scope. I do not mean that we should cover every landform made of igneous rock, such as each individual glacially carved granite mountain, but individual plutons, sills or dikes seem fine to me. Broader patterns such as dike swarms or batholiths are even better. -- Avenue (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at your source, but just because an area has not had volcanic activity for over a million years does not mean that particular area is extinct. Take a look here. It seems like the Franklin Glacier complex in British Columbia began its formation between six and eight million years ago and then had another period of volcanic activity between two and three million years ago. It seems like there was about three million years of dormancy between those two eruptive periods, although the geology of this volcanic complex is poorly known.
- Personally, I think it would be nice to include all igneous formations like you stated, especially because igneous petrology is a scope of this wikiproject. There is probably no need to include glacially carved granite mountains anyway because mountain ranges that include granite mountains are generally grouped into large igneous formations (e.g. the Coast Plutonic Complex, which makes up much of the Coast Mountains). And even though dikes and possibly other intrusions are common in areas that don't have volcanism, volcanic activity can still be nearby. For example, eruptions are not known to have occurred in the Baikal Rift Zone (which includes Lake Baikal), but recent eruptions have took place adjacent to the rift zone and are likely related to rifting of the Baikal Rift Zone. BT (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I gave a source above that describes current dike emplacement in an area that has had no volcanic activity for over a million years, as far as I know, and I gather dikes are common in areas without volcanism but with extensional tectonic activity (e.g. Lake Baikal). But perhaps this is beside the point. While I don't believe our scope has previously extended to intrusions just because they are "in or near volcanic areas", I would personally be happy to interpret our scope as including all igneous formations, including sheet intrusions, regardless of whether they have been associated with volcanic activity. I see this as a generous interpretation of the "volcanism" part of our scope. I do not mean that we should cover every landform made of igneous rock, such as each individual glacially carved granite mountain, but individual plutons, sills or dikes seem fine to me. Broader patterns such as dike swarms or batholiths are even better. -- Avenue (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert either. The reason I said "since all igneous dikes and sills form in volcanic zones that are volcanically active" was because all sheet intrusions I have read about or seen for myself occur in or near volcanic areas. So I guess that's not a very good sentence. But after I did a bit of research, all what I could find for igneous dikes and sills was information related to volcanoes, volcanic areas and other volcanological stuff apart from what they are etc. BT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Eruption template? Eruption category?
As there is an earthquake template for 2010, I was wondering if there shouldn't be a yearly or decadely eruption template and eruption category as well...
70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. A template for an eruption article would be ideal and there is a category for eruptions as Category:Volcanic events. But there arn't any categories for yearly eruptions (e.g. Category:Volcanic eruptions in 2010) as far as I'm aware of. Probably because there is not enough eruption articles. BT (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a list article List of volcanic eruptions in 2010 is in order, and the template and category be based by decade? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been trying to keep Mount Rinjani (lombok indonesia) article up to date with eruptive history subsequent to a fairly big edit I did on the article a little while back. I did a table for the eruptive history of Rinjani for that article and it has updates current to the last activity occurring there in late may of 2010. There are links in the Rinjani article that detail The Center for Volcanology & Geological Hazard Mitigation, Pusat Vulkanologi & Mitigasi Bencana Geologi, Volcanological Survey of Indonesia. That resource may be of some assistance in regard to Indonesian volcanoes and their eruptive activities. It is in Bahasa (language) Indonesian though. I hope this info may be of some assistance to you if you are contemplating the work you mention above.Felix505 (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a list article List of volcanic eruptions in 2010 is in order, and the template and category be based by decade? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
See Talk: Roccamonfina (CE) , Roccamonfina , Roccamonfina (CE) for discussion about "Roccamonfina" , a non-existent volcano article, and article naming. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have a stubby article here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guanlongwucaii/Roccamonfina_(volcano). --Guanlong wucaii 09:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So...
My netbook recently got fixed, so I will probably be on Wikipedia far more often now. Unfortunatly, I have to go on vacation to the middle of nowhere soon :I. Anyway was just wondering how the project is doing and how the redesign and restructuring is treating y'all. (My rating is based on how long it takes for a response to appear; im guessing 2 days, suprise me). ResMar 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- FAIL >< ResMar 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- *cough* -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wordfile >.> ResMar 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- *cough* -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
FAC nomination of The Volcano (British Columbia)
Since ArticleAlertbot is down for an indeterminate period of time and the listings are therefore inaccurate, I am posting the FAC nomination alert here. The Volcano has been a featured article candidate since earlier today. BT (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Google books
It might interest someone:
- Le Maitre, R. W.; Streckeisen, A.; Zanettin, B.; Le Bas, M. J.; Bonin, B.; Bateman, P., ed. (January 2005). Igneous Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms: Recomendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 252. ISBN 0521619483.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - Lockwood, John P.; Hazlett, Richard W. (2010). Volcanoes: Global Perspectives. p. 552. ISBN 978-1-4051-6250-0. (initially conceived as an updating of Macdonald's book, it ended up as a major revision).
- (Macdonald, Gordon A (1972). Volcanoes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. xiv, 510. ISBN 0-13-942219-6.) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yellowstone got four papers, if I got it right. National Science Foundation-funded studies:
- Smith, Robert B. (20 November 2009). "Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics and mantle flow" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 26–56. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.020.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - DeNosaquo, Katrina R.; Smith, Robert B.; Lowry, Anthony R. (20 November 2009). "Density and lithospheric strength models of the Yellowstone-Snake River Plain volcanic system from gravity and heat flow data" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 108–127. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.006.
- Farrell, Jamie; Husen, Stephan; Smith, Robert B. (20 November 2009). "Earthquake swarm and b-value characterization of the Yellowstone volcano-tectonic system" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 260–276. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.008.
- White, Bonnie J. Pickering (20 November 2009). "Seismicity and earthquake hazard analysis of the Teton-Yellowstone region, Wyoming" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 277–296. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.015.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
- Smith, Robert B. (20 November 2009). "Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics and mantle flow" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 26–56. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.020.
- There is a nice contribution at the Earthbyte Group, Prof. Dietmar Müller. It is a 138.1 MBytes PDF, though. And the copyright note states it should not be online:
- Müller, Dietmar. "Dietmar Müller's Publications". EarthByte Group, University of Australia.
- Wessel, P.; Müller, R. D. (2007). "Plate Tectonics". Treatise on Geophysics. Vol. 6. Elsevier. pp. 49–98. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Trond Helge Torsvik's Publications". Center for Geodynamics, Geological Survey of Norway.
- Hm. Any of this online? (stupid question lol). ResMar 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. Url on Cite journal... Google Scholar does wonders... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I created a page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Contents of books; Encyclopedia of Volcanoes and Volcanoes: Global Perspectives. The idea is to show how scholars name sections, subsections and categories. So we do not need to create worst options. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Portal FC
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Volcanoes: Our portal has been nominated by yours truly for featured status! PLease leave comments! ResMar 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Largest Eruption List
I was looking for a list of the world's largest eruptions, on wiki and on the net, and did not find a good, sortable list, which included cubic km estimates. There is some partial lists on VEI and Supervolcano, and there is list_of_large_volcanic_eruptions, but that needs lots of work. I have next week off, and I can work on fixing list_of_large_volcanic_eruptions, or should I start a new list over? The other main thought was, do I make two sublists for explosive vs. flood basalts, or do I lump them together? So... thoughts? Comments? Concerns? I think this could be a great, high-interest, and useful list, but I am no Voloconologist, and I will need help. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 21:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would probably be better creating sublists for flood basalt and explosive events. I have been wondering what the difference is between potentially dangerous and large volcanic eruptions for quite a while. As far as I am aware of, any large volcanic eruption is potentially dangerous. Volcanoguy 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, this list I proposed is only past eruptions that have a specific known volume (estimates). The main thing I'd like to see is a list with cubic km for comparison. Any future considerations or potential hazards will not be included. Oh, and I will, at the very least, boost up existing lists with cubic km where needed, esp. on the flood basalt page. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, welcome to the project. There's lots of overlists that need work, and honestly they are the weakest part of the project. I'm busy working on Types of volcanic eruptions and it is a MESS. ResMar 02:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- List of large volcanic eruptions is a sortable overview of three lists: Timetable of major worldwide volcanic eruptions, List of potentially dangerous volcanic eruptions, and Large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province; they are in three parts because they got long. List of potentially dangerous volcanic eruptions is mainly Quaternary period. Timetable of major worldwide volcanic eruptions was the first list to be written down. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to work on the existing List of large volcanic eruptions, but I would need to do some heavy lifting, including: remove eruptions with too much unknown (VEI=?), probably remove smaller (maybe VEI<7 or <6?) eruptions, add column for explosive vs. not, add color coding for age, and most importantly, add cubic km for all (and remove those without a reliable estimate). Is that OK with you, Chris? It is your work, I would not want to destroy it; it would be easy to modify it into a new page like List of the largest volcanic eruptions or Largest volcanic eruptions ever measured... I am happy to do it either way. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 06:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- The backbone is a list of eruptions greater than 6. The Holocene has good data from the Smithsonian Institution - Global Volcanism Program. Before, the data is "quite" scarce. The sortable table is constrained by the width of office paper. I would advice you to use your sandbox first. What you want to do, is not really what you are able to do. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will sandbox for sure. Oh, and I was thinking World's largest eruptions for the list name... short and sweet. Anyways, I will post a link when it starts looking like something useable next week. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 13:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, the first draft is done, at User:Qfl247/sandbox. Questions? Comments? QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Spelling error?
Types of volcanic eruption: maybe it should be "Types of volcanic eruptions? ResMar 02:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Volcanoguy 02:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved it. ResMar 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Popular pages service
I've signed us up for Popular pages service with the Z-bot. Hopefully it'll be granted and we'll get to see what articles are drawing the most attention (5 bucks to Tusk that Hawaii shows up more then Canada ;) ). Cheers and let's hope it's granted, ResMar 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do not really care if Hawaii has most attention or not. It does not matter to me since I have been working on Canadian volcanism articles mostly by myself when I became a member on WP. Hawaii did not start to have major contributions until you started expanding them in 2009. Plus, Canada has more volcanological content than Hawaii does. Canada has been comming along just fine since I started doing major contributions sometime in 2007. Volcanoguy 04:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come now so uniformitarian, I was just joking :) ResMar 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right, according to his FAQ he checks it every 25th, so only 22 more days to go! :D ResMar 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. I was not being supportive, I just did not see it as joke. Volcanoguy 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right, according to his FAQ he checks it every 25th, so only 22 more days to go! :D ResMar 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come now so uniformitarian, I was just joking :) ResMar 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, generally when there's a ;) in the message, it's meant in good humor ;) ResMar 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I helped to expand Cascades / Andean volcanism. That's two continents. :) ceranthor 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've done Hawaii and Submarine. That's two, um, topics, hehe. ResMar 00:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I've created volcano articles for North America, South America, Antarctica, Africa, Europe and Asia. Volcanoguy 04:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Archiving
This project's archiving was way off track. Stuff from 2009 and 2010 was being piled up in the 2008 archive. I've fixed it now by creating two new archives, 2009 and 2010. Cheers, ResMar 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Largest list done
The list of the World's largest eruptions is now done. I put in a lot of work to verify each entry in multiple sources and create the list succinctly. Feel free to take a look and let me know what you think. Two things I noticed while making the list: pages are in dire need for both the Fish Canyon tuff and Mid-Tertiary ignimbrite flare-up. Anyone care to make those? I will if no one else wants to. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Refer comments to his talk page, we have a discussion ongoing there. ResMar 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now at FLC. ResMar 04:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Major eruptions without pages
I've made an effort to list all of the impactful major eruptions that do not have their own page, but are a section on the parent volcano's page. These articles would do better to have them on their own page, with the eruption summarized on the main volcano page. More can be found just by looking through Timetable of major worldwide volcanic eruptions.
- Lake Toba: 74 ka. Most recent eruption of a "super volcano." (VEI: 8) The related Toba catastrophe theory is cited as the main, but its focused far more on the eruption's impact then on then on the event itself. Idealy the event should have its own article, Lake Toba catastrophe.
- 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. Largest eruption in recent history, caused the Year Without a Summer. section) (VEI: 7)
- 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Another big one. Currently a redirect. (VEI: 6) (section)
- 1912 eruption of Novarupta (section). Largest eruption of the 20th century.
- 1902 eruption of Santa María (section). Another one of the large 20th century eruptions.
This is just a quick skim, theres a ton more. What are your opinions? ResMar 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about Mount Pelée's 1902 eruption? Volcanoguy 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, another stub :( there is not enough material for that. Better change the title, e.g. Year Without a Summer to 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora and Toba catastrophe theory to 74 ka eruption of lake Toba, a redirect would be even better. A overhaul on the organization/sections of the articles and all is good. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Have you even bothered doing research about Pelée's 1902 eruption? It is a notable and major eruption. Eruptions that reach VEI-8 to VEI-4 can be considered large eruptions. Volcanoguy 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think that we have the capacity for many eruptions. Remember the editing activity with the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull. There is the strong possibility that Yellowstone will get a leak after the Big One San Francisco earthquake. So, we would better improve its background. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, another stub :( there is not enough material for that. Better change the title, e.g. Year Without a Summer to 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora and Toba catastrophe theory to 74 ka eruption of lake Toba, a redirect would be even better. A overhaul on the organization/sections of the articles and all is good. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- These are all notable and major, and I will set to writing them up eventually :) ResMar 04:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Volcano template
I'm trying to put together a template for volcanoes in general. Additions from you guys is welcome! It's not nearly complete enough, yet. ResMar 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mantle plumes? Hotspots? Did you check Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Contents of books?--Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maar, caldera, large igneous province. Also volcanism on Mars and perhaps the Moon. ("Extraterrestrial" would seem to fit the heading here better than "extraplanetary", since Venus is a planet.) --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Contents of books: Chris, you have any other things like that hiding out in the project space? :) ResMar 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maar, caldera, large igneous province. Also volcanism on Mars and perhaps the Moon. ("Extraterrestrial" would seem to fit the heading here better than "extraplanetary", since Venus is a planet.) --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, actually not. I did not hide it. It is public on Google books references :) How about on Volcano lists, to omit list and timetable? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get the idea that this might be, well, a bad idea - the template would probably be very bulky :/ ResMar 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, u need half a dozen templates ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- My point exactly :) ResMar 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I stole a part of ur template (List of large volcanic eruptions). I think it is ok :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
How about a new category: "Volcanic eruptions." Right now we have it compiled into the VEI scales, but I think is should stand separate. ResMar 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems ok for me. You have more edits as I, so you certainly have a good idea about it. The handbooks on volcanism use volcanic eruptions as main section as well. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Coverage analysis
- Actual volcanoes and volcanic structures are all top-grade in terms of coverage.
- Volcanology is in terrible shape, and there are very few articles for prominent volcanologists.
- Eruptions is in terrible shape, most major events are subcats under their respective volcano articles (see above).
- Coverage of volcanic processes (eg. Types of eruptions, the Rift zone articles, Hotspot, etc.) is fair, although it could probably be improved.
It's places we need to work on :) ResMar 03:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Volcanoes and Islands infobox
Places like Santorini and Pantelleria are both islands and volcanoes. While the mountain infobox template have a place for volcanic information like last eruption, currently island infoboxes don't (at least not Template:Infobox Greek Isles and Pantelleria is down as a Template:Infobox Italian comune). Fitzgabbro (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The articles are more about the insland then they are about the volcano. ResMar 15:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, perhaps a split could be useful in order for people searching for information on the volcano itself? ceranthor 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the rule should be:
- If a particular volcano is a signifigant part of an island but does make wholey make it up, the island and the volcano should be seperate articles. (examples: Mount Cleveland and Chuginadak, Hawaii (island) and Mauna Loa etc.
- If a particular volcano wholy makes up an island, then they should occupy one article. (example: Vulcano)
- If the article is more about the volcano, ae. the island is barely inhabited/not very notable, then {{Infobox mountain}} should be used.
- If it's more about the island, ae. the volcano is heavily eroded/inactive/heavily inhabitated, then the other infoboxes should be used.
- If it is one part of the landform, then they should be seperate articles.
Cheers, ResMar 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Signpost Interview
Hello WikiProject Volcanoes! My name is Mono, and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. I have decided to feature the project in our report soon; this is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Also, take a look at s recent report so you get an idea of the style. Thanks, ℳono 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Fee FAC
Thanks for the infrequent help and comments on Fee's FAC. This is another problem with WP Volcanoes that should be discussed here; a lack of help. One of the reasons this project was created was to improve volcano articles. But FAC's also do not get too much from it. Nothing but a waste of Wiki space. Volcanoguy 17:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was hesitant to comment on it, because 12 refs long is just too short for my tastes; I consider a minimum as 15, and the rest as GA. Sorry for the abstination. You might do better bothering the active members of the project instead =) ResMar 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No need because I am no longer part of this project, and I won't be until it is in better shape. Volcanoguy 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't ask for help with Mount Fee here, as far as I can see. FAC is not the right place to be looking for help, IMO; go there once you are reasonably sure the article meets the FA criteria, not to get help to bring it up to that level. You might be lucky and attract some helpers, but you certainly can't count on it. The timing of Mt Fee's FAC didn't help, since it was the third featured candidacy on a volcano topic active at that time. You could avoid such clashes by checking the Article Alerts section of our main project page. --Avenue (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not post Fee's article at FAC to get help. I posted it there because I felt it was ready. But when your points came along my efforts just dropped because I did not know how to change whatever you suggested to be revised; I can't read minds, nor do I understand everything. Same for Jappalang's comment about File:Mount Fee.jpg. He stated "images are fine, except for File:Mount Fee.jpg. Initially, I was of the opinion that it only required an administrator to confirm the original license on Wikipedia (the upload log does not state it). However, I found this, which was uploaded to the web as early as 2005. The image on Wikipedia is a crop from Michael Coyle's photograph (which supposedly can be seen in full glory if you are a paid member of the bivouac site). The copyright status of this image should be clarified and resolved if the image is to be used on this project." But take a look at the three licences User:Tsylos (the original uploader of the image) gave: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".", "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.", "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". It is clear from the last licence that Tsylos is the copyright holder of the image. Further support that User:Tsylos is Michael Coyle (his name is the image's decription) is File:Mount Cayley.jpg. Same thing: Tsylos is the one that originally uploaded image to Wikipedia, his actual name is in the image's description and the three given licences are the same. From looking at Fee's and Cayley's image discriptions on bivouac.com where they were most likely uploaded first, they were both taken on April 28, 1998, as well as by Michael Coyle, who is most likely User:Tsylos. I do not see a problem using File:Mount Fee.jpg in the Mount Fee article after looking though all of that. Nevertheless, Wikipedia and some of its users are too paranoid about copyright statuses.
- Also, the FA criteria does not say how many sources are needed to bring an article to FA status. If it's a short article it is certainly not going to have as many references. Volcanoguy 06:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Giving a useful review is not always easy; I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. You can object to review comments at FAC if you feel they are not actionable. Regarding File:Mount Fee.jpg, we usually require that uploaders explicitly state that they are the photo's creator; we don't just rely on the details of license boilerplate. We also accept their word that they are the photo's creator only if it has not been published elsewhere first. So the paperwork for that image clearly does not meet our current standards. Railing against copyright paranoia is probably not going to get you very far at FAC. I agree with you about there being no minimum number of sources for an FA. --Avenue (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just throw it in WP:GAN... ResMar 01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going for GA. One of the main reasons the article is short is because not much is known about it and is only a small volcanic peak unlike Mount St. Helens, Mauna Kea and other volcano article that have FA status. I replaced File:Mount Fee.jpg with a crop of File:Mount Fee2.jpg to solve the image problem. As for the convert templates, are you saying they should be within the nowrap templates? This is one of the points I had a hard time understanding. If so, that means all of the other FA volcano articles should have the samething as well because, like you said, it fails WP:MOS. Volcanoguy 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I made it clear that the issue with the convert template was the least important of my concerns. Using nowrap around the convert template is not an ideal solution, since it makes the entire result unbreakable. It would be better to allow a line break between the original measure and the converted one (e.g. between "21 km" and "(13 mi)"), which would require either typing in the converted value manually, or fixing the convert template. But the nowrap approach doesn't break the MOS, at least not overtly, so I think it would be okay at FAC. Other FAs that use the convert template are also technically breaking the MOS, but since this bug should eventually be fixed I wouldn't bother changing them unless someone objects. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I hope I fixed your "The volcanic edifice ancestral Mount Fee represented...", "It is nearly vertical in structure..." and monitoring points. Volcanoguy 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I made it clear that the issue with the convert template was the least important of my concerns. Using nowrap around the convert template is not an ideal solution, since it makes the entire result unbreakable. It would be better to allow a line break between the original measure and the converted one (e.g. between "21 km" and "(13 mi)"), which would require either typing in the converted value manually, or fixing the convert template. But the nowrap approach doesn't break the MOS, at least not overtly, so I think it would be okay at FAC. Other FAs that use the convert template are also technically breaking the MOS, but since this bug should eventually be fixed I wouldn't bother changing them unless someone objects. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going for GA. One of the main reasons the article is short is because not much is known about it and is only a small volcanic peak unlike Mount St. Helens, Mauna Kea and other volcano article that have FA status. I replaced File:Mount Fee.jpg with a crop of File:Mount Fee2.jpg to solve the image problem. As for the convert templates, are you saying they should be within the nowrap templates? This is one of the points I had a hard time understanding. If so, that means all of the other FA volcano articles should have the samething as well because, like you said, it fails WP:MOS. Volcanoguy 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh trust me, the project is in good shape: probably as best as it will ever be. You'd expect us to do better, but...ResMar 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- In good shape? LOL take a look at how many volcano articles and related subjects get attention. Not much, especially in oceans. Volcanoguy 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Come on Tusk, you of all people would know =) ResMar 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are volcanological articles that have not changed much since at least 2006. I am currently in the progress of recreating one such volcanology article; it just needs to be copyedited then copyed and pasted into its article. It will also be different from most other volcanological articles in that it will be about 2.7 billion year old volcanism of the Precambrian and it will be the most complete Precambrian volcanism article to date. Articles about Precambrian volcanism are poorly covered on Wikipedia. And I am no longer "Tusk" BTW. Volcanoguy 06:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are to me =) ResMar 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Volcanoes to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Mines
- Perhaps this would be too inclusive, but should mines within volcanics be included in this project? Just asking because I am plaining to recreate a page about a mine that lies within mafic volcanics and there are mines within kimberlite pipes that extract diamonds. Volcanoguy 17:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is too much. We are a sub WP of WP:Geology. Both doing the same thing is not logical and they are better on mines. I know, one of the Presidents of the IAVEI (O. Navon) researches diamant generation in volcanic pipes. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also notice articles about mines within volcanics are likely to have volcanological information as well. If there is information about volcanics or some other thing related to volcanology it would probably be reasonable to include them within the project. Volcanoguy 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable for volcanic pipes. In the case of the copper mines, I don't know really. Would be nice to get some input from ResMar, Vsmith and Awickert. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm divided on the issue. Personally, I probably would not include them, as mines are human made structures. But, I can see the argument for it as well. ResMar 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is too much. We are a sub WP of WP:Geology. Both doing the same thing is not logical and they are better on mines. I know, one of the Presidents of the IAVEI (O. Navon) researches diamant generation in volcanic pipes. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reckon that if the description of the mine includes a lot of stuff about the volcanics that host an orebody, then it would naturally be included. In cases where there is little information about the rocks themselves then I would probably say no. I think that this would be on a case-by-case basis. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes for mines in ore deposits genetically related to volcanism such as volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits or where the volcanic geologic connection is clearly stated. Basically agree with Mikenorton, if the volcanologic connection is clearly made in the specific mine article. Vsmith (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about mines in volcanics that host quartz veins? I don't know the geology of quartz too well so that is why I am asking. Volcanoguy 22:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ore associated with quartz veins would likely be hydrothermal in origin and may or may not be genetically related to the volcanic rocks enclosing them. So, without further info, no. As an example, porphyry copper ore deposits are hydrothermal deposits often including quartz veining. These deposits are associated with a porphyry intrusion which may or may not intrude (and mineralize) volcanic rocks, which in turn may or may not be genetically related to the porphyry intrusive body. So ... no, not without further connecting info. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about mines in layered intrusions or some other intrusive body? Not necessarily volcanic, but they are still products of magmatism. Volcanoguy 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Er... if you're going that route, why not rename to WikiProject Igneous rocks? In other words: no; unless for the reasons Andy mentions below, which have merit. However, a reader who clicks on the talk page of say Stillwater igneous complex and sees the volcano project tag - just might think the deposit was volcanic in origin .... that's a stretch I hope, but trying to think it through here. Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you are aware this project does not just include volcanoes and volcanics. It also includes intrusions (e.g. dike swarms, layered intrusions, batholiths, sills, etc) and other stuff related to igneous petrology. Always has. Layered intrusion are known to include mineralization (e.g. Muskox intrusion). Is the mineralization in intrusions related to magmatism, is it related to something similar like quartz veins, or is it both. That is what I am trying to get at. I'm not a pro when it comes to mineralization and the formation of mineral deposits. Volcanoguy 00:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK... the Muskox appears to have magmatic segregation deposits of Pt group elements, Cu-Ni sulfides and chromitites as do other ultramafic layered intrusions. Therefor by your criteria (magmatic origin) they fit. As to the mineralization in other intrusions such as porphyry copper deposits, they are hydrothermal vein/dissemination deposits and not magmatic mineralization but are formed by an aqueous hydrothermal system directly related to a porphyry intrusive. Then there are the skarn deposits formed at the contact between an intrusive and a carbonate host wall rock by circulating hydrothermal solutions. Consider also the rare earth deposits associated with pegmatites and carbonatites - magmatic. More to think on. Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I was also thinking about the Kanichee layered intrusive complex mineralization to be magmatic in origin as well because I know its first magmatic event deposited copper-nickel-platinum group metals also. But with what you said about the Muskox intrusion and other ultramafic layered intrusions containing magma-related mineralization, it's now more obvious that mineralization in the Kanichee intrusion is magma-related as well.
- OK... the Muskox appears to have magmatic segregation deposits of Pt group elements, Cu-Ni sulfides and chromitites as do other ultramafic layered intrusions. Therefor by your criteria (magmatic origin) they fit. As to the mineralization in other intrusions such as porphyry copper deposits, they are hydrothermal vein/dissemination deposits and not magmatic mineralization but are formed by an aqueous hydrothermal system directly related to a porphyry intrusive. Then there are the skarn deposits formed at the contact between an intrusive and a carbonate host wall rock by circulating hydrothermal solutions. Consider also the rare earth deposits associated with pegmatites and carbonatites - magmatic. More to think on. Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you are aware this project does not just include volcanoes and volcanics. It also includes intrusions (e.g. dike swarms, layered intrusions, batholiths, sills, etc) and other stuff related to igneous petrology. Always has. Layered intrusion are known to include mineralization (e.g. Muskox intrusion). Is the mineralization in intrusions related to magmatism, is it related to something similar like quartz veins, or is it both. That is what I am trying to get at. I'm not a pro when it comes to mineralization and the formation of mineral deposits. Volcanoguy 00:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Er... if you're going that route, why not rename to WikiProject Igneous rocks? In other words: no; unless for the reasons Andy mentions below, which have merit. However, a reader who clicks on the talk page of say Stillwater igneous complex and sees the volcano project tag - just might think the deposit was volcanic in origin .... that's a stretch I hope, but trying to think it through here. Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about mines in layered intrusions or some other intrusive body? Not necessarily volcanic, but they are still products of magmatism. Volcanoguy 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ore associated with quartz veins would likely be hydrothermal in origin and may or may not be genetically related to the volcanic rocks enclosing them. So, without further info, no. As an example, porphyry copper ore deposits are hydrothermal deposits often including quartz veining. These deposits are associated with a porphyry intrusion which may or may not intrude (and mineralize) volcanic rocks, which in turn may or may not be genetically related to the porphyry intrusive body. So ... no, not without further connecting info. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about mines in volcanics that host quartz veins? I don't know the geology of quartz too well so that is why I am asking. Volcanoguy 22:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- As for your renaming point (I did not have time to comment on this), it would probably be unnecessary just because intrusive rocks are within the project's scope as well. I am sure you know as a geologist that intrusions are related to volcanoes. They can be the remains of a solidified magma chamber of an ancient volcano that has been exposed after millions of years of erosion (e.g. batholiths, stocks, layered intrusions), they can be the remains of a volcanic feeder system (e.g. dikes) and so on. Obviously, if an intrusion is the remains of an ancient volcano or feeder system they would be part of this project, and lots of intrusions are the remains of volcanoes and feeders (e.g. the Muskox and Kanichee intrusions are interpreted to be the remains of magma chambers that produced regional volcanics). A good example of a large intrusive body that represents the basement of an ancient volcanic arc is the Coast Plutonic Complex along the coast of western North America. Volcanoguy 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- In Switzerland, they cite Brother Klaus: "Do not built ur fence too far away". A Wikiproject objective is to focus. If the mineralization is volcanic ok, if it only secondarily volcanic, forget it. Anything is linked to everything, and anything is a trace of all. I did some edits on plates and orogenies, so what? They have rifting events, but they are not WP Volcanoes. It is personal: Volcanoes, Plate tectonics, Extinktion events and Orogenies. If u want to do some edits ok, WP Volcanoes has enough stubs... Volcanism and economic exploration of an ore is very far from each other, the know how is a "lil bit" different. My opinion of course :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see the point of including plates and orogenies into this project because they are tectonic geology. Volcanoes and other magmatic features can form at plate boundaries of course, but adding tectonics like plates, orogenies, faults, etc would just make WP Volcanoes off-topic. There are a few tectonic features included in this project like rift and subduction, but that is because they are known to be the locus and formation of volcanic activity. Once in a while I edit plate, fault and orogeny articles myself, but I am also part of WP Geology. Just because mines are made by humans does not mean they can not be included in this project. If this project should only focus on natural features, I suggest topics like Global Volcanism Program and Cascades Volcano Observatory should be deleted from this project too since they are man-made. But no they shouldn't because the purpose of their existence is to document and study volcanic activity. All what I am saying is volcanic and intrusive rocks are more than just magmatic features. They are also subjects of economic geology and explorations. If mineralization is present there is the possibility of mining. The Muskox and Kanichee intrusions I mentioned above have been mined in the past for their metal deposits. Mineralization in ultramafic layered intrusions is generally magma-related like Vsmith stated. Volcanism and economic explorations of ore in ultramafic layered intrusions and volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits is not very far from each other. It is pretty much the same as saying "I am looking for a volcano in the Cascade Range of western United States." Volcanoguy 17:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just think u should not include as a rule ore from secondary features, that's all. There is everywhere an igneous rock around... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "a rule ore from secondary features"? Volcanoguy 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Awickert, quote: "volcanic rocks form, get cracked, and Quartz intrudes"; Vsmith, quote: "porphyry copper deposits are hydrothermal vein/dissemination deposits and not magmatic mineralization but are formed by an aqueous hydrothermal system directly related to a porphyry intrusive". They are further away of the orginal magmatic structure, problematic. The oil drop falls on water, and gets wider and wider and wider, and thinner and thinner and thinner... The Wikiproject needs not only scope, it needs focus too. Be wise, do not include mines on secondary mineralisation as a rule, please. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Vsmith's quote is a bit questionable. As far as I understand, the term "hydrothermal" pertains to the action of hot, aqueous solutions or gases within or on the surface of Earth. If a hydrothermal system is directly related to a porphyry intrusive, it seems like the hydrothermal activity is derived from a magmatic source. Same for volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits; they form in submarine settings as a result of seawater circulating through a subsurface hydrothermal system that is heated by an underlying magmatic source. Do you see where I am comming from? The mineralization may not be directly from magma, but the hydrothermal activity originates from a magmatic source. There are hydrothermal vents, hot springs and other hydrothermal activities that are the subject of volcanology. Volcanoguy 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- As to my "questionable" statement (it was an off-the-top-o-me-head thing). For a detailed discussion see Silitoe, Richard H., 2010, Porphyry Copper Systems, Economic Geology, v.105, pp. 3-41. The abstract alone may answer some of your questions regarding not just porphyry coppers, but a whole host of related ore deposit types. Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all what to know is the connection of porphyry copper deposit hydrothermal activity with magmatism correct. Like volcanogentic massive sulfide ore deposits are connected to volcanism because they form in submarine settings as a result of seawater circulating through a subsurface hydrothermal system that is heated by an underlying magmatic source. But are porphyry copper deposits formed in a similar matter? This has got me wondering about quartz veins again since you stated ore associated with quartz veins would likely be hydrothermal in origin. "If" porphyry copper deposits and ore associated with quartz veins is connected to volcanism per se, then they would also fall within the volcanism criteria as well. Volcanoguy 02:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- abstract - you decide. Vsmith (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that is yes. Volcanoguy 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- abstract - you decide. Vsmith (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all what to know is the connection of porphyry copper deposit hydrothermal activity with magmatism correct. Like volcanogentic massive sulfide ore deposits are connected to volcanism because they form in submarine settings as a result of seawater circulating through a subsurface hydrothermal system that is heated by an underlying magmatic source. But are porphyry copper deposits formed in a similar matter? This has got me wondering about quartz veins again since you stated ore associated with quartz veins would likely be hydrothermal in origin. "If" porphyry copper deposits and ore associated with quartz veins is connected to volcanism per se, then they would also fall within the volcanism criteria as well. Volcanoguy 02:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- As to my "questionable" statement (it was an off-the-top-o-me-head thing). For a detailed discussion see Silitoe, Richard H., 2010, Porphyry Copper Systems, Economic Geology, v.105, pp. 3-41. The abstract alone may answer some of your questions regarding not just porphyry coppers, but a whole host of related ore deposit types. Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Vsmith's quote is a bit questionable. As far as I understand, the term "hydrothermal" pertains to the action of hot, aqueous solutions or gases within or on the surface of Earth. If a hydrothermal system is directly related to a porphyry intrusive, it seems like the hydrothermal activity is derived from a magmatic source. Same for volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits; they form in submarine settings as a result of seawater circulating through a subsurface hydrothermal system that is heated by an underlying magmatic source. Do you see where I am comming from? The mineralization may not be directly from magma, but the hydrothermal activity originates from a magmatic source. There are hydrothermal vents, hot springs and other hydrothermal activities that are the subject of volcanology. Volcanoguy 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, u still need to be carefull. Every km, the temperature is 25°C warmer. So u can find an igneous rock and warm water almost everywhere. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. If the mineralization is on the surface it would not be that warm unless it's due to climate temperatures. Warm water comming out of the ground at 25°C would likely be related to hydrothermal activity, such as those at hot springs. In areas that have not been volcanically active for millions of years there is normally no hydrothermal activity as far as I am aware of. In underground mines at least a kilometer below surface in volcanically inactive areas it is still not warm. Instead, it is rather cold. The hydrothermal systems that create volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits and porphyry copper deposits cease after magmatism has ended. Volcanoguy 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Awickert, quote: "volcanic rocks form, get cracked, and Quartz intrudes"; Vsmith, quote: "porphyry copper deposits are hydrothermal vein/dissemination deposits and not magmatic mineralization but are formed by an aqueous hydrothermal system directly related to a porphyry intrusive". They are further away of the orginal magmatic structure, problematic. The oil drop falls on water, and gets wider and wider and wider, and thinner and thinner and thinner... The Wikiproject needs not only scope, it needs focus too. Be wise, do not include mines on secondary mineralisation as a rule, please. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "a rule ore from secondary features"? Volcanoguy 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Note: You are wrong, in deep mines one km below surface it is warm. The new AlpTransit Tunnel has 55°C (rock temperature) Ref, the San José copper-gold mine (Chile) has 29.5°C (85°F, air temperature) half a mile below surface.) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
- (But perhaps not always wrong, since our geothermal gradient article says that regions with extensive permafrost (e.g. parts of Canada) can be abnormally cool several hundred metres down. --Avenue (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
- I am not necessarily wrong. I know it is not always that warm at that depth because have been in two underground mines; one in Alberta or British Columbia over 6 years ago and another in Cobalt, Ontario this year. Volcanoguy 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Read Geothermal gradient as that's what Chris is referring to here. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. So is the connection I made between hydrothermal activity in my seconed last comment correct? My mind is a bit twisted up right now from being in this discussion too long. Volcanoguy 01:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Refs for that connection? Been in many deep mines lately? Vsmith (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Examples: everywhere there is a crust mantle boundary, so volcanic; there are warm water fountains in the Wallis; and the Po basin is an area under subduction. If the put the Geology of the Alps/ Alpine orogeny/ Alpide orogeny under WP Volcanoes, than we'd better close the WP Volcanoes and go all to the WP Geology ;) Everywhere there is Plate tectonics, plate tectonics is linked to warm water fountains. The romans always found a warm water fountain for their baths. We need to stay different from the WP:Geology, although, to my surprise, we have almost the same number of files (WP:G, 4,141; WP:V, 3,919). Again, everywhere is Plate tectonics (orogenies, faults, extension & volcanism), everywhere is a Crust/Mantle boundary, every rock was once an igneous rock (Rock Cycle). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another example: Australia's Great Artesian Basin has water temperatures of ~100C about 1 km down, far from any recent volcanism. --Avenue (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Examples: everywhere there is a crust mantle boundary, so volcanic; there are warm water fountains in the Wallis; and the Po basin is an area under subduction. If the put the Geology of the Alps/ Alpine orogeny/ Alpide orogeny under WP Volcanoes, than we'd better close the WP Volcanoes and go all to the WP Geology ;) Everywhere there is Plate tectonics, plate tectonics is linked to warm water fountains. The romans always found a warm water fountain for their baths. We need to stay different from the WP:Geology, although, to my surprise, we have almost the same number of files (WP:G, 4,141; WP:V, 3,919). Again, everywhere is Plate tectonics (orogenies, faults, extension & volcanism), everywhere is a Crust/Mantle boundary, every rock was once an igneous rock (Rock Cycle). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Refs for that connection? Been in many deep mines lately? Vsmith (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. So is the connection I made between hydrothermal activity in my seconed last comment correct? My mind is a bit twisted up right now from being in this discussion too long. Volcanoguy 01:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Read Geothermal gradient as that's what Chris is referring to here. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not necessarily wrong. I know it is not always that warm at that depth because have been in two underground mines; one in Alberta or British Columbia over 6 years ago and another in Cobalt, Ontario this year. Volcanoguy 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- (But perhaps not always wrong, since our geothermal gradient article says that regions with extensive permafrost (e.g. parts of Canada) can be abnormally cool several hundred metres down. --Avenue (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
- I don't know. I think Awickert would, though. ResMar 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The quartz veins are in my experience secondary features (volcanic rocks form, get cracked, and Qtz intrudes). As far as the general question, I will echo Mike. I'll also note that a major function of the project tags is to direct authors to articles within a topic area. So (based on writer discretion) if a mining article would be interesting to someone in WikiProject Volcanoes, probably best to add a tag. Awickert (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Similar points could be made about quarries, and again I think this needs some editorial discretion. For instance, I don't think there is enough volcanological content at the Moon's Hill Quarry article for it to deserve a {{Volcano}} tag. I thought it was interesting that the community of Oberroßbach has basalt columns in its coat of arms, but again I don't think it's worth tagging as part of our project. --Avenue (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for my remoteness, I feel terribly out of reach with the discussion at this point. ResMar 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Volcanoguy, I think that u can decide it on a case to case basis at ur discretion. But we can not do it as a general rule, for secondary mineralizations, if there isn't a whole section about volcanism available. The scope of WP:Volcanoes must not get more similar to WP:Geology, the difference between each other must remain. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- In your opinion. If a feature formed by volcanism it's formed by volcanism. If it's formed by volcanism it would fit into this project. Simple as that. Volcanism has played a big part of Earth believe it or not. Same old thing for Venus; its surface is mostly volcanic. If there is a project that should not get more similar to WP Volcanoes it's WP Geology. WP Volcanoes deals with volcanoes, volcanism, igneous petrology, etc and always has. I already made it quite clear that porphyry copper deposits and other "secondary features" are formed by volcanism. Volcanoguy 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't think it's that simple. Perhaps if the article was specifically about the deposit, you might have a point. But the articles we are talking about here are primarily about the mines, which are made by people, not volcanoes. Let me draw an analogy with buildings. Yes, some are built from volcanic rocks (e.g. the old Mount Eden Prison building is made from basalt, to take an example near me), and so we could argue they fall within this project's scope. But I think that is drawing too long a bow. --Avenue (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- In your opinion. If a feature formed by volcanism it's formed by volcanism. If it's formed by volcanism it would fit into this project. Simple as that. Volcanism has played a big part of Earth believe it or not. Same old thing for Venus; its surface is mostly volcanic. If there is a project that should not get more similar to WP Volcanoes it's WP Geology. WP Volcanoes deals with volcanoes, volcanism, igneous petrology, etc and always has. I already made it quite clear that porphyry copper deposits and other "secondary features" are formed by volcanism. Volcanoguy 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Volcanoguy, I think that u can decide it on a case to case basis at ur discretion. But we can not do it as a general rule, for secondary mineralizations, if there isn't a whole section about volcanism available. The scope of WP:Volcanoes must not get more similar to WP:Geology, the difference between each other must remain. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You state: "I already made it quite clear that porphyry copper deposits and other "secondary features" are formed by volcanism." Where? not clear because it is not factual. Porphyry copper deposits are not formed by volcanism. Porphyry copper deposits are spatially and genetically related to intrusive porphyritic rocks and associated hydrothermal activity. Intrusive porphyritic quartz monzonites or diorites are not volcanic. Intrusive igneous rocks may be associated with volcanism at the surface, but many to most do not have any evidence that they were connected to surface manifestations of volcanic activity. An article about a mine exploiting copper or molybdenum from a porphyry copper deposit should be in WP project mining and perhaps WP project geology (assuming the article discusses the geology of the mine) -- but not WP project volcanoes as it has nothing to do with volcanoes. Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do I have to repeat myself? WP Volcanoes does not just cover volcanoes but also igneous petrology. See the project's scope: This WikiProject aims to enhance information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related articles. I never said quartz monzonites or diorites are volcanic; they are intrusive. From my experience, volcanism is not just connected to volcanic rocks and eruptions. It's also connected to the movement of magma under the surface and related intruding. I am not comming back into this discussion because it's just a waste of time. Citing everything I say is bullshit. Volcanoguy 00:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- You state: "I already made it quite clear that porphyry copper deposits and other "secondary features" are formed by volcanism." Where? not clear because it is not factual. Porphyry copper deposits are not formed by volcanism. Porphyry copper deposits are spatially and genetically related to intrusive porphyritic rocks and associated hydrothermal activity. Intrusive porphyritic quartz monzonites or diorites are not volcanic. Intrusive igneous rocks may be associated with volcanism at the surface, but many to most do not have any evidence that they were connected to surface manifestations of volcanic activity. An article about a mine exploiting copper or molybdenum from a porphyry copper deposit should be in WP project mining and perhaps WP project geology (assuming the article discusses the geology of the mine) -- but not WP project volcanoes as it has nothing to do with volcanoes. Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Volcanoes articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the WikiProject Volcanoes articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Volcanoes articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the WikiProject Volcanoes articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion to rename assessment categories for this project
Greeting WikiProject Volcanoes, it was noticed recently that of approximately 1660 WikiProjects yours was one of 11 that preceed the assessment categories with WikiProject. All the rest state only the subject (ex. Volcanoes vice WikiProject Volcanoes). In an effort to standardize the assessment categories and make it easier to identify the scope of articles we would like to change the assessment categories of your project from WikiProject Volcanoes to simply Volcanoes to be in-line with all the others. Before doing this we would like your input on this change to ensure that it meets the consensus of your project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- No! We like being archaic :P ResMar 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just did a total rewrite and expansion for this article. It includes tons of stuff that should have been in the article in the first place. Also, this article rubs the last discussion about the inclusion of mineralization and mining into this project. The greenstone belt is an igneous formation with extreme mineralization and several mines, and are included in the article. Nevertheless, both WP Volcanoes and Mining are involved with this article. Not my fault that most people think igneous rocks are mainly about magma. Volcanoguy 07:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections
Dear editors,
Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.
Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.
- Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.
For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for years of eruptions
Stormchaser89 has created a number of categories relating to volcanoes that erupted in a particular year. For example, Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2010, Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2009. IMHO, this seems like over-categorization. I can imagine some volcanoes could end up being added to dozens of categories if the intent is to go way back in history. Since this project does not seem to have seen the need for these categories up to now, I'm curious as to what other project participants think of these new categories. RedWolf (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there is an earthquake cycle in the Pacific Ring of Fire triggering volcanic eruptions (Category:Megathrust earthquakes). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the 1946 Nankaidō earthquake, the 1960 Valdivia earthquake, the 1964 Alaska earthquake, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami and the 2010 Chile earthquake. Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2012, Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2011, Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2010, Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2009 make sense. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find it over-categorization, especially for volcanoes that have erupted continuously for some time (e.g. Kīlauea). Volcanoes that have erupted several times in historic time (e.g. Mount St. Helens) will likely contain several of these eruption categories. Volcanoguy 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is a List of 20th-century earthquakes and a List of 21st-century earthquakes. It is logical that the significant volcanic eruptions triggered by strong earthquakes should get listed too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is Category:19th-century volcanic events, Category:20th-century volcanic events and Category:21st-century volcanic events. Volcanoguy 11:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nice, only the Pacific Ring of Fire ones would not change much, probably.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Volcanoes erupting by year is overcategorisation IMO. The volcanic events by (recent) century categories are much more sensible. --Avenue (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- What about volcanoes erupting by decade? Eruptions per century is to broad, and eruptions by year may be very tedious so eruptions by decade could be a happy middle ground. Stormchaser89 (talk) 3:23 US central time, 5 December 2010
- Categorising volcanoes by the dates of all their eruptions doesn't make sense to me; it would litter the category listing for many volcanoes with numerous unimportant categories, as Volcanoguy noted above. But I think we could usefully categorise volcanoes by the decade of their most recent eruption during the 21st and 20th centuries, and perhaps the 19th; e.g. in Category:Volcanoes that last erupted in the 1980s. Categorising by century would seem better for the preceding one or two millenia. In fact, this seems a better system to me than our current division of volcanoes using the very vague active, dormant, inactive, and extinct classification.
- Major eruptions will hopefully have an article of their own, which can be categorised in the appropriate category for volcanic events by date. --Avenue (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- If u want to do something really useful, make a list with the Pacific Ring of Fire only. It's earthquake cycle is here: Megathrust earthquake. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is about volcanoes, not earthquakes of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Volcanoguy 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Subduction feeds magma chambers that leak after earthquakes. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is about volcanoes, not earthquakes of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Volcanoguy 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If u want to do something really useful, make a list with the Pacific Ring of Fire only. It's earthquake cycle is here: Megathrust earthquake. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- What about volcanoes erupting by decade? Eruptions per century is to broad, and eruptions by year may be very tedious so eruptions by decade could be a happy middle ground. Stormchaser89 (talk) 3:23 US central time, 5 December 2010
- Volcanoes erupting by year is overcategorisation IMO. The volcanic events by (recent) century categories are much more sensible. --Avenue (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nice, only the Pacific Ring of Fire ones would not change much, probably.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is Category:19th-century volcanic events, Category:20th-century volcanic events and Category:21st-century volcanic events. Volcanoguy 11:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is a List of 20th-century earthquakes and a List of 21st-century earthquakes. It is logical that the significant volcanic eruptions triggered by strong earthquakes should get listed too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find it over-categorization, especially for volcanoes that have erupted continuously for some time (e.g. Kīlauea). Volcanoes that have erupted several times in historic time (e.g. Mount St. Helens) will likely contain several of these eruption categories. Volcanoguy 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 6. Please feel free to vote and express your ideas. - Darwinek (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.:
- Thomas R. Walter and Falk Amelung (2007). "Volcanic eruptions following M ≥ 9 megathrust earthquakes: Implications for the Sumatra-Andaman volcanoes" (PDF). Geology. 35 (6): 539–542. doi:10.1130/G23429A.1.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Eggert, S., Walter, T.R. (9 June 2009). "Volcanic activity before and after large tectonic earthquakes: Observations and statistical significance" (PDF). Tectonophysics. 471 (1–2): 14–26. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.003.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Volcanoes metatemplate?
I'm trying to, posibly, put togethor a template to organize that confused mess that volcano info is. I've made a draft in my sandbox. Feel free to add anything or edit it as appropriate (read: fix it up and we can use it as a scaffold). ResMar 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Pacific Ring of Fire earthquake cycle
There are some periods with megathrust earthquakes on the Pacific Ring of Fire, and some calmer periods. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami triggered some lava flows, 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami hurt one magma chamber only, yet. It could be speculated that 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, 2010 Canterbury earthquake, 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2010 Chile earthquake are a result of a lever chain reaction as well as a stress build up and it endangers the San Andreas transform fault. San Andreas fault ruptures every 101 years by simulation, such a rupture could hurt the magma chamber of the Yellowstone system. The Yellowstone system had some lava flows in the past: Hell's Half Acre Lava Field, Shoshone lava field, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. It's not the worst of our ideas to have some references at hand in order to be able to overview some high editing rate.
- Smith, B. R., and D. T. Sandwell (2006). "A model of the earthquake cycle along the San Andreas Fault System for the past 1000 years" (PDF). J. Geophys. Res. 111 (B01405). doi:10.1029/2005JB003703.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
General list
Tut. I think this should be developed into a list of volcanic terms...ResMar 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Current events
Just a thought - I know the timescale is normally geological but current eruptions should probably make it into the list of most visible articles
So I'd have thought that Grímsvötn would be there at the moment.
Updates owing to volcanic alert classification system
Aloha
From the slopes of the world's most active volcano. It looks like the USGS did a revision in 2007 to the warning scheme..renamed it and gave all kinds of cool icons to use. See: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/alertsystem/icons.php
If you are big into volcanoes like me, I really could use some help as there is way more updates to do on Wikipedia then I can do alone.
- 1 The page Volcano warning schemes of the United States needs updating to match current USGS alerts. I have uploaded these graphics: Volcanic-alert icons.jpg
- 2 I recommend that each individual volcano page be updated to include the current status as per the USGS alert system. I will do one for Kilauea. Notice to be proper you need to say the status is Current as of _____ Date and you should refer reader to the page to understand what alerts mean..and a USGS website where status of volcanoes is updated. My concern is when a volcano begins erupting..Wiki-readers will see the wiki-page and may thing everything is fine when really their volcano is erupting.
I'm not exactly sure .... however..is there such a thing as a real time link that keeps a page updated according to an outside page? A script needs to consult this page and then select the proper icon or statement. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/status.php and then select a photo..ho
- 3 One issue I ran into when updating a page that described the status of a volcano..is that we all use the commonly accepted status of extinct, dormant and active
These seem to be the answers to questions many students get from teachers. However, if you talk to the USGS today they will describe volcanoes according to the activity alert method. Therefore, Mauna Kea which many call alertately extinct or dormant is now classified as NORMAL.
- 4 The USGS Activity alert is not universal world wide and different countries use different names and colors or activity numbers. I'm not sure if these should each have a separate page, however, it does make sense to make one central page that links to the other country pages.
I love giving talks on volcanoes to school kids and appreciate being able to contribute to Wikipedia.
Here is my photo.. user pbmaise
Philip Maise— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- As you said "USGS Activity alert is not universal world wide". Wikipedia copes badly with high vandalism and high maintenance. I'm not sure, but I think u can't import external data by a script on Wikipedia. I read somewhere that geology regards a volcano dormant if it didn't erupt the last 10,000 years. Volcanoes can be regarded extinct if their magma supply moved away (subduction zones, hotspots). Plutons, Batholiths and Latholiths are mostly remains of extinct volcanic activity. Toga, Yellowstone and Eifel are in the repose period but their systems are active. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to do this on a case-by-case basis, but the amount of work needed for so many conversions would be monumental at best. It's a good idea but there's no one to do it really, basically. I have been at most monitoring this page for the past month or so. ResMar 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Article titles for individual eruptions
As I pointed out in the AFD currently going on for 2011 Eritrean eruption, if the article is kept as a standalone article, it should be renamed either 2011 Nabro eruption or 2011 eruption of Nabro based on the titles for other eruptions. But does WP:Volcanoes have a preferred form? Carolina wren (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the "of" moniker is preferred. ResMar 21:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Eruption infobox?
I'm looking for a good infobox to use for volcanic eruptions. Your project page suggests Mountain, but that seems more suited to dormant volcanoes, not ongoing events. I didn't see anything over at WP:Disaster either. Suggestions? Johnson487682 (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#Updates owing to volcanic alert classification system, well ongoing eruptions require maintenance and voluntary work is a rare thing. Specially above college education level. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think there should be an infobox for eruptions. Infobox mountain is not good enough for this kind of stuff. An infobox for eruptions would be used on articles about eruptions and probably in eruption sections of volcano articles. Volcanoguy 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but who should own it: WP:Volcanoes or WP:Disasters? I've asked the question at WP:Disasters, too, but nobody's answered yet. Johnson487682 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP Volcanoes. Volcanoguy 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been itching for something to do while waiting for references to arrive for Military history of the Russian Empire. I'll go along and do that now, hopefully. ResMar 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done, see Template:Infobox eruption. ResMar 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- We need to fill out Category:Volcanic events. ResMar 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looking good. However, I disagree with the following sentence: "This infobox is meant to be used on pages about volcanoc eruptions, not on the pages of the volcanoes themselves." It would be appropiate to add Template:Infobox eruption in sections about particular eruptions in a volcano article if it has lots of information. I have seen articles that use two infoboxes, including volcano and impact crater ones. Volcanoguy 17:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cool--thank you, ResMar! I've added it here. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And I added a few tips to the template documentation that I found helpful when using the infobox for the first time. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- We need to fill out Category:Volcanic events. ResMar 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done, see Template:Infobox eruption. ResMar 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been itching for something to do while waiting for references to arrive for Military history of the Russian Empire. I'll go along and do that now, hopefully. ResMar 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP Volcanoes. Volcanoguy 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but who should own it: WP:Volcanoes or WP:Disasters? I've asked the question at WP:Disasters, too, but nobody's answered yet. Johnson487682 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think there should be an infobox for eruptions. Infobox mountain is not good enough for this kind of stuff. An infobox for eruptions would be used on articles about eruptions and probably in eruption sections of volcano articles. Volcanoguy 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I polished then off and then got sucked into other things, will get back to it now. ResMar 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A book called "Alkaline rocks and Carbonatite of the world"
Just thought I'd recommend this book I stumbled upon via google (it is about Africa only but is part 3 of a series so presumably there are more) and I think it's probably pretty good if you're looking for references for Volcanism in Africa. You may already have a copy, but you can browse all the content via the link. EdwardLane (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- African volcanoes don't get much attention, so this could indeed be useful. ResMar 12:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Red and grey volcanoes
The french project uses a strange typology for volcanoes : red volcanoes producing only fluid lava and grey volcanoes having only explosive eruptions. I remember having first heard of this dichotomy in the late 90s on TV. I think it is only used by mass media and maybe middle- high-school. As the members of this project are a bit touchy on this subject, I'd like to know if some of you knows more about it (is it used in the english speaking world, where and when it appeared, has any academic work ever used it, etc.) TIA Lanredec (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- This book, Volcanoes: Global Perspectives by two non-French volcanologists John Lockwood and Rick Hazlett, explains more about this and uses the terms 'grey' and 'red' throughout. Mikenorton (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Andesite Line
For non-geologists, a definition of andesite (on the page), and why the Andesite line is called by that name, would be good. Also, an illustration would be great! Thank you. I appreciate the volcano pages, the tectonic plate information, and the page of the Pacific Ocean. And I did look up andesite. --EarthSpaceFriend (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Infobox hotspot
I was just wondering if it would be a good idea to create an infobox for hotspots. There is 31 hotspot articles in Category:Hotspots (including it's subcategories), which is probably enough to create an infobox template. Volcanoguy 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Category:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe nominated for deletion.
Its only member, Murowa diamond mine, was removed from the category on the assertion that a kimberlite pipe is not a volcano. The category itself was then immediately nominated for deletion as being empty. I restored the article to the category, but the CfD vote is still going on here. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I seem to have gone slightly overboard and bitten off rather more than I can chew when I did a quick search for volcano+Zimbabwe.
- it started simply enough with finding a reference saying that the Thuli Crater and Save Crater are due to volcanic plugs in S and SE Zimbabwe [1] I then also found this [1] which is probably what the first article referenced.
- And this [2] shows a 600m West Save Crater and an 800m East Save Crater in the Save valley, East Zimbabwe. Describing them as volcanic vents or pipe like feeders to the uppermost layer of the Karoo Supergroup - it also mentions that they have been investigated for 'Kimberlite volcanism'. The Karoo super group apparently has a an "igneous Drakensberg Group" - presumably that's the basalt mentioned here Drakensberg (apparently that's flood basalt) but according to a quick google scholar search (which gives me the first few phrases from various articles I can't access) they are different to the basic and acid lavas of the Lebombo Group . Perhaps someone else can tie that all together?
- Volcanism at 'Save' is mentioned in this quote (below) from this pdf about amongst other things the Golden Valley Sill (which in itself looks quite interesting).
The second tectonic regime is an episode of lithospheric thinning/rifting (Sweeney
et al., 1994) that overlaps with the end of earliest activity (~179 Ma, Jourdan et al., 2007). It occurred along pre-existing lithospheric weakness and controlled the formations of radiating dyke swarms: the Lebombo dyke swarm, the Save Limpopo dyke swarm and the Okavango dyke swarm (Jourdan et al., 2006). This tectonic regime is associated with emplacement of diverse magmas, dominated by tholeiitic basalts and picrites of different compositions (Sweeney et al., 1991), but including minor nephelinites as well as large volumes of high-temperature anhydrous rhyolites and rhyodacites, in a bimodal suite. Along the Lebombo and Save monoclines the volcanic sequence dips eastward below
younger sedimentary sequences underlying the coastal plain of Mozambique.
Apparently (according to this very quick scholar seach)the Karoo group includes the Nuanetsi basalts in Zimbabwe.
Also the main part of the (dyke) swarm extends from the Nuanetsi igneous province across southern Zimbabwe and northern Botswana toward the Okavango swamps, a lesser density of dikes being on either side.
Also that search popped up that the Lebombo monocline is a major geological feature, extending northwards from Natal, South Africa over 750km through Swaziland to Zimbabwe. The rocks under discussion form part of the Lebombo Group (Schutte, 1986) of the Mesozoic Karoo Supergroup.
So the formation of the Lembombo monocline has some part in Zimbabwe - there seems to be rhyolite (and karoo aged gabbro) according to this abstract but there is basalt in the 'The Sabie River basalt formation of the Lebombo monocline and south-east Zimbabwe' (according to another quick scholar search - apparently that's mentioned somewhere in this) - I'm going to paste the abstract as that seems to deal with most of the issue.
It also fully demonstrates how much of an epic 'biting off more than I could chew' occurred.
A volcanic event of immense scale occurred within a relatively short period in early Jurassic time over large regions of the contiguous Gondwana supercontinent. In southern Africa, associated remnants of thick volcanic successions of lava flows and extensive dike and sill complexes of similar composition have been grouped together as the Karoo Igneous Province. Correlative volcanic and plutonic rocks occur in Antarctica and Australia as the Ferrar Province. Thirty-two new Ar-40/Ar-39 incremental heating experiments on feldspars and whole rocks from Namibia, South Africa and East Antarctica produce highly resolved ages with a vast majority at 183 +/- 1 Ma and a total range of 184 to 179 Ma. These are indistinguishable from recent, high-resolution Ar-40/Ar-39 and U-Pb age determinations reported from the Antarctic portion of the province. Initial Karoo volcanism (Lesotho-type compositions) occurred across the entire South African craton. The ubiquitous distribution of a plexus of generally nonoriented feeder dikes and sills intruding Precambrian crystalline rocks and Phanerozoic sediments indicates that these magmas penetrated the craton over a broad region. Lithosphere thinning of the continent followed the main pulse of igneous activity, with volcanism focused in the Lebombo-Nuanetsi region, near the eventual split between Africa and Antarctica. Seafloor spreading and dispersion of east and west Gondwana followed some 10-20 m.y. afterward. The volume of the combined Karoo-Ferrar province (similar to 2.5 x 10(6) km(3)) makes it one of the largest continental flood basalt events. The timing of this event correlates with a moderate mass extinction (Toarcian-Aalenian), affecting largely marine invertebrates. This extinction event was not as severe as those recorded at the Permian-Triassic or Cretaceous-Tertiary boundaries associated with the Siberian and Deccan flood basalts events, respectively. The difference may be due to the high southerly latitude and somewhat lower eruption rates of the Karoo event
EdwardLane (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just spotted that the last few pages of the book I mentioned earlier is all about Zimbabwe
What is a volcano
Colleagues, I seem to have started a storm here. It was never my intention to suggest that there had never been volcanism in Zimbabwe - the Karoo volcanism was a major event in southern Africa's Mesozoic, and one I have published on myself. My assertation in the CfD was in regard to volcanoes as landforms. Murowa diamond mine is not a landform - the kimberlites have minimal surface expression. There are numerous surface expressions of volcanism (flood basalts, ignimbritic rhyolites, the volcanic pipe/vent reported by Sharad Master from the Save Valley and so on). So I would appreciate an understanding of :
- What does this WP consider to be a volcano, and is this different from the definition of volcano - I note that page makes no reference to kimberlites or diatremes
- Are all remnants and products of volcanism classified as volcanoes?
- Can we consider subterranean remnants of kimberlites, diatremes etc as volcanoes? What about feeder dykes? Surely there has to be some surface expression or we are dealing with plutonic rocks? The Template:Igneous rocks classifies kimberlites as hypabyssal or sub-volcanic, like pegmatites, not volcanic. Babakathy (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP Volcanoes considers a volcano what a volcano is.
- Remnants of volcanoes are definately still considered volcanoes. But products of volcanism can be tricky because it could just be material erupted from a volcano or it could be remains that formed a volcano.
- As stated in my previous statement, if it's the remnant of a volcano it is still proper to consider it a volcano, or at least a prehistoric volcano. I am not too sure about feeder dikes but they may be considered a volcano or at least part of a volcano because feeder dikes erupt material to the surface similar to a volcanic vent. For example, see the Regional terrane section in the Big Dan Mine article, which states that the felsic dikes around the Big Dan Shear Zone may be subvolcanic feeders to the felsic lava flows to the south. From what I have mostly seen, kimberlites are volcanic. Volcanoguy 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree there are some igneous formations (e.g. plutons, ignimbrite sheets) where the link to a specific volcano is so unclear that categorising them under Category:Volcanoes would seem odd, and Category:Volcanism is probably a better fit. There are other landforms that are not exactly a volcano (e.g. volcanic plugs, ring dykes and other remnants), but are linked closely enough with a specific volcano or vent that categorising them under Category:Volcanoes seems reasonable. Kimberlite pipes seem borderline to me. --Avenue (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I do think it is inappropriate to classify hypabyssal rocks as volcanic or as part of volcanism. The classification plutonic/hypabyssal/volcanic is one of the basic tenets of igneous petrology and we would create confusion by considering a pluton or pegmatite under the category:volcanism/volcanoes. This is irrespective of whether or not there is any link to a volcano - which is why we normally talk of Igneous Provinces not Volcanic Provinces.
- I agree that products of volcanoes are trickier, and the designation of category:volcanism (or volcanism in X) makes more sense for ignimbrite sheets, flood basalts, grestone/greenschist etc than category:volcanoes.
- I support classifying remnants of a volcano as volcanoes, which would certainly include volcanic plugs.
- Kimberlites are complex as they have both volcanic and hypabyssal facies. However, if we do not have any volcanic facies remaining would we consider them volcanoes? Or is Volcanism (in X) a better category? Babakathy (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- For Zimbabwe, there are far more volcanic products than remnants, and no intact volcanoes, so I would like to suggest Category: Volcanism in Zimbabwe, with Volcanoes in Zimbabwe as a sub-cat, if we are leaving Murowa as volcano per any kimberlite is volcano? I will try and add something on the Thuli Crater to the general article about the area and that can go in the subcat too.Babakathy (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some good questions there - I think I would include intrusions that didn't (without erosion) reach the surface under the category volcanism but not as volcanoes - but perhaps (though it seems wrong to me) the hypabyssal/plutonic formations shouldn't be included under 'volcan'ism ?? Should they just be under Category:Igneous ?
- I think I'd have any 'pipe/fissure/vent' where magma reached the surface - tagged as belonging to a 'volcano' - and any remnants of that now potentially eroded landform still being tagged as volcano. I was going to suggest that everything else should 'just' be Igneous - but that doesn't handle some other items that are in 'volcanism' - hmm ok I'm stuck EdwardLane (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree that our category placements sometimes stretch the meaning of volcanism. For instance, Category:Intrusions is currently a subcategory of Category:Volcanism. But trying to distinguish between intrusive activity and volcanism would be difficult in general, as the boundary often isn't clear-cut. For example, we don't know if the Monteregian Hills are remnants of volcanic activity, or intrusions that had no surface expression. The same can be said for many other intrusions. Our volcanism categories have so far been applied fairly liberally to many intrusions, including some that haven't been explicitly linked to volcanism (e.g. dyke swarms), though not to individual granite domes as far as I know.
- Coming back to Zimbabwe, if we have any articles on volcanic products there besides specific volcanoes/calderas/pipes/etc (e.g. flood basalts), then that would be a good reason to create Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. --Avenue (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is volcanic activity only on the surface? I personally disagree intrusions are not products of volcanism, especially if the magma didn't reach the surface. Earthquakes related to magma intruding at depth is considered to be volcanic activity. What happens when the magma solidifies? It becomes an intrusion. Interesting to note that the stock article states that circular or elliptical stocks may have been vents feeding former volcanoes, although there is no reference for that claim. From looking at this file of the Monteregian Hills, they are circular. Volcanoguy 01:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- My 2 cents on lava beds or lava flows: they don't qualify as volcanoes. There are so many lava beds or lava flows attributable to a single volcano/cinder cone that they should not be listed independently as separate volcanoes. Just a pet peeve. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
How about this
| volcanism |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hope that's helpful - it's how I'm seeing the question, but perhaps I've got the structure wrong in my mind ?? EdwardLane (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Colleagues, whatever else we should not categorise plutons or hypabyssal rocks as volcanoes or volcanism. Otherwise we are implying all igneous activity is volcanic and that is ludicrous. If we are not sure whether a particular feature is volcanic or plutonic in origin, it makes no sense to categorise it as either. It is better to not categorise a feature that categorise it wrongly. Babakathy (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Babakathy - I was going to go back an edit this to put a "or should intrusions be outside of volcanism as Babakathy suggested earlier" next to the pluton.
- But I think that would then need another layer above the structure I drew - which could split into 'volcanism', and 'other igneous stuff like intrusions not associated with volcanism' - is there a word for that (are there any intrusions that are not associated with volcanism? I don't think so - using my (possibly unscientific) 'loose' definition of 'volcanism')?
- I've only done about 5 years of geology in school - so I'm very aware I'm at the edge of my knowledge. EdwardLane (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are examples of large igneous bodies that are not associated with any known extrusive equivalents (and, considering the uplift that's necessary to expose these things, there is that uncertainty) such as anorthosites, which were apparently intruded into the the lower crust. In terms of more recent igneous activity (i.e. Phanerozoic) there are many intrusions within sedimentary basins that do not have direct links to extrusive activity at the surface, even though they form part of a Large igneous province, see for instance here. Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks Mike, I think you might have missed the word 'volcano' in this line?
There are examples of large igneous bodies that are not associated with any known (and, considering the uplift that's necessary to expose these things, there is that uncertainty) such as anorthosites, which were apparently intruded into the the lower crust.
Missing bit now added to my comment - sorry about that. Mikenorton (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've always been considering plutonic/hypabyssal/volcanic as part of volcanism but the entry for volcanism doesn't quite support that interpretation (it would need to change the lead to say 'igneous rock' rather than 'volcanic rock' to mean what I think) - so should I be calling "p+h+v" something like 'magmatism' rather than 'volcanism'?. If it should be magmatism we could make that category with volcanism and hypabyssalism (is there a better word?) and plutonism as 3 sub categories - then kimberlite pipes could perhaps move off into hypabyssal features of zimbabwe - rather than volcanism of zimbabwe or volcanoes of zimbabwe?? EdwardLane (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- In igneous petrology and regional geology we generally talk of igneous provinces, to avoid this type of confusion. The distinction between volcanic, hypabyssal and plutonic rock is normal in geology, clear and is supported by the Template:Igneous rocks. If a particular igneous body or landform is difficult to classify into one of these categories, then it is better to refer to it as an igneous body/province/landform and not to categorise it further. For the purpose of wikipedia categorisation, I would favour Igneous Rocks/Activity/Features with volcanism etc as subcats. To force an article to fit a Category it does not really fit is bad science.Babakathy (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone wants to us bad science (I'm probably closest with 'ignorant science').
- So am I correct in thinking you suggest creating categories "igneous rock" "igneous activity" and "igneous features" ?
- And if so am I right in thinking 'Cat volcanism' (along with 'cat eruptions') would be a subcat of 'igneous activity' and that 'volcanic features' would be a subcat of 'igneous features' - along with 'cat hypabyssal features' and 'cat plutonic features' (and cat volcano would be in 'volcanic features')?
- sounds like it makes sense to me - but I'm only a minnow EdwardLane (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I like EdwardLane's organization, if we leave the pluton part out. Plutons are intrusive rocks, existing as dikes, sills, stocks, laccoliths, batholiths ... Only if there is direct evidence that a specific pluton served as a feeder dike or subvolcanic lava source should it be categorized as volcanic.
- The volcanism category should be a subcat of category:Igneous petrology which should exist as sister categories under category:Petrology with category:Metamorphic petrology and category:Sedimentary petrology. category:Intrusions should not be under category:Volcanism.
- Kimberlites, maars, diatremes and other related critters should go under his other specific volcanism in that area. Any ring dike, feeder dikes or plugs which have documented connections to overlying or pre-existing volcanism could also be categorized as associated subvolcanic intrusive bodies within that other specific... category. We already have category:Subvolcanic rocks
- The current category scheme for petrology including category:Rocks just kinda grew as individual Wikiers added categories based on their own interests - or the specific need at the time. The whole thing needs to be re-done based on the science. But, we're just playing here ... :) Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying to confuse things more but I think that the overall category called 'igneous activity' above would be better called 'magmatism', but I'm not too sure how to proceed from there. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just created Category:Igneous petrology. Insted of adding Category:Intrusions into Category:Igneous petrology I changed it to Category:Igneous rocks. The later is a subcat of Category:Igneous petrology. Volcanoguy 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Great progress! But if we have category:Volcanism as subcat of Category:Igneous petrology then we need Category:Intrusions - the Category:Igneous rocks would include both volcanic and plutonic rocks (and hypabyssal). Babakathy (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see all of this as progress. Category:Intrusions contains a few general types of intrusions (e.g. sill, diapir) and many specific landforms formed from intrusions. This does not sit well as a subcategory of Category:Igneous rocks, which as the name suggests mainly contains various types of igneous rocks (e.g. scoria, basaltic andesite, etc). I'd like to see our categories respect the distinction between landforms and types of rocks. For example, a caldera is not an igneous rock, nor is the Caribbean large igneous province. Also Category:Igneous petrology currently contains Category:Volcanism, which contains Category:Volcanology, which all seems backwards to me. I'd see Category:Volcanology as a separate member of Category:Subfields of geology, not buried two levels down within petrology, and Category:Igneous petrology as a subcategory of both. Category:Volcanism should be a subcategory of Category:Volcanology, not vice versa. Admittedly some of these are longstanding problems. An overall review of the volcanological and igneous categories seems worthwhile. --Avenue (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Great progress! But if we have category:Volcanism as subcat of Category:Igneous petrology then we need Category:Intrusions - the Category:Igneous rocks would include both volcanic and plutonic rocks (and hypabyssal). Babakathy (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just created Category:Igneous petrology. Insted of adding Category:Intrusions into Category:Igneous petrology I changed it to Category:Igneous rocks. The later is a subcat of Category:Igneous petrology. Volcanoguy 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying to confuse things more but I think that the overall category called 'igneous activity' above would be better called 'magmatism', but I'm not too sure how to proceed from there. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok this is what it sounded like Babakathy was suggesting (though I'm not sure where kimberlite pipes were meant to go on this so they are in two spots. I've not had a chance to get my head around the very recent changes - so I'm not giving any opinions for a bit EdwardLane (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
| magmatism |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- It seems odd to have "eruptions" listed beside "volcanism". Surely eruptions are a form of volcanism; a subcategory, not an alternative. Also I think Wikipedia categories are not usually named "Other XXX", because this does not say explicitly what the category would include. It would be better to use a more specific name, e.g. "Intrusive igneous activity" instead of "Other types of activity". --Avenue (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I've had a few more thoughts since I typed up the tree above but I've not had time to flesh them out yet. The descriptions above are all bit rough - It's quite quick for me to type out one of those tree diagrams (I've just used the tech from cladogram). The thinking about what other people have said and making it all make sense takes longer. Also the labels are very adhoc at the moment just trying to 'move' toward a tidy solution.
- Should Category:Volcanism be a subcat of Category:Volcanology? To me it seems like these two categories cover pretty much the same thing so one could just be deleted. The "Volcanism of XXXX" categories and articles could be renamed to "Volcanology of XXXX". Volcanoguy 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree.Babakathy (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here is an example:
- I agree.Babakathy (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Volcanism by country --> Category:Volcanology by country (including subcats)
- Category:Volcanism by continent --> Category:Volcanology by continent (including subcats)
- Category:Volcanism by ocean --> Category:Volcanology by ocean (including subcats)
- This categorization is goes well with Category:Geology (a parent of Category:Volcanology) because there is also Category:Geology by country. However I am not sure about categories like Category:Back-arc volcanism, Category:Volcanism by geochronology, Category:Extinct volcanism, Category:Hotspot volcanism, Category:Rift volcanism and Category:Subduction volcanism. Perhaps those categories could be kept in Category:Volcanism. Volcanoguy 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- A proposal along these lines has been made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 10#WikiProject Volcanoes. --Avenue (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that a kimberlite pipe is the cooled remnant of the neck of a diatreme volcano. It erupted above ground at supersonic speeds, and the pipe itself is a meaningful structural remnant of that volcano. It remains a landform by being an intact structure in the land, even if its remnant does not always just noticeably above the ground. It's similar, in a way, to a volcanic plug (which are also categorized among volcanoes) as a structural remnant of a volcano that erupted volcanically rather than just intruded plutonically. In the case of a volcanic plug, the surrounding terrain eroded away to expose the volcano's cooled magma chamber. A kimberlite isn't all that different in that sense, except that the magma chamber has not necessarily been exposed. The beauty is that, as the pipe itself becomes mined, if it was not as exposed above ground level before, it certainly becomes so after humans have arrived and started scraping it out. Perhaps none more historically well-known than the Big Hole, which is like a cleaned-out blackhead on the landscape showing its volcanic pipe structure for all to see. It is true that mere lava flows, etc., are not volcanoes in and of themselves, and that plutonic intrusions are not volcanoes. But kimberlite pipes actually are volcanoes, and they erupted volcanically, and they left their volcanic structure behind on (or under) the land. Volcano. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. That is why I think it is proper to categorize kimberlite pipes/diatremes as volcanoes. Volcanoguy 05:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Relief parameter for infobox mountain template
Discussion has started on adding a relief parameter to the infobox mountain template to have the relief map displayed by default (it specified in the location map template). See Template talk:Infobox mountain#Relief parameter. RedWolf (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
El Hierro
Looks like El Hierro might erupt soon the seismograms here and here are quite interesting. Might already be erupting underwater - 4 ships report sightings apparently. EdwardLane (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok photos this one with the ramon margalef ship for scale and this one definately showing multiple underwater vents causing plumes of bubbly water], small rafts of (trachyte based it is said) pumice. And at least 1 photo showing small geyser out of the sea, so looks like this is going to be a surtseyean style eruption. Mostly intelligent debate on this blog if you're interested. I'm trying to spot anything from a 'reliable' source to update the article. EdwardLane (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK timescale on this needs revising may now subside and not go surtseyan but it's certainly got some interest still ongoing. EdwardLane (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Zubair group yemen
It looks like a fresh island has formed but details are rather sketchy - some info here - I notice that many of the volcanoes on the List of volcanoes in Yemen don't have a page yet, so for now I've popped a mention of this on the talk page for that list - I'll see if I can get some stubs up based on GVP for them. EdwardLane (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed! The problem with these is that there's an ambiguous area, between creating an article about an eruption in the Red Sea, and creating an article about the new (as of yet unnamed) island. ResMar 03:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Red Sea#Geology mentions the eruption and points to Zubair Group which has slightly more. EdwardLane (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well then there we shall put it. Sorry for the late response, I don't monitor this page much anymore...ResMar 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Red Sea#Geology mentions the eruption and points to Zubair Group which has slightly more. EdwardLane (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Assemblage
Hi. I'm a novice re volcanoes. I was reading an article about Mount Meager, which referred to some specific Assemblages, and this was a new term to me. Wikipedia seems to lack a geological definition of assemblage.
It's been pointed out to me that "... [assemblage] is used in many names, e.g. Franciscan Assemblage, Pylon Assemblage, Plinth Assemblage, Job Assemblage, The Devastator Assemblage and Mosaic Assemblage. One might assume that "assemblage" is another term for a geological formation according to Franciscan Assemblage, which is also known as the Franciscan Formation.".
Do we have a learned &/or brave volunteer to find and add a definition into WP somewhere (at least here), preferably with wp:RS? Trafford09 (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well I just did a quick search on here - and it looks as if assemblage is probably just a short version of Assemblage Zone, and that seems to redirect to stratum, but with no mention of assemblage on that page. However this seems to indicate that it's something to do with the fossils found. Aha found it (and a bunch of other good definitions) [http://www.stratigraphy.org/upload/bak/bio.htm
at stratigraphy.org] which defines "Assemblage zone" as "The body of strata characterized by an assemblage of three or more fossil taxa that, taken together, distinguishes it in biostratigraphic character from adjacent strata." EdwardLane (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The usage in the articles above is for volcanic strata and rather unrelated to fossils. With the exception of the Franciscan the assemblage articles were added by one editor and refer to one reference by the Geological Association of Canada. Haven't read that reference which I assume uses the term, but am not familiar with assemblage as a formal stratigraphic term (however, there be a lot I'm not familiar with:). The term seems to imply a group of volcanic strata or layers - so why not use group as that is a defined term?
- The Plinth Assemblage is also known as the Plinth Formation, so seems to be a synonym for formation, perhaps just another addition to terminology confusion.
- The Franciscan is a chaotic mess of various rock types and so is rather different than the volcanic units of the Cascade articles. Vsmith (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
WP Seamounts
I think that WP:SEAMOUNT should become a workgroup of this project. The number of non-volcanic seamounts is in the distinct minority (and one really caused by a bad definition imho), and I've never written an article about a non-volcanic seamount. ResMar 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a sensible idea to me. EdwardLane (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Two lost Navy P3 weather airplanes during typhoon 1950's
I spent two yrs on Guam 1952-1955 in USMC. Was on Overland & Sea Rescue Team. Went to Agrihan on Destroyer Escort and landed on island in rubber rafts and with local guide climbed the valcano. Very erie! Clouds and rain. Miserable night. Climbed into the crater next day. Found weather plane plastered against opposite side cliff of the crater. Assumed pilot thought volcano 'Smoke hole' was downed weather plane they were looking for but they came in through a lose saddle of the crater and could not make it up over the opposite high side. Jerry Smeck fourofakin@att.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.121.241 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Croscat
I recently created an article about the Croscat volcano and submitted it to DYK. I would appreciate it you could give it a read to see if there are any errors. Initially, I wanted to include a sentence that would have said "The Croscat volcano is part of the Garrotxa Volcanic Zone, which is considered dormant but not extinct." but then I found an article (in Catalan) claiming that:
- "The volcanic area of Garrotxa has been considered dormant, not extinct, until recently. Now, experts have determined that it is wrong to say that it is dormant, but it is now considered active, and within this classification, the risk to re-erupt is moderate."
I wondered whether it would have been correct to use The Croscat volcano is part of the Garrotxa Volcanic Zone, which is considered active with a moderate risk of another eruption. but to say that this volcano is active might not be accurate. The volcano article mentions that the The Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program's definition of active is having erupted within the last 10,000 years (the 'holocene' period)., so this volcano is borderline (11500 years ago), although there is no source. Would it be incorrect to describe the volcano as active? Anyway, thanks and feel free to change/add/remove information if you feel it's necessary. Drunt (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Eerily quiet.
What, did everyone drop off a cliff? ResMar 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- U are always funny ResMar :D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- My comedic aspects come to the fore when presented with an empty room. ResMar 02:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just busy...Burntnickel (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Kilauea
Requesting a ce and...stuff...it's come along slowly. ResMar 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryukyu Arc nominated for deletion
Perhaps it can be improved along the lines of Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Article titles
I know I have not been part of this group for over a year, but I wanted to rise something that has been on my mind for awhile. Most of the information in the "Volcanism of XXXX" articles seems to focus on volcanology rather than the process (volcanism). It would be make much more sense to move all of these articles to "Volcanology of XXXX" per WP:TITLE. Also worthy to note is that "Volcanology of XXXX" is probably a broader title. I'm not sure if the "Volcanism on XXXX" articles should also be moved to "Volcanology on XXXX" or perhaps "Volcanology of XXXX". Since it looks like the project has lost its energy, I doubt there will be a large discussion about this issue. Volcanoguy 09:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- A fair point. Not sure of the sheer number of "Volcanism" articles. If you could research that a bit and see if it's worth changing, I'm sure we could work it out. ceranthor 13:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Volcanism of Chile, Volcanism of Canada (and its subarticles Volcanism of Western Canada, Volcanism of Northern Canada and Volcanism of Eastern Canada), Volcanism of Italy, Volcanism of New Zealand, Volcanism of Iceland, Volcanism of Java, Volcanism of Indonesia, Volcanism on Mars, Volcanism on Venus and Volcanism on Io. Also worthy to note is that other science topics use the scientific study term. For example, Geology of North America, Ecology of the Sierra Nevada, Geography of Taiwan, etc. Volcanoguy 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I completely agree that "Volcanology of" is more appropriate. Are those the only articles we need to fix? If so that's an easy task. ceranthor 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's all of them. There is also Volcanoes of Kamchatka but I'm not sure if that should be moved as well. Volcanoguy 01:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain that article is intended to be a list, but I may be wrong. Either way in its current state it doesn't seem to deal with volcanology. Let's be bold and implement the change. ceranthor 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tweaked Chile (diff) and Canada (diff), but I'm not satisfied with the wording yet. Can we agree upon a standard phrasing for these types of articles? ceranthor 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure what a standard phrasing would be either. How about "Volcanology of Chile is the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena in Chile"? Volcanoguy 03:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tweaked Chile (diff) and Canada (diff), but I'm not satisfied with the wording yet. Can we agree upon a standard phrasing for these types of articles? ceranthor 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain that article is intended to be a list, but I may be wrong. Either way in its current state it doesn't seem to deal with volcanology. Let's be bold and implement the change. ceranthor 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's all of them. There is also Volcanoes of Kamchatka but I'm not sure if that should be moved as well. Volcanoguy 01:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I completely agree that "Volcanology of" is more appropriate. Are those the only articles we need to fix? If so that's an easy task. ceranthor 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Volcanism of Chile, Volcanism of Canada (and its subarticles Volcanism of Western Canada, Volcanism of Northern Canada and Volcanism of Eastern Canada), Volcanism of Italy, Volcanism of New Zealand, Volcanism of Iceland, Volcanism of Java, Volcanism of Indonesia, Volcanism on Mars, Volcanism on Venus and Volcanism on Io. Also worthy to note is that other science topics use the scientific study term. For example, Geology of North America, Ecology of the Sierra Nevada, Geography of Taiwan, etc. Volcanoguy 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shrug. I defer. ResMar 16:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kilauea at GAN
That is all. ResMar 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep an eye out. My editing is still severely limited. ceranthor 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Back
I'm back in the WikiProject! Woohoo! Volcanoguy 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Currently working on the Mount Price (British Columbia) article, possibly going to bring it to FAC. Volcanoguy 12:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did some work to start tuning up the prose a bit. It looks pretty comprehensive, at the very least - you always amaze me with the amount of information you dig up about these ancient, near-barren volcanoes. There are a few things that would be useful to mention. I can list them on the talk page if you'd like! ceranthor 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. I turned Canadian Cascade Arc from a redirect into an article in September, but it's not ready for FAC. Volcanoguy 09:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "ancient"? A volcano few million years old isn't ancient - pretty much yesterday in geological terms. Volcanoguy 03:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. I turned Canadian Cascade Arc from a redirect into an article in September, but it's not ready for FAC. Volcanoguy 09:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did some work to start tuning up the prose a bit. It looks pretty comprehensive, at the very least - you always amaze me with the amount of information you dig up about these ancient, near-barren volcanoes. There are a few things that would be useful to mention. I can list them on the talk page if you'd like! ceranthor 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I am doing some research on this volcano to remake this article. So far things are looking quite good. Volcanoguy 10:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Within touching distance of this project's first GT (maybe FT)
All that's left is Mauna Loa, but touching up an old FA of its magnitude is no joke of a task. I would really, sorely appreciate some help, starting with some peer reviewing. Thanks ahead of time, guys. And perhaps I won't have to go through it alone :/ ResMar 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is on my watchlist, but I am not an expert. Please could editors note concerns at Talk:Gough Island#Recent specific edits and determine whether my concerns are valid? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dunno, don't know the history of the island. ResMar 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Mauna Loa
Hard at work on the last and biggest of them all. ResMar 20:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ring of Fire
The usage of Ring of Fire is under discussion, see talk:Ring of Fire (song) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review for Omayra Sánchez
Hi all,
There is an ongoing peer review for the Omayra Sánchez article. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Thanks, ceranthor 19:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sea Mount/Caldera
Just looking at google maps at 37.49 N ; 24.97 W and there looks to be a double caldera feature on the sea floor at this spot, but I can't find a label/name or article for it - any idea? I had a quick look at Geohack but I only found the azores and sao miguel island nearby. EdwardLane (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
List of Hawaiian volcanos
List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain has been nominated to be removed from feature lists. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1. Thank you, Ego White Tray (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Tuffs
I just got ashstone appear on my list of suggest bot articles, it seems to me the article should be deleted and just become a redirect to the tuff article. But I'm not an expert so I thought I'd best check here if there was any reason that would be incorrect ? EdwardLane (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agree and made it a redirect to tuff. Vsmith (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Xitle - last eruption was in 400?
Xitle, stub stays it last erupted in 400. Is that 400 BCE or 400 CE? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Xitle is a monogenetic volcano, so erupted only once and that was sometime between AD 245-315, according to Siebe (2000). I've amended the article and added that source. Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Mazama collapse phase 2.jpg
image:Mazama collapse phase 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Missing topics
Well I just had a bit of a look at this list of missing volcanic topics User:Skysmith/Missing_topics_about_Geology_and_Geography#Volcanic_and_geothermal_subjects
I think a number of them might be worth creating as redirects - others are probably not worth having at all, and some of the suggestions I don't know anything about. Does someone else want to have a look - and maybe we create redirects for most/all of them. Some Geothermal stuff seems like it ought to have an article created - and there are probably a couple of others like that too. EdwardLane (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)