Talk:Cinder cone

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Cinder cone is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging pyroclastic cone into cinder cone

The terms pyroclastic cone and cinder cone seem to be exactly the same thing [1]. --Hardscarf (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pyroclastic cone can be either a tuff cone or a cinder cone. I think there's a useful distinction there, enough to be worth keeping the three separate categories (Category:Pyroclastic cones, Category:Cinder cones, and Category:Tuff cones). I don't see as much need for a separate article on pyroclastic cones, since there's not much to say beyond my first sentence above. -- Avenue (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a more general article at volcanic cone. hike395 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra material

Material written by anonymous editor 72.152.140.49 moved to /Extra

This edit was made by hike395 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC). Just tidying, as I have nominated the /Extra page for deletion. DBaK (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years is more than enough time to wait for cleanup. Delete —hike395 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koko Crater is not a cinder cone

Contrary to the caption to the picture of Koko Crater in the article as of April 1, 2015, Koko Crater is not a cinder cone. It is a tuff cone as discussed by:

Jessica Keri Bluth (2001) Syn-eruptive incision of Koko Crater, Oahu, Hawaii by condensed steam and hot cohesive debris flows: a re-interpretation of the type locality of “surge-eroded U-shaped channels”. Master Thesis. University of Pittsburgh. 127 pp. Paul H. (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinder cone volcano

English 210.1.119.88 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]