Jump to content

Talk:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attepting to expand this article

[edit]

Like other articles about major volcanic zones in Canada, this article deserves to have more information than its current form and more appropriately structured. BT (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted the information to remake this article. BT (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review / questions

[edit]

[Note the standard warning that I am not a vulcanologist, and that I am not familiar with late Cenozoic volcanism along the BC coast. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Lede

[edit]
  • The lede states, "Most volcanoes of the Garibaldi chain are stratovolcanoes and subglacial volcanoes that have been eroded by glacial ice from long-term dormancy." Does this mean that glacial erosion significantly removed material from the surface to make the volcanoes active again? I'm not quite sure what is being said here. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Most of the volcanoes have been eroded because most of them have not erupted for thousands of years. BT (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks. That makes more sense. I will try to reword in the article. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

[edit]

Background

[edit]
  • "After the Farallon Plate demolished": do you mean "After its northern remnant split into the Juan de Fuca and Gorda plates? Also, any info on the Explorer plate's relevance to this? Awickert (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I ment. I have reworded that part of the sentence to make it more clear. As for the Explorer Plate, I'm not too convinced about it. The location of this plate is relatively poorly studied and it's obviously uncertain if the plate is still subducting and producing magma to create subduction zone volcanoes. BT (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rewording; I will further change "demolished" to "split" because the plate is still there. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, the timing of volcanism corresponds to shifts of plate motion and changes in the locus of volcanism along the Pemberton and Garibaldi belts.": Could you be specific about timings and shifts of volcanism in which areas? I'm not sure which volcanic belts you mean. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean here. It is stated in that sentence that the area of volcanism and shifts of plate motion and changes occured along the Pemberton and Garibaldi belts. BT (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just having some trouble with "the timing of volcanism corresponds with the change in the location of volcanism" as a logical-order-of-events-thing: saying something moved when it started can mean that it wasn't somewhere else in the first place, so doesn't make sense to me. It's also hard in context because you talk about the Alert Bay Belt in the previous sentence, so I try to link that to this in my mind while reading. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any chance you could extrapolate on the shifts in plate motion that occur at this time? Awickert (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted the sentence. I'm not sure what it ment myself I just included it because the source stated it. BT (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that deals with that! I will be back later to look through more of the article. Awickert (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's optional. I normally avoid them to create more space for writing, but perhaps that dosen't do too much. So if you want to add the serial commas throughout the article than do so. BT (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will leave them out because I'm afraid that I will miss one. I write with them delineate whether there is a set of things in one comma-bounded category (W, X and Y, and Z), or whether there are different things (W, X, Y, and Z), but I can certainly write without them and would rather keep the current convention. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

[edit]
Perhaps the transition zone link can help. BT (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is between 410 and 660 km. The transition zone mentioned later in the paragraph is below 60 km downdip, and "transition zone" isn't mentioned in the ref. Awickert (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did some rewording: When the locked zone stores up energy for an earthquake, the locked plates can rupture. BT (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought you meant something like that, but the transition zone stuff made me wonder if I was missing something. I'll give it a look and see if I can make any improvements. Awickert (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference is needed for: "Thermal and deformation studies indicate that the slab is fully locked for the first 60 km (37 mi) downdip of the deformation front. Further downdip, there is a transition from fully locked plates to aseismic sliding." Awickert (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Not that its wrong, but because I don't have a reference for that claim. Most of the sentences that don't have references I just copied from related articles. BT (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike most subduction zones worldwide, there is no deep oceanic trench present along the continental margin in Cascadia.[18] Instead, terranes and the accretionary wedge have been uplifted to form a series of coast ranges and exotic mountains." This sounds like it implies some kind of causality. I would think that the causality would more likely be that the oceanic crust is young and buoyant, but I don't know the regional geology there all that well. Awickert (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No causality. Just an unusual formation. BT (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. "Instead" implied causality to me. I'll look some stuff up about the lack of a trench and see what I can write about why this is. In case you didn't know: the whole west coast of Canada is a set of accreted exotic terranes from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Awickert (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found this: The subduction zone off the Pacific Northwest (called the Cascadia Subduction Zone) is unique in lacking a trench. The reason is that unlike any other subduction zone, a major river, the Columbia, empties directly into the subduction zone and its sediment fills in the trench. As if that's not enough, the Lake Missoula floods of the Pleistocene dumped huge quantities of material into the trench. Perhaps the sentence Instead, terranes and the accretionary wedge have been uplifted to form a series of coast ranges and exotic mountains. should be deleted and add the other statement. BT (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I'm happy to look it up and make the changes, probably tomorrow (when I'll hopefully get through another section here). Awickert (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just replaced the sentence about the terranes and accretionary wedge being uplifted with the more appropiate theory mentioned above. BT (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's been two weeks since I last checked this? Gosh, time flies. Anyway, I will be doing some stuff before going to sleep tonight, Awickert (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left alone the last paragraph of this section, but thought that it should be known that this is because (1) I couldn't find the source used at my library, and (2) I don't know much about these volcanoes. So this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, just a "I don't know". Awickert (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glaciovolcanism

[edit]
  • I have some confusion about these sentences (though I edited the end of the 2nd, which might be the cause of my confusion): "Flow-dominated tuyas differ from the typical basaltic tuyas throughout British Columbia in that they are composed of piles of flat-lying lava flows and lack hyaloclastite and pillow lava.[1] They are interpreted to have formed as a result of magma intruding into and melting a vertical hole through adjacent glacial ice that eventually breached the surface of the glacier." It seems that horizontal layers are produced by vertical intrusion here... how / what is meant? Awickert (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the lava ponds and stacks while it intrudes through the glacial ice. BT (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks. Since I didn't get that, I've added in what you said here. Awickert (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. BT (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awickert (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the rest of the second paragraph, I'm sort of lost. Maybe if you could start with a statement about the composition of the lava, then go on to what this does, and the geomorphic effects, interactions, etc. Awickert (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's confusing about it? The features are products of glaciovolcanism and are already mentioned in the first paragraph. BT (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few specifics:
  1. This sentence says that the lava composition changes the volcano's structure because of the lava composition... and it is just hard for me to put the second half into a reason for the morphology of the volcano, "The lava composition of these volcanic edifies changes their structure because eruption temperatures are lower and lava containing silica increases thickness and glass differentiation temperarures."
  2. The next few sentences follow sort of, but I just have a hard time pulling a unified thread out of how these relate to the composition and structure, especially because they are pretty vague in some cases. I just don't know what point is being made!
  3. "And if the edifice is eroded, it could change the notability of fragmental glaciovolcanic deposits as well." I don't understand what is meant by "notability".
Maybe it's just me, but I was very lost in this section... maybe if you could tell me briefly what you were trying to say, I could help restructure it. Awickert (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I ment by "notability" was if the volcanic features are eroded they would be less notable because they would be worn away. As for the other stuff, I did some rewording so see if that helped anything. BT (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I see. "Notability" is a value-judgment, so a better word could be "prominence" or somesuch.
Thanks for the rewrite. I now understand the section, though I am going to brush it up when I can. Awickert (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I try to edit all of the prose, I'll never finish, and I'm running short on time for this. So the writing from this point onward won't be pristine, but hopefully the facts will be good. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern segment

[edit]
  • "It extends from below the present sea level up the side of a steep slope over 240 m (790 ft).": what is the source for this, and is the "240 m" in vertical distance or in distance along the surface of the outcrop? Awickert (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. BT (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awickert (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the western shore of Garibaldi Lake, Mount Price constitutes a stratovolcano with an elevation of 2,050 m (6,730 ft)." By "constitutes", is it meant that this (geographic) mountain is only part of the stratovolcano? Awickert (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although the stratovolcano does contain subsidiary peaks (e.g. Clinker Peak on its western flank). BT (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks. I will change this to "constitutes part of" to make it more obvious. Awickert (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lithic tuff": I had never heard this term before, but googled around and found it. Could you add a definition with a ref and/or wikilink it to a section that is written inside "tuff"? Awickert (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what? Lithic is a term for rough, rugged, craggy etc. BT (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a term that indicates that rock fragments are present, as it seems to from this random Google hit. All I'm saying is that I don't know what it is, and so probably the average reader won't either. Awickert (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in the given source so I added it in the text as well. But just to solve the problem, I deleted it. I'm not too sure what it ment myself. BT (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Segment

[edit]
  • "This acts like a volcanic plug and composes the lava spines that currently form pinnacles on its rugged summit.": so the lava dome is the plug, and(?) it both formed and includes the spines? Just having a bit of a hard time understanding, Awickert (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded from "Subsequent volcanism during this volcanic phase constructed a significant lava dome on its summit. This acts like a volcanic plug and composes the lava spines that currently form pinnacles on its rugged summit." to "Subsequent volcanism during this volcanic phase constructed a significant lava dome. This acts like a volcanic plug and composes the lava spines that currently form pinnacles on its rugged summit." BT (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that I had trouble understanding is still the same, and I still have the same question that I did above. Thanks for cleaning up the sentence before, though. Awickert (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The confusion likely came from the sentence" "Subsequent volcanism during this volcanic phase constructed a significant lava dome on its summit." I changed that sentence to "Subsequent volcanism during this volcanic phase constructed a significant lava dome." because the lava dome did not form on the summit. The next sentence "This acts like a volcanic plug and composes the lava spines that currently form pinnacles on its rugged summit." is quite clear. The lava dome acts like a volcanic plug and composes the lava spines that form the pinnacles on the mountain's summit. BT (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I don't get is the relationship between it being a lava dome and the lava spines. "Composes" is a verb I also am having a hard time with... though that's strange, because if I take it to be "the lava spines are composed of", then it makes sense. Maybe it's just me on that part. Awickert (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see too much repeation in it. The two portions of the dome were constructed during three periods for activity. BT (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot - missed that in my read. Struck this out. Awickert (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern segment

[edit]
I see that BT fixed this between the time I wrote this comment and hit "save". Done! Awickert (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have the source, so can't say much more than that the info given here looks plausible: nothing obviously wrong. Awickert (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilcotin Group

[edit]

[No issues found] Awickert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geothermal and seismic activity

[edit]

No real issues found. Only stylistic thing is that the following sentences could probably be combined into one for better readability / less repetition: "Seismic data suggests that these volcanoes still contain active magma chambers, indicating possible future eruptive activity.[50] This indicates that some Garibaldi Belt volcanoes are likely active, with significant potential hazards.[49]" Awickert (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Seismic data suggests that these volcanoes still contain active magma chambers, indicating that some Garibaldi Belt volcanoes are likely active, with significant potential hazards." BT (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I just changed "suggests" to "suggest" because the word "data" is plural. Awickert (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Human occupation

[edit]
  • Bottom hole temperatures: The source for the 3 "bottom hole temperatures" for the geothermal field doesn't say that they were the bottoms of boreholes (though I would believe you if you told me that this is where they make the measurements). If there is some way of finding out how deep these holes are, it would be great, though not 100% necessary. Awickert (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit. BT (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early impressions

[edit]

[Looks OK] Awickert (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and monitoring

[edit]
  • "This improvement is continuous and will support the understanding to monitor volcanoes in the Garibaldi Belt for future volcanism.": Think a re-word is needed, Awickert (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic hazards

[edit]

Section lede

[edit]

[Nothing more than what I've done in the article] Awickert (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tephra

[edit]

[Nothing more than the small things I did] Awickert (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landslides and lahars

[edit]

Unfortunately, I'm south of the border, and can't get the Canadian Journal of Geological Sciences for free. So I'll be cautious on this section and just ask:

  • "Each landslide was deposited during at least two phases of alternation, both of which resulted from failure of hydrothermally altered pyroclastic rock.": What does "two phase of alternation" mean? In particular, alternation of what? Awickert (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence removed. BT (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit. BT (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit more. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, distinctive computer programs would be able to identify the approaching information and activate an automatic notice when a large lahar is identified.": The use of "therefore" seems strange, as it doesn't immediately follow the previous sentence. "Because of this" could be better. "Would" implies that this isn't in place; is there some plan to put this in place? Also, I don't think "distinctive" adds anything to this sentence. Awickert (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The source did not say a plan is in place. BT (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great - the sentence looks a lot better. Maybe make it clear that there is no plan to do this at the moment? "Would" by itself implies an if-statement, but it isn't clear whether that "if" is a lahar occurring or the system being installed. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent change of "BP" to "years ago": BP is pre-1950, and so is 60 years off of "years ago". If 4860 is within error of 4800, this change shouldn't change the meaning. Awickert (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact age of the landslide is not exactly known anyway so I added "about" with "4,800 years ago". BT (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Awickert (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lava flows

[edit]

[Nothing that I didn't do already] Awickert (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In summary

[edit]

The article looks very good as far as sourcing, accuracy, etc. I checked out anything that seemed strange to me; I trust you (BT) to do an excellent job as far as the overall facts. The writing needs some work: it is clear enough, but not polished. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that. Anyway, thanks for inviting me to look at the article, sorry it took so many months, and it was an interesting read! Awickert (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History/Early impressions section - garbled text needing re-formatting?

[edit]

This article has improved greatly in the past few weeks, thanks to edits by BT and Awickert in particular.

I'm getting garbled text, with the number 7 appearing in the middle of the native language names in the "Early impressions" section (using Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox). Is anyone else having a similar problem when viewing that text or is it caused by my browser settings? If the problem is actually the article text, could it be formatted to give a better display? The text in question is displaying for me as :

  • "Black Tusk on the northwestern end of Garibaldi Lake and Mount Cayley northwest of Mount Garibaldi are called tak'takmu'yin tl'a in7in'axa7en in the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language."

GeoWriter (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is spelt in that language per the references and article Sḵwx̱wú7mesh. BT (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. This raises some interesting issues. Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh word for the common form of the English word Squamish. Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is not the English word for Squamish. This is English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style mentions

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, but a native version is more common in English language usage, the exonym should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.

Although the Native language in question uses many Latin characters, I doubt that the term Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is generally intelligible to literate speakers of English, especially those far from the Pacific coast of N. America. I suspect that the very unusual/obscure/foreign x̱wú7 combination is going to mystify or confuse readers, especially bearing in mind the amount of vandalism of the "qwertyuiop[]asdfgsghjkl;'#\zxcvbnm,./" variety that we see reqularly. The Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language article is a redirect to Squamish language anyway, as encouraged by the Manual of Style. I appreciate that minority ethnic group recognition is a valid and important political/human-rights issue but does that extend to using such words in an encyclopedia written in a language that is not their minority language? This is the English Wikipedia and a surprising term with "strange" characters in the middle of it is a likely target for false positive vandalism editing. I think this article could be vunerable to possibly erroneous yet well-meaning revision. I recommend changing Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to Squamish. GeoWriter (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit confusing. It would not be clear if you mean the community of Squamish or the First Nations Squamish. 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to Squamish Nation. This is probably a better term than Sḵwx̱wú7mesh. BT (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision comments

[edit]

Some comments on the Introduction section:

Current version states:

"Eruptions along the length of the chain have created at least three major volcanic zones. The first began in the Powder Mountain Icefield 4.0 million years ago. The Mount Cayley massif began its formation during this period. Multiple eruptions from 2.2 million to 2,350 years ago created the Mount Meager massif, and eruptions 1.3 million to 9,300 years ago formed Mount Garibaldi and other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Lake area."

This paragraph appears to be describing major volcanic zones, yet the first area mentioned is a component of one such major zone, not the major zone itself. The major zone is mentioned second, but the relationship between Powder Mtn and Mt Cayley is ascertained only by looking at the map File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg (which I suspect most readers will still be viewing as a thumbnail at this point). Perhaps combine these two sentences, refer to Mt Caley, and drop reference to Powder Mountain until later in the article detail?

Also, Franklin is mentioned in the text but is of minor significance on the map, yet the "major" zone of Bridge River cones on the map is not mentioned in the introduction text

When readers take a close look at the map in File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg, they will see not three but five volcanic zones given equal "major" prominence. The article text should more closely match the map or a new map should be found/created to match the naming conventions used in the article text.

"Southern Segment" section

Squamish volcanic field is mentioned for the first time in the article as "Main article: Squamish volcanic field" at the start of that section. It is only when one goes to the Squamish volcanic field article that one discovers that Watts Point makes up part of the Squamish field. Perhaps that could be mentioned very briefly in this article too, to indicate the relevance of the wiki link to the Squamish volcanic field main article? (In contrast, the other "main article" wiki link is for Garibaldi Lake, the relevance of which has been established in the introduction.)

I hope this helps.

GeoWriter (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused here. The first paragraph you mentioned refers to major volcanoes in the southern, central and northern portions of the belt as stated in the introduction. File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg does not classifiy volcanoes as major and minor. They are grouped as volcanic fields: The Bridge River Cones area is the Bridge River Cones volcanic field, the Mount Cayley area is the Mount Cayley volcanic field, the Silverthrone Caldera area is the Silverthrone volcanic field, the Mount Garibaldi area is the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field and the Mount Meager area refers to the volcanoes that comprise the Mount Meager massif. The Franklin Glacier complex is not grouped simply because it is not part of any known volcanic field.
The "Main article" template at the beginning of the Southern and Central segment sections are there because they comprise those segments of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Volcanoes of the Bridge River and Squamish volcanic fields are minor. Franklin is less clear because of minimal studies. BT (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tusk, you wrote, "The first paragraph you mentioned refers to major volcanoes in the southern, central and northern portions of the belt as stated in the introduction." - I think you are implying that the section of text that I quoted was amplifying something already explained in the introduction - are you? The text I quoted is the introduction.

"File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg does not classifiy volcanoes as major and minor." Agreed. I was referring to "major" in the sense of "large text font implying major" rather than literally. However, the article text mentions major. This "mismatch" between article text and map is precisely my point. When looking at the map, my first reaction is "how does the map information relate to the article text?", and at the moment, I have to say "could do better". OK the map shows different things to what is written in the article. That is valid, if one is satisfied with having two apparently contradictory sets of information, leaving the reader to do any translation/correlation, but I think the reader could benefit from being shown better how the text and map information are related. Perhaps the clarification you gave in your response could be incorporated, (more concisely?), in the article text too or, as I wrote earlier, a different map may be more appropriate.

I know why the main article templates are included in the "Southern Segment" section but readers less familiar with the area may not see a connection between Squamish volcanic field (which happens to be the first mention of Squamish in the article) and Garibaldi volcanic belt. Indeed, Squamish is not even mentioned elsewhere in that section, its next occurrence being in the "Central Segment". In contrast, the relevance of the other main article template in the "Southern segment" section, i.e. the connection between Garibaldi Lake volcanic field and Garibaldi volcanic belt, is obvious.

I believe all the points I raised in my previous post remain to be addressed. I hope that I have been able to clarify them and reduce your confusion.

GeoWriter (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portion you quoted is only a portion of the introduction, not the entire intro. You make it sound as if everything in the article's images need to be introduced in the article's text. File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg was created to show where the belt and its volcanoes are located, not to relate things within the article. As for the Squamish field, I mentioned it in the Watts Point paragraph. Volcanoguy 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Cascade Arc

[edit]

I am the one that made this redirect, but after looking deeper into the history of the Cascade Arc the redirect should rather be an article. Cascade Arc volcanism goes back millions of years before the current volcanoes existed and the Garibaldi Belt is not the only volcanic belt in Canada related to Cascadia subduction. There is also the older Pemberton Volcanic Belt, which has been so deeply eroded that most of its volcanic rocks have been stripped away, exposing several plutons that are generally thought to be the roots of deeply eroded volcanoes (e.g. the Salal Creek Pluton). An article about the Canadian Cascade Arc would include the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (~4 Ma to present), the Pemberton Volcanic Belt (~29 Ma to ~4 Ma) and maybe the Alert Bay Volcanic Belt (~8 Ma to ~3.5 Ma), providing a fair representation of the overall topic. The same issue goes for the Cascade Volcanoes article, which focuses on the present day volcanism with very little information about volcanic activity that occurred millions of years ago. I am starting to gather information to change the Canadian Cascade Arc redirect to an article. Comments would be greatly appreciated. Volcanoguy 11:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volcanoguy. You're the one who knows the most about this, and your reasoning seems sound, so I would support having the information organized as you have suggested here. I don't know a whole lot about the history of Cascadian volcanism, but I would be happy to poke around and spot check things for you. Awickert (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once I have the information and sources I will let you know when I make this redirect an article. It will be a good one, hopefully as long as the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article. Volcanoguy 02:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great to me. Not sure how much I could help, but let me know if you think I can. Awickert (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi Ranges

[edit]

Should this merge with Garibaldi Ranges ? or should this article (and related articles) have a link to that article (and related articles) ? 92.18.106.79 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the question to someone who is far more expert on the area than myself User_talk:Volcanoguy#Mountains_and_volcanoes_in_Canada it looks like links are needed rather than merging. EdwardLane (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt&oldid=1207366695"