This is an archive of past discussions about Kīlauea. 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.
"Most visited active volcano." does anyone have a reference for that? Does it refer to "currently active" volcanoes, or does "active" here include volcanoes such as fujisan (dormant for 300 years, but does have active magma chamber.)?
Zeimusu 01:21, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
To my mind, active means erupting in recent time. I think Fuji is at best dormant (as you indicate), much like most of the Pacific Northwest volcanoes. Hard to beat Kilauea on this one. It has been actively spewing lava (almost continuously) since 1983 and is visited by tens of thousands each year, who can regularly drive or hike close to active eruption areas. You would not want to be anywhere close to the Ring-of-fire volcanoes such as Fuji and Mt. St. Helens when they are actively erupting. The Kilauea article needs a lot of work. - Marshman01:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
overlap
I see that this page Kilauea Volcano that I recently enhanced following someone elses desultory beginning overlaps with another called Kilauea. What should be done?
Hey King, Hi! I just discovered that fact myself. I have been working on Kilauea recently. I'll take care of merging the two, I think under the shorter name "Kilauea" in as much as the few other volcano articles I checked (like Mauna Loa) don't use the term "volcano" in the title. There are some other uses of Kilauea in Hawaiian, but this is the main one. I'll make the move by copying over my stuff to here, in order to preserve the longer page history on this page. Then I'll change the name back. - Marshman22:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the other article has about an equal page history. I'm unsure how to merge pages and history. Since most of that work was mine (there was some error correcting by others), I'll still aim to preserve this page history and talk page. - Marshman22:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
categories
This Category stuff may be getting out of hand. Why would we want a category "shield volcanoes" or "Hawaiian volcanoes". What possible advantage could there be to having a category, all members of which could be listed in a short list within an article? - Marshman 01:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I dunno, but the category page has an example of "Paul McCartney" in category Beatles (in category british musician etc.) The question "what good are categories?" has yet to be answered, but the advice from above seems to be "make lots of small categories". How is Kilauea different?Zeimusu 13:17, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
Although I have yet to see ANY value in the concept of the categories, there seems no value in small categories like "Hawaiian volcanoes" that can be easily (and more intelligently) addressed in the text. Kilauea should be part of the category "Volcanoes"; but getting too small seems extremely counter productive. Why not category:Roads South of Hilo or category:Hills around Dallas. Like endless lists, categories waste peoples time to produce questionable value, avoiding the true purpose of Wikipedians to gather and present information. I say you are wasting your valuable time by even participating in something so mis-guided. But I deleted your categories not because they were "silly", but because they were screwing up the page formatting. It now looiks like that problem may have been fixed. So have at it. I will go read the "Category page" if I can find it. Maybe it will give me hope that there is some sense behind this madness - Marshman 17:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Category page, yes, that was a rubbish reference. I meant wikipedia:categorization. The formatting is a problem, but a different issue from the question of categories being a good or bad thing.Zeimusu
Well I read up on them, and while I'm not convinced the idea will work just by making up a bunch of categories, I do now see the potential for a sort of Yahoo approach to finding stuff (as opposed to the generally better search engine approach). The problem is going to be in deciding what are good subcategories and what are not. I can see "volcanoes", and perhaps "shield volcanoes" here, both approaches one could use perfectly well without the categories but which might be subjects of interest. Hawaiian volcanoes runs into the problem of: are we going to list every hill that is now an extinct volcanic eruption? Without text to explain why you ended up at Honolulu when you were looking for Hawaiian volcanoes (or Shield volcanoes), the category approach falls flat and a good set of internal links is far better. Are there cases where the categories are a good idea? Perhaps. But the strength of Wikipedia over other similar information documents is the possibility of relevant links in every paragraph. A search through categories might get one to somewhere not thought of, but that is more sensibly fixed by adding to an article. The fact is, what the category people envisioned as something wonderful was already here in the strength of the links. Now they have created a potential monster. Mr. Natural Health was putting "food" in the category "alternative medicine". That is how wacko the category approach can get. If there were a discussion under food about how food IS an alternative medicine, there would be opportunity for all to work out the text and come to some kind of solution. Now, we just argue about relevancy without anything to stand on either way—the reason I gave up going to the "vote for deletion" page. Anyway, it appears that if anyone wants to maske up sub-categories, they are free to do so. The usefulness can be worked out later, I guess - Marshman 03:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Bad Links
Very typical of the University of Hawaii. The departments know just about zip about the web; like US gov sites, they just move them without any regard to setting up forwarding of any kind. One day you go to look up something, and the link is dead :^0 - Marshman 02:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Kilauea is regarded as a separate, volcanic mountain. It does have a shallow caldera, called Kilauea Caldera, but the mountain is quite large actually. Read my description of driving to the caldera in the article. The impression visitors get is pretty much what you are saying; but that is because most expect the mountain to be—well, like a St. Helens or Mt. Shasta volcano. Shield volcanoes (=real mountains) are not like that, especially those as youthful as Kilauea - Marshman 01:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I know about shield volcanoes: that's not what I'm talking about. Over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, the custom seems to be not to bless sub-peaks with the infobox, only for peaks that are distinct. See, e.g., Talk:El Capitan, where I found a little bump, which qualified it as a mountain.
Now, take a look at the topo map for Kilauea: [1]. See how there isn't a distinct peak? The elevation just keeps increasing all of the way up to Mauna Loa. When you zoom in, [2], I still cannot find a peak. This seems like a sub-peak of Mauna Loa, plus a crater. Doesn't seem like it deserves a listing in Category:Mountains of the United States. -- hike395 04:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'd take it up with the USGS first. ;^) Kilauea is a distinct and separate volcano from Mauna Loa, not a "sub-peak". By your argument, all of the Island of Hawai'i is one big mountain with several sub-peaks. The fact is, there are three to four active volcanoes here, and their flows do interlace. Kilauea is a volcanic mountain building on the flank of Mauna Loa. However, their respective rift zones are quite distinct, their calderas are distinct (separate from the crater you see in the topo) and not physically close, and your topographic argument does not really enter into the distinction. Mauna Loa could start to erupt massively, completely burying Kilauea, and that would erase the latter topographically, but not erase it from a geological definition of what constitutes a distinct shield volcano (Mauna Loa has already buried two such smaller shield volcanoes). In effect, you are applying a dubious criterion that overlooks tons of geological evidence. On Mauna Kea some 50+ miles north, there are lots of little peaks and cones near the top. In that case, Mauna Kea is one mountain, one volcano, but one with numerous sub-peaks. It had a large caldera at one time and geologists regard Mauna Kea as a mountain and the sub-peaks simply as smaller eruptions that built cones, not separate volcanoes (= mountains). Mt. Shasta and Shastina are examples of peaks that might or might not be separate mountains; but there is no support that I have ever seen for regarding Kilauea as a sub-peak of Mauna Loa in the sense you are implying. - Marshman 06:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the topos you provided links to (I have my own topo maps of the "peak"), the saddle between the two mountains is evident by following the 4000 ft contour. From the area north of the crater, this contour defines a shelf the rises towards Mauna Kea (north) and also rises towards Kilauea (south), and the ground falls away roughly to the east and west defining a shallow "valley" between the two mountains - Marshman 06:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You mean here [3]? I see what you mean, I didn't look over there. I withdraw my objection, and will list that point as the summit. -- hike395 06:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it rises up to there from the "saddle", but I believe there are higher points a little more to the west as at Uwekahuna (I think you got it) - Marshman 08:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
rambling?
The page seems rather rambling and ill disciplined, with little discussion of the volcano and its geology and much description of highways. Re-write required.
So write what you think is missing. Although we call these "articles", the fact of the matter is they are collections of facts and information of all sorts added and edited in small doses and spurts by many different contributors. Your comment could apply to 95% of the articles at Wikipedia, because most are "works in progress". That is how it works here. - Marshman
I agree it was pretty bad. I tried to clean it up quite a bit yesterday and today. I was inclined to throw out ALL the route information, but then I realized that describing the approaches to the volcano and its summit are one way of describing the volcano itself (let's face it, the volcano is very long and flat and hardly even visible from ground level). So until someone objects strenuously and/or finds some very thorough descriptions of the volcano/mountain, I think they are OK to stay (copyedited to remove the archaic and abstruse language). I do very much agree more info can and should be added to the article -- more stuff of interest. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Puu Oo image
I changed the caption to reflect what the image is actually of: one of the six or seven small vents that are within the larger crater called Puu Oo. The entire image is of only part of the floor of Puu Oo - the pictured crater containing glowing lava is only one of the small vents on the floor, not whole of the Puu Oo crater itself, which is much larger. Tzinacan14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The caption on this image says that Pu`u `O`o is on the Big Island of Hawaii. Doesn't seem to be correct given what I'm reading here. TriangleFish (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Too many feet-to-meters conversions
Ugh! All the parentheticals in the sentences make the article very difficult to read. It's totally unnecessary, with the possible exception of discussions of scientific phenomena. Permission to delete them, at least in the "route" directions? Thanks. I don't even know if we need them for the rest of the article -- that can be decided by you guys. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't all think in feet and miles. I'd prefer we put most of them back. I agree converting "less than 1 mile" into km is overkill, though. -- Avenue (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I only took out the ones in the directions to the volcano. The metric conversions are not necessary there, as only someone actually on the island will be using the directions, and each mile is clearly marked with mile markers (every single mile has a marker) on the roads and highways. Those paragraphs were barely readable with all the parentheticals. I also took out redundancies -- 4,000 feet has already been converted to meters once in the article, no need to convert it every time it is mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This helped me alot on my 6th grade 5 essay paper. I am coming here next time on my next paper!
Photo request
It would be nice to have a real-color photo, to replace or complement the false-color one currently in the infobox. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I found two images of Kilauea on Flickr, added them to Wikimedia Commons and included one image in the infobox. A better image would still be very useful. GeoWriter (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The current image is misleading. The labeling "Kileauea shield volcano" suggests that the shield seen in the image is the entire Kilauea volcano, which it most certainly is not. It is probably Mauna Ulu, a tiny subordinate shield built on the East Rift of the much larger (and much harder to photograph in its entirety) Kileauea shield. Asimow (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
OCD Formatting Issue
The items in the list under Description should be separated by commas and not semi-colons, because the items that are separated do not themselves contain lists of items separated by commas.
I just went through the available images in Commons... not a lot of good choices for the infobox picture. I'd like to see a current shot of the caldera from the air with Mauna Loa in the background. I agree that the current shot is misleading and should be improved. Jusdafax05:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I substituted a shot of Kilauea Iki (I think), which is a little better than the Mauna Ulu image. I like Aoi's suggestion of [4], which really shows the vast mass of Kilauea. If other people like that one, I can upload it. —hike395 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I currently have a rewrite of this article pending in my sandbox. I think I will be able to replace the current content and continue work towards a potential GA or FA star in the near future, but I would really appreciate some help. Thanks, ResMar03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you thought about making a checklist so that others can just take a look at what needs to be done and address missing topics or cleanup as needed? That might help speed things along. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Coordinates
Loading better coordinates which place one just north of the rim, and on the same side as the observatory. Coords = 19°24′46″N 155°17′12″W. The idea here is to allow links to show volcano without obscuring the view. Should I place it at the crater center instead? EtherDoc (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"Because it lacks a topographic prominence" - because it isn't high?
Shield volcanoes are unique in that they are long sloping "shield" shaped mastiffs instead of classical triangles. While you could still pretty clearly tell where the summits are on other shields, Kilauea is so flat that its summit looks more like a plain than a peak. It's not that it's not tall; it's that its slope is, overall, so low that it's hard to find a center. ResMar
"ROVs" - should you spell out before using initials? (Remotely operated underwater vehicle)?
Eh...spelled out it's clunky, and I assume people know what these are in colloquial usage, or will click the link if they do not and are so inclined. ResMar21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"should explosive activity start anew the volcano would become much more dangerous" - so it's not explosive now? - what about "Ki-lauea's current eruption dates back to January 3, 1983"?
This distinction is not clear in the lede. Readers shouldn't have to read through the piping to figure out what is going on. I think that perhaps I don't have the required knowledge to review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hawaiian volcanoes are located in the middle of the Pacific ocean, which means that they necessarily start as below-water seamounts, and grow up and out from there. St. Helens is on solid land and doesn't have to work up to the surface in that manner. Fun fact: Mauna Kea is taller than Mount Everett if taken from its oceanic base, and a bajillion times wider.
"continued Hawaiian activity and occasional explosive eruptions will continue to heighten Ki-lauea's summit and build up its rift zones" - can repetition of "continued/continue" be avoided?
"occasionally intermittent with volcanic ash products from explosive eruptions" - suggestion: with intermittent volcanic ash products from explosive eruptions?
"Rainfall there exceeds the maximum 1,000 mm (39 in) a year and it is classified as a "true" desert." - this is my rewording but I don't understand. How is it classified as a desert if the rainfall exceeds the maximum? - I'm not understanding something, or did I change the meaning? Because of the acid rain?
Deserts in the classical sense are gauged exclusively by rainfall. But it's pretty much a desert and colloquially referred to as such so shrug. ResMar21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"a’e ferns" - not a typo, right?
Modern era
quote "something must be done" - needs a citation
I ripped this from another page it appears now that the source it quotes doesn't actually support the statement, so I'm retracting the quote marks. ResMar21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
USGS? - the United States Geological Survey? - need to put {USGS) after first mention.
under "Tourism" - events don't seem to be chronological. First paragraph is more recent, next goes back to past but flows to present; third paragraph present.
Is this an issue? I wasn't sure how to organize this section, so the first paragraph is background for the rest of the section. I could probably work something out. ResMar16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made some edits that you're free to revert.[5]
Comment. I think someone else should review this article, since I don't understand your replies so far. I spent a great deal of time trying to understand it, I guess to no avail, as I don't know what you mean by several of your replies. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what I get for getting bored of saying "Done" to everything. :/
I'm not going to be around this weekend, but I should be able to start going over this in depth on Monday or thereabout. ResMar23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:PERCENT, the percent symbol (%) is more commonly used in scientific or technical articles than the written form. Thus the article should probably use the symbol. Volcanoguy00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@VG I prefer spelling out percent, and since the MoS doesn't specifically require percentages as the marker, I'm allowed to cling to my stylistic preferences here. ResMar21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
" their death is evidenced by a set of footprints, listed on the National Register of Historic Places and presently preserved within the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park." - just not sure here. Is their death listed on the National Register or the set of footprints? I guess it's the footprints, but grammatically unclear, as the subject seems to be "death". Perhaps adding "evidenced by a set of footprints that are listed on the National Register..."? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why Mauna Ulu redirects to Kīlauea. It easily merits an article in its own right, but that can't happen at the moment. Awien (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
1790 to 1934
I can't find justification in the quoted sources for the claim that: "One pre-contact eruption in particular, a phreatomagmatic event in 1790, formed the volcano's present day caldera...". The rest is good, the footprints of Keōua's soldiers, but that this event formed the present caldera? I'm highly dubious. Unless anyone can produce a better reference, I propose to cut that statement. Awien (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jusdafax. I really need to keep a to-do list - I'd completely forgotten this. And it's good that it's done now, since the article is likely to be seeing more traffic as the latest flow gets into the news for targeting Pāhoa. Awien (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
How come there is no info on the recent eruption? It seems to be on the news quite a bit but i can't see any in this article . -- tnumbermaniacc10:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You're not a newbie Numbermaniac, you know you can add the info yourself. If you've seen the reports, you basically know what anybody knows: Pahoa is threatened, and could go the way of Kalapana - or not. Awien (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hope I wasn't snappy, Numbermaniac, but if so, I apologise. Just to clarify, what you're calling "the recent eruption" is just one flow of the current eruption that began in 1983 and is ongoing. That's covered in the "1952 to the present" section of the article. I have thought of updating with what's been going on since 2011, but so far it's not actually noteworthy - lava continues to flow, Pahoa is holding its breath, but so far every lobe has stalled before destroying any homes or cutting the road. And for the sake of the people of Puna, long may that continue! Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Numbermaniac, thanks to your prod, I did a bit of work and an update re the current eruption. (Also, if you could wave your magic wand over my naked URLs and make them decent, I would be grateful). Awien (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Hawai'ian to know for sure, but I'm not sure that's right. And the English pronunciation (roughly, "key-lao-AY-a") seems really off to me. I have always heard it pronounced "kill-a-WAY-a", /kIl.@.weI.@/ in SAMPA transcription. Someone else needs to look at those and decide if they're right. 76.242.155.180 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to raise the same issue. The supposed Hawaiian pronunciation in particular looks very dubious to me. Unless we get confirmation or correction, I propose to delete both (in hours or days, not years). Awien (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kīlauea. 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.
I have just modified 5 external links on Kīlauea. 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.
An IP editor keeps inserting a quote from Talmadge Magno from the Hawai’i Civil Defense. The quote doesn’t actually inform or readers of anything encyclopedic: that there may be a pattern in the eruptions and that the future is uncertain. This quote adds very little to the article, and will not be relevant in a month or a year. The IP editor’s insistence of including the quote may indicate a conflict of interest. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose - as creator of the new article, which allows for the addition of material that is too detailed or inappropriate for the Kīlauea article. Jusdafax (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree that the material is too detailed or inappropriate for the Kīlauea article. There are many short articles on fires but this event is notable and merits a separate permanent article for historical purposes. Fettlemap (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Major incident with coverage that necessitates detail too specific to be included in the volcano's article. (Iuio (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC))
Oppose - I can't even think of a rationale for a merger anytime before next year at the earliest. Shenme (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Everyone else has said it: a merger with the quake article is worthwhile (but what should the merged article be called?), but this particular eruption appears to be consequential enough to warrant its own page. That may change in hindsight, but we don't have that perspective yet. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The 2018 lower Puna eruption article concerns a significant major natural event that is highly notable in itself. While I can somewhat understand a possible reasoning for the proposed merger—that Kīlauea has been erupting nearly continuously since 1983, and this event therefore could be considered an intensification of the 1983 eruption, and therefore not worthy of its own article—this particular event appears to be more significant than other times in the history of the volcano, both in terms of magnitude and the amount of disruption caused. 114.75.195.137 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
17th fissure
Apparently a 17th spot on Big Island is affected by the Volcano.
An eruptive history table has been added to the article. I think the table is a great idea, but as currently written, I think the source cited by the table are slightly misleading -- the NOAA source only lists volcanic events (as opposed to eruptions) that caused casualties, destroyed homes, or caused damage ([6]). Because most of Kilauea is uninhabited (aside from Puna, the Volcano area, and the Pahala area), most eruptions cause neither deaths nor monetary damage, so the table does not list the majority of Kilauea's activity. It also erroneously lists multiple eruptions between 1983 and 2018, though in fact the volcano has been in nearly continuous eruption during that period. Because of this, I'm going to replace the table with a graphic from the US Geological Survey that better illustrates Kilauea's activity. A graphic admittedly isn't as good as a horizontal timeline generated using wiki mark-up (which can be added to as time goes on), but I think the graphic is one of high quality from a very reliable source (Hawaiian Volcano Observatory). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A search of the photos available in Commons yields nothing that would illustrate the extreme and dramatic changes at the summit caldera in 2018, which are mentioned in the article. If anyone has such a photo and is willing to upload it to Commons using the normal procedure so it can included, it would be highly appreciated. Also, if there are no objections, the infobox photo should be changed to one of the lower Puna shots of active lava. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Two views of Kilauea Caldera from roughly the same vantage point. At left is the view from 2008, with a distinct gas plume from the Overlook vent, the location of what would become a long-lived lava lake. At right is a view of Kilauea Caldera after the eruptive events of 2018, showing the collapsed crater. I just uploaded the file at right, which the US Geological Survey used in 2018 to show the extent of the caldera's collapse. Does this work? If you're looking for a file that only depicts the summit after the 2018 collapses (e.g., without a "pre-2018" view), I'm pretty sure USGS has some options that I can upload. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I’m not sure both photos would work in the infobox, though I’m open to the idea. Perhaps they belong in the body of the article, and an East Rift eruption photo goes in the infobox? Thanks again. Jusdafax (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Done --- I uploaded the USGS image to Commons, and placed it into the infobox. —hike395 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
