Talk:Lava tube

Planetary lava tubes ?

Are there evidences of lava tubes on Moon, Mars ?Hektor 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Subways

IS there any evidence as to where lava can flow through man-made tubes such as subways and waterways (a la the movie Volcano that starred Tommy Lee Jones)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk • contribs)

Well, if it takes the path of less resistance, I don't see why not. It's just not likely to be there in the first place. Science fiction just capitalizes on that which can possibly happen, no matter how unlikely. I think subways would fill in soon. Lava tubes that are active are dynamic things that can slowly move about. It would have to coat the subway and have enough heat retention to keep the lava fluid. Who knows. --DanielCD 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lava tube photo

I restored back the photo I had loaded earlier this year that wsiegmund had removed. The image there was blurry, and orange from the show cave lighting used. The uploaded image better shows the colors one actually sees in a tube and how it looks. Dave Bunnell 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put the other photo back in, and used {{ImageStackRight}} to put all the photos along the right side. No need to haggle over photos when the article can easily accommodate both. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Singular, Multilevel, Multilateral, Tube in Tube

There should be a mention of the different natures of lava tubes. In my neck o' the woods, lava tubes are catagorized by being singular, multilateral, or multilevel tubes (or a mix between multilateral and multilevel). Charlie Larson mentions there's even another kind of lava tube, the "tube in tube" which fits into this same theme. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Lava Tubes

How many examples of Lava Tube do we need? Having long lists aren't very attractive to an article, and we really should put a limit. There already is a List of caves and it is full or red linked articles. I looked at the Chile lava tube on Lava tubes and the article itself is really unremarkable. Same goes for the Canada article. Should we limit it to outstanding examples like Kazumura (which is an unremarkable article too) and expand Kazumura? Figuring that Kazumura is the longest tube in the world and the "deepest" tube in the U.S. it probably needs a hefty expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, not lots of people know there is young volcanics in Canada, which is what makes it remarkable. In volcanology articles it is always the same old thing like Mount St. Helens or Hawaii, which gets annoying as hell. And how do you know it's unremarkable if it's a stub? Stubs do not usually have detailed information and there is more to be added on that article. BT (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the significance of Canada's volcanic fields, but the page itself does little to give examples of the lava tubes themselves. Same with the Chile article and probably others. I highly recommend that we remove the "examples of lava tubes" links that don't particularly link to a specific lava tube or lava tube system. Parks should be omitted and left for a different kind of list. I think people want to see examples of tubes, not volcanic parks or lava beds. I will probably begin removing any page that does not primarily talk about a specific lava tube or lava tube system. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but just because the article does not mention lots about lava tubes does not mean there is not lots of lava tubes present at those locations. The Tseax/Nisga'a Memorial Lava Beds Provincial Park and others still need lots of work to be done to them. BT (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you. Those sites probably do have lava tubes, but the articles do not mention any specific examples. Examples is the operative word here. People want examples of lava tubes. The Tseax and Nisga'a pages don't have examples of lava tubes on their respective articles, only very little or no mentions at all. Volcanic activity alone, is not enough to fulfill the example as a lava tube. Plenty of lava flows occur on the world, but they do not always form lava tubes. ʻaʻā flows are a perfect example of this. I've only seen a couple of lava tubes in such flows (albeit, really short ones!). Perhaps if those articles did have significant mentions and descriptions of lava tubes at their site they could be readded later. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Fiction

In Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne, explorers follow lava tubes from an extinct volcano to a vast cavern 87 miles underneath Europe, exiting through a volcano in Sicily, in a highly fictionalized depiction of the real phenonoma of lava tubes. A lot of people first encountered the concept of lava tubes through the Verne novel. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vague

"Surtshellir - For a long time, this was the longest known lava tube in the world" The phrase "For a long time" is particularly vague. If someone could find exactly how long, or at least rephrase this, it would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.176.70 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete

WHERE ARE THE SICILIAN LAVA TUBES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.111.190 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean as examples? If there is a wikipage that goes into great detail about any lava tube, then it would make for a great example. But just a mere mention, would make for a bad example. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Lava tube and Lava tunnel

Lava tube and Lava tunnel this one and too ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.206.224 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

?? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've created Lava tunnel as a redirect to this page, though I'm not sure that's what was being asked for. Mikenorton (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

cave-like conduits?

"cave-like conduits" or "cave-like channels"? These are caves, see the Cave article. These terms should be changed to "caves". Senor Cuete (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "We don't need any more examples" note

I removed the "We don't need any more examples" note under the Examples section. Who is the "we" in this note? Where was consensus established for the addition of this rule?

This article should be open to any significant examples being added. The example I added, the Undara Lava Tubes in Australia, is a globally significant example.

Leitmotiv reverted my edit. I am re-adding the Undara Lava Tubes and also re-removing the note. If they want to establish a policy here, I suggest they do an RfC rather than acting in an autocratic (WP:OWNERSHIP) manner. Oska (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You should have responded to the topic above from years ago. This isn't a new discussion and there hasn't been any disagreement. At least none of consequence. The problem is, having watched this page for over 10 years, everyone and their dog wants to add their favorite lava tube article. If we had let every example stay, the whole page would be a giant list, and that's not what this article is about. And I don't feel I'm making hyperbole. That's great that you thought you thought of something new, but sorry to say it's not. Undara was added back in June 5th 2011 and my position on the matter hasn't changed when I reverted it. While Undara Lava Tubes may be special to you and the globe, the article itself isn't a "significant" example to learn about lava tubes - it's literally an article about a park, and talks more about the park than a lava tube. The fact is, we have significant examples already listed on the article. We don't need all significant lava tubes listed, just a few. For this reason, I just deleted Ape Cave as an example since it was merged.

This is not a new discussion. Reverting your note removal - that is necessary. The note stays because without it people add tons of examples we don't need, and I don't think that is in contention here. I think if you want to add a new example, you should probably make a proposal here on why a new article should be listed to our already wonderful selection of examples. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: I refer again to WP:OWNERSHIP in regards to your manner and tone here. I will respond more fully later. Oska (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Refer to it all you want, I'm not claiming ownership. But I am one of the few that has taken a high interest in the lava tube examples of this article. Ya got my attention babe! But I am putting forth my editing expertise on this page for over a decade and pointing out the previous discussions, edits and notation summaries which you seem to have summarily ignored before opening up this new topic. I don't think you made a very good case as to why we need more examples and why the note should be removed. I await your response. Thank you for talking here first. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: I'm assuming you were the person who originally added this note? Can you please advise if this is correct. Oska (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oska:Yeah sounds like me. I forgot to sign apparently. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean the unsigned talk-page comment of yours I just fixed. I mean the hidden text in the article code: "We don't need anymore examples." Oska (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: Iirc, yes. Items for you to address regarding Undara and the note:

1. Undara is not an article about a specific lava tube, it mostly talks about the park and gems.

2. Undara has barely one small paragraph on a specific lava tube within the article making it a poor example to learn about lava tubes.

3. Why should we keep adding examples? We have plenty. Honestly, I think the number we have now is too great, but I've tried to present different parts of the world, though that's entirely unnecessary.

4. Why should we delete the note, when we know poor article examples continuously get added even with the note?

Leitmotiv (talk)

I suggest we remove the examples section and replace it with a see also that points to a "List of Lava Tubes" page. I'd think that would satisfy everyone. Epachamo (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mis-citation

In the section that states that the largest lava tubes in the solar system are in Venus, the citation states: "The study has shown that lava channels certainly exist on Venus but are far larger in dimensions than any known elsewhere in the Solar System. Venusian channels cannot be properly compared to those on the Earth because of their vastly larger scale but making them closer to lunar dimensions. Many collapse features on Venus may be attributed to collapses resulting from the withdrawal of magma below the Venusian surface. Although conditions on Venus such as topography, lava type temperature etc. are very favourable for the formation of lava tubes, evidence for their existence is mostly circumstantial, although very compelling."

This does not establish that lava TUBES are even certain on Venus, much less that they are the largest in the solar system. Lava channels are not tubes. 67.168.228.147 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this problem. I agree that lava channels are not lava tubes. The cited source (a Master of Science thesis written by a student studying in a university department of physics) definitely does not support the claim made in this Wikipedia article that "By far the largest known lava tubes in the Solar System are on Venus." I suggest that this claim and the source reference should be deleted from this article.GeoWriter (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Examples in the Examples section

I plan on removing many of the examples in the examples section and re-naming it to "Notable Examples" in accordance with established Wikipedia custom for the following reasons:

• There is clear consensus from over a decade of prior talks that the section is confusing and difficult to maintain.
• Other articles of similar geographic features generally do not have an example section (see mountain, river). Instead they have a "list of <feature>" in the "See Also" section.
• Articles that do have examples, (see lakes) also have a "list of <feature>" companion article. The examples in that article are all notable for a particular reason (i.e. longest, deepest, oldest, etc.). If it is not notable, I'd argue it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:UNDUE.

Regardless, I have created a List of Lava Tubes article that can and should be as comprehensive as possible as is standard for geologic features on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have changed the note to future editors to be less abrasive. Epachamo (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with this edit, but there has been some contesting in the past so let's leave it open for a couple days to see if anyone objects. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)