Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Possible sighting of Sangay eruption 1859

I'll let you guys decide what to do with this but, i have been reading a journal by William Abbe as he traveled aboard a whaler in 1859. While off the northern coast of Peru (Tumbez [sic]), he reports seeing red at extreme distance. Could be Sangay?

[quote]Thursday Sept 1st 1859.

Went to mast head yesterday P. M. & saw a fine prospect. Genial, beautiful weather, warm & sunny, a gentle wind from N. W, the low coast about 5 miles distant. Sandy, ridgy & its base white with breakers. Two schooners between us & the shore bending to the wind; a bungie close on our lee beam with its square sail & small jib; & away in the distance blue peaks of distant mountains. Butterflies & land birds came off to us. The Pacific certainly in these latitudes near the coast is a serene & beautiful sea. Again saw a red light last night a great distance off, which the Cap said was caused by an erupting volcano. We could see occasional flashes of bright flame. [/quote]

http://www.whalingmuseum.org/explore/library/library-projects/atkins-adams

fyi

Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 Lucky Texan (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the reply to the user page EdwardLane (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All four diagrams in the QAPF diagram are blank!

I just happened by, don't know quite what to do to fix it. Can't see when it happened in the history (probably after 9/21/2013), I think the problem must be in the four .gif files. Wwheaton (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mount Rowan

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rowan_(Victoria) doesn't appear to exist as Mount_Rowan_(Victoria) in the 'english' wikipedia, though there does seem to be a redlink to Mount Rowan on the City of Ballarat (which is in Victoria) - and a couple of other pages that mention mount rowan without a link (redlink or otherwise). Any thoughts on which name should get created as a stub based on the simple english article? I'm leaning toward just calling it 'Mount Rowan' as I don't see any others - but perhaps I'm missing something? EdwardLane (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Kelud

As of tonight Kelud just erupted.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Volcanism of Canada Workgroup

FYI - just wanted to make the members of this WikiProject aware of the discussion regarding {{Volcanism of Canada Workgroup}} and {{WikiProject Volcanoes}} at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 59#Depreciated template. GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hotspot infoboxen

FYI, {{Infobox hotspot custom}} and {{Infobox moon hot spot data}} are under discussion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_18 -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nova Iguaçu Volcano

Hmm - Suggestbot pointed me at the Nova Iguaçu Volcano article which appears to be an orphan, the article needs sorting out - it makes my head hurt a bit just trying to get my head around the lede. I'm tempted to cut it back to a stub moving the current content to the talkpage and adding little chunks back if they make sense. Does anyone know the region/volcano and feel like jumping in? even a bit of help with rationalisation or deorphaning would be good EdwardLane (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tempest Anderson images

Hi all, PatHadley here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (project pages). We're just getting started with a major upload of lantern slides by Tempest Anderson, a pioneering vulcanologist based in York. The image category is here: Category:Images from the Tempest Anderson Collection. It needs a little tidying but already has some great images of Mount Pelee, La Soufrière (volcano) and Le-Puy-en-Velay and the surrounding areas. They were taken on trips in 1907, 1902 and 1885 respectively. There will be more than 300 images coming soon (hopefully at higher resolutions!). If you have any questions please let me know. I hope you find them useful! Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Decade Volcanoes Map

It appears that Template:Decade Volcanoes Map may be in need of updating. In most articles it appears in it states that there are 16 Decade Volcanoes even though 17 are displayed on the map. It appears that this is due to Koryaksky and Avachinsky having previously been listed as a single volcano. I'd do it myself, but I thought it best to post a discussion as the last undiscussed edits I saw made to a template resulted in a bit of a kerfuffle. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ojin Seamount -Additional References

I've added some additonal reference material in the form of various scientific reports to this article. I am unsure as to how to proceed from that point, with regards summarizing the material. I'd like to ask if someone with a better understanding of the material to go over it and see what they can do.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bárðarbunga ongoing earthquake swarms

Bárðarbunga seems to have had 5000 or so earthquakes in the last week - the aviation alert level there got raised to orange, might be worth working this article up a bit as it is likely to get a reasonable amount of increased traffic as a result of mentions in the media. EdwardLane (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Volcanoes articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

There is an ongoing debate about recent additions to Volcanology. I ask for comments there. Glückauf Serten II (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Eruptions or Paroxysms

Hi Folks, Just been looking briefly at Calbuco (volcano) as the bbc is reporting a 3rd eruption, but (as I mention on the calbuco talk page) I think of fresh eruptions as being after a hiatus or period of dormancy - but I wonder how short a hiatus needs to be to make it a new eruption rather than a paroxysm of the same eruption. Is that determined by the lack of new magma arrival/forming in situ long enough for an eruption to stop (and stop for how long) ? Is there a technical line drawn in the sand anywhere ? EdwardLane (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Volcanology or Volcanism

I noticed that articles describing the distribution of volcanoes in a country are all now titled 'volcanology of', e.g. Volcanology of Italy, rather than 'volcanism of'. All of these articles basically describe volcanism rather than volcanology - there's very little in these articles about the study of volcanoes as such. The question is - why use the incorrect term volcanology? Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They were renamed so they would be coeval with other scientific articles (e.g. Geology of the United States). I do not see how it is incorrect to title it Volcanology of XXXX. According to the dictionary, volcanism is the phenomena connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity whereas volcanology is the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena. Obviously volcanism is a phenomenon of volcanology. Volcanoguy 06:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Took me a while to get my head around the reasons I thought Mike's question seemed correct, I think you've hit the nail on the head there Volcanoguy when you say "volcanism is the phenomena connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity whereas volcanology is the scientific study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena" if we break that up we get either
  • Volcanology of Italy - which is about the scientific study in italy of "volcanoes and volcanic phenomena"
or
  • Volcanism of Italy - which is about the phenomena in italy connected with volcanoes and volcanic activity
I think the latter is probably what we had in mind, though if there are distinctions between the various volcanic study methods in different countries, that may also be something of interest (not being facetious) but probably just an article's worth (I'd guess). It's pretty subtle and it might be that UK vs US english speakers use the words distinctly. EdwardLane (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The point is that volcanism is a volcanic phenomenon and is therefore a topic of volcanology. I don't really see the point in having separate articles for both volcanology and volcanism. Volcanoguy 10:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Volcanoguy, I hear what you are saying, and I don't think it's a massive issue, just trying to see if my UK english is interpreting things differently. It seems to me that "volcanism of italy", and "volcanism of iceland" would tell me respectively about the volcanic phenomenon in italy and iceland. While I would expect articles titled "volcanology of italy", and "volcanology of iceland" would tell me about the scientists studying things and their methods in italy and iceland, but not tell me about the volcanic phenomenon (except where it was mentioned incidentally to illustrate some point or other) - but that's not what those articles are about (and I doubt there is enough desire/content to make such - though if there are big differences there might sensibly be a seperate article called "differences in volcanolgy internationally".) - so I'm inclinded to think that those articles probably ought to be renamed as "volcanism of ..." does that make sense ? EdwardLane (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To tell you the truth I don't really care if the title is "Volcanology of" or "Volcanism of" I just see "Volcanology of" as a more appropriate title for Wikipedia's standards. You say articles titled "Volcanism of" would tell you about the volcanic phenomenon but expect articles titled "Volcanology of" to tell you about the scientists that have studied this science. If that is the case then why do other science articles such as Geography of Canada or Geology of Mars talk about features, history, structure, etc. instead of scientists? All of the ology articles I have seen on Wikipedia describe the features of that particular science. Volcanoguy 11:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Archive_4#Article_titles where this was briefly discussed leading to the renaming of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with returning to volcanism of ... for the articles per the comments above and google searches of "volcanology of" and "volcanism of". Vsmith (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently expanded/created articles

I've recently created/expanded the Uturunku, Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex, Aguas Calientes caldera and Agua Poca articles, about South American volcanism. I wanted to know what the folks of this WikiProject think of these articles as they are now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating/expanding these articles - some good, much-needed additions to Wikipedia's coverage of the volcanism of South America. I've had a quick look at them and I've made some changes, mostly to the introduction sections, which I hope are constructive. I'll try to find some more time soon to look at the other sections of the articles' text.
One point I want to mention is that in the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex article, the first sentence is "The Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex (Spanish: Complejo volcánico Altiplano-Puna), also known as APVC, is a complex of volcanic systems in the Puna of the Andes." You link Puna to the Puna de Atacama article, but I think there are more Punas or a bigger area of Puna involved in this complex, e.g. in Bolivia, not only the Atacama Puna. Therefore, if you were using Puna de Atacama as only one example, I think it would be better to create/link an article that was about Punas in general. I did not understand the concept of Puna from the current text. From my limited knowledge of Punas (obtained from some web pages), Puna seems, to be synonymous with either (a) all of the Altiplano or (b) only grassland parts of the Altiplano, but I am very unsure about this. I suggest that you could try to clarify Puna in the article.GeoWriter (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am no professional editor, so I generally don't mind copyedits. These edits seem good to me. As for the Puna question, the sources were using the term not for a part of the Altiplano, but for the highland to the south of it, on the Chile-Argentina border. Incidentally, I have a longer list of articles to write or expand, my time permitting (while being at an university broadens one's ability to access non-opensource sources, it also uses up a lot of free time). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Level Mountain

Hi folks, I just completed a major update for this large volcano. Volcanoguy 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems good to me. There are far more sources available for the Canadian volcanoes than for these of the Central Andes, it seems to me though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It took me almost a year to find all the sources and put all the information together to recreate that article. Maybe you are not looking hard enough? Volcanoguy 01:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably a bit of insufficient source access (for real world reasons, I use almost exclusively online sources) and a bit of the Central Volcanic Zone being a poorly researched area.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone good at determining what article names should be?

I recently created a stub on the Gedamsa Caldera, based on GVP and did a bit of searching without much success to expand the content - after a bit of poking around I spotted that it is also spelled Gadamsa or Gedemsa - it looks like most of the other sources use the "Gedemsa" name,very few sources with the "gadamsa" name, so I guess that needs moving from the GVP name, and leaving the gvp name as a redirect?

Volcanoes in China

Hi folks, I was just idly looking for interesting volcanoes in china, when I realised that they are almost absent from wikipedia. I've started tryingt o piece things together but if anyone wants to make any of the many red links below into articles that would be a start I guess.

I discovered this template which was incomplete

and this list which was slightly less incomplete List_of_volcanoes_in_China


but then I stumbled onto a bunch of redlinks in List_of_protected_areas_of_China

and that suggested there should probably be


and then I've stumbled over Zhanjiang which says Huguangyan National Geopark: This scenic area is a national geological park famous for its natural volcano relic. It has the most typical and largest maar (volcanic) lake in the world.

and also enping is known for the many hot springs in its countryside. - it's got a listing on the list of protected areas in china too, there are probably.

OK I think that's probably too much - apologies if I've overdone it EdwardLane (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There are lots and lots of volcanoes that could get better articles. The number and content of reliable sources way outweighs the amount of what is in use on Wikipedia. I took a stab at expanding the South American coverage; I suspect that some of these articles could be expanded/created with Chinese and English sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I found this book and the section from page 311 looks pretty useful for some general overview stuff in china as well as for the actual flood basalts they focus on, now I need to figure out how to cite it properly - any thoughts on that ? EdwardLane (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
yes there is a lot to cover - but I think I'll see what gvp have to offer on the volcanic groups, that should be a decent start EdwardLane (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I've added a bit to the list of volcanoes in china article with references that link to the relevant gvp articles - but it's a lot of red links at the moment. and I've added a 'non reliable' sources into my earlier comment, I'm guessing those should not be used ? EdwardLane (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Enceladus

I have nominated Enceladus 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Laguna del Maule Volcanic Complex and reliable sources

Does this count as a reliable source for previous eruption size, as the gvp article does not list anything? If so I guess Laguna del Maule (volcano) should probably be categorised as vei 6? EdwardLane (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything about VEI there... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It says "In the United States, eruptions are often compared to the one at Mount St. Helens in 1980, which released about 1 cubic kilometer of rock. One of the 36 Laguna del Maule eruptions nearly 20,000 years ago spewed 20 times that much ash. ", implying a roughly 20 cubic km eruption, so that would match a VEI of 6. Better to look for a published journal article I think. Mikenorton (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, I'll go look EdwardLane (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok I've now found far more than I can handle this website is entirely devoted to a research project on large rhyolitic magma systems and is using Laguna del Maule as its real world laboratory. While | here Erik Klemetti gives a quick rundown on what's going on, and this which looks to be associated with the first site quotes a geologist as saying “We know that over the past million years or so, several eruptions at Laguna del Maule or nearby volcanoes have been more than 100 times larger than Mount St. Helens.” Brad Singer - and that would be several VEI7 (ish) eruptions. Hmmm - anyone able to handle the detail from the pdf here ? it's all a bit above my current skill level. EdwardLane (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
This looks fairly comprehensive. Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Extremely comprehensive - thanks Mike EdwardLane (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Level Mountain at GAN

Level Mountain is currently a good article nominee if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Volcanoguy 09:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Seamounts and their info box

I gather that seamounts are now part of WP volcanoes, I might be wrong, but anyway the infobox for seamounts doesn't seem to work the same way that infobox mountain does - particularly the map seems to fail if you change the infobox from mountain to seamount - not quite sure why.

I spotted this while trying to add a map image to Taney Seamounts which seems to work now (as I've just used infobox mountain there for the moment) - anyone with template skills might want to look. also incidentally the article above is an orphan - so if you want to deorphan it that's cool too. EdwardLane (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Large expansion to the Mount Adams (Washington) article

Hi, I have worked up a large re-work/expansion of the Mount Adams (Washington) article on my user subpage. I reworked several sections, expanded other sections, and added a few new sections. In the process I also corrected some inaccurate or outdated information. I took ideas from the various pages of the other Cascade mountains and incorporated them into my re-work. All of the additional material I have incorporated has been taken from what I believe are reliable sources as I can personally vouch for a lot of the information they provide.

I would like your input on what you think I should do in terms of incorporating my re-work into the Mount Adams (Washington) article. You can view my re-work on my user subpage, located here. I have also posted on the Mountains Wikiproject as well. I would like to get as much input as possible before I do anything. Thanks, Nedst3r (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • One tiny suggestion: Leave a inline citation at the end of every paragraph. As I was informed when working on other volcano articles, it's not immediately obvious otherwise what the source is otherwise.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for the suggestion. I think most all have citations unless it falls under general knowledge, but I'll double check before I do anything.
Does anyone else have any comments or suggestions? Again, I would like to get as much feedback as possible before I do anything.Nedst3r (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have copied my rework into the Mount Adams (Washington) article. Have at it. Nedst3r (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Laguna del Maule

Greetings, I've lately been writing up a rewrite for Laguna del Maule (volcano) and came up with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Laguna del Maule volcano. I'll do a copyedit tomorrow on it but one issue that has been on my mind is how much information to include from "Laguna del Maule Volcanic Field, Eruptive history of a Quaternary basalt-to-rhyolite distributed volcanic field on the Andean rangecrest in central Chile" - it's a very detailed description of this field including some volcanoes most sources don't consider part of LdM, so I was wondering about how much of that to include.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pacaya Eruption?

I know almost nothing about volcanoes and have forgotten anything I learned in science class about it as a kid but an editor made a change [1] saying Pacaya erupted two days ago, however I can't find sources to support that claim. I did however find an article that said there was "deep-seated explosive activity" [2]. Though I am not an expert, that doesn't read to me like an eruption. It could be that the person was being disruptive (some of their history would support that) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Volcanoes/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Tectonics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Aeolian Islands, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Medium term

Yellowstone got a 3.3 earthquake, 1.1 km in deph, 41 km SW of Dillon, Montana. Some faults in the Yellowstone National Park and Pacific Ring of Fire seem to be active. We should expect a lava flow some day and activity on Mount Saint Helens, Mount Rainer, San Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault Zone and Juan de Fuca Ridge (Cascadia fault zone). [3][4] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
1.1 km in depth is not very deep. If it occurred beneath the magma chamber then I'd start to worry - at least in South America and elsewhere, the injection of new magma into the chamber is a common prelude to an eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we have a plume from the hot spot, an intermediate chamber and a volcanic chamber above it... I am hoping for a pressure release by a simple lava flow. Quote (a geologist, location: Yellowstone National Park): "I will begin to worry, if you see a swarm of earthquakes above 2.0." [5] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Catalogue of Icelandic Volcanoes

Howdy everyone, there's a pretty cool new site, the Catalogue of Icelandic Volcanoes, created by Háskóli Íslands, Veðurstofa Íslands and a couple of others.

I've been bold and added links to Wikipedia entries for Icelandic volcanoes. Formatting etc. is probably improvable, so feel free to improve on this. Articles that I've added links to are:

A few more volcanoes are listed on the site, but do not have English Wikipedia entries (yet). These include:

Naturally these don't have links to the Catalogue. Schneelocke (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Awfully quiet

What happened to this once very active WikiProject? Nobody active anymore? Volcanoguy 05:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am, but not very talkative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm active. I've averaged editing about 1 volcano article per pay during the last month. I hope to do more editing of existing articles and creation of new articles in the coming months. GeoWriter (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@GeoWriter: Huh - you are paid to write articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not paid to write articles. Why do you ask about payment? GeoWriter (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Because 1 volcano article per pay. There are plenty editors who write articles for money. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just made this category as we seem to have a lot of instances of the old format which doesn't seem to work anymore. However, I see that while it appears on Mount Etna it doesn't appear to appear on the category page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed recently that the old format seems to no longer work. I presume that the GVP website's automatic redirect from old to new format, that was helpful for some years, must have been withdrawn by the Smithsonian website. Thanks for creating this category. I expect many volcano articles use the old format. Do you propose to use this new maintenance category as e.g. an input to a bot that would convert old format links to the new format? GeoWriter (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Link: Category:Articles using GVP links in vnum format. And oy, that's a lot of pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I will go through the cat to make sure all articles are using the new format. Volcanoguy 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Anahim hotspot

This article was out of date so I decided to update it this month. Volcanoguy 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Crossposting a question about an image

To whit, whether File:Parinacota volcano in.jpg is actually Parinacota. (which has a smoother topography than what the image shows, I think) or actually Sajama. @Romanceor:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain that pic is of the summit of Nevado Sajama. The features look identical. Volcanoguy 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Parinacota's height

There are some conflicting statements on how high Parinacota (volcano) is in the sources. Current the article gives 6380m but other estimates such as 6348m exist. What would be the correct one to give in the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Volcanoes, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about a mountain of the Purico complex

Anyone familiar enough to know whether Cerro Toco and Cerro Purico of the Purico complex are the same mountain? Most maps imply they are one source on the article disagrees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the Global Volcanism Program, Cerro Toco is one of two stratovolcanoes comprising the Purico Complex. See here under Synonyms & Subfeatures. Volcanoguy 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

I have nominated Mount Tambora 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fumarole articles

I was surprised not to find any WP articles about individual fumaroles so I started the Big Kettle Fumarole article. It could very well be the first such article. Volcanoguy 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya, Wikipedia's coverage of volcanoes is highly incomplete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tor Zawar

Hey folks, it seems that Tor Zawar article needs some rewriting. There are certain doubts about volcanic nature of the 2010 event (well, even info on GVP site was removed). See this paper (I can send it to whoever may need it) and this article in french. Aervin (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. I have added a section to the Tor Zawar article describing its disputed status. GeoWriter (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tambora rewrite

Greetings, does someone here know a source for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora in the Mount Tambora article? It's unsourced and I can't find any source for it. I have to work on updating the article, too - help would be appreciated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing article?

I saw Mount Io on Japan's Kyushu island erupted for the first time in 250 years and was going to add it appropriately, but of those listed at the disamb Mount Iō, I don't think any of those are listed, and its not included in the list of volcanoes in Japan. I'd figure I'd drop this for experts in this area to figure out if we actually already do have one, or if this is a missing article. --Masem (t) 14:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the JMA website it seems to be Kirishimayama which has a sub-volcano known as Shinmoedake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mount Cayley massif

Article is at GAN if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Volcanoguy 12:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with overly technical section

Greetings. An IP on 1257 Samalas eruption is complaining that the section on the eruption is written in an overly technical fashion. The complaint seems reasonable but I don't know much about how to render it less technical and I don't want to simply leave the tag unaddressed. Pinging some people (@Ceranthor and Volcanoguy:) who have brought volcano material to featured status on the assumption that they might know what to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I can try to copyedit/rewrite it. I'm busy now, but will possibly have some free time later tonight. Best, ceranthor 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Gave it a run-over to explain some of the less accessible terms, but I honestly don't think it's that technical compared to other volcanology articles I've encountered. ceranthor 00:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thx. I've rewritten that section some more and expanded the article. (Honestly though, I think the climate parts of the article are the most problematic ones; given that the effects of the eruption are currently being researched giving due weight to all viewpoints is a moving target) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't find the eruption section is overly technical. Volcanoguy 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious "volcano"

See Talk:Turfan_volcano#Dubious. Tisquesusa (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 lower Puna eruption suggested to merge with 2018 Hawaii earthquake

There's an ongoing discussion about Merge from earthquake. According to WP:PM I'd like to notify this Wikiproject to get a wider range of opinions. --ThT (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Importance rating of volcanology articles

Tooting my own horn, I know, but I am thinking, does anyone think that we ought to scrap the "importance" ratings in the volcanoes WikiProject? I know that I don't care much about them and I've never seen anyone else care either, we have a long list of unclassified articles, and many of the ratings sound fairly questionable to me (Category:Top-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles contains Mackenzie Large Igneous Province and Mount Popomanaseu, which definitively don't belong). The whole "importance" rating system comes from this long-dead and obsolete (since wireless is much more common everywhere than CD players) project to publish parts of Wikipedia on CD, and in light of this so there would be no loss to the project. Inspired by Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts which also does not have "importance" ratings and Iridescent's comments on the system, in case people wonder where I get this idea from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention for mount eruptions.

Halo everyone, recently I moved 1257 Samalas eruption to 1257 eruption of Mount Samalas because I read two other similarly titled 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora and 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and I thought "<year> eruption of <mount name>" was the correct naming convention. But after @Jo-Jo Eumerus: notified me, I started to search around and found there was really no naming convention for the mount eruptions. So here's a list of some titles that I found, and would like to ask you guys what's the best convention for these titles.

PS: I agree to whatever convention you guys come up with, including reverting back to 1257 Samalas eruption. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I endorse the name "1257 Samalas eruption" for that article per the WP:COMMONNAME arguments elucidated on User talk:Bennylin#1257 eruption of Mount Samalas. That said, as further expanded there in some topics the "X eruption of Y" name is more common; I wonder if this is a case of Wikipedia feeding back on how people call an event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Input needed

Greetings,

is there someone who wants to comment/review on Limalok at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limalok/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of an Argentine speleology source at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of an Argentine speleology publication from Carlos Benedetto of the Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones Espeleológicas (IN.A.E.) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Argentine speleology source. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List of volcanic settlements

List of volcanic settlements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old, orphaned article from 2013 without a single source. Apparently created in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Volcanic settlements, hence the lack of a source. I've never seen any source that classifies cities by This category does not include settlements merely threatened by volcanic activity but which are located at a distance away, and not located on the volcanic structure itself, although sources that discuss settlements threatened by volcanoes certainly exist. Some noteworthy omissions such as Honolulu (Honolulu Volcanic Series), too. I am thinking this should be deleted as WP:OR; anyone?

(Pinging participants in the category discussion: @Od Mishehu, The Bushranger, Gilgamesh, Avenue, and Ucucha:) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a regular "Cities on Volcanoes" conference (https://www.citiesonvolcanoes10.com/), but that also focusses on cities threatened by volcanoes, not just built on top of them. Maybe it would be worth refocussing the list on settlements threatened by volcanoes? We have a volcanic hazards article, but it says little about settlements, and nothing about particular cities. --Avenue (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I am wondering whether such a list would end up violating WP:IINFO; there is a fair amount of cities that are threatened in some way by volcanoes and depending on how "threat" is defined you can end up with some quite different listings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've sent this to AFD to get a wider consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Foulden Maar

This page was recently created and has been worked on by various mostly New Zealand based editors. The area covered in this page has been featuring in recent news coverage as there is a possibility that the site will be mined for its resources. Members of this Wikiproject will likely have expert knowledge that can improve the page. I would be very grateful for any assistance given in improving the content, not least as outside views will hopefully ensure that a neutral point of view is maintained. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a broad set of sources in here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Payún Matrú for Featured Article-hood

Greetings, I have nominated Payún Matrú for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horizon Guyot/archive1

Greetings,

is there someone who is interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horizon Guyot/archive1? The criteria are on WP:WIAFA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Eifel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Eifel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eifel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Eruption magnitude

Following up on some recent edits to the supervolcano article about the Fish Canyon Tuff eruption being VEI 9. I came across Eruption magnitude as an alternative measure of eruption size, defined by Pyle (2000) and Mason et al. (2004) as

M = log10(erupted mass in kg) − 7

It seems worth an article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Going to be somewhat difficult to find overarching sources, perhaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
True, although the latest version of "The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes" contains a chapter on the subject [6]. Mikenorton (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article nomination

Greetings, I have nominated Coropuna for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Categorization of craters" essay under discussion at WikiProject Geology

FYI since this also related to volcanoes... I wrote a user essay User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters as a result of some recent CFD category deletion discussions. It collects best practices over the years to avoid recurring confusion among editors over ambiguous use of the word "crater" for impact, volcanic and explosion craters, as well as common errors categorizing sinkholes as craters. Another editor suggested WikiProject Geology was a good place for it. So a discussion is in progress at WikiProject Geology on moving it from my user space to an advice essay of that WikiProject, because such a move should be a result of discussion. If you're interested, please have a look and comment. Ikluft (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is another type of volcanic crater but it didn't form from an explosion. It formed from the gradual build up of scoria on a cinder cone to create a crater-shaped bowl. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The dictionary isn't nearly as precise as you're trying to be. Any volcanic eruption fits the broad definition of craters resulting from explosive activity - and cinder cones do deposit debris around the vent, consistent with the definition. The major defining line is that sinkholes are not craters. It sounds like you're commenting on my simplification of the wording here. If anything needs to be changed in the essay, let me know. Ikluft (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I must have read your essay wrong. Looks fine! Carry on! Leitmotiv (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I still consider that useful feedback. I'll look at where to clarify this point in the essay. Ikluft (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I find the following sentences questionable: "Any volcanic eruption qualifies as explosive activity for the definition of a crater. Volcanology may use a stricter definition than the dictionary about what constitutes an explosion. But that doesn't matter for this definition - ejecta from inside is still thrown to the outside, which is in common across the dictionary definition of craters." Are you saying all volcanic craters are products of explosive activity? If yes then that's not necessarily true. Volcanic craters can also form as a result of subsidence in gradual stages due to the episodic release of lava during effusive eruptions. Volcanoguy 05:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yeah that's what made me comment. I tried looking for it again, but guess I didn't look hard enough. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That was what I just added for this. OK so that isn't done yet. Yeah, now that you mention it, we saw Kilauea's summit crater do exactly that kind of collapse a year and a half ago. I've updated that paragraph taking this feedback into account. Let me know what you think. Ikluft (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I simplified it some more: "If reliable sources for geology call a structure a volcanic crater, caldera or maar, that's acceptable to call it and categorize it as a volcanic crater." We can go as many iterations as necessary to get this right. When the update meets with your approval, let me point out the discussion at WikiProject Geology about moving this essay from my user space to a subpage of WikiProject Geology. It would be helpful to hear from more editors so it reaches the minimum of having held a discussion. Ikluft (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Reiterating that if there are no more changes to suggest, there is still a need for more review comments at the discussion at WikiProject Geology before the essay can be moved from a user essay to a become advice of WikiProject Geology. Any help is appreciated. Ikluft (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Crater lakes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Crater lakes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ikluft (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  •  Done The CfR passed. I updated the "Categorization of craters" essay to reflect those results, and added a table of crater-related CfD/CfR/CfM discussions. The essay is still pending approval to move from my userspace to a subpage of WikiProject Geology. Please comment in the essay's review discussion to give your feedback and/or help approve that move. (WikiProject essays should be approved by discussion, not unilateral action. But that means there needs to be enough response to qualify as a discussion.) Ikluft (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Volcanic Barnstar


Introducing Template:The Volcanic Barnstar. I'll be adding it to the main project page. Jerm (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: Looks nice! Volcanoguy 03:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Volcanoes portal

Portal:Volcanoes had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Volcanoes § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America1000 06:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pyroclastic shield needs review

Over a year ago I flagged, as dubious, certain edits made to Pyroclastic shield. I also left a comment in Talk:Pyroclastic shield elaborating on why. Nothing has become of it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Input request

Greetings, I have nominated Laguna del Maule (volcano) for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2 - was closed and restarted due to lack of activity - in case anyone is interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Cerro de la Calavera

Just came across Cerro de la Calavera. Could use some care. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Input request to interested editors

Greetings,

is there anyone interested in commenting/reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2? After five weeks it has only two comments with explicit support/oppose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Volcanism on the Moon

Just thought I would share this here since it is a recently created article that covers a significant topic of the Moon's history. Volcanoguy 04:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

High island

See the article's talk page for rename proposal. Volcanoguy 16:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Amchitka

I have nominated Amchitka 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Mount St. Helens 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Level Mountain FAC

Level Mountain has been nominated for FAC. Volcanoguy 20:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Huaynaputina FAC

Greetings,

is anyone interested in reviewing this discussion which deals with volcanoes, Peru and climate change? It's in danger of being archived for lack of input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until now. Volcanoguy 20:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

1883 eruption of Krakatoa

There are talk page comments concerning the current B-class article classification and citation issues for anyone interested. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Note

It would be helpful if GA/FA nominators place their nomination on the WikiProject's talk page. That way other members of WikiProject Volcanoes know about your nomination, boosting support. Also make sure WikiProject Volcanoes is on your watchlist so you won't miss any nominations or other discussions. Darwinek, GeoWriter, Ceranthor, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Av9, DiverDave, LightandDark2000, Aoi, HueMan1, CycloneFootball71, Dora the Axe-plorer you all seem to be active users so that is why you have been notified. I'm sorry if there is anyone else I missed. Volcanoguy 20:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, in this case Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1 needs commentary [not just unqualified supports]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I will take a look when I have more time. Volcanoguy 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said [not just unqualified supports] I wanted to say that at FAC full-on reviews are better than a mere "support" statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course. I didn't mean just mere "support" statements. Volcanoguy 16:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

GAR of interest to this project

Guallatiri, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this is interested...

...Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1 requires more comments/reviews/supports/opposes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy relevant to this project

El Tatio has been nominated as a Featured article candidate here to see if it satisfies these criteria; feel free to comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been very busy as of late so it might take me a while to review this article. Volcanoguy 06:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Bumping this, as without a review it's likely to be archived. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoodoo Mountain FAC

Hoodoo Mountain has been nominated for FA. Volcanoguy 15:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Needing comments! Volcanoguy 19:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessemtn of Volcanic ash

Volcanic ash has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

I have nominated Geology of the Lassen volcanic area 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century#Smaller_eruptions regarding a recent edit war --Floydpig (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Nature article on cumbre vieja 2021 basanite being super fluid

This quote (and the amount of technical detail in the article)

Indeed, the rheological measurements suggest that the 2021 Cumbre Vieja basanite is among the least viscous basaltic magmas observed on Earth

quantifying the word 'among' probably makes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30905-4 worth a skim - I have put a link in the talk page for the 2021 eruption - but I imagine some of it could go into basanite too - and I'm not sure i'm skilled enough to pull out all the interesting bits, so I thought I'd mention it here. EdwardLane (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Naming conventions - Indonesia

Hi all

I am having difficulty in understanding the naming convention used in Indonesia for naming volcanos. I have posted on the Indonesian wiki for someone to help me understand, and hope that will shed some light.
In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone can help me.
For example, do we name volcano pages based on the most common name? Or is there another convention used (local/etc.)?
For example Lewotolo was moved to Mount Ile Lewotolok.
Google gives 142k hits for Lewotolo, 4k for Mount Ile Lewotolok and 1,950 for Lewotolok. (with -"Mount Ile Lewotolok" removed from the other two searches)
It gets a little confusing as the Bahasa for volcano is Gunung Berapi (lit=Mountain Fiery), and often I find sources that use simply Gunung for active volcanos as well as mountains, Mt for both, and Ili for both.
Any help on any conventions used would be great!! Chaosdruid (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Indonesian naming convention, but the Wikipedia convention is to go with the more commonly-used form; see WP:COMMONNAME. In this case it's obviously Lewotolo. Volcanoguy 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will reverse the page move then. I was hoping there would be some sort of Volcano MOS lol.
I'll just wait for the Indonesian wiki to get back to me for the AKAs and what the actual local name is.
Google earth, US Army maps from the 1950s and a few other sources all seem to be muddying the waters. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That is if your Google results are correct. I'm not familiar with this volcano so it's hard for me to say what name is the most commonly used. Volcanoguy 18:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I've checked the results myself and got 197,000 for "Lewotolok", 38,400 for "Lewotolo", and 3,920 results for "Mount Ile Lewotolok". It seems to me that "Lewotolok" is most commonly used. Volcanoguy 18:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Did you put "lewotolo -lewotolok" and "lewotolok -lewotolo"? Otherwise you'll probably get skewed results Chaosdruid (talk) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither one of those gives many results. Volcanoguy 21:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If I search for 'Lewotolo OR Lewotolok' I get 269,000 hits. That's more than either of our total hits. Mine is 148k, yours 239k
If I do a search for 'favor', the first hit for me is 'favour'. - similarly with 'flavor', just under half the first page hits are 'flavour'
If I search for 'Fred', I get 1,010,000,000 hits.
If I search for 'Fred -freda', I get 706,000,000 hits
If I search for 'Fred -frederick' I get 725,000,000 hits
The implication is that words of similar spelling or with more letters on the end, also appear in search results.
It does appear as if google searches are becoming much less reliable for commonname. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You won't get words with similar spelling or with more letters on the end if you search using quotation marks. Volcanoguy 03:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I just tried with flavour and favor ... both had both spellings in the hits on the first page.
"lewotolo"
All News Maps Images Videos Tools
About 41,300 results
Lewotolok (also known as Lewotolo) is located on the island of ...
Mount Ile Lewotolok or Lewotolo (Indonesian: Gunung Lewotolok) ...
Lewotolo volcano forms ...
It seems that workaround does not work sry Chaosdruid (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
  2. Mauna Loa

List of volcanoes in the United States needs some attention

The subsections of the List of volcanoes in the United States article need some attention. There are a number of unsourced entries that have been tacked on by an editor, outside of the existing tables. These entries lack elevation and location information.—Myasuda (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Yellowstone

I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Stromboli

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Stromboli about splitting the article into Mount Stromboli which is currently a redirect. Volcanoguy 23:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mount Kenya

Mount Kenya has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mount Vesuvius

Mount Vesuvius has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Veteran (volcano) - or something along those lines - possible valid topic?

Hi all,

I've just deleted Talk:Veteran (volcano), as no article of that name existed to have a talkpage for. I do note that historic volcanic activity in the Ile des Cendres region of may possibly match that particular description. Please see this from the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The GVP lists Veteran as a subfeature of Ile des Cendres. Volcanoguy 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This source does too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

MEVC peer review

I've nominated the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article for a peer review; comments can be left here. Volcanoguy 19:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Still looking for feedback on this peer review. Volcanoguy 17:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vulcano#Requested move 18 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vulcano#Requested move 18 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Strange reversions - apologies

Hi

I just rolled back my edit, as it seems the wiki got confused when I tried to revert an Indonesian Wiki talk page, it restored a discussion here

Apologies if there is any remaining issue Chaosdruid (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Tseax Cone GAN

Tseax Cone is a good article nominee if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Volcanoguy 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sakurajima

Sakurajima has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Antarctic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Archive_5&oldid=1243828454"