Talk:2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

Title
Can we get specific with the title and call it Cumbre Vieja? "La Palma" is the name of the island, which could refer to the two large volcanoes ... using La Palma makes the title sound misleading. I suggest renaming it 2021 eruption of Cumbre Vieja or 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption.--CactusTaron (Nopen't) 23:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree. Would be too confusing at this early point. Given the information and the few and currently somewhat ambiguous English wiki articles on the whole island, I'd rather say stick with "2021 La Palma" eruption for now. Even more so as the 1971 eruption is titled Teneguía, but described there as a vent of Cumbre Vieja in the text, this one might possibly get its own name too. Even IGN (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) uses "eruption on the island of La Palma" for now. I'd wait until geologists and volcanologists agree on a proper name. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A rename makes sense to me - it's a specific volcanic ridge eruption, not an island-wide eruption. We can always have redirects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * why did you re-add the word "volcanic" to the article title? It's superfluous unless Cumbre Vieja is going to have some other kind of eruption in 2021. As a rule, articles in Category:Volcanic eruptions don't have the word "volcanic" in their title; including Featured Articles 1257 Samalas eruption and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. jnestorius(talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "volcanic" is a defining characteristic. I'm surprised the other articles you mention don't include it! Note that it does seem to be used in the category names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "defining characteristic" is relevant for MOS:LEDE and WP:CAT but not WP:NAME; e.g. we have Abraham Lincoln, not President Abraham Lincoln. jnestorius(talk) 19:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If Lincoln was President from birth to death, and was never anything else, then including that in the article name would make sense to me - but he wasn't. In this case, this is really known as a volcanic eruption, it's not just Cumbre Vieja being upset at a supermarket. The name 'Cumbre Vieja' also isn't too well known, unlike 'St. Helens', so it makes sense to point out that it is actually a volcano (although 'Salamas' sounds like a genus of a lizard, so I'd suggest 'volcano' would also make sense there!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of the article name to point out that it is about a volcano. 2018 FIFA World Cup Final is not called 2018 FIFA World Cup Final football match even though it was a football match from start to finish and never anything else. Wikipedia talk:Article titles has 59 pages of archives, where points similar to those you make have been debated over the past 19 years; one may personally disagree with the current consensus but one cannot simply express surprise and then proceed to ignore it. jnestorius(talk) 22:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but everyone knows what FIFA is (I know, and I really don't like football!). Searching the archives, I can't see the consensus you're talking about with regards volcanic eruptions. Hopefully others will comment here on their perspectives. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By that logic why is Cumbre Vieja not at Cumbre Vieja volcano? Not everyone knows it's a volcano. jnestorius(talk) 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a geographic place, not an event, but I wouldn't be opposed to a move if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * LUN 8401.jpg

Lava covered area - map box or map frame with OSM or Copernicus GeoJSON data?
How about adding a map frame or map box with highlighted area of the area covered by lava flows?

I'd add it, but I am not sure if the Copernicus EMS license is good enough for Commons (while it seems so to me to be "public/attribution", I am no lawyer and one comment on OSM asked to not use the Copernicus data on OSM). But even if adding the Copernicus json data to Commons for direct showing in a map frame (which would be easier to update than the current composite picture from 20 September by @Corintyns) might be shunned, what about adding a Wiki ID to the OSM polygon? That way it could be linked and shown as a polygon overlay in a map frame and be more up to date. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I just cited an El Pais article which has a wonderful satellite picture from Copernicus, showing the lava flow to the sea. Checking the licensing, this seems to be free for non-commercial use which is problematic due to Wikipedia's insane policy, forbidding the use of such. But perhaps there's a fair-use way round this. may know more...? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea. It's the concept of 'non-commercial' that is insane, not Wikipedia's rules. If Copernicus is indeed providing freely licensed information (which it *should* as a public body, but is ambiguous), then that's great. In general though, we should probably be working with our OSM colleagues on this to import data from their maps into the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson NC licence is quite a 'can of worms' as NC could be interpreted very differently as per any local legislature (on the internet where anything could be "commercial") - which I guess is why it's problematic and not allowed on WikiCommons & OSM.
 * It seems there are some sources that should have workable licenses - perhaps even the IGN data itself (not really sure about Copernicus, as it's somewhat ambiguous as @Mike Peel noted - interpreting the text might need a license lawyer). But the map and shape at lapalma.es seems to be specifically quoted as CC-BY-4.0? That should be compatible at least for the WikiCommons, as I understand it, unless it's mis-quoted... And I believe there was at least a few shape files or at least some photogrammetry produced by local government from drone imagery, which might have had its own license (possibly some OpenData one, as most of Spain is indeed pretty much open). Technicality nitpicker (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried uploading an EMS map file but found that we already have it and the good picture too. (right). Bravo! Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

With reference to the number of CNs on 'lava flow..' I've been getting updates from https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/lapalma/sep2021seismic-crisis/current-activity.html Not sure if it meets the mark for RSS but it may be of help. Links there also to Involcan, Canary Islands.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Human impact
Perhaps a paragraph about the economy, lost banana plantations & other agriculture (although it's mostly the bananas I guess) directly affected by lava flows and ash fall would be good to mention in that section? It's after all 1) direct human impact 2) mostly measurable 3) quite sourced (plenty of Spanish articles on it). Unfortunately, my Spanish is pretty bad and I'd rather leave that to a more local editor than just barging in as a foreigner... Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess this may take a while for people to analyse the damage. Would be nice if a few images could be added to show how this looks right now. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Damage caused by the volcano
Several media report about the eruption having destroyed close to 2000 buildings so far. Would it be possible for some images to show this and upload to the wikipedia article as-is? Note: I refer primarily to how it looks "on site", less so about voyeurism about destroyed buildings per se. Satellite images are nice but it's not quite the "view" you normally have when you are right there. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that images would add to the article given the level of destruction, the images would have to conform with wp:fairuse. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is volcano still VEI 2
Is the volcano still VEI 2? --2A02:2F01:631C:8700:4852:D841:27F4:43AE (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is now officially a VEI 3, as it was just now changed, on November 20th. The scientific committee of the Canary Islands Volcanic Emergency Plan (Pevolca) has raised its rate of explosiveness from 2 to 3, on a scale of 8, due to it surpassing 10 million cubic meters of ejected pyroclasts. This is a confirmed report, as can be found in many spanish media sources today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMTHEONLYREALITY (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

End of Eruption
Today I read a comment in a youtube chat on 'Levonel' volcano livestream that "Wikipedia just put an end date for the eruption as 13-12-21' Maybe the Spanish version, but English chat. The earthquakes have stopped today the last being at 7:37 https://www.volcanoesandearthquakes.com/map/lapalma. It is the strongest indication that the eruption has now ended. I won't update for now.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also El Pais on the 15th. I think it becomes official after 10 days since the last event, so it should be confirmed some time next week, unless it decides to restart before then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I spoke too soon! Earthquake activity has continued after a 12 hour lull including M3.2 today. I can find no 'official' report of the eruption ending. btw 'seismic activity' certainly had not ended on 15th I don't know how El Pais reported that?! Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It did end but that earthquake activity might be more related to the magma chamber readjusting to the lack of magma still given this is the first time it had erupted that much material in more then 500 years HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The BBC has reported (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59791541) that the last volcanic/seismic activity occurred on 13 December and local officials waited a few weeks to declare the end of the eruption on 25 December. Pauses between phases of a single eruption are very common and therefore an announcement that the eruption has ended may be premature (the claimed end date is only 98 days after the eruption started). It does not follow the commonly used scientific definition of the end of a volcanic eruption (no volcanic activity for 90 days) which is used by e.g. the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program and the US Geological Survey. Any mention of the ending of the eruption in December should be clearly attributed to Spanish government sources e.g. "Canary Islands regional security chief Julio Perez" as in the BBC source, not volcanological sources. GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Nature article on surprising low viscosity basanite
This https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30905-4 says "Indeed, the rheological measurements suggest that the 2021 Cumbre Vieja basanite is among the least viscous basaltic magmas observed on Earth" - and I know that 'among' is not very specific but there is quite a lot more detail in the article which is probably of interest. EdwardLane (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)