Talk:Cascade Volcanoes

Page name
Just found this page.. it seems useful. One thing though, shouldn't the page name be "Cascade volcanoes" with a small v? Would be standard wikipedia style and easier to use in links.

Also, if this list is all volcanoes and remains of extinct volcanoes of the Cascades, perhaps Goat Rocks should be added? Pfly 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the phrase itself is a proper name, just like Cascade Range or Coast Mountains or Garibaldi Volcanic Belt; small-casing it takes away its proper-name status; it's not just volcanoes of the Cascades, it's a particular group of volcanoes called the Cascade Volcanoes; or Cascade Volcanic Belt, but that's not how it's usually referred to (it's composed of several belts....). It would also confuse the necessary delineation - which should always be clear in this article - that the Cascade Volcanoes are not the same thing as the Cascade Range; the latter includes summits that are not Cascade Volcanoes, the former extends much father north than the Cascades (to Mount Meager...I'm not sure about the neighbouring Bridge River Cones but perhaps BlackTusk knows that....and also farther south; unless - could it really be? - Shasta and Lassen are part of the Cascade Range.  I've always thought of it as ending at Mazama/Crater Lake, and then the mountain country falls off entirely; Shasta's not really in a range, except one that comes in from eastward, and a low ridge only at that; so I'd venture that down there in CA there's also been some confusion of the concept of the Cascade Volcanoes vs the Cascade Range, with the two meanings becoming blurred in the American definition; they're distinct up here, as our Cascades end at the Fraser River, while the Cascade Volcanoes go a good 'nother 150 miles farther north.  So the capitalization stands, and is not in conflict with Wiki guidelines.Skookum1 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Benchmark topo-atlas of California I have has the words "Cascade Range" in large letters over northeast California, down from Oregon to Lassen Peak. The Pit River flows through the area and is said to be one of the few rivers that crosses the Cascades. The book I keep referring to for geology, "Geology of the Pacific Northwest" by Orr, describes the Cascades as reaching into California to about Lassen Peak just like the map shows. The book describes the Cascade Range as being geologically distinct from the Sierra Nevada (US) and the Klamath Mountains, even suggesting that the Cascade Range "may extend beneath the Sierra Nevada Mountains".


 * Apparently the North Cascades, north of approx. I-90 or US 2, are geologically distinct from the Cascades to the south. The northern mountains were created by multiple terranes and terrane fragments that merged into "composite slabs" or "superterranes" offshore before colliding with North America during Cretaceous times (something like 100 million years ago). Later mountain-building events worked from this base of complex accreted terranes, but even so the rocks of the North Cascades are much older than those south; the terrane rocks date back over a billion years in some cases. From about I-90 south, according to this book, the Cascades began about 40 million years ago as a "continental volcanic arc along the coast or as islands offshore. So the southern mountains, or the so-called "West Cascades", are built on a base of lava and ash no older than 40 million years. Then a new volcanic era began about 10 million years ago, creating the "High Cascades" or the Cascade Volcanoes as we know them today.


 * This book makes the case that the Northern Cascades and the southern, or Western Cascades, are geologically distinct, but are known as a single range because of the more recent volcanoes of the High Cascades, which are geologically related, and run, according to this book, from Mount Lassen and Shasta in California to Garibaldi, Mount Meager, and the "Bridge River cones" in British Columbia. In addition, the Coast Range of British Columbia, this book says, was made of accreted terranes just like the North Cascades. In short, the picture given is that if you take away the High Cascade volcanoes, then you'd have two ranges: 1. the Cascades south of about I-90 to northeast California, and 2. the Cascades north of about I-90 plus the Coast Range of BC and reaching up into the coastal ranges of Alaska.


 * Anyway, just thought I'd offer this viewpoint. I'm no geologist, merely the messenger! Pfly 09:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It says at the bottom the list is incomplete, you can help by expaning it, so if you see any Cascade volcanoes, you can add them onto the list but make sure they are in order.Black Tusk 6:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about volcanic plugs or peaks which like Slesse and others which were formed by some kind of volcanic action (even if never surfaced in Slesse's case, but I don't know its geologic history; I just have a family connection to its aviation history....), but have long since hardened into pillars and such? That more or less is the whole Coast Mountains pluton, I guess, but I think you know what I mean.  Black Tusk, Table Mountain, have to think of some other examples...!!!!

Yes, add volcanic plugs. Black Tusk 01:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct term for the Cascade volcanoes? What title should the article have?
The name of this article has recently been changed from "Cascade Volcanoes" to "Cascade Volcanic Belt", and the latter term has begun spreading to numerous other pages on Wikipedia. However, this term is not widely accepted and it may not be an appropriate title, especially when the phrase is capitalized as a proper noun (as it is now). The most common term among volcanologists is "Cascade Volcanic Arc" or simply "Cascade Arc", which is more appropriate than Belt because the region in question is a product of arc volcanism along a subduction zone.

Naming conventions (geographic names) states "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."

Naming conventions states "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."

Therefore we should use the title which has the widest acceptance in the volcanological community, as shown by publications in scientific journals and conferences, while at the same time the article should be easy to find for readers and to link to for editors. So I checked several search phrases on GeoRef, the main research database in the field, to find out how widely used they are (these are not full-text searches, only titles and abstracts are available to be searched):

Some conclusions seem evident from these results:
 * "Volcanoes" should be spelled with an "e" (but most people know that is the preferred form).
 * In each of the pairs of phrases, the singular ("Cascade") is much preferred to the plural ("Cascades"), so we should use the singular version.
 * The current name, "Cascade Volcanic Belt", is not widely accepted and so is inappropriate for this article. We need to change it.
 * The top 3 contenders are "Cascade Arc", "Cascade volcanoes", and "Cascade Volcanic Arc". We should use one of these terms as the title.
 * Using either "Cascade Arc" or "Cascade Volcanic Arc" as a proper noun (capitalizing all words) is OK, since at least some publications do that, but not really so for "Cascade volcanoes".

Out of these three, "Cascade Arc" is not specific enough for the title of this article, which needs to contain some reference to volcanism. So "Cascade volcanoes" and "Cascade Volcanic Arc" appear to be the only reasonable choices of title. We should choose one of these two names by consensus and then modify any linked templates and individual volcano pages to reflect that consensus choice. Personally, I would vote for this article to be named "Cascade volcanoes" since it best meets the official policy, but I do like "Cascade Volcanic Arc" since it offers a more formal name as a proper noun.

Within the text of articles, if a proper noun is needed, then "Cascade Volcanic Arc" is a much better choice than "Cascade Volcanic Belt". It is favored by scientists because it is more accurate and apt for describing a 1200-km long example of arc volcanism like that in Cascadia, while "volcanic belt" usually refers to geographically smaller regions. All references to "Cascade Volcanic Belt" in Wikipedia articles should probably be changed to Arc instead, for example in phrases such as "Mount Cayley is a volcano in the northern part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc." I've already created a redirect page named Cascade Volcanic Arc in order to ease linking to the final choice of article title.

By the way, I've been researching the Cascade volcanoes extensively for the past 8 years, and I've read or skimmed most significant books and scientific papers written about them since 1900. I have over 500 photocopied or PDF papers about Cascade volcanoes in my files, along with at least 50+ books or guidebooks related to them. So I do have an extensive background in this area.

I welcome your comments about which name we should choose. I'm also happy to search for any other reasonable names on GeoRef. Thanks. --Seattle Skier 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Cascade Volcanic Arc would be the best name for the title because the Cascade Volcanic Belt actually has more then one volcanic belt, sush as the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and the Pemberton Volcanic Belt which are the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc and it is more of a geologic name, as it is mentioned that the Cascade volcanoes are a geologic grouping. The Cascade volcanoes are also a chain of volcanoes near the edge of the continent that were formed by subduction, which is what a volcanic arc is. Black Tusk 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at Google (more general searches than techincal papers), "Cascade Volcanic Arc" returns 791, while "Cascade Volcanic Belt" returns 324. However, "Cascades Volcanoes" returns 57,000 results. If we look beyond technical literature, I believe that most people will search for and refer to "Cascade Volcanoes". I would recommend this term. hike395 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and did the move. If this is objectionable, we can discuss further. hike395 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably a better idea if we move Cascade Volcanoes to Cascade Volcanic Arc because if you look at the other languages they seem to use Cascade Volcanic Arc insted of Cascade Volcanoes. I recommend we do the same. Also, the title is sort of misleading because not every thing in the arc is a volcano. There's lava flows, lava dams, rock formations, etc. The search mentioned above is most likely for volcanoes and nothing else. Any suggestions? Black Tusk 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Should elecations be included?
should there be a table, should they be listed after the names and locations? is this even a good idea? NargleFishHat 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic formations
Should the article have anything about volcanic formations and not just volcanoes? Black Tusk 07:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. hike395 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just wanted to know because I know some articles that arn't volcanoes, sush as The Barrier. Black Tusk 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Back-arc basins
Should back-arc basins be included in the article? I know volcanoes in those regions arn't subduction-related, but the back-arc basins themselves are related to the Cascadia subduction (most likely related to continental rollback), such as the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts in British Columbia. Black Tusk 07:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcluded list
I imagine that transclusion of the list of volcanoes might not be a good idea - since I imagine that it would be taxing to the database; but in this case it seemed to me that the article was listing at length what was included in this list in more compact form. So, I've left it there by reference, instead of by substitution or link, for editors to decide what would be best in this case. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

4000BP timeline image
For now, Black Tusk's amendment toeh caption has to be what it is; like so many other data-sets the USGS and various Canadian data services end at the border, which is a tragedy in scientific terms and just frustrating for researchers. As it's a USGS sourced image it's unlikely te Canadian data can be jigged into it easily; but the locations and eruption-timelines of Cayley, Meager and Garibaldi - and Silverthrone and Franklin Glacier and ?? - oh yeah, Bridge River Cones - should be incorporable with a little creative graphicsl-rendering; perhaps User:Kmusser, whose made some great and smiliar-looking maps at Talk:Columbia River and elsewhere, could help expand it. Black Tusk, can you dig up a list of eruption times/dates; maybe the mountain locations can just be extrapolated from the known latlongs of the volcanoes in the image; which as I'd guess this being USGS they're data-generated so should be "algiend, though on what projection it's hard to say without trying. Anyway I think the reasonable course of action here would be to de-US the image and just try and expand it; all imgges on this paeg shoudl reflect the whole Arc, not just the US portion of it....Skookum1 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I made the map in the infobox a few days ago to help sort out this issue. As for the Canadian eruption-timelines, I'm not sure there's lots of data for them, especially for volcanoes with "unknown" eruptions (e.g. Silverthrone, Bridge River Cones, Franklin Glacier) which must be poorly studied areas. Black Tusk (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at one of my several volcano books for Canadian Cascade volcanoes that have erupted in the past 4,000 years and here are my results:


 * Silverthrone: less than 1000 BP
 * Franklin Glacier: None
 * Meager: 2350 BP
 * Cayley: None
 * Garibaldi: None


 * These volcanoes and datings should be added in the Cascade volcano timeline like the others if expanded/created. Black Tusk (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a Capt. Vancouver-era eruptions at the head of Howe Sound, i.e. either Cayley or Garibaldi? I've never read Vancouver's journals, but I thought that was the case - that there was an active volcano nearby at the time of Contact.....maybe it was Baker that was being referred to though....Adn rest assured, if these volcanoes were near Montreal or Toronto, they'd hav been studied to death by now....Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Must have been Baker. It has erupted at least 12 times since 7830 BC with the most recent being 1880, 1870, 1863, 1859, 1858, 1854, 1852 and 1843. The youngest eruption from Garibaldi is the lava flow from Opal Cone 9,350 years ago on its southeast flank. And Cayley's youngest eruption appears to be older, about 20,000 years old....although I think there's some undated eruptions there as well. The Bridge River Cones have also erupted in the past 4,000 years, but from looking at the eruption limeline image it seems to only include major volcanoes and there's not enough room for another volcano between Meager and Franklin Glacier. Black Tusk (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of volcanoes in Montreal, Mount Royal is an igneous intrusion that might have been part of a volcano.... Black Tusk (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it was, also Mont Ste.-Hilaire and other outcrops in teh St. Lawrence Plain/Lowland. Remember it from a long-ago student exchange trip tour....Skookum1 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like all the Monteregian Hills (including Mont Saint-Hilaire) might be parts of long extinct volcanoes 125 million years ago formed by the New England hotspot (which now underlies the Atlantic Ocean). Black Tusk (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded my verson of the 4000 BP timeline image to help solve this problem. It now includes the Cascade volcanoes in Canada. Black Tusk (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the Bridge River Cones? - one feature is est. 1500 BP, doesn't that qualify; they're part of the Garibaldi group, right, so doesn't that make them part of the Cascade complex? Also, though I'll ask it again on that talkpage, it says that Sham Mill is 168 miles across....unless that's vandaliam....Skookum1 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't include the Bridge River Cones because its not a major volcanic area. If the Bridge River Cones were included might as well add the other several minor volcanoes throughout the arc but that will make the image very crowded. There's many minor volcanoes and minor volcanic areas that have erupted in the past 4000 years that arn't shown on the USGS image. I was originally going to expand the timeline to 10,000 BP but it made the image too long and I don't know the eruptive history of all Cascade volcanoes that well. So it it's better off having major volcanoes in the image instead. The Bridge River Cones eruption less than 1500 BP is correct and Sham Hill being 168 miles across is either a mistake or vandalism. It should be 300 m. Black Tusk (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1500BP more or less coincides with newscopy relating to them I once saw in the Sun; the columnnist was discussing the rugged terrain around Lillooet and suggesting the Bridge River eruptions had something to do with it; apparently perhaps there was associated tectonic activity, canyon-ripping and hte like, maybe the Texas Creek slide that backed up the Fraser to Pavilion and beyond etc (google "Keithley Creek site"); could be the colunnist, who maybe was Denny Boyd or Trevor Lautens, was confusing Meager and the Cones....I don't know of any native legends that might be about these events, but that's possibly because so much oral history was lost for various reasons in the 19th Century ("not just us"), although one maybe-related story from the Lakes is that in the old days, when people were still mountain goats and deer and bear, they could just back and forth from mountaintop-to-mountaintop as the mountains were a lot closer then....Skookum1 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen or herd too much about the Bridge River Cones eruption(s) but the most recent appears to be remnants of valley-filling basalt flows on the northern flank of Tuber Hill which rest on glacial till and clearly postdate the last major glaciation. I'm also still curious about Garibaldi eruptions in the past few thousand years. Eruptions like Meager's large 2350 BP eruption must have been herd because St. Helens' 1980 eruption was similar in force to Meager's eruption and ash was sent as far as Alberta.... I should make an eruption timeline for the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province since that seems to be a more active area in Canadian volcanism. Black Tusk (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Baker's Spanish name
While perusing hte aritlce just now I noted the section on European names; I dind'nt add Baker's Spanish name partly because I'm not certain of it exactly - Gran Sierra de Nuestra Senora del Carmelo? - and partly because I wan'st sure if any of the others had also been named by the Spanish. I'll check the Spanish name and correct it here, but if anyone thinks it would be "overburden" to inclue it please say so and I'll just leave it here for further deabet, otherwise say if it should be added to the article...Skookum1 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think adding it to the Mount Baker article would be fine, although perhaps not in the lead: it is purely an historical name. hike395 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove lists from main article
I was quite surprised to find the same list of Cascade volcanoes both here and at List of Cascade volcanoes. Generally, having the same data replicated in two articles is not a good idea, because they can drift due to separate editing. Having the lists in the main article also adds to the download size (making it difficult for people to use WP on their phones, for example).

I propose to remove the lists from the end of this article, keeping the pointer to the list article.

Thoughts? hike395 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't delete the list if no one replies. I think keeping it. Black Tusk (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I jumped the gun: it is easy to revert, if we decide otherwise. I'm curious: why do you want to keep the list? hike395 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a problem if the list is not in the article, but this has already been partly discussed by User:Mkmcconn. If he kept the transcluded list in the article then he must have wanted the list in the article as well. And if the article gets a major expansion it will probably add to the download time and it will be slow again. Black Tusk (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think best is fine with me. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is probably the wrong place for this and I apologize, but just wanted to note that Mount St. Helens is missing from the list even though it's mentioned earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4380:66:7884:4A25:D06E:2EFE (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Volcanoes over 10,000 ft in elevation
The article currently states there are twelve volcanoes in the arc over 10,000 ft (3,000 m) in elevation. However, if Silverthrone is included, there would be thirteen volcanoes over 10,000 ft (3,000 m) in elevation because according to the Geological Survey of Canada and Global Volcanism Program, Silverthrone exceeds an elevation of 10,000 ft (3,000 m). BT (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I count 12 including Silverthrone; 1 in BC, 4 in Washington, 5 in Oregon, and 2 in CA. Which one am I omitting? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have miscounted them then. BT (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Name
Does anyone know how much the term Cascade Volcanoes is used? As far as I'm concerned, "Cascade Volcanoes" is not normally used in geological papers. "Cascade Volcanoes" is generic and it is a confusing term in the first place. If you speak it, it is not necessarily obvious whether you mean "Cascade Volcanoes" or "Cascade volcanoes", making it tough to tell what the person is discussing. "Cascade volcanoes" can easily refer to volcanoes in the Cascade Range or volcanoes in the Cascade Arc. Another reason "Cascade Volcanoes" is an awkward term is because not everything in the Cascade Arc is a volcano. It also includes lava flows, dikes, intrusions and other volcanological formations, which is probably why geologists do not commonly use the term "Cascade Volcanoes" for the Cascade Arc in the first place. Also, "Cascade Volcanoes" looks awkward in the "volcanic_arc/belt" section of the mountain infobox because it does not use "arc" or some other volcanological term in its name. BT (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I live in Washington, and I use the term when talking to folks who aren't familiar with the region. It offers a useful distinction -- there are lots of other local mountains which are neither part of the Cascades, nor volcanoes. People often assume that, say, Mt Olympus has something to do with Mt Rainier-- they're nearby, they're both glacier capped, so its a natural mistake. Its simple to say "Rainier is one of the Cascades Volcanoes, Olympus isn't a volcano, and its not part of the Cascades"

Crocodilian (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

7700 BP Eruption of Mount Mazama
On the Cascade volcanoes page it says "42 times larger than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens." However, on the Mount Mazama page it says "The eruption, estimated to have been 420 times more powerful than Mount St. Helens' 1980 blast". Which is correct? Jlea9378 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change redirection targets for Cascades and Canadian Cascades
User:Volcanoguy has proposed changing the targets for Cascades and Canadian Cascades to Cascade Volcanoes and Canadian Cascade Arc, respectively. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cascade Volcanoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081219152327/http://terra.rice.edu/sota/papers/Green,NathanSOTAAbstract.pdf to http://terra.rice.edu/sota/papers/Green,NathanSOTAAbstract.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cascade Volcanoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511210610/http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/Highlights/RainierPilot/Pilot_highlight.html to http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/Highlights/RainierPilot/Pilot_highlight.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cascade Volcanoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023030758/http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/belt_garibaldi_e.php to http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/belt_garibaldi_e.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://terra.rice.edu/sota/papers/Green%2CNathanSOTAAbstract.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531170502/http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/province/cascade2.html to http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/province/cascade2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604145927/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/feature_meager_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/feature_meager_e.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Article title
The current title of this article is a misnomer given the fact that not everything in the Cascade Arc is a volcano. It is also not a commonly used name in scientific literature. The most common name used among volcanologists is "Cascade Volcanic Arc" or simply "Cascade Arc". It is also the preferred name in Cascade volcano articles. Renaming this article to Cascade Arc or Cascade Volcanic Arc would also make more sense because no other volcanic arc article uses "XXXX Volcanoes"; see Category:Volcanic arcs. Volcanoguy 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

List of volcanoes - St. Helens?
Am I missing something (always likely), or is it a really big oversight that Mt. St. Helens is not on the list of volcanoes? It's been the most active Cascade volcano in the past few millennia, and the most studied Cascade volcano in the past century. Everyone reading this article surely knows that, so I suspect I'm missing something, but it seems like a big oops. Dcs002 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a list by height, and St. Helens' modest height of under 8400 feet isn't that impressive.
 * This list should be in north-south order, height is of no interest to volcanologists.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dcs002. Omission is bizarre. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Volcanoes#/media/File:Cascade_eruptions_during_the_last_4000_years.png Beowulf (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)