Talk:Volcanism

Redirect to Plutonism
A link to this article was placed at Pluton under the misapprehension that this article talked about a third competing geological theory. In reality, the word Vulcanism historically was an alternative name for Plutonism, so the link here was removed.--Rfsmit (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The redirect was to volcano and always was. Personally, if they were to be merged I would suggest plutonism be merged into this article because the term volcanism is more modern and I would think people would be more familiar with that term insted. BT (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Rfsmit suggested anything be merged. They were just explaining their removal of a link to here from Pluton, and perhaps also their addition of a dabnote here. --Avenue (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Volcano article?
Someone has added a tag suggesting that this article be merged with the volcano article. Admittedly there is not much here at present, but I think what we have can very much be improved, and the two articles should be complementary. Volcano should focus on the landforms themselves, supplemented with some broad information about causes, distribution, eruptions, etc, whereas the volcanism article should cover all of these but focus most on causes and patterns of volcanism (over space and time). --Avenue (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This should not redirect to the volcano article for a number of reasons. Volcanism is not just about the formation of volcanoes and volcanic activity, it is also connected with the formation of sills, dikes, batholiths and other intrusions that are not volcanoes. A redirect to the volcano article would be poor quality. BT (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the user that added the merge template has changed the vulcanism redirect to a disambiguation page. BT (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BT. Awickert (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note A more complete view is Types of volcanic eruptions, and a more general view is Volcano.Res Mar 03:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Volcanism is not just about volcanoes and volcanic eruptions. Volcano and volcanism are two but related things. It dosen't matter if the eruption list is more complete or volcano is a more general view. This is only a stub and lots more is still needed. Volcanism does not always produce volcanoes or eruptions; sills, dikes, batholiths, etc are all formed when magma is trapped and cools under the surface. Also, hot springs, fumaroles, earthquakes and ground deformation can be related to volcanism as well. A geologist would not normally consider volcanism to be just about volcanoes and eruptions. Awickert is a geologist himself. In your point of view it is mostly about volcanoes and eruptions but in other areas it isn't.  Volcano guy  04:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add content and references
I added a bunch of stuff - hope that fits with what people were intending, feel free to flesh it out and rewrite it (and give references). It's about as far as I can take the page.

Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Should perhaps add some more stuff for geothermal energy or Geothermal_(geology) but both those articles seem tied up with geothermal power with no real mention of geysers and hot springs - found the section Hydrothermal vent which looks to cover those and fumaroles Maybe also add section for climate change as effected by volcanic winter, Prediction of volcanic activity, Earthquake prediction — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ok I've dealt with some of that - but I notice I've not covered ignimbrites or Lahars yet. EdwardLane (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

looks like I've also missed out on Caldera, Maar, Volcanic Crater and there should probably be some mention of Large igneous provinces and orogeny - so perhaps a volcanism impact on landforms section? EdwardLane (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes
I've redone a bit - seems "celestial body" was overdone and better as non-gaseous planets, moons and Earth. The article needs references, but seems the recently added lecture notes page from Cornell likely wouldn't pass WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Volcanoes Are Not Confined to Earth
I think that this article should be moved to "Earth's volcanism", and there should be a new article that explains what volcanism is from a more general point of view. Earth's volcanism is only one aspect that we earthlings know best, but it cannot be a substitute for all forms of volcanisms in the Solar System and farther out.--Sae1962 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the Volcanism article shouldn't be totally earth centric - agreed, so this article needs expanding to cover more cryo-volcanism etc - but I think the present article is in the right spot until someone writes a massive article about volcanism from a more general point of view, at which point splitting of a subsection to deal with Volcanism as found on earth might then be the right thing to do. No point in renaming this article before then (I think) but if you want to massively expand this article to include volcanism on other planetary bodies that would be great EdwardLane (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

More information and references needed
There is not a lot information, specifically in "driving forces of volcanism" and other products of volcanism that can be added to the article. More references to the information in the article could be used aswell. Louycee (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Louycee, Did you have a look at the link - and if so which bits from that do you think need transcluding/summarizing for this article? And do you have any sources that you think would be suitable to act as citations for any of the bits that are short of references? EdwardLane (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Geography
Voice concern 41.216.73.23 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Move of Volcanism to Volcanism on Earth
Since this page mainly refers to Earhly volcanoes, with only a brief foray into volcanoes anywhere else, I think it should be renamed ‘Volcanism on Earth’. I already did this but somebody else reverted it.

Edit: As for the reverter (Volcanoguy), well this is clearly an Earth-centric article, it is literally almost all about volcanoes on Earth, and the only section which discusses extraterrestrial volcanism is basically just a link to the dedicated pages for volcanism on other worlds, and contains little useful information (or none, depending on what you already knew). This Earth centrism shows in the definition of lava, magma, when volcanoes on other worlds can erupt water vapor and ammonia. CoastRedwood (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This article was never meant to be solely for volcanism on Earth (myself being the creator) and it shouldn't be. The answer is to expand the article to cover more extraterrestrial volcanism. Volcanoguy 01:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The way the article is now, being as Earth focused as it is, it makes more sense to move it to Volcanism on Earth while the general volcanism article gets worked on. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is working on a general volcanism article right now. How about you do it since you're making a big deal about the coverage? Volcanoguy 21:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why don’t you do it? You care too about these things. (I’ve got something in my sandbox which is the article. When I finish it, I’ll submit it as an actual article) CoastRedwood (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm busy at the moment and unfortunately I don't know enough about volcanism on other worlds to write a good NPOV article about volcanism in general. Volcanoguy 18:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean busy? CoastRedwood (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You say it’s meant to be a general article, but it hasn’t turned out that way at all. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With that being said, lava and magma are not limited to Earth. Venus, Mars, Moon and Io also have igneous volcanoes. Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article mentions features specific to Earthly volcanoes, such as volcanic winter, and the source of volcanism being tectonic plates CoastRedwood (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed all of this to make the article more neutral. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 21:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, when people think of volcanism, cryovolcanism doesn't normally come to mind. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 02:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t matter. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion of one of my edits
CoastRedwood, why did you revert my edit of 15:57, 22 March 2024? (My edit had summary text: "source reference ":2" (Melosh "Volcanoes") - added details of the book; removed web page url because it might be a possible copyright violation - see WP:COPYLINK"). GeoWriter (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it should have been kept there because, even if it was a copyright violation the link was still there, so it hadn’t been taken down from the internet. CoastRedwood (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it’s not on the Wikipedia page the link is still available online CoastRedwood (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

CoastRedwood, the fact that a file has not yet been deleted from the web does not support its possible inclusion in Wikipedia. A web link's existence on the web is irrelevant to Wikipedia ignoring the web link i.e. if Wikipedia does not cite the web link, then that web link is not Wikipedia's problem. On Wikipedia, a weblink of problematic copyright status is worse than no link.

You have cited a source reference "Volcanoes" with a web link to a PDF version of a chapter from book.

In source reference citations, editors do not have to provide a web link to the text of a published book because the source can be reasonably obtained by other methods e.g. buying the book or borrowing/reading the book in a library. Therefore, the publication details of the book are entirely sufficient for a book-related source citation. A web link is merely an optional courtesy to ease the verification process.

The web link you have used in a citation is part of an academic's webspace at a university. This academic is neither the author nor the publisher of the book chapter. The PDF file was downloaded (by the academic or an associate) from the book publisher's website and is stored as a publicly accessible web page of the university's website, i.e. the file can be read and/or downloaded by anyone with an internet connection and a web browser. I think that the public accessibility aspect of this file storage possibly violates the terms and conditions of the publisher (https://www.cambridge.org/core/legal-notices/terms), possibly negatively impacting the web link's copyright status, and there is also no visible indication of permission from the copyright owner (the author). In terms of copyright violation, I think inclusion of this link is too risky to be worth any potential legal problems for editors of Wikipedia articles.

WP:COPYVIOEL, which is part of the WP:EXTERNAL guideline states: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

WP:COPYLINK, which is part of the WP:COPYRIGHT policy states: "... if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder."

WP:OWNWORDS, which is part of the WP:VERIFY policy states: "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it."

Your edit removed almost all identifying information from the citation, which I think actually makes the PDF file web link version of the cited source less, not more, verifiable (especially if the questionable PDF copy of book chapter is eventually removed from that website) because the PDF web file is not presented in any easily identifying context - it has only a file name "Melosh_ch_5.pdf". I was only able to identify which book the chapter came from because I own a copy of a book written by Melosh and I was able to confirm that the PDF chapter is from that book. I was then able to add the publication details of the book to the source citation.

I think that the PDF file web link should be removed from the citation and it should be replaced with the sufficient conventional publication details (book title, author, date, publisher, doi). GeoWriter (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Article needs improving
The article has little to no detail on explosive sulfur and mud volcanism or lack thereof, and of magma differentation. Also the occurrence section could do with some revision as well CoastRedwood (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Asteroids and comets?
The describes volcanism as "...the phenomenon where solids, liquids, gases, and their mixtures erupt to the surface of a solid-surface astronomical body, for example planets, moons, asteroids and comets." (bolding by me) Sounds a bit strange, aren't asteroids and comets a bit too tiny to have any noticeable internal activity that can lead to volcanism? I have checked the source, and yes, it does mention asteroids (not comets), but only in a generic and passing-by way: "Volcanism is the phenomenon that solid, liquid, gas, and their mixtures erupt to the surface during the thermal evolution process of planets, satellites, and asteroids." Then it proceeds to describe volcanic activity at several locations in the solar system, and never mentions volcanism in asteroids or comets. It does mention Ceres, in the asteroid belt, but Ceres is a dwarf planet. Tiny compared to other things, but way bigger than the regular asteroid. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Volcanism on asteroids - for example on 4 Vesta - evidence of lava flows on Vesta includes eucrite HED meteorites from Vesta found on Earth. See e.g. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/meteorites/building-planets/vesta . Comets - e.g. cryovolcanism on comet 29P/Schwassmann–Wachmann. See. e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103515005217. The review source citation at the end of the disputed sentence in this Wikipedia article applies to the sentence but, like any citation on Wikipedia, the citation does not necessarily apply to everything mentioned in the Wikipedia article's sentence. Support not being found in the cited source could have been challenged with a "citation span" tag instead of text removal; additional sources are available, e.g. on the Internet, to support text about volcanism on asteroids and comets. Volcanism on asteroids not being mentioned much and comets not being mentioned at all by the cited source is probably more of a reflection on the incompleteness of the content of the cited source - to be fair, the authors of the cited source probably had article word limits to obey. Asteroids and comets are indeed relatively minor sites of volcanism, so their omission from the cited source is understandable. Anyway, the examples in the Wikipedia article's sentence are only examples not an exhaustive list, so your new version of the text "such as a planet or moons" also works, but I think it works better grammatically if changed slightly to "such as a planet or a moon" to keep both nouns singular instead of mixing singular and plural.  GeoWriter (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)