Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes/Archive 1

WikiProject Volcanoes
Hi, I've created this new WikiProject to fill a need that I've noticed over the past couple of months, while editing numerous volcano and mountain articles on Wikipedia. I noticed many articles for mountains which are volcanoes that are missing any info about their volcanic origin, not to mention missing the proper infobox tags and article categories. The initial goals of this WikiProject include viewing, categorizing, and hopefully improving every single article about individual volcanoes and volcanic mountains on Wikipedia. Longer term goals are to expand the coverage and inclusion of volcanoes around the world, along with improving and expanding the articles about related topics in volcanology.

I welcome and encourage any interested editors to join this project and help make Wikipedia's volcano and volcanology articles into a uniformly reliable and comprehensive source of information.

Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a process to add myself to the project, or do I just need to edit the project page and insert myself into the list? --Burntnickel 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You just add yourself to the list... or at least I did and nobody shouted at me! When you click the edit tab for the section with the member table in, you should find details for the template to use to put yourself in. Welcome to the project! Eve 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --MONGO 04:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic margins - possible copyright problems
I've found some possible copyright problems in the volcanic margins article, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how much of a problem it is, and what to do about it. If any of you have time to take a look, some help would be really useful. Cheers, Eve 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

VNUM - a new extenal link template to generate links to the Smithsonian db
Hi all,

I have created an external link template for the VNUM (Volcano Number), which generates the correct link to the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program summary page for that particular volcano number. See also the documentation it comes with (explanation of use), and the corresponding article Volcano Number. The template is to be found here: Template:VNUM.

If you are not too familiar with external link templates: it works similar like Wikipedia's Template:ISSN, it puts the correct link URL together from the volcano number that you as the editor provide, and information already stored in the template code. There is a small precaution to be taken vor VNUM's ending on an equal sign ("="), but that is explained on the template documentation page and is really very easy (I am not a programmer).

An example and instructions are on the VNUM template page, for instance. - I think this should be added to the infobox as well. I put a first sample VNUM link on the Vulcano article near the top.

--Carboxen 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is neat --- I like it. Over in WikiProject Mountains, we have similar links to this --- to peakbagger.com or peakware.com . Following WP:EL, these should probably be in the "External Links" section. I modified the template to look like an external link.


 * I don't know if it fits into the Infobox --- the number itself is not that meaningful to most people --- it's the content at the Smithsonian that our readers will want to access. hike395 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello hike395, thank you for your improvements! I agree with your approach, it reminds me of the PND template in the German WP. I wasn't certain yet where to put the link in any given text, but the external links section with the expanded text makes most sense, you are right. Also, after some consideration I think I wouldn't put it in the infobox either anymore, but mainly because too many mountains are not volcanoes and not all volcanoes are mountains. --Carboxen 05:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing this template, Carboxen. I've revised it to add a second parameter for an optional name, for those cases where the Wikipedia article name differs significantly from the GVP entry.  I also rewrote the documentation and added several examples, please check for any errors which might have crept in.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Project goal idea
Does anyone think when we see a volcano article (on a specific mountain) that we should make it a goal of the project to cover the eruptive style of it (where it is not already covered) and some information about what sort of volcanic rocks are common (be they flow banded rhyolite, welded tuffs, etc)? Snoop0x7b 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I think that is implicitly one of the project's goals already. Maybe it should listed explicitly under the "Open tasks and guidelines" section.  Feel free to expand or revise the project page, this WikiProject is whatever we all make it be.
 * As I've gone around visiting 1500+ volcano articles over the past four weeks (as part of the Volcano tagging effort), I've tried to make such additions to many articles. I'm also keeping a lengthy offline list (100s already) of articles to revisit later and improve the text about eruptions and eruptive products.  I would estimate that almost half of the 1800+ articles currently within the project's scope are just tiny stubs, so any expansion is welcome in those.  Many longer articles, especially about populated volcanic islands, also have little or no info about their volcanic origins and eruptive history, since they were written from a different perspective.  Adding volcanic info to such articles is an important step in making them more comprehenisve and complete.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ophiolites
Just back from 2 weeks field work in Cyprus and was curious as to whether the topic of ophiolites would be classified under this section? Currently the dedicated article is fine, but there appears to have been little or no expansion on individual ophiolites at all. In all fairness it would be a huge undertaking but no doubt something of benifit in the long run. Interested in hearing what other peoples thoughts are. ClimberDave 11:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave, considering that ocean floor spreading (both back-arc and mid-ocean ridge) produce oceanic crust associated by submarine volcanic activity, and considering that a tiny portion of it might end up as ophiolites, your consideration might look favorable. However, ophiolites describe remnants of the entire oceanic crust, not only the very thin layer of volcanic extrusives on top (and the dikes), which are actually rarely preserved (usually in ophiolitic melanges). The Cyprus ophiolites are a wonderful but rare example of large sections being preserved, including volcanic extrusives. I would associate ophiolites with volcanic activity, but they cannot be described as a part of volcanic activity as an umbrella topic, because that would be factually wrong - you could do that for current oceanic crust to some extend. This project seems to be more associated more with mountains than with volcanoes anyways, which estranges volcanologists like me a bit (by far not all volcanoes are mountains). All the best, --Carboxen 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally wrote the phrase on the project page, "A broad interpretation of the scope would include articles about all igneous rock types, both volcanic (extrusive) and plutonic (intrusive)", which would certainly encompass ophiolites (and perhaps the entire non-sedimentary part of the oceanic crust, too). On the first weekend of the project's existence, I tried to look over most of the articles in Category:Igneous rocks, and tagged many of the most relevant ones with the project banner.  But I didn't get all of them, so feel free to add any more articles which were missed or which you think should be included.  We should all feel free to revise and extend the project's goals and scope as necessary to best improve the encyclopedia and also reflect project members' interests.  Including more articles within the project's scope is good (within reason), since it makes it easier to find other related articles which we might be interested in and feel like contributing to.
 * Carboxen's observation that this "project seems to be more associated more with mountains than with volcanoes" may be valid, but it is not intentional. It may be a remnant of this project being founded not by a volcanologist, but by a physicist who is obsessed with volcanoes, and with climbing and skiing on volcanoes (they have to be mountains to be able to do that).  But I have a strong interest in volcanology, and igneous petrology too, so I tried to set the project's scope to broadly encompasss as many areas related to volcanology and igneous petrology as possible, in addition to just the obvious prominent volcanic mountains.
 * If any volcanologists feel estranged, then they should freely extend the project in any direction they feel is best, which would automatically shift the project's focus farther away from just volcanic mountains. By sheer numbers of articles, the bulk of what falls within the project's scope will always be volcanic landforms such as mountains, islands, vents, craters, etc.  But the distribution of the overall intellectual scope need not match the raw numerical scope.  A single nice comprehensive article about volcano prediction or volcanic gases or even ophiolites is more important to any encyclopedia than 50 stubs about obscure volcanoes in remote areas.  Just my thoughts, please comment.  Thanks.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Geology Project
This project should be a part a bigger project dedicated to geology. Currenly all geology related articles, including volcano, earthquake, minerals related articles are all over the places in don't have a common roof. If fact all areas above are fields of geology. If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Solarapex 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I think that a Geology WikiProject would be very useful, but I don't think that this project needs to be part of a bigger project. It is doing quite well on its own.  I think that any potential new Geology WikiProject should concentrate on improving those areas and articles which are outside the scope of existing WikiProjects such as this one or WikiProject Glaciers, including articles about non-volcanic geological features and non-igneous rocks.  That would provide the maximum benefit without disrupting current projects, and interested editors could simply join both projects.
 * Please also realize that starting, setting up, and maintaining a productive WikiProject is a major effort, and it will take a large degree of long-term commitment and large amounts of time to make it a success. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do realize all this, this is why I'm looking for help. The ultimate goal of the Geology project would be to organize the existing geology articles, establish links with sister or daughter projects such as ones listed above. Keeping this as it is now is not an alternative. This is something that just needs be done now. Otherwise, as Wikipedia grows it'd be much more difficult task to sort and organize all these things, hence, more unlikely to be even started as such. It's already overdue. On the other note, this is not like starting a brand new project. Like I said, there are existing projects in other Wikipedias (e.g. Russian). They can be used as an examle. I did invite those people to participate, but the problem is they may not have good knowledge of English. (P.S. Thank you for fixing the link!) Solarapex 23:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates and microformats
Hello,

Please let me know if I can be of assistance, in matters relating to the addition of coordinates and microformats to articles; see also WikiProject Geographical coordinates and WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New article
I couldn't find your New Article section on the project page, so I'm mentioning Myojin-sho here. Thanks. Totnesmartin 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the article and posting it here. I'll go ahead and add a "New articles" section to the project page now.  --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Entries on Volcano List Pages?
I'm reproducing a comment and suggestion I posted on Talk:List of volcanoes in the United States of America here where I think it will have a larger audience. I've been adding entries to the Arizona section and it is getting pretty big so I got to thinking, would it make sense to list individual vents and cones belonging to a particular volcanic field with that volcanic field rather than in this category? These would be features of a particular site of volcanism rather than unique volcanoes. Exceptions could be made if there is a compelling reason, if the site is a stratovolcoano or a case like Lassen Peak. Thoughts? --Burntnickel 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC) --Burntnickel 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that listing a few high-profile vents or cones, while noting that they belong to the broader volcanic field, is often appropriate. But I wouldn't list dozens of minor vents in a broader country list. For example, Rangitoto is listed separately in our list of volcanoes in New Zealand, but none of the other 50 or so vents in the Auckland Volcanic Field are listed. Some judgement is needed in these cases. -- Avenue 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. As I update things I'll take that in to consideration.  I'll only add "important" vents to the lists and include a more comprehensive list on the appropriate article. --Burntnickel 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Belknap Crater - possible copyright problems
This article is almost a (or is exactly) word for word copy from Wood (p182) and I presume needs to be replaced with something else? --Burntnickel 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blanked the page as per Copyright problems. --Burntnickel 10:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: discussion continued at Talk:Belknap Crater. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian volcanoes
Some now have three separate categories relative to volcano type and so on - and now a height one is showing up. If you are not fully au fait with the cat police - (yes they do exist) dont be suprised if they question multiple categories from the one project - a good justification will be needed - well worth having somebody in this project who actually looks at managing a sub page of the project which keeps tabs of the range of categories- their use and abuse - well worth it in the long run SatuSuro 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have been enthusiastically applying Category:Crater lakes not just to articles about the lakes themselves, but also to any article about a volcano that mentioned its crater lake, which is probably not always appropriate. We should probably set up a List of caldera and crater lakes instead. I also had misgivings when I saw the volcanoes by height categories appear. If no one's created categories for mountains by height before, I suspect there must be a good reason, which would apply even more strongly to volcanoes by height. I'm off to read Overcategorization again. -- Avenue 04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent - dont take my word for it - and indeed correct me if necessary - the sooner projects (all of them) have a category minder or expert - the happier place wikipedia categories will be SatuSuro 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed split of Volcano to Volcanic mountain
Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. The way, the truth, and the light 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Hello. I think of nominating Category:Volcanoes by height at its subcategories to WP:CFD, as I think categorizing volcanoes by height is useless and is an overcategorization. What do you think? - Darwinek 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is overcategorisation; see Overcategorization, and probably the following point about intersections. -- Avenue 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll third that. I have a hard time imagining a time that seaching through a category of volcanoes of a certian heigh would be of particular use. --Burntnickel 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nominated at WP:CFD. Feel free to vote and comment here. - Darwinek 13:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think we should at least keep Category:Volcanoes over 6,000 meters, which is a nice compact category that would include about 50-60 members, all in the Andes. These members are the highest volcanoes in the world, and thus deserving of a separate category, just as there exists Category:Eight-thousanders for the highest mountains in the world.  Can we get consensus to keep that one? --Seattle Skier (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should decide here that "Volcanoes over 6,000 meters" are a especially deserving group, without some external sources to back this up. For example, Eight-thousander lists a magazine article and two websites as sources. -- Avenue 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We only need sources if we were to create an article called "Volcanic Six-thousander" or some such thing. No sources are needed to make a category, right?  Just as making a "List of 6,000 meter volcanoes" would not require any sources other than reliable elevations from GVP, books, or topo maps.  I'm not hung up on having a 6,000+ meter category, but now that it exists, I just think that it would be a useful (and essentially effortless) way to have all the 6,000+ meter volcanoes accessible in a single place.  Why delete something that may have utility, and appears to cause no harm or detriment to the encyclopedia?  --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for article on 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption
Just to let you know: the featured article status of 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens‎ (one of our top-importance FAs) has come up for review. There are no inline citations in the article (it was promoted back in 2004), so it may take some work to bring it up to current standards. -- Avenue 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting this, Avenue. I think I missed seeing this on my watchlist, while I was out of town on May 17-18.  We should definitely make an effort to save the FA status.  Do you know how much time we have?  I didn't spot any limit listed on WP:FAR.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually articles spend two weeks in the review phase, before moving to the FARC phase when people !vote on their status. The review phase is sometimes extended by a week or two if obvious progress is being made on addressing the concerns expressed by reviewers. So we have at least the rest of May before it would move to FARC. -- Avenue 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting stats at Featured articles with citation problems, which lists the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens‎. Since June 2006, only 71 articles listed on that page have been brought up to current FA standard, while 166 have been removed from FA (and 286 remain unimproved).  That's a success rate of only 30%, so we clearly have our work cut out for us if we are going to keep this article featured.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say that, Seattle; basically the ones that have been defeatured have been ones that no one has attempted to save, while almost every article that editors have taken an interest in retains its status. It reads to me like you may be misunderstanding the stats and process. If you all work on it, it's likely to keep its star.   In fact, IIRC, none of Mav's articles have been defeatured.  But be sure to keep reviewers apprised of progress on the FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, I thought I had interpreted the stats properly: if only 30% of the articles were saved from demotion, that means that if we don't take action it will very likely be demoted, while we will have to make an unusually strong effort in order to save it. "Unusually strong" in that our effort must be at least in the top 30% of such efforts in order to have a likelihood of success.  Please let me know where my reasoning is going wrong on this, since I don't have much experience with FAR or FARC or any of these processes.  Thanks.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where you are wrong is that most of the defeatured articles did *nothing*, whereas if *something* is being done, and work is ongoing, regular reviewers at FAR will try to help. Yes, if nothing is done, the article will likely be demoted, because it doesn't currently meet standards.  Have a look at Featured article review/Mount St. Helens/archive1, Featured article review/Yellowstone National Park/archive1 and Featured article review/Yosemite National Park/archive1.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look through those.  I guess it's nice that we don't actually have to do much to save it, then.  ;-)  --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct either. There is a LOT of HARD work to be done; citing someone else's article after the fact is not easy work, by any means.  The links to the References are in the article, in the References section; the article needs inline citations.  If you want to help, read the links and start citing facts in the article.  Lots of talk here; editing is what is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (it was a joke . . . just kidding, hence the smiley) --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed that smiley &mdash; my bad :-) By the way, Mav tended to cite a lot of his "natural" articles from public domain sources, so you can find a lot of the text in the Refs listed. Problem is sorting out which, and just adding the named ref.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also pretty darn hard to cite things even if you wrote/compiled the text yourself - esp when that work was done years ago. :) Any help will be greatly appreciated. BTW, much of the article was originally PD text I compiled/refactored from here. --mav 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has passed its review, thanks to contributions from over 40 people, especially Sandy and Mav. Well done everyone! -- Avenue 23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tephra Cone?
Has there been any agreement to use tephra cone or some other term in its place? I've noticed this is several articles but it seems to not have a definition anywhere. Or, actually should I be having "tephra cone" link to tephra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntnickel (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 May 2007{UTC)


 * I believe that "tephra cone" is synonymous with ash cone, right? Which is already a section in the article volcanic cone.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's where I was going with my question. Is there a generally prefered term to use in the case?  I'd prefer to be consistant if I can and if ash cone is the term to use then I'll go with that. --Burntnickel 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the sources again I think linking "tephra cone" to tephra is the prefered choice in this case as tephra is a more generic term and the source isn't clear on the cone being spatter, ash, or cinder. --Burntnickel 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the general idea of linking "tephra cone" to tephra. The emphasis seems more likely to be on it being a cone than its composition, and I agree with Seattle Skier that the most likely meaning is "ash cone", although technically I suppose it could be used more broadly. Of course you could link "tephra" to tephra and "cone" to volcanic cone, as here: tephra cone. I'm tempted to redirect tephra cone to volcanic cone too. -- Avenue 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The redirect would solve the issue. I'll leave the tephra cone links in place with the assumption that there will be a redirect to volcanic cone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burntnickel (talk • contribs).


 * Okay, done. -- Avenue 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only page on Wikipedia which links to tephra cone right now is Mount Bailey (Oregon). It seems Volcanoes of North America is the ref which states that it is a "tephra cone surrounded by basaltic andesite lava." In my files, I have the only two papers about Mount Bailey, one a 1978 MS thesis by Calvin Barnes and the other an article by the same author published in JVGR 52, 141-156 (1992). Barnes refers to it as a "composite cone" atop a shield volcano in the 1978 thesis, and a "lava cone" atop a shield volcano in the 1992 paper. Barnes states that "pyroclastic scoria forms no more than 5 or 10% of the volume of the cone." Having been there myself several times and hiked/skied to the top, Bailey is definitely not a cinder, spatter, or ash cone (the examples you asked about above) as far as I can tell. To my eyes, it looks like just another steep-sided basaltic andesite shield volcano, which are so typical of the southern half of the Cascade Range and found by the dozens there. But according to Barnes work, the uppermost part of Bailey was constructed of more viscous andesite flows, so we should probably call it a "shield volcano and lava cone" in the article. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry my reply got saved half-complete initially)


 * I don't have it handy at the moment, but I believe that to the case. I'm pretty sure I've seen that phrase elsewhere but it is uncommon at least. --Burntnickel 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template
I notice at the welcome templates page, some projects have specialized templates for people interested in the articles or project. Does someone think we could create one? It would be kind of fun. Anyways, this may have been a very silly brain fart. Orangemarlin 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia's Valley of the Geysers
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070605-geyser-valley.html I did not know where to notify people on this geyser. I did not see any portal strictly dealing with geysers. Also, on this page, Geyser, there is one mention on Triton. But Mars and possibly Titan have geysers. And Mars' geysers are CO2. Thanks, CarpD 6//5/07.


 * Thanks for posting this note, I had not heard of the landslide. There is now also a Wikipedia article at Valley of Geysers.  I had read much (i.e. almost everything written in English) about the Valley of Geyers and seen many photos of it, and I'm saddened that I had not yet visited Kamchatka prior the valley's sudden burial.  Maybe it's possible that natural processes will remove the mudslide debris and restore some of the geysers, although it's unlikely to happen within a lifetime.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a mention of the possible geysers on Mars to the Geyser article. -- Avenue 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work. Oh man, I forgot the biggest known geyser on Enceladus (moon).  It is made of ammonia/ice ejected from the surface and helps create the E-ring on Saturn.  How do you want to go about entering this information?  Thanks, CarpD  (^_^) 6/8/07


 * I think that eruptions from deep heat sources, like those on Enceladus, are usually described as cryovolcanoes rather than geysers. The ones on Triton and Mars are believed to be fueled by solar heating (due to their location or seasonality) and thus have a shallow source. -- Avenue 23:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, that makes sense. Thanks, CarpD 6/9/07.

A fact from the Valley of Geysers article is currently showing in the Main Page Did you know...? section, so please keep an eye open for vandalism. This is the third DYK fact within this project's scope in the last week (the others were Hatepe eruption and Kolumbo underwater volcano). -- Avenue 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Project watchlist for WikiProject Volcanoes
I've often thought that it would be useful to have some way to generate a watchlist which included all articles within the project's scope. Using the bot-generated assessment logs, this is now possible. I've combined all the logs into a single large file and unlinked all the dates, so that now provides a single unified watchlist which should include all articles which have Volcano tags, along with their talk pages.
 * Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Assessment/Log complete

It is also quite simple to generate a watchlist which includes only the talk pages: I hope the project watchlist is useful to participants for keeping track of updates and fighting vandalism, without needing to clutter your own personal watchlist. Mine has grown to over 3,300 pages on it now (including 99+% of the WikiProject Volcanoes articles), which is quite unwieldy. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:WikiProject Volcanoes articles


 * Great idea, good stuff! Eve 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area
I was going to put this through peer review first to allow for comments, but what the hell. Please add your suggestions for improvement directly to the FAC page. Better yet, be bold and edit away. :) --mav 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Io (moon) Scientific Peer Review
I have submitted Io (moon) for a Scientific Peer Review. Any comments on further improve the article, particularly along the lines of the points mentioned on the peer review discussion page, would be much appreciated. I know only one section of the article is really volcano related, but any help from this group would be appreciated. --Volcanopele 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

hCard microformat
In this edit, I added hCard microformat markup (See WP:UF for background) to each row on List of volcanoes in Argentina, with a simple "find/ replace" operation. Please feel free to do likewise on other such lists (or perhaps you have a bot which could do so?), and let me know if I can assist further. Andy Mabbett 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vulcanology
Hi there...

Is there any chance someone could pick up the thread and finish up Volcanology? As it stands now, it's got some poor language and quite a few missing parts, so it's hard to read, does not look very nice, and incomplete. Appreciate any additions to it. :-) galar71 11:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Export points of interest as KML; see them on Google Maps
Pages marked with coord, such as this projects lists of volcanoes can be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:


 * http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_the_United_States_of_America

The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map

I've requested a template to produce these links for any page on which it appears. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The template kml was created - and promptly nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status of Volcano
Just letting you guys know about the status of Volcano which is under review here. Thanks.  T Rex  | talk  10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of volcanoes
There is a merge proposal at Talk:Lists of volcanoes. Please comment. - Darwinek 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 6 September - expires 11 September
 * 10 volcanic eruptions through history ( PROD by User:Finngall; enhanced list but lacking introduction or much context. ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Scheme of volcanic eruption
Hello,

I have created a series of schemes of volcanic eruptions, you can use it if you want. Please tell me if you see errors, or if you want improvements, or bad translations.

Sémhur ·✍·  17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Metamorphic volcanics
Should metavolcanics be included with this project (i.e. greenstone belt, greenstone etc.)? I'm confused because it does not say anything about that type. Black Tusk 07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Nevis and Sca Fell
I've taken the liberty of removing Ben Nevis from this project. As I understand it (though I am no geologist), Ben Nevis is of igneous origin but could not, in itself, be described as a volcano; it and the surrounding mountains have been subjected to millions of years of glaciation since the last incidence of volcanic activity. (If Ben Nevis is included you would also have to include a large proportion of the mountains in Britain, if not the world, few of which are volcanoes as such.) However, if any members of this project want to have a look at the article's Geology section, which I'm sure could be improved upon, please feel free. --Blisco 12:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto for Sca Fell. Why pick one arbitrary Lakeland mountain (which isn't even the highest) when most of the Lake District is composed of volcanic rock? --Blisco (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the Geology section of the Sca Fell article contains information that this project should be concerned with, and having a Volcano tag on the article's talk page will help us manage this. I'm not suggesting the article should be placed in a volcano category, but surely the project tag is pretty benign. Maybe the relevant content should eventually be moved to a separate article (e.g. Ordovician Borrowdale Volcanic Group) and then removed or cut back in the Sca Fell article, but for now, I think the tag should be reinstated. I don't feel as strongly about Ben Nevis, perhaps partly due to my ignorance about the volcanic activity there. The glaciation argument seems like a red herring; if areas like Lake Nipigon can be within the project's scope, surely a mountain can too. Maybe Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh is a better example. -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben Nevis and Sca Fell are volcanic (formed by volcanic activity). See here for Sca Fell. Black Tusk 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. There is no dispute that the rocks that make up the mountains are volcanic. But the mountains have not developed their current form primarily through volcanic action, and we could say the same of the basalt walls of Mount Eden Prison, for instance. Does the fact that its component rocks are volcanic mean that the prison is within this project's scope? I think not.
 * Blisco points out that while the mountains are made of volcanic rocks, they are not volcanoes as such. So far I agree. Blisco then seems to argue that because they are not volcanoes, these articles aren't within this project's scope. I disagree, on two levels. First, there are many articles that are not strictly about a volcano but where there seems to be consensus that they fall within this project's scope. Second, at least for Sca Fell, I think the article includes sufficient information about a volcanic topic that it comes within our scope. -- Avenue (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the mountains are actual volcanoes, but they are products of ancient volcanic activity that are now largely eroded, forming the mountains. I agree the Mount Eden Prison doesn't meat the Project's scope, because it is man-made and wasn't formed by volcanic activity. But Ben Nevis and Sca Fell are remnants of volcanism. There is an article about the volcanic group called the Borrowdale Volcanic Group but again, Ben Nevis and Sca Fell are in this group and are products of ancient volcanism, meaning I don't think there's a problem tagging them. Black Tusk 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Aconcagua? I understand this mountain is made of volcanic rocks, with the most recent activity occurring in the mid-Miocene, but these were uplifted later by broader tectonic forces. Currently this article isn't tagged as part of the project, and that seems right to me. But your argument suggests it should be. Thanks for mentioning the Borrowdale article, by the way; I was glad to read more about that. -- Avenue (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think mountains like Sca Fell and Ben Nevis should be part of the project because if you read the projects scope, it says: All articles about volcanoes, volcanic fields, volcanic belts, volcanic arcs, mid-ocean ridges, rift valleys, hotspots, and other "volcanic structures". Mountains like Ben Nevis are closely related to volcanic structures, they just don't contain any vents and are probably deformed as well. But if you disagree, that means most of the world's oldest volcanics are not within the projects scope, which I disagree. For example, the Canadian Shield contains over 150 volcanic belts (now deformed and eroded down to nearly flat plains to form greenstone belts) that are millions of years old (e.g. Abitibi greenstone belt). Each belt probably grew by the coalescence of accumulations erupted from numerous vents. Many of Canada's major ore deposits are associated with Precambrian volcanoes, which are now heavily eroded to form rock formations (I live in the Canadian Shield and there are hills of Precambrian pillow lavas which are remnants of ancient submarine volcanoes). Black Tusk 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to you folks to decide what you want to include in the project, but it's worth pointing out that the geology section of Sca Fell (which I've now removed) was copied wholesale from here, apparently by someone with no knowledge of geology in general or the geology of the Lake District in particular, and was misleading in the context of Sca Fell itself (I'll explain further on the article's talk page). Rather than including individual Lakeland fells, a better article to include in the project might be Borrowdale volcanic group. (Update: I see it already is.) --Blisco (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me, Blisco. On the more general point, I agree with the wording of the project's scope, although I think some judgment is needed when it comes to "other volcanic structures". I do agree that many older volcanoes and volcanic structures should be within our scope, but while Borrowdale Volcanic Group should be tagged as part of the project (for instance), it seems excessive to tag every article on a hill, ridge, or other landform that are composed of rocks from this volcanic source. We don't even do this for active volcanoes; we haven't tagged places such as Ka Lae, for example. Aconcagua is another example where it seems a stretch to claim that it's primarily a volcanic structure. However I think articles where there is more than a sentence or two on the volcanic aspects of the topic are probably within our scope. -- Avenue (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But why would you only tag the Borrowdale Volcanic Group and not the others? I understand what your saying, but if you look at volcano articles that are part of volcanic fields they are tagged as well. For example, the Daisetsuzan Volcanic Group is tagged and so are its volcanoes (Mount Asahi, Mount Pippu and Mount Keigetsu). The articles you found, such as Ka Lae and Aconcagua are most likely articles that were not accessed or tagged (I found lots of volcano articles that didn't have tags, most are the ones with unknown importance). Black Tusk 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the Borrowdale Volcanic Group is clearly a volcanological topic, but the mountains themselves are not. They are not volcanoes, nor are they really volcanic landforms, except in the uninteresting sense that they are landforms made of volcanic rocks. I certainly agree that individual volcanoes within a broader volcanic field come within our scope (as in your example of the Daisetsuzan Volcanic Group), as do other interesting landforms produced by volcanic activity (craters, caves, lava flows, plugs, etc). But I don't think every "volcanic" landform that was primarily formed by non-volcanic processes such as uplift or erosion is worth including. Here's another example I'm familiar with where I think we've got it right; we have tagged the Banks Peninsula article, which covers the volcanoes that formed the peninsula, but not the articles about various subsidiary features like Ripapa Island and the Port Hills.
 * Maybe I'm the only project member who's looked at the Aconcagua article, but I'd be surprised if that's true, since it's the highest mountain in South America. I do have trouble fathoming why we would want to include Ka Lae and every other headland made of volcanic rock in this project. Maybe in an area where there's been very little volcanic activity, places where there are volcanic rocks would be interesting for that fact alone, but this is not true on volcanic islands like Hawaii. -- Avenue (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what about volcanic rocks that are not part of a group? The Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland has been tagged and it's only an area of basalt columns. I'm pretty sure these have been eroded as well since they are at the Atlantic Ocean and formed during the Paleogene period. Black Tusk 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Giant's causeway seems to qualify on a number of criteria. It has particularly significant volcanic formations, which are internationally famous, and are the most popular tourist attraction in Northern Ireland. It is a World Heritage Site and a National Nature Reserve. This is vastly different from Ka Lae, for instance. -- Avenue 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The projects scope says: A broad interpretation of the scope would include articles about all igneous rock types, both volcanic (extrusive) and plutonic (intrusive), but mountains made of plutonic rocks would not be included. Ben Nevis and Sca Fell are volcanic and not intrusive. As you said above, the Borrowdale Volcanic Group is clearly a volcanological topic, but Ben Nevis, Sca Fell and similar structures are not. Just because they are deformed and eroded dosen't really mean they arn't a volcanological topic. Since you seem to agree that many older volcanoes and volcanic structures should be within our scope, most of the Earth's oldest volcanics are similar to Ben Nevis and Sca Fell (eroded and deformed). Most volcanoes that created the volcanics in cratons are long gone from erosion and deformation and volcanic rocks are the only remnants of these volcanoes or lava flows etc.
 * Also, I sort of disagree about mountains made of plutonic rocks would not be included because some intrusive mountains may have been roots of former volcanoes (i.e. Monteregian Hills, Stawamus Chief) Black Tusk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Kelut › Kelud?
It seems from various media reports about the volcano's recent activity as well as from a simple Google hits comparison that the Kelud spelling is in a clear majority. Also the German Wikipedia article was created on 30 Sep this year from the English one, taking over the spelling. I would like to correct this but would like to put this to a discussion first. SeL 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Indonesian volcanological monitoring agency uses both variations interchangeably, but has "Kelut" on their warning list. See: http://portal.vsi.esdm.go.id/joomla/. Google hits are meaningless, especially for current event situations. GVP Webmaster 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Huckleberry Ridge
I have recently created a page for the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff at yellowstone. If you would like to edit it and include more info please do as it is new it is short and more info on it would really be appreciated so that it can grow. Thanks for any help given Wiki235 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Extending on this - it seems that there is some confusion growing among the various Yellowstone Caldera pages. Yellowstone Plateau claims (and  corroborates), that the order of the 3 caldera forming eruptions are as follows:  1) Island Park Caldera (Huckleberry Ridge Tuff) 2 million years ago, 2) Henry's Fork Caldera (Mesa Falls Tuff) 1.3 million years ago, 3) Yellowstone Caldera (640k years ago).  However, Island Park Caldera is confused, claiming that the Island Park Caldera was formed by the middle eruption.  Not being anywhere near an expert, can somebody review the order in Yellowstone Plateau and make sure that Island Park Caldera is corrected, and the various tuff articles refer correctly to their respective eruptions?  CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes
Someone tagged this article as a copy and paste job; can someone take a look, please? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a look. It was a partial copy from a public domain source, which was cited. Not anything to worry about, although some inline citations would be nice. -- Avenue (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR listing for Plate tectonics
Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesgles (talk • contribs) 17:07, Dec 10, 2007 (UTC)