This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Volcanoes talk page (Discussion page). (January 2008 - December 2008) - Please Do not edit!

Archives

Archive 1 (2007) Archive 2 (2008) Archive 3 (2009) Archive 4 (2010)

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. -- Cherry blossom tree 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously needs lots of work (e.x. Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley, Mount Meager, Mount Silverthrone). I have worked on geology and a lot of referening of these articles for quite a while but still need more info and detail other than geology (e.x. history, climbing, discovery, etc). Canadian Cascade volcanoes have produced major explosive eruptions and large landslides in the recent geological past, including The Barrier landslide in 1855-56, the major eruption of Mount Meager 2350 years ago, sending ash as far as Alberta. These observations are indications that Canada's major Cascade volcanoes are potentially active, and that their associated hazards may be significant. For this reason the Geological Survey of Canada are planning for developing hazard maps and emergency plains for Mount Cayley and Mount Meager volcanic complexes. They are closely related to the other Cascade volcanoes in the United States (i.e. Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier, Mount Baker, etc).

In addition, volcanic disasters have occurred in Canada. During the 18th century, the Tseax River Cone eruption killed 2000 people. Anyways I'm asking for help from anyone willing to expend these articles into a GA and eventually an FA. Thanks. Black Tusk 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across these two articles and wondered if there was merit in combining them, there must be a lot of overlap but would respect whatever the convention is around here. See Talk:Volcanism in Italy for more. FlagSteward ( talk) 13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have now finished rating every volcano article that didn't have either an importance or class rating! - 09/03/2008 I will get started on the article's that have no importance straight away!

Thanks rockyourworld ( talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that the GVP website has been updated. Several volcanoes have been added and other volcanoes have been eliminated. Some VNUMs have been reassigned to other volcanoes. By way of illustration, Acotango is no longer listed on the GVP website, the VNUM that corresponded to this volcano now is assigned to Tambo Quemado and the previous VNUM of this latter volcano is no longer being used. I am unaware of the number of Wikipedia articles that are being affected by the update. Jespinos ( talk) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. In the process of reverting some really random vandalism I did a google search for Christopher G. Newhall and discovered that he is a pretty notable guy and I think plenty worthy of an article. He seems to be described as one of the foremost volcanologists and the creator of the Volcanic explosiveness index and would, therefore, seem notable. I would appreciate input as i start building the article (just a talk page right now) especially if anyone has some real-world sources or a free image of him. Thanks ahead of time. Adam McCormick ( talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the Wikiproject have any need for ? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB ( talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is going to need a lot of clean up. It looks like there is a class project to update the article. There is a lot of good content there, but some of it isn't very encyclopedic and some of it probably belongs in other related articles. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Talk:Mount Royal, Mount Royal has been added to this wikiproject. However, it is not a volcano, but an igneous intrusion mountain, which according to this page is not covered by the wikiproject. Can the box simply be deleted, or is there a process? - Montréalais ( talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mount Royal has a process. It's the extension of a vastly eroded ancient volcanic complex, which was probably active about 125 million years ago, and was formed by a volcanic hotspot. Black Tusk 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see that a collaboration of the week (COTW) has been added, along with an unrelated "to do" list. The COTWs I've been involved with previously have used a public nomination and voting process, to try to establish which topics will attract the most editing interest. (For example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration.) Should we do the same? I also wonder if we'd do better focusing on the topic over a longer period, e.g. a month or two, instead of just a week.

A separate "to do" list seems unnecessary to me; I'll merge it into the "Open tasks and guidelines" list above if no one objects. I'd also suggest that, while Mount Vesuvius is a good featured article target (top importance, A class), the other ones listed don't really seem ready for an FA push. -- Avenue ( talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the two to-do lists, as promised. -- Avenue ( talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This domain originally got flagged as spam and blacklisted because the domain owner added them to multiple articles on multiple Wikipedias triggering our spam monitoring system:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Request removal of Photovolcanica.com from global blacklist(permanent link)
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#photovolcanica.com (permanent link)

I was the admin who reviewed the site-owner's request to have them reviewed and I was impressed by the quality of these photos. I also determined this was a good faith mistake on the site-owner's part. He's agreed not to add anymore himself.

As one of Wikipedia's most notoriously fascistic, anti-spam admins, I never thought I would go promoting previously blacklisted links, but you may wish to take a look at some of these for individual volcano articles:

• http://www.photovolcanica.com/PhotovolcanicaFullIndex.html#AlphabeticalVolcanoes

He also has links to some other image sites of interest.

• http://www.photovolcanica.com/Links.html

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Following a detailed discussion about how to make pictures available on Wikipedia via GFDL, I have decided to release all images on the site at 300x200 pixel resolution under GFDL. A notice to this effect has been placed on my personal Wikipedia page and also on the website at http://www.photovolcanica.com/Contact.html under the section "Photos". I cannot release them in higher resolution as the GFDL license would open the door to abuse by downstream commercial users. It is apparently not possible to make photos only available to wikipedia (see extensive discussions on Wikiproject:Birds section). Hope the small versions of the images may nevertheless be helpful to volcano page editors. Site could be added to editor resources if so wished by neutral editor

The pages on santiaguito(/santa maria), dallol, erta ale, oldoinyo lengai, stromboli, soufriere hills and augustine are the most extensively scientifically researched (by original literature search) and more detailed than the wikipedia pages and most of the present external links. These are likely also to be of text use to editors since they are largely encyclopaedic in character. Many of the other pages surpass the current equivalent wikipedia pages in information content and could be viewed by editors. Wiki editors are welcome to contact me for information. RRvolcanica ( talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Surtsey because it does not seem to meet the featured articled criteria 1.(c), 2.(c), and 4. It is quite short, and is not of comparable length to current FA's. It is very under-referenced, and some of them aren't in the {{ cite web}} form at all, just in <ref> tags. I do not believe that this fits the FA criteria any longer. You are welcome to comment at the review. Dreamafter ( talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked first, rather than change it, but do you really want to have an assessment scale for WikiProject Volcanoes that assesses plate tectonics as "High" rather than "Top" importance? It's a bit strange, from a volcanologist's viewpoint. -- Blechnic ( talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this article ready? ~~ Meldshal42 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions as to which article to focus on next? -- Burntnickel ( talk) 11:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the Anahim hotspot article if that turns into a GA? Black Tusk 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I've already been working on it. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As the original creator of the collab of the month, I agree. ~~ Meldshal42 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done here. ~~ Meldshal42 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Should fiction indelibly associated with Pompeii fall under the project? I'm asking because The Fires of Pompeii (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a TV episode set in Pompeii AD79, may be eligible. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 12:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Volcanoes Wiki has been formed! Any users here interested in joining can consult me, or look over the site's contents. -- Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have an election to see who should take up coordination of this project. I should think a lead coordinator and 2 assistants would be good. -- Meldshal [T] {C} 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is going through a Featured Article review, so please come and help improve this article to current featured article standards :) Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go along and use the new C-Class for any future assessments or re-assessments, since there's no harm in doing so. But as a relatively small WikiProject, we probably don't have the personnel, time, or desire to comprehensively re-assess all Start and B-Class articles (over 900 of them) just to see if they might fit C-Class better. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs improvements for GA class. The issues that need attention are discussed on its talk page. Black Tusk ( talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a major rewrite of the Hekla article adding a lot of referenced info. As I'm no expert and it is listed as being one of this project's top importance articles would anyone here mind casting their eye over it to check for glaring errors, ways it could improve etc. Thanks. JMiall ₰ 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a quick glance, looks very good. Nice work, JMiall. It's definitely B-class or better now; looks ready for Wikipedia:Good article nominations, right? -- Seattle Skier (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again there are people questioning the public domain status of images taken by Smithsonian Institution's employees. See [1]. It would be important to end this issue. Jespinos ( talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this during my long wikibreak. I see that the Cotopaxi image did in fact get deleted. Who was the photographer, was it actually a Smithsonian employee (and therefore a PD image)? I agree with you that it is "important to end this issue", how should we go about doing so? I'd hate to see any other legitimate PD Smithsonian images get deleted needlessly. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the information I was given when I checked: "According to Ed Venzke, webmaster of Smithsonian Institution's GVP website: All photos made by SI employees are without restriction, as they are US Government employees. Authors and source should be credited." See image:Zuni-Bandera_LeeSiebert_033087.jpg for an example. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to reply to myself, but I cannot fault the logic for deletion. There is not clear and definitive official statement from the Smithsonian as to the status of the images in question. Unless this happens I am inclined to recommend deletion of all such images. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration. Such confusing high-level SI policies are not easy for employees in individual units to deal with either. The GVP website displays a mix of photos from other US agencies that are public domain, those taken by GVP staff, and many provided by individuals and used with permission but with copyright retained. We should soon be able to be more explicit about the status of individual images. In the meantime I can only reiterate the quote above, that if an image on the GVP website is credited to a photographer from the Smithsonian then it IS the work of a Federal US govt employee and in the public domain. As long as everything is credited properly then GVP won't have any issues with the use of such an image on Wikipedia. If another deletion request (BTW, the Cotopaxi image is PD) or some other question comes up, just ask us about it. GVP Webmaster ( talk) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article, Volcanism on Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. Please take this opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, -- Volcanopele ( talk) 06:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Volcanism on Io, has been submitted to Featured Article Candidacy. Please look over the article, and submit a comment or vote. Thank you, Volcanopele ( talk) 05:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the ring dike at Pawtuckaway State Park for Did you know?. A geologic map or aerial photo of the ring dike would be much appreciated but I have not yet found one I can use. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It appeared on Main Page yesterday. -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all - just wanted to apologise for the fact that Category:Volcanology stubs is currently a mess. The stub type's been being used recently for individual volcanoes (against the consensus reached with this project and WikiProkject Stub sorting a couple of years back), rather than simply for as volcano science (volcanoes should simply have the relevant geo-stub indicating their location). Because of that, stubs on volcanology (i.e., the actual science) are currently swamped in several hundred articles on the volcanoes. This not only makes it harder to find those articles, but means that volcanology-stubs no longer follows the same standards as other stub types for earth sciences (such as geology-stub, tectonics-stub, or glaciology-stub - all of which are only for the science itself). Hopefully it won't take long to clear out the articles which shouldn't be in there, but any help in clearing it by members of your project would be more than welcome! Grutness... wha? 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

amended wording. Never edit when annoyed. Grutness... wha? 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a volcano-stub is needed. A related question: would you put intrusive structures (ring dikes, etc.) in the volcanoes category structure? -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual ones (e.g., an article on Pawtuckaway ring dike) would be grouped more with volcanoes than with volcanology and given a geo-stub, but the actual ring dike article itself should be marked with volcanology-stub. Volcanology-stub's generally for things like eruption types, academies, general volcano science, and the like. As for a separate volcano-stub, geo-stubs aren't usually given for specific geographical feature types (there's no river-stub or mountain-stub, for instance) - it's generally thought that editors are far more likely to know about all the features of a specific area than about similar types of features worldwide. I'll admit that in cases like volcanoes it makes a certain amount of sense, but given the large numbers (there'd be what? several thousand volcano articles?), it would probably make far more sense for WP:Volcanoes to use a talk page assessment template instead - that way you can keep track of all articles on volcanoes, not just the stubs. Grutness... wha? 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mount Rainier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 12:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a bit of a back-and-forth on an article for an unnamed submarine volcano. As the relevant Wikiproject, I hope that some uninvolved editors can give their opinion.

An article was created at Ibugos Undersea. Thinking that this wa sa strange name (and strangely capitalized), I first moved it to Ibugos. I then realized that Ibugos (or Ivuhos) is the name of the nearby island (no article yet), so I again moved the article, now to Ibugos (volcano), and turned Ibugos into a disambiguation. While not comletely happy with this name for the article (the volcano has no actual name), it seemed to me to be the most inline with WP:NC. The other editor moved it back, I moved it again, and then the other editor created the page again at Ibugos (Undersea)

So now we have two articles for the same unnamed volcano, one at Ibugos (Undersea) and one at Ibugos (volcano). Bad situation, so I would like some people here to decide on a good, definitive title where we can have one article on this. Fram ( talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The original contributor wrote a new article named Ibugos Undersea for a volcano in the Philippines which had no article, and had not been previously listed in the List of volcanoes in the Philippines.

Without consultation, Fram changed the name of the article and then the listing, and made some minor alterations "to make the article closer to the original (Smithsonian) source".

Fram made these changes, including a disambiguation page which would not have been necessary if he had left well alone, without any apparent knowledge of the subject. He also made his changes without consulting with the original contributor who had gone to all the trouble to research, write, and upload the new article in the first place. The greater proximity of Fram's edit to the Smithsonian, brings up the copyright issue.

The original contributor had referred to and linked the original article in various lists and other articles under the original name. The subsequent editor's unilateral actions nullified all this work.

The original contributor was not willing to be involved in edit warring, so started another article Ibugos (Undersea), and has been updating and improving that since, and intends to update it further. Ibugos (Undersea) is listed in other places on Wikipedia.

Part of the reason for the use of the name Ibugos (Undersea) was given on the talk page for Ibugos (Undersea).

There is a different volcano on Ibugos island itself. When it comes time to write an article for that volcano, Fram's unilateral action is going to make matters even worse.

The submarine volcano which was unnamed in the early 1980s, is now known within the volcanolgy department of the University of the Philippines as the Ibugos Undersea volcano.

The original contributor has edited each and every article for every listed volcano in the Philippines, and has contributed about one third of them as new articles. Fram's persistent desire to change the name of this one Philippines volcano article appears somewhat fixated.

If Fram would like to do the original work for one of the remaining unstarted Philippines volcano articles that would be considered helpful and constructive.

Gubernatoria ( talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• First, it is better to have one discussion instead of two, so I don't understand why you started a new section for this beneath mine.
• Second, please read WP:OWN.
• Third, copyright? Have you actually checked the changes I made? There is no copyright issue, the changes were about getting the facts closer to the source, not the wording.
• Fourth, "linked to various lists and other articles"? That would be the grand total of two articles, which is not the sum one expects when you add "various" and "other" together... Anyway, after a move, these links still work, the move creates a redirect.
• Fifth, the disambiguation page is necessary, because when you have an island and a volcano with very similar names, you can not know how the average reader will look for them.
• Sixth, what evidence do you have that the volcano is known as the Ibugos Undersea volcano? All Google hits for Ibugos Undersea are copies of WIkipedia [2]. The volcano is unnamed [3]. If there are more volcanoes on or near Ibugos, then the article may need a different name, like I already indicated in my post in the previous section.
• Seventh, finally, what other edits you or I have done is immaterial. Provide evidence tha this volcano is indeed known as Ibugos Undersea, and I will have no problems with an article with that name. Lacking such evidence, the article should follow our standard naming conventions. As for your improvements to the article: you should not list items in the "see also" section that are already linked from the body of the article. Your external links duplicate your references, so that section is not needed either. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to the third opinion requested at WP:3O, I have reviewed the discussion here, as well as the references provided in both articles, and Wikipedia's naming convention. As such, I would like to make the following suggestion:

1. The two articles must be merged. Without a doubt, there is no reason to have two articles on the same subject. I believe you would both agree with me on this.
2. The article be named Unnamed volcano (Ibugos), as this accurately reflects its "official" lack of a name (and that of many other unnamed volcanoes), while being sufficiently distinct from other volcanoes. I would not be surprised if you both disagree with me, but unless a reliable source can be found to suggest a different name (whether official or a common name), there is no reason to think that this volcano has one.

I hope my opinion is useful to you. Thanks! (EhJJ) ^TALK 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions. I'll not act on them until the original creator of the page has responded though. Fram ( talk) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But since he does not react, I'll move it now. Fram ( talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the volcanos section of one of my missing topics lists - Skysmith ( talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This now very famous doesn't have an article, but takes up most of the Eyjafjallajökull glacier article... probably should be split, for the very least, weighting reasons... 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the articles tagged within the scope of this WikiProject is being reviewed at the moment. I'm leaving a note here to ask whether anyone active in this WikiProject has time to review the article ( David A. Johnston) and leave suggestions, either on the article talk page or at the review. As one of the contributors to the article, I will say at the review that I've left this notice here, but if you do leave comments at the review it would be helpful to those assessing the review if you leave a note saying how you became aware of the article. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors interested in Volcanic Explosivity Index may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Spring makes everything new :) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Flagged_protection:_update_for_April_22, Flagged protection on English Wikipedia is coming soon now. I'm expecting to lower the vandalism volume :) -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nunivak Island: The location dot does not appear in the location map of the infobox template. Can somebody tell me, what tweak is responsible for that? -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, but I still do not know where is the problem :[ -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I got a map and used it on Basin and Range Province#Volcanism, some abbreviations are on Laurentia#Volcanism on the western edge of the North American craton. Let's see if the community is happy with it. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The western edge of Laurentia is not just located in the western United States. It is also located in western and northern Canada. BT ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok :) southwestern edge so. The extension is on the Basin and Range Province, and this Province is in USA and Mexico. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at File:North america craton nps.gif. The craton seems to extend along eastern British Columbia and Yukon, but I'm not too convinced on how many volcanics are located there. The Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field in eastcentral British Columbia might be located somewhere along its western margin. BT ( talk) 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal interest is the extension, the deformed craton. The accretionary belt of the subduction zone is not so special. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 19:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here: you should check out NAVDAT as well, if you feel ambitious and want to use their (gignatic) database to make your own figure. They have pretty nifty animations too that you could look at (and perhaps beg to have given a wikipedia-friendly license. My only warning would be that they show the location at which they collected the rock, which (in the case of tuffs) could be pretty far from the actual volcano. But overall, it's a very impressive database. Awickert ( talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the North American craton is deformed. The portion you are interested in is only a portion of the craton that has undergone deformation in the past 600 million years. There is many other rift zones in the craton. BT ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I created a stub: Mogollon-Datil volcanic field and rated it low importance. As the magma body of the Socorro Caldera ( Rio Grande rift) is uplifting the surface at a rate of 2 mm/year, I'd like to rate it a mid important article. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 18:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've updated List of submarine volcanoes to use the {{ convert}} template, and have removed the rowspan/colspan so that the table can be made "sortable". Is that beneficial? If so, I'd recommend the rest of the lists be updated (eventually) to use those conventions. (I have no scripting prowess, so cannot offer to help update them en masse). It just took a few minutes of copy&pasting, once I had the convert-template figured out; the only detail that was troublesome was changing the "significant figures" value for each (needs to be 2 or 3 sigfig, depending). HTH. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Names of volcanic fields are a pain. Almost each eruption, each caldera, each vent, each tephra gets a new name. Sometimes more than one. And on top of it, almost each paper uses the name of another landmark of the site to name the volcanic field. :[

The San Juan caldera cluster and the Socorro-Magdalena caldera cluster are quite amazing, and each caldera cluster must have a single magma source.

Geronimo volcanic field (also known as the San Bernardino volcanic field) is located at the northern end of the San Bernardino Valley, and the article is a stub. I propose to rename the article Boot Heel volcanic field (also known as Geronimo-Animas volcanic field), and make the Geronimo volcanic field article a section of it. The article would be still a stub.

References:

• Geronimo volcanic field (also known as the San Bernardino volcanic field): Wood, Charles A. (1993). Volcanoes of North America. Cambridge University Press. pp. 287–289. ISBN  0-512-43811-X. {{ cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum ( help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= ( help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help)
• Geronimo- Animas volcanic field: "Volcanoes of New Mexico". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs. Retrieved 2007-06-14.
• Volcanoes of New Mexico: "Volcanoes of New Mexico: An Abbreviated Guide For Non-Specialists" (PDF). Volcanology in New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 18: 5–15. 2001. Retrieved 2010-04-28. {{ cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= ( help)
• Boot Heel volcanic field:
  • Chapin, C.E. (2004). "Space-time patterns of Late Cretaceous to present magmatism in New Mexico—comparison with Andean volcanism and potential for future volcanism" (PDF). New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Bulletin. 160: 13–40. Retrieved 2010-04-29. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help)
  • "Chronology and geochemistry of the Boot Heel volcanic field, New Mexico", Southwest passage— a trip through the Phanerozoic: New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook, vol. 51, 2000, pp. 157–174 {{ citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= ( help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) ( help)

-- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this change. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think is a bit of WP:POV involved here. Where do the classifcations come from in the cinder cone, shield volcano, lava dome lists? Active, dormant and extinct can easily be misleading, given the fact many people classify the status the volcanoes differently. A dormant volcano can easily be refered to as extinct if it has not erupted for some time. One could say a volcano is active only because it is erupting or has erupted recently, another could say an active volcano is one that has any kind of activity, such as hot springs, earthquakes and fumaroles. Therefore, I think listing volcanoes by classification is a bad idea and should be listed by country or some other basic listing. BT ( talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mount Kelut, Indonesia is listed incorrectly as being located in the United States in the list of cinder cones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.143.34 ( talk) 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If one uses the USGS classification, which may be arbitrary to those outside of the US, I would think that would work, I can't find my book , to verify some things speednat ( talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am basically saying is that there is no standard classification for volcanoes. In some sources, you will see Mount Rainier is considered to be active and others say it is dormant. Mount Meager is the same; some say it is potentially active and others say it is dormant and so on. The status of a volcano can easily be misleading. BT ( talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the active dormant and extinct classifications on the list of cinder cones list. I do not have time to change the other lists. BT ( talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just done some work on the Rinjani page including 2010 information up to date at beginning of may 2010 and extending the history and descriptive information. I hope it does not upset anyone but it seemed a little tired and was not up to date. Perhaps it needs a look over by those with a honed focus on the subject. Felix505 ( talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)felix505

I have done some more work on it including a table of eruptions and added some more general and also some more recent activity information. I hope it is OK but it would be best if someone else looked it over I think Felix505 ( talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)