![]() | A fact from Garibaldi Volcanic Belt appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 April 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Like other articles about major volcanic zones in Canada, this article deserves to have more information than its current form and more appropriately structured. BT ( talk) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
[Note the standard warning that I am not a vulcanologist, and that I am not familiar with late Cenozoic volcanism along the BC coast. Awickert ( talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]
[No issues found] Awickert ( talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No real issues found. Only stylistic thing is that the following sentences could probably be combined into one for better readability / less repetition: "Seismic data suggests that these volcanoes still contain active magma chambers, indicating possible future eruptive activity.[50] This indicates that some Garibaldi Belt volcanoes are likely active, with significant potential hazards.[49]" Awickert ( talk) 05:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Looks OK] Awickert ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing more than what I've done in the article] Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing more than the small things I did] Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm south of the border, and can't get the Canadian Journal of Geological Sciences for free. So I'll be cautious on this section and just ask:
Regarding the recent change of "BP" to "years ago": BP is pre-1950, and so is 60 years off of "years ago". If 4860 is within error of 4800, this change shouldn't change the meaning. Awickert ( talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing that I didn't do already] Awickert ( talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The article looks very good as far as sourcing, accuracy, etc. I checked out anything that seemed strange to me; I trust you (BT) to do an excellent job as far as the overall facts. The writing needs some work: it is clear enough, but not polished. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that. Anyway, thanks for inviting me to look at the article, sorry it took so many months, and it was an interesting read! Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has improved greatly in the past few weeks, thanks to edits by BT and Awickert in particular.
I'm getting garbled text, with the number 7 appearing in the middle of the native language names in the "Early impressions" section (using Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox). Is anyone else having a similar problem when viewing that text or is it caused by my browser settings? If the problem is actually the article text, could it be formatted to give a better display? The text in question is displaying for me as :
GeoWriter ( talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, but a native version is more common in English language usage, the exonym should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.
Although the Native language in question uses many Latin characters, I doubt that the term Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is generally intelligible to literate speakers of English, especially those far from the Pacific coast of N. America. I suspect that the very unusual/obscure/foreign x̱wú7 combination is going to mystify or confuse readers, especially bearing in mind the amount of vandalism of the "qwertyuiop[]asdfgsghjkl;'#\zxcvbnm,./" variety that we see reqularly. The Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language article is a redirect to Squamish language anyway, as encouraged by the Manual of Style. I appreciate that minority ethnic group recognition is a valid and important political/human-rights issue but does that extend to using such words in an encyclopedia written in a language that is not their minority language? This is the English Wikipedia and a surprising term with "strange" characters in the middle of it is a likely target for false positive vandalism editing. I think this article could be vunerable to possibly erroneous yet well-meaning revision. I recommend changing Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to Squamish. GeoWriter ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Some comments on the Introduction section:
Current version states:
"Eruptions along the length of the chain have created at least three major volcanic zones. The first began in the Powder Mountain Icefield 4.0 million years ago. The Mount Cayley massif began its formation during this period. Multiple eruptions from 2.2 million to 2,350 years ago created the Mount Meager massif, and eruptions 1.3 million to 9,300 years ago formed Mount Garibaldi and other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Lake area."
This paragraph appears to be describing major volcanic zones, yet the first area mentioned is a component of one such major zone, not the major zone itself. The major zone is mentioned second, but the relationship between Powder Mtn and Mt Cayley is ascertained only by looking at the map File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg (which I suspect most readers will still be viewing as a thumbnail at this point). Perhaps combine these two sentences, refer to Mt Caley, and drop reference to Powder Mountain until later in the article detail?
Also, Franklin is mentioned in the text but is of minor significance on the map, yet the "major" zone of Bridge River cones on the map is not mentioned in the introduction text
When readers take a close look at the map in File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg, they will see not three but five volcanic zones given equal "major" prominence. The article text should more closely match the map or a new map should be found/created to match the naming conventions used in the article text.
"Southern Segment" section
Squamish volcanic field is mentioned for the first time in the article as "Main article: Squamish volcanic field" at the start of that section. It is only when one goes to the Squamish volcanic field article that one discovers that Watts Point makes up part of the Squamish field. Perhaps that could be mentioned very briefly in this article too, to indicate the relevance of the wiki link to the Squamish volcanic field main article? (In contrast, the other "main article" wiki link is for Garibaldi Lake, the relevance of which has been established in the introduction.)
I hope this helps.
GeoWriter ( talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Black Tusk, you wrote, "The first paragraph you mentioned refers to major volcanoes in the southern, central and northern portions of the belt as stated in the introduction." - I think you are implying that the section of text that I quoted was amplifying something already explained in the introduction - are you? The text I quoted is the introduction.
"File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg does not classifiy volcanoes as major and minor." Agreed. I was referring to "major" in the sense of "large text font implying major" rather than literally. However, the article text mentions major. This "mismatch" between article text and map is precisely my point. When looking at the map, my first reaction is "how does the map information relate to the article text?", and at the moment, I have to say "could do better". OK the map shows different things to what is written in the article. That is valid, if one is satisfied with having two apparently contradictory sets of information, leaving the reader to do any translation/correlation, but I think the reader could benefit from being shown better how the text and map information are related. Perhaps the clarification you gave in your response could be incorporated, (more concisely?), in the article text too or, as I wrote earlier, a different map may be more appropriate.
I know why the main article templates are included in the "Southern Segment" section but readers less familiar with the area may not see a connection between Squamish volcanic field (which happens to be the first mention of Squamish in the article) and Garibaldi volcanic belt. Indeed, Squamish is not even mentioned elsewhere in that section, its next occurrence being in the "Central Segment". In contrast, the relevance of the other main article template in the "Southern segment" section, i.e. the connection between Garibaldi Lake volcanic field and Garibaldi volcanic belt, is obvious.
I believe all the points I raised in my previous post remain to be addressed. I hope that I have been able to clarify them and reduce your confusion.
GeoWriter ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the one that made this redirect, but after looking deeper into the history of the Cascade Arc the redirect should rather be an article. Cascade Arc volcanism goes back millions of years before the current volcanoes existed and the Garibaldi Belt is not the only volcanic belt in Canada related to Cascadia subduction. There is also the older Pemberton Volcanic Belt, which has been so deeply eroded that most of its volcanic rocks have been stripped away, exposing several plutons that are generally thought to be the roots of deeply eroded volcanoes (e.g. the Salal Creek Pluton). An article about the Canadian Cascade Arc would include the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (~4 Ma to present), the Pemberton Volcanic Belt (~29 Ma to ~4 Ma) and maybe the Alert Bay Volcanic Belt (~8 Ma to ~3.5 Ma), providing a fair representation of the overall topic. The same issue goes for the Cascade Volcanoes article, which focuses on the present day volcanism with very little information about volcanic activity that occurred millions of years ago. I am starting to gather information to change the Canadian Cascade Arc redirect to an article. Comments would be greatly appreciated. Volcano guy 11:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Should this merge with Garibaldi Ranges ? or should this article (and related articles) have a link to that article (and related articles) ? 92.18.106.79 ( talk) 15:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the question to someone who is far more expert on the area than myself User_talk:Volcanoguy#Mountains_and_volcanoes_in_Canada it looks like links are needed rather than merging. EdwardLane ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/15-19th-eme/1700/1700-eng.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Garibaldi Volcanic Belt appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 April 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Like other articles about major volcanic zones in Canada, this article deserves to have more information than its current form and more appropriately structured. BT ( talk) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
[Note the standard warning that I am not a vulcanologist, and that I am not familiar with late Cenozoic volcanism along the BC coast. Awickert ( talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]
[No issues found] Awickert ( talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No real issues found. Only stylistic thing is that the following sentences could probably be combined into one for better readability / less repetition: "Seismic data suggests that these volcanoes still contain active magma chambers, indicating possible future eruptive activity.[50] This indicates that some Garibaldi Belt volcanoes are likely active, with significant potential hazards.[49]" Awickert ( talk) 05:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Looks OK] Awickert ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing more than what I've done in the article] Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing more than the small things I did] Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm south of the border, and can't get the Canadian Journal of Geological Sciences for free. So I'll be cautious on this section and just ask:
Regarding the recent change of "BP" to "years ago": BP is pre-1950, and so is 60 years off of "years ago". If 4860 is within error of 4800, this change shouldn't change the meaning. Awickert ( talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[Nothing that I didn't do already] Awickert ( talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The article looks very good as far as sourcing, accuracy, etc. I checked out anything that seemed strange to me; I trust you (BT) to do an excellent job as far as the overall facts. The writing needs some work: it is clear enough, but not polished. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that. Anyway, thanks for inviting me to look at the article, sorry it took so many months, and it was an interesting read! Awickert ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has improved greatly in the past few weeks, thanks to edits by BT and Awickert in particular.
I'm getting garbled text, with the number 7 appearing in the middle of the native language names in the "Early impressions" section (using Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox). Is anyone else having a similar problem when viewing that text or is it caused by my browser settings? If the problem is actually the article text, could it be formatted to give a better display? The text in question is displaying for me as :
GeoWriter ( talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, but a native version is more common in English language usage, the exonym should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.
Although the Native language in question uses many Latin characters, I doubt that the term Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is generally intelligible to literate speakers of English, especially those far from the Pacific coast of N. America. I suspect that the very unusual/obscure/foreign x̱wú7 combination is going to mystify or confuse readers, especially bearing in mind the amount of vandalism of the "qwertyuiop[]asdfgsghjkl;'#\zxcvbnm,./" variety that we see reqularly. The Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language article is a redirect to Squamish language anyway, as encouraged by the Manual of Style. I appreciate that minority ethnic group recognition is a valid and important political/human-rights issue but does that extend to using such words in an encyclopedia written in a language that is not their minority language? This is the English Wikipedia and a surprising term with "strange" characters in the middle of it is a likely target for false positive vandalism editing. I think this article could be vunerable to possibly erroneous yet well-meaning revision. I recommend changing Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to Squamish. GeoWriter ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Some comments on the Introduction section:
Current version states:
"Eruptions along the length of the chain have created at least three major volcanic zones. The first began in the Powder Mountain Icefield 4.0 million years ago. The Mount Cayley massif began its formation during this period. Multiple eruptions from 2.2 million to 2,350 years ago created the Mount Meager massif, and eruptions 1.3 million to 9,300 years ago formed Mount Garibaldi and other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Lake area."
This paragraph appears to be describing major volcanic zones, yet the first area mentioned is a component of one such major zone, not the major zone itself. The major zone is mentioned second, but the relationship between Powder Mtn and Mt Cayley is ascertained only by looking at the map File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg (which I suspect most readers will still be viewing as a thumbnail at this point). Perhaps combine these two sentences, refer to Mt Caley, and drop reference to Powder Mountain until later in the article detail?
Also, Franklin is mentioned in the text but is of minor significance on the map, yet the "major" zone of Bridge River cones on the map is not mentioned in the introduction text
When readers take a close look at the map in File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg, they will see not three but five volcanic zones given equal "major" prominence. The article text should more closely match the map or a new map should be found/created to match the naming conventions used in the article text.
"Southern Segment" section
Squamish volcanic field is mentioned for the first time in the article as "Main article: Squamish volcanic field" at the start of that section. It is only when one goes to the Squamish volcanic field article that one discovers that Watts Point makes up part of the Squamish field. Perhaps that could be mentioned very briefly in this article too, to indicate the relevance of the wiki link to the Squamish volcanic field main article? (In contrast, the other "main article" wiki link is for Garibaldi Lake, the relevance of which has been established in the introduction.)
I hope this helps.
GeoWriter ( talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Black Tusk, you wrote, "The first paragraph you mentioned refers to major volcanoes in the southern, central and northern portions of the belt as stated in the introduction." - I think you are implying that the section of text that I quoted was amplifying something already explained in the introduction - are you? The text I quoted is the introduction.
"File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg does not classifiy volcanoes as major and minor." Agreed. I was referring to "major" in the sense of "large text font implying major" rather than literally. However, the article text mentions major. This "mismatch" between article text and map is precisely my point. When looking at the map, my first reaction is "how does the map information relate to the article text?", and at the moment, I have to say "could do better". OK the map shows different things to what is written in the article. That is valid, if one is satisfied with having two apparently contradictory sets of information, leaving the reader to do any translation/correlation, but I think the reader could benefit from being shown better how the text and map information are related. Perhaps the clarification you gave in your response could be incorporated, (more concisely?), in the article text too or, as I wrote earlier, a different map may be more appropriate.
I know why the main article templates are included in the "Southern Segment" section but readers less familiar with the area may not see a connection between Squamish volcanic field (which happens to be the first mention of Squamish in the article) and Garibaldi volcanic belt. Indeed, Squamish is not even mentioned elsewhere in that section, its next occurrence being in the "Central Segment". In contrast, the relevance of the other main article template in the "Southern segment" section, i.e. the connection between Garibaldi Lake volcanic field and Garibaldi volcanic belt, is obvious.
I believe all the points I raised in my previous post remain to be addressed. I hope that I have been able to clarify them and reduce your confusion.
GeoWriter ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the one that made this redirect, but after looking deeper into the history of the Cascade Arc the redirect should rather be an article. Cascade Arc volcanism goes back millions of years before the current volcanoes existed and the Garibaldi Belt is not the only volcanic belt in Canada related to Cascadia subduction. There is also the older Pemberton Volcanic Belt, which has been so deeply eroded that most of its volcanic rocks have been stripped away, exposing several plutons that are generally thought to be the roots of deeply eroded volcanoes (e.g. the Salal Creek Pluton). An article about the Canadian Cascade Arc would include the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (~4 Ma to present), the Pemberton Volcanic Belt (~29 Ma to ~4 Ma) and maybe the Alert Bay Volcanic Belt (~8 Ma to ~3.5 Ma), providing a fair representation of the overall topic. The same issue goes for the Cascade Volcanoes article, which focuses on the present day volcanism with very little information about volcanic activity that occurred millions of years ago. I am starting to gather information to change the Canadian Cascade Arc redirect to an article. Comments would be greatly appreciated. Volcano guy 11:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Should this merge with Garibaldi Ranges ? or should this article (and related articles) have a link to that article (and related articles) ? 92.18.106.79 ( talk) 15:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the question to someone who is far more expert on the area than myself User_talk:Volcanoguy#Mountains_and_volcanoes_in_Canada it looks like links are needed rather than merging. EdwardLane ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/15-19th-eme/1700/1700-eng.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)