![]() | 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).
![]() |
---|
![]() |
WikiProject Volcanoes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Nevado del Ruiz for FA. Those interested can comment here. Ceran thor 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in creating a workgroup for Volcanism of Hawaii, based here. I'de like to tackle the topic, but I can't do it all by myself! So far this is only a proposal. Also going out to WP:HAWAII. Cheers, Res Mar 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Peer review of Loihi now open. Res Mar 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
A template footer listing the seven volcanoes of the island of Hawaii within a larger Hawaii volcanoes template for all of the Hawaiian islands would be helpful. As an example, for the Island of Hawaiʻi entry, we would have the following: Mahukona, Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualalai, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, Loihi. Viriditas ( talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are mud volcanoes meant to be included in this list? Baratang is described in Wikipedia as a mud volcano, but it is included in the list of volcanoes in India. Lavateraguy ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just finished expanding Kohala (mountain), but I'm not sure it qualifies for B-class yet. Also, do you guys think it's long enough for an eventual GAN?
Also, I'm looking for feedback on Loihi. It seems set, but I'm worried about FA technical criterea. ...And on Hawaii hotspot, too. Res Mar 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Loihi Seamount is on its FAC nom; comments very welcome! Res Mar 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a kimberlite pipe considered to be in the scope of this project? (e.g. Jagersfontein Mine) Thanks Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just thought of something...maybe this is a fundamental complaint about how people associate volcanoes as being active. Even in vulcanology, there is no clear unambiguous line between active, dormant and extinct, except in informal terms. But you point at a certain active volcano and ask a layman to say what it is, and he'll say "that's a volcano", and then point at a long-extinct volcano and ask the layman to say what it is, he'll say something like "that's a hill" or "that's a rock" or "that's a hole in the ground". But mere ignorance of the science of vulcanology is not grounds to say "okay, these are not volcanoes", because according to vulcanology, they are volcanoes. We do have Category:Active volcanoes, Category:Dormant volcanoes and Category:Extinct volcanoes, but those are difficult to tell apart in borderline cases, and there's a potential can of worms to open when you start going around an saying "that's active", and "that's dormant", and "that's extinct". "But I thought that was extinct!" "No, it's inactive. There's a probability it will erupt again." "When? Soon?" "Maybe not in thousands of years, if ever." "So it's extinct." "*sigh* No..." Volcanoes are a popular and exciting study for many ordinary people, but vulcanology on the other hand is a deeper science that many people never really get into or care to. The crowds wanna see geysers, lava and ash, not billion-year-old rock pits in the middle of nowhere. That's boring. But it's still science, and we cover all of it. Wikipedia is not the Discovery Channel. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have an idea. It's not going to make everyone happy, but neither did the alternative. Original status quo. Keep country-independent Category:Diatremes and Category:Maars categories, and otherwise put the diatreme and maar articles in "Volcanoes of <country>". Then, after the "Diatremes of <country>" and "Maars of <country>" categories are cleaned out, I flag them for speedy deletion. We do that, or rename every "Volcanoes of <whatever>" category to "Volcanism to <whatever>" country. I'd like to know if it's okay to start doing this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So now what? I'd really like to do some editing, but this still needs to be discussed and decided apparently. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've collapsed and blanked categories that had only one member in them, and recategorized the articles in them to the category's own parent categories. If any category had two or more members, I kept them. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 05:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(split off from above thread)
I just had a thought. If people are confused with categorizations of volcanoes of such old age, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to add another category, such as "Pre-
Holocene volcanoes". Volcanoes that were formed before the Holocene, but are necessarily extinct before the Holocene began. Since the Holocene stretches from about 10000 years ago to today, it is significant as the beginning of the Holocene was far before anything resembling recorded human history. In geological terms, even volcanoes extinct for 2000 or 3000 or even 5000 or 10000 years are "recent" volcanism, and their volcanic remnants are still fairly obvious on the landscape. And many volcanoes active and building today are younger than that. Another reason "Holocene" and "pre-Holocene" volcanism are useful labels is because many parts of the earth were only reached by humans with a written record in very recent times, making volcanism even a couple centuries ago effectively prehistoric in those regions, but they're still recent and still have a potentially active future. For instance, volcanism in the Hawaiian islands everywhere from Hawaiʻi island to Oʻahu is relatively recent (with Oʻahu eruptions perhaps as recent as 2000 years ago), but Kauaʻi is millions of years old and deeply eroded. It is still obviously a volcano, but erupted on a very different earth when it was active. -
Gilgamesh (
talk)
10:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:Gilgamesh)
On a related not, what's with slapping "Volcanoes of the Lake District" on any hill in the area composed of volcanic material? This is just daft. None of these are volcanoes. Yes, the area was an Ordovician island arc and back arc terrane, but the actual volcanic edifices are long gone by now. What you see remaining are glaciated plugs and flows that bear very little relationship to the original volcanic architecture. These are not volcanoes. Vast tracts of Quebec and Ontario are composed of bimodal, arc/back-arc volcanic rocks, so are we going to see Kidd Creek mine (where the terrain is flat and swampy, believe me) classed as a "Volcano of Northern Ontario"? Of course not. Unless you can come up with some pretty robust references for this, in fairly short order, I'll be putting the whole category, and probably its parent categories, up for deletion at CfD. Pyrop e 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(end of copy)
Let's discuss this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, a layman's definition is not necessarily a volcanologist's definition. We are not Wiktionary. Many of us editors, frankly, are not lay people. We are deeply immersed in the topics we study, and sometimes the orthodoxy of the field simply cannot be reconciled with whatever common uneducated conceptions of a layman might have. It's fundamentally bad science to make the scientific definitions yield to an uneducated prejudice. Part of what we try to do is educate people, rather than simply telling them what they already want to believe. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, about volcanoes being "hills or mountains". That was discussed years ago when categorizing Category:Volcanoes as Category:Mountains. It didn't work, because even many active volcanoes are just pits in the ground (such as El Chichon). A volcano is its extrusion, not its shape. As I said, you can't always go by a layman's preconceived definition. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a thought. If your concern is the verifiability of the volcanic outcrops are volcanoes themselves, would it not be better to instead make a Category:Lake District, categorize that in Category:Volcanoes of England, and put Lake District articles in that category? - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created Category:Lake District, added Lake District and Category:Fells of the Lake District to it, removed Category:Volcanoes of the Lake District from all its articles and placed the category on {{ speedy}}. You are quite correct that the identity of each volcanic outcrop as an individual volcanic vent is more or less unverifiable. However, you need to realize that members of categories are not always one quantity of the topic. So not every member will represent a single volcano. Some articles may represent multiple volcanoes, and some (such as individual volcanic fells of the Lake District) may represent an unknown quantity, possibly a fraction less than one. Sometimes there just isn't enough information, but it's still relevant. Wikipedia categories aren't always a one-to-one correspondence with "is A equal to one B?" But rather, it can also be the topic at hand, so that "volcanoes of the Lake District" can mean "the study of volcanoes in the Lake District". And we already know the Lake District has more than one volcano, as it was a subduction arc. We just don't know how many there were. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Pyrope says. We should only be applying volcano categories to articles about volcanic landforms where the vent (or some remnant of it) is still identifiable. Eroded pipes and plugs, okay, but not distant lava flows. Regions where the vents are less clearly identifiable (e.g. the Columbia River Plateau) are probably better categorised under volcanism or volcanic landforms. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So why did you suggest Mackenzie dike swarm to begin with? When a volcano goes extinct, there's nothing left but the rock, because the vent is dead. It's extinct. Greenstone belts and large igneous provinces are volcanic rock, but they don't necessarily exist out of thin air. A volcano erupted them, and not on the opposite corner of the planet either. They accumulated there because they were at or near the vent, even if we can't find the vent anymore. I thought we were supposed to be cataloguing volcanic activity. Volcanoes aren't merely the vents we can find—they are also the vents we know exist, whether or not we can find them. It's part of the spirit of this project as I understand it. If we're going to split hairs on the term "volcano" like this, then maybe we should go with my previous suggestion—that all the "Volcanoes of" categories be renamed to "Volcanism of" categories. Because very honestly, I feel like pulling my hair out over these murky and extremely counterintuitive semantics. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has become extensive enough that I'm having trouble keeping track of all the various issues. So I'm splitting off one of the simpler questions: should the subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanism by country be called "Volcanism in <country>" or "Volcanism of <country>"? Currently they are all titled "Volcanism in <country>".
As I said earlier, I prefer "Volcanism of <country>". Gilgamesh does too. Does anyone else support or object to this? Unless someone objects in the next two days, I'll propose speedy renaming them at WP:CFD. -- Avenue ( talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia since the early half of this decade, but I've never organized a vote. So this is something of an informal vote. Reasons as per the discussions above: to be able to include flood basalts and greenstone belts in the categories, or other obvious volcanic events where the vent cannot be identified. This would include the 100% certainty that volcanic vents and/or associated contiguous volcanic provinces occurred in the region of the category. For instance, the Deccan Traps occurred in India, and would be in "Volcanism of India". - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This poll may be in the wrong place. Formal discussions about moving categories usually take place at Categories for discussion, and they have the infrastructure in place to change the categories on thousands of articles, if that's what's decided. Should we move it there, or keep it going here as just an informal, non-binding poll to canvass views among members of our project? -- Avenue ( talk) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just had another thought. Monogenetic volcanoes are defined only by their single one-time-only eruption. Is that a volcano or a volcanic event? Does there have to be a passage of time before it's not considered a volcano? A certain size? A certain shape? It seems murky. Parícutin in Mexico is thought of as a volcano, but it was monogenetic in nature, and will not erupt again. So are the individual vents of Auckland volcanic field. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm still not sure I understand all the distinctions, but my idea now is this—places and time periods that have only volcanism articles can have "Volcanism of" categories. Places that only (thus far) have articles for actual volcano articles can have "Volcanoes of" categories. Where there are only "Volcanoes of" categories, they can go in categories for both "Volcanism by" and "Volcanoes by", etc. "Volcanism by" and "Volcanism of" should be the primary parent categories, with "Volcanoes by" and "Volcanoes of" categories should be subcategories of them. Where there are only "Volcanism of" without corresponding "Volcanoes of", "Volcanism of" would go only in "Volcanism by" parent categories, and not in "Volcanoes by" parent categories. Am I getting this so far? Also, I think it would be a good idea now to rename all the "Volcanoes by geochronology" categories to "Volcanism by geochronology", especially because, while there are some true "volcanoes" even as far back as the Archean, "volcanism" in general seems more relevant to the study of such old and eroding volcanic features and the majority will probably not be considered "volcanoes" formally. Am I right? - Gilgamesh ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should use "Volcanism of" instead of "Volcanism in". Countries can have all sorts of scattered territories and exclaves. And the location of volcanic features associated with volcanism isn't necessarily inherently a different concept from the location of volcanoes. No? Anyway, I think we need a robust network of "Volcanism of" parent categories. Should we start creating those? Especially for places that have both "volcanism" and "volcanoes". - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I'm serious about this. "Volcanism of" or "Volcanism in"? Personally I'd create new categories with "Volcanism of", just to match up with all the "Volcanoes of" categories that already exist by the same naming convention. But I'd rather this be agreed on. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed renaming ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanoes by geochronology to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanism by geochronology (and likewise all its subcategories) here. Gilgamesh started to do this, but I think it needs to go through the usual CFD process to avoid cut-and-paste GFDL problems. Feel free to weigh in. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, this WikiProject is nothing but a complete fuck up now. Volcanism is the processes involved in the formation of volcanoes, and in the transfer of magma and volatile material from the interior of the Earth to its surface. Volcanoes are a naturally occurring opening in the surface of the Earth through which molten, gaseous, and solid material is ejected. There is a difference in the two terms. A volcano is not volcanism, nor is volcanism a volcano.....Whatever these categories turn out to be I will not tolerate it. Black Tusk ( talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This current disagreement and lack of consensus has effectively paralyzed a great deal of work in this project. And already, my mind feels the wear and fatigue of this schizophrenic state of things we've carved out. Sometimes, for some people, (as was said before) life is too short to spend so much work and reading on something. But for some people, life is too short to wait around and do no useful work while no one seems to completely agree and/or understand each other over semantics. My mind is mush for now. Please, sort this out. If not, we could very well find ourselves inducted in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. We can't expect entire projects to freeze to a halt every other day over confusing semantic debates and disagreements. When did this stop feeling like useful collaboration and start feeling like the most tedious of bureaucracies? I'll be in a self-imposed vegetative state for a little while. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I have found actual volcanoes (not just volcanic remnants) in England and Scotland. The Scafells in England and Glen Coe in Scotland were each VEI-8 supervolcanoes in their own right. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice find. I think the above discussion could do with a summary; I'll try to get onto that this weekend. I think we should be able to make progress, at least in understanding each other better, if we focus on a few specific examples. -- Avenue ( talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Done some grunt work on promoting some volcanism-classified articles to volcanoes categories, and demoting some volcanoes-classified articles to volcanism categories. Brain just collapsed to mush a few minutes ago. Stopped for now. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm still unsure how to apply a lot of these categories. It's still counterintuitive to split categories dealing with volcanism from categories dealing with volcanoes. For instance, volcanic groups—if they contain actual volcanoes an other non-volcano volcanic features, should they be classified under volcanism or volcanoes? And does it make a difference if the item being classified is an article of a category (containing volcanoes)? I feel like I'm putting artificial barriers between two topics that seem far too much like the same animal, no matter how many times you try to explain the distinction. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you make an article a part of WikiProject Volcanoes? Do you have to ask someone or can you just go ahead and do it yourself? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, but I thought as this project looked to have some activity at the moment then this might be straightforward to fix the references. I have none. Have nominated for review here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: sinking now - Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Eldfell/archive1#FARC_commentary - can anyone help with sourcing? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We all know there were volcanoes in the Permian. The entire Permian didn't begin and end without a volcano, that's absurd. However, another editor recently deleted Category:Permian volcanoes for being empty. There are entries in Category:Permian volcanism, which are mostly large igneous provinces, but I don't know of a single specific remnant of an actual formal volcano from the Permian. Practically anything would do—a caldera, a volcanic plug, whatever (and not a dike, sill or flood basalt), as long as it's what's left of a genuine volcano form. Do we know of one we could anchor to Category:Permian volcanoes? My issue here is smooth category navigation, where Category:Carboniferous volcanoes are followed by this and Category:Triassic volcanoes are proceeded by this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that vog is only found in the Hawaiian Islands and nowhere else on earth. I've added {{ globalize/USA}} to the article, and it needs to be expanded to describe similar occurrences of vog (or volcanic smog) elsewhere in the world. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an Category:Extraterrestrial shield volcanoes (etc) ? I noticed that some ET shield volcanoes are classified in the Category:Shield volcanoes, while many are not... 76.66.196.139 ( talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
As many of you might have seen in the Wikipedia Signpost, User:Fg2, who had been a significant contributor to much of our content related to Japan, has recently died. Some of us have decided to try to work to improve an article relative to his interests as a memorial to him, and the article chosen is Mount Fuji. This is also an article considered of "Top" importance by your project. I and I believe the rest of the people involved in the effort to improve this article in honor of Fg2 would more than welcome any input from members of this project. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Just did a massive expand and rewrite for this article earlier. BT ( talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Mountain_names. nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Shouldn't Category:Subduction volcanoes be renamed? There's no subduction volcano article and I suppose the intended meaning is simply "volcano occurring over a subduction zone", in which case Category:Volcanoes over subduction zones would seem a more appropriate name. At the very least, the category should include a couple of sentences to clarify its scope, especially for non-expert readers. Pichpich ( talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this project uses {{ Infobox mountain}} I just wanted to let everyone know here (in case they do not watch WikiProject Mountains talk page) is that the infobox is being tested with a new layout based on a more common code base. Please see Infobox mountain code updates for further information. The switchover to the layout will probably occur soon as long as all the known issues have been worked out. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to put it in perspective, here's a list of all volcano-related DYKs!
I'll use it for the Portal. Res Mar 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a minor conflict in the Mayon Volcano talk page (particularly here up to here) (yes, the two sections have the same name).
I and WtMitchell say that the 'Last eruption' field in the Mayon infobox should have references that show that it is erupting at the moment, since the Philippine volcano alert level system does not have a definite level when the volcano is considered to be erupting; it only has level 5 for 'hazardous eruption'. On the other hand, Gubernatoria insists that no such references are needed and the state on which the volcano is in can be determined with common sense and a dictionary, and this information should be from the volcano itself and not what the country's geology agency claims.
I would like to request a clarification on this matter please, and if possible an opinion on what should be done next since Gubernatoria also plants to submit the article to a GA review. -- 112.203.95.233 ( talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As of this writing, Gubernatoria wants to cite the Mayon talk page itself in the article. I had to remove it since it's a self-reference, but he keeps putting it back and has threatened to report me for it. Since I don't want to go into an edit war with him (Gubernatoria seems to exhibit that behavior and has breached 3RR in a half hour) I implore you for an intervention in the article. -- 112.203.95.233 ( talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been running through Category:Unassessed WikiProject Volcanoes articles. Cleared about half of it, some help would be appreciated. Res Mar 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, all is done. The entire list is cleared after another push from me, great work Cer =) Res Mar 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Our Portal is up for Peer review here. Res Mar 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised this remained as a redirect to the volcano article as its first edit on September 6, 2002. This is completely unnesessary since volcanism is not just included with volcanic eruptions of volcanoes. It is the process that places from the mantle of a planet and rises within the crust of a planet as a volcanic eruption. But volcanism also does not always reach the surface. The rising magma can cool and solidify within the crust of a planet to form intrusive features such as batholiths, dikes and sills. I wonder what else I can find that does not need to be as a redirect..... BT ( talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This project is among the worst in Wikipedia in terms of organization, participation, and documentation. To shame. We've got a barebones crew of active editors doing all the work, with a large bank of just-joined-did-nothing editors. I'm proposing, nay, doing, a restructuring of the project. The results so far are based at User:Resident Mario/sandbox. Res Mar 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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).
![]() |
---|
![]() |
WikiProject Volcanoes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Nevado del Ruiz for FA. Those interested can comment here. Ceran thor 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in creating a workgroup for Volcanism of Hawaii, based here. I'de like to tackle the topic, but I can't do it all by myself! So far this is only a proposal. Also going out to WP:HAWAII. Cheers, Res Mar 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Peer review of Loihi now open. Res Mar 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
A template footer listing the seven volcanoes of the island of Hawaii within a larger Hawaii volcanoes template for all of the Hawaiian islands would be helpful. As an example, for the Island of Hawaiʻi entry, we would have the following: Mahukona, Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualalai, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, Loihi. Viriditas ( talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are mud volcanoes meant to be included in this list? Baratang is described in Wikipedia as a mud volcano, but it is included in the list of volcanoes in India. Lavateraguy ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just finished expanding Kohala (mountain), but I'm not sure it qualifies for B-class yet. Also, do you guys think it's long enough for an eventual GAN?
Also, I'm looking for feedback on Loihi. It seems set, but I'm worried about FA technical criterea. ...And on Hawaii hotspot, too. Res Mar 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Loihi Seamount is on its FAC nom; comments very welcome! Res Mar 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a kimberlite pipe considered to be in the scope of this project? (e.g. Jagersfontein Mine) Thanks Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just thought of something...maybe this is a fundamental complaint about how people associate volcanoes as being active. Even in vulcanology, there is no clear unambiguous line between active, dormant and extinct, except in informal terms. But you point at a certain active volcano and ask a layman to say what it is, and he'll say "that's a volcano", and then point at a long-extinct volcano and ask the layman to say what it is, he'll say something like "that's a hill" or "that's a rock" or "that's a hole in the ground". But mere ignorance of the science of vulcanology is not grounds to say "okay, these are not volcanoes", because according to vulcanology, they are volcanoes. We do have Category:Active volcanoes, Category:Dormant volcanoes and Category:Extinct volcanoes, but those are difficult to tell apart in borderline cases, and there's a potential can of worms to open when you start going around an saying "that's active", and "that's dormant", and "that's extinct". "But I thought that was extinct!" "No, it's inactive. There's a probability it will erupt again." "When? Soon?" "Maybe not in thousands of years, if ever." "So it's extinct." "*sigh* No..." Volcanoes are a popular and exciting study for many ordinary people, but vulcanology on the other hand is a deeper science that many people never really get into or care to. The crowds wanna see geysers, lava and ash, not billion-year-old rock pits in the middle of nowhere. That's boring. But it's still science, and we cover all of it. Wikipedia is not the Discovery Channel. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have an idea. It's not going to make everyone happy, but neither did the alternative. Original status quo. Keep country-independent Category:Diatremes and Category:Maars categories, and otherwise put the diatreme and maar articles in "Volcanoes of <country>". Then, after the "Diatremes of <country>" and "Maars of <country>" categories are cleaned out, I flag them for speedy deletion. We do that, or rename every "Volcanoes of <whatever>" category to "Volcanism to <whatever>" country. I'd like to know if it's okay to start doing this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So now what? I'd really like to do some editing, but this still needs to be discussed and decided apparently. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've collapsed and blanked categories that had only one member in them, and recategorized the articles in them to the category's own parent categories. If any category had two or more members, I kept them. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 05:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(split off from above thread)
I just had a thought. If people are confused with categorizations of volcanoes of such old age, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to add another category, such as "Pre-
Holocene volcanoes". Volcanoes that were formed before the Holocene, but are necessarily extinct before the Holocene began. Since the Holocene stretches from about 10000 years ago to today, it is significant as the beginning of the Holocene was far before anything resembling recorded human history. In geological terms, even volcanoes extinct for 2000 or 3000 or even 5000 or 10000 years are "recent" volcanism, and their volcanic remnants are still fairly obvious on the landscape. And many volcanoes active and building today are younger than that. Another reason "Holocene" and "pre-Holocene" volcanism are useful labels is because many parts of the earth were only reached by humans with a written record in very recent times, making volcanism even a couple centuries ago effectively prehistoric in those regions, but they're still recent and still have a potentially active future. For instance, volcanism in the Hawaiian islands everywhere from Hawaiʻi island to Oʻahu is relatively recent (with Oʻahu eruptions perhaps as recent as 2000 years ago), but Kauaʻi is millions of years old and deeply eroded. It is still obviously a volcano, but erupted on a very different earth when it was active. -
Gilgamesh (
talk)
10:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:Gilgamesh)
On a related not, what's with slapping "Volcanoes of the Lake District" on any hill in the area composed of volcanic material? This is just daft. None of these are volcanoes. Yes, the area was an Ordovician island arc and back arc terrane, but the actual volcanic edifices are long gone by now. What you see remaining are glaciated plugs and flows that bear very little relationship to the original volcanic architecture. These are not volcanoes. Vast tracts of Quebec and Ontario are composed of bimodal, arc/back-arc volcanic rocks, so are we going to see Kidd Creek mine (where the terrain is flat and swampy, believe me) classed as a "Volcano of Northern Ontario"? Of course not. Unless you can come up with some pretty robust references for this, in fairly short order, I'll be putting the whole category, and probably its parent categories, up for deletion at CfD. Pyrop e 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(end of copy)
Let's discuss this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, a layman's definition is not necessarily a volcanologist's definition. We are not Wiktionary. Many of us editors, frankly, are not lay people. We are deeply immersed in the topics we study, and sometimes the orthodoxy of the field simply cannot be reconciled with whatever common uneducated conceptions of a layman might have. It's fundamentally bad science to make the scientific definitions yield to an uneducated prejudice. Part of what we try to do is educate people, rather than simply telling them what they already want to believe. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, about volcanoes being "hills or mountains". That was discussed years ago when categorizing Category:Volcanoes as Category:Mountains. It didn't work, because even many active volcanoes are just pits in the ground (such as El Chichon). A volcano is its extrusion, not its shape. As I said, you can't always go by a layman's preconceived definition. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a thought. If your concern is the verifiability of the volcanic outcrops are volcanoes themselves, would it not be better to instead make a Category:Lake District, categorize that in Category:Volcanoes of England, and put Lake District articles in that category? - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created Category:Lake District, added Lake District and Category:Fells of the Lake District to it, removed Category:Volcanoes of the Lake District from all its articles and placed the category on {{ speedy}}. You are quite correct that the identity of each volcanic outcrop as an individual volcanic vent is more or less unverifiable. However, you need to realize that members of categories are not always one quantity of the topic. So not every member will represent a single volcano. Some articles may represent multiple volcanoes, and some (such as individual volcanic fells of the Lake District) may represent an unknown quantity, possibly a fraction less than one. Sometimes there just isn't enough information, but it's still relevant. Wikipedia categories aren't always a one-to-one correspondence with "is A equal to one B?" But rather, it can also be the topic at hand, so that "volcanoes of the Lake District" can mean "the study of volcanoes in the Lake District". And we already know the Lake District has more than one volcano, as it was a subduction arc. We just don't know how many there were. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Pyrope says. We should only be applying volcano categories to articles about volcanic landforms where the vent (or some remnant of it) is still identifiable. Eroded pipes and plugs, okay, but not distant lava flows. Regions where the vents are less clearly identifiable (e.g. the Columbia River Plateau) are probably better categorised under volcanism or volcanic landforms. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So why did you suggest Mackenzie dike swarm to begin with? When a volcano goes extinct, there's nothing left but the rock, because the vent is dead. It's extinct. Greenstone belts and large igneous provinces are volcanic rock, but they don't necessarily exist out of thin air. A volcano erupted them, and not on the opposite corner of the planet either. They accumulated there because they were at or near the vent, even if we can't find the vent anymore. I thought we were supposed to be cataloguing volcanic activity. Volcanoes aren't merely the vents we can find—they are also the vents we know exist, whether or not we can find them. It's part of the spirit of this project as I understand it. If we're going to split hairs on the term "volcano" like this, then maybe we should go with my previous suggestion—that all the "Volcanoes of" categories be renamed to "Volcanism of" categories. Because very honestly, I feel like pulling my hair out over these murky and extremely counterintuitive semantics. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has become extensive enough that I'm having trouble keeping track of all the various issues. So I'm splitting off one of the simpler questions: should the subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanism by country be called "Volcanism in <country>" or "Volcanism of <country>"? Currently they are all titled "Volcanism in <country>".
As I said earlier, I prefer "Volcanism of <country>". Gilgamesh does too. Does anyone else support or object to this? Unless someone objects in the next two days, I'll propose speedy renaming them at WP:CFD. -- Avenue ( talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia since the early half of this decade, but I've never organized a vote. So this is something of an informal vote. Reasons as per the discussions above: to be able to include flood basalts and greenstone belts in the categories, or other obvious volcanic events where the vent cannot be identified. This would include the 100% certainty that volcanic vents and/or associated contiguous volcanic provinces occurred in the region of the category. For instance, the Deccan Traps occurred in India, and would be in "Volcanism of India". - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This poll may be in the wrong place. Formal discussions about moving categories usually take place at Categories for discussion, and they have the infrastructure in place to change the categories on thousands of articles, if that's what's decided. Should we move it there, or keep it going here as just an informal, non-binding poll to canvass views among members of our project? -- Avenue ( talk) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just had another thought. Monogenetic volcanoes are defined only by their single one-time-only eruption. Is that a volcano or a volcanic event? Does there have to be a passage of time before it's not considered a volcano? A certain size? A certain shape? It seems murky. Parícutin in Mexico is thought of as a volcano, but it was monogenetic in nature, and will not erupt again. So are the individual vents of Auckland volcanic field. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm still not sure I understand all the distinctions, but my idea now is this—places and time periods that have only volcanism articles can have "Volcanism of" categories. Places that only (thus far) have articles for actual volcano articles can have "Volcanoes of" categories. Where there are only "Volcanoes of" categories, they can go in categories for both "Volcanism by" and "Volcanoes by", etc. "Volcanism by" and "Volcanism of" should be the primary parent categories, with "Volcanoes by" and "Volcanoes of" categories should be subcategories of them. Where there are only "Volcanism of" without corresponding "Volcanoes of", "Volcanism of" would go only in "Volcanism by" parent categories, and not in "Volcanoes by" parent categories. Am I getting this so far? Also, I think it would be a good idea now to rename all the "Volcanoes by geochronology" categories to "Volcanism by geochronology", especially because, while there are some true "volcanoes" even as far back as the Archean, "volcanism" in general seems more relevant to the study of such old and eroding volcanic features and the majority will probably not be considered "volcanoes" formally. Am I right? - Gilgamesh ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should use "Volcanism of" instead of "Volcanism in". Countries can have all sorts of scattered territories and exclaves. And the location of volcanic features associated with volcanism isn't necessarily inherently a different concept from the location of volcanoes. No? Anyway, I think we need a robust network of "Volcanism of" parent categories. Should we start creating those? Especially for places that have both "volcanism" and "volcanoes". - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I'm serious about this. "Volcanism of" or "Volcanism in"? Personally I'd create new categories with "Volcanism of", just to match up with all the "Volcanoes of" categories that already exist by the same naming convention. But I'd rather this be agreed on. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed renaming ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanoes by geochronology to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Volcanism by geochronology (and likewise all its subcategories) here. Gilgamesh started to do this, but I think it needs to go through the usual CFD process to avoid cut-and-paste GFDL problems. Feel free to weigh in. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, this WikiProject is nothing but a complete fuck up now. Volcanism is the processes involved in the formation of volcanoes, and in the transfer of magma and volatile material from the interior of the Earth to its surface. Volcanoes are a naturally occurring opening in the surface of the Earth through which molten, gaseous, and solid material is ejected. There is a difference in the two terms. A volcano is not volcanism, nor is volcanism a volcano.....Whatever these categories turn out to be I will not tolerate it. Black Tusk ( talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This current disagreement and lack of consensus has effectively paralyzed a great deal of work in this project. And already, my mind feels the wear and fatigue of this schizophrenic state of things we've carved out. Sometimes, for some people, (as was said before) life is too short to spend so much work and reading on something. But for some people, life is too short to wait around and do no useful work while no one seems to completely agree and/or understand each other over semantics. My mind is mush for now. Please, sort this out. If not, we could very well find ourselves inducted in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. We can't expect entire projects to freeze to a halt every other day over confusing semantic debates and disagreements. When did this stop feeling like useful collaboration and start feeling like the most tedious of bureaucracies? I'll be in a self-imposed vegetative state for a little while. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I have found actual volcanoes (not just volcanic remnants) in England and Scotland. The Scafells in England and Glen Coe in Scotland were each VEI-8 supervolcanoes in their own right. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice find. I think the above discussion could do with a summary; I'll try to get onto that this weekend. I think we should be able to make progress, at least in understanding each other better, if we focus on a few specific examples. -- Avenue ( talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Done some grunt work on promoting some volcanism-classified articles to volcanoes categories, and demoting some volcanoes-classified articles to volcanism categories. Brain just collapsed to mush a few minutes ago. Stopped for now. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm still unsure how to apply a lot of these categories. It's still counterintuitive to split categories dealing with volcanism from categories dealing with volcanoes. For instance, volcanic groups—if they contain actual volcanoes an other non-volcano volcanic features, should they be classified under volcanism or volcanoes? And does it make a difference if the item being classified is an article of a category (containing volcanoes)? I feel like I'm putting artificial barriers between two topics that seem far too much like the same animal, no matter how many times you try to explain the distinction. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you make an article a part of WikiProject Volcanoes? Do you have to ask someone or can you just go ahead and do it yourself? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, but I thought as this project looked to have some activity at the moment then this might be straightforward to fix the references. I have none. Have nominated for review here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: sinking now - Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Eldfell/archive1#FARC_commentary - can anyone help with sourcing? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We all know there were volcanoes in the Permian. The entire Permian didn't begin and end without a volcano, that's absurd. However, another editor recently deleted Category:Permian volcanoes for being empty. There are entries in Category:Permian volcanism, which are mostly large igneous provinces, but I don't know of a single specific remnant of an actual formal volcano from the Permian. Practically anything would do—a caldera, a volcanic plug, whatever (and not a dike, sill or flood basalt), as long as it's what's left of a genuine volcano form. Do we know of one we could anchor to Category:Permian volcanoes? My issue here is smooth category navigation, where Category:Carboniferous volcanoes are followed by this and Category:Triassic volcanoes are proceeded by this. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that vog is only found in the Hawaiian Islands and nowhere else on earth. I've added {{ globalize/USA}} to the article, and it needs to be expanded to describe similar occurrences of vog (or volcanic smog) elsewhere in the world. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an Category:Extraterrestrial shield volcanoes (etc) ? I noticed that some ET shield volcanoes are classified in the Category:Shield volcanoes, while many are not... 76.66.196.139 ( talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
As many of you might have seen in the Wikipedia Signpost, User:Fg2, who had been a significant contributor to much of our content related to Japan, has recently died. Some of us have decided to try to work to improve an article relative to his interests as a memorial to him, and the article chosen is Mount Fuji. This is also an article considered of "Top" importance by your project. I and I believe the rest of the people involved in the effort to improve this article in honor of Fg2 would more than welcome any input from members of this project. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Just did a massive expand and rewrite for this article earlier. BT ( talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Mountain_names. nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Shouldn't Category:Subduction volcanoes be renamed? There's no subduction volcano article and I suppose the intended meaning is simply "volcano occurring over a subduction zone", in which case Category:Volcanoes over subduction zones would seem a more appropriate name. At the very least, the category should include a couple of sentences to clarify its scope, especially for non-expert readers. Pichpich ( talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this project uses {{ Infobox mountain}} I just wanted to let everyone know here (in case they do not watch WikiProject Mountains talk page) is that the infobox is being tested with a new layout based on a more common code base. Please see Infobox mountain code updates for further information. The switchover to the layout will probably occur soon as long as all the known issues have been worked out. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to put it in perspective, here's a list of all volcano-related DYKs!
I'll use it for the Portal. Res Mar 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a minor conflict in the Mayon Volcano talk page (particularly here up to here) (yes, the two sections have the same name).
I and WtMitchell say that the 'Last eruption' field in the Mayon infobox should have references that show that it is erupting at the moment, since the Philippine volcano alert level system does not have a definite level when the volcano is considered to be erupting; it only has level 5 for 'hazardous eruption'. On the other hand, Gubernatoria insists that no such references are needed and the state on which the volcano is in can be determined with common sense and a dictionary, and this information should be from the volcano itself and not what the country's geology agency claims.
I would like to request a clarification on this matter please, and if possible an opinion on what should be done next since Gubernatoria also plants to submit the article to a GA review. -- 112.203.95.233 ( talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As of this writing, Gubernatoria wants to cite the Mayon talk page itself in the article. I had to remove it since it's a self-reference, but he keeps putting it back and has threatened to report me for it. Since I don't want to go into an edit war with him (Gubernatoria seems to exhibit that behavior and has breached 3RR in a half hour) I implore you for an intervention in the article. -- 112.203.95.233 ( talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been running through Category:Unassessed WikiProject Volcanoes articles. Cleared about half of it, some help would be appreciated. Res Mar 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, all is done. The entire list is cleared after another push from me, great work Cer =) Res Mar 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Our Portal is up for Peer review here. Res Mar 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised this remained as a redirect to the volcano article as its first edit on September 6, 2002. This is completely unnesessary since volcanism is not just included with volcanic eruptions of volcanoes. It is the process that places from the mantle of a planet and rises within the crust of a planet as a volcanic eruption. But volcanism also does not always reach the surface. The rising magma can cool and solidify within the crust of a planet to form intrusive features such as batholiths, dikes and sills. I wonder what else I can find that does not need to be as a redirect..... BT ( talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This project is among the worst in Wikipedia in terms of organization, participation, and documentation. To shame. We've got a barebones crew of active editors doing all the work, with a large bank of just-joined-did-nothing editors. I'm proposing, nay, doing, a restructuring of the project. The results so far are based at User:Resident Mario/sandbox. Res Mar 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)