Talk:Calabozos

Calabozos is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 13, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 14, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 6, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 19, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that activity at Calabozos, a Holocene caldera complex, has produced stratovolcanoes, hot springs, and a complex volcano?
Current status: Featured article

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chile Low‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Timing

"Remnants of magma intrusions as young as 7 billion years old can be found at the lake", this has to be wrong as Earth doesn't have rock formations that old. Is it a typo for million? Ϣere SpielChequers 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to presume based on the surrounding context and the obvious that "million" is meant. Fixed accordingly. Juliancolton (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, that was indeed supposed to be 7 million. ceranthor 03:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

million years ago

We have both "mya" (linked) and "million years ago" in the article. Should we stick with one or the other? Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"poorly glaciated mountains"

What does "poorly glaciated" mean? Is it simply a standard expression I haven't heard before (in which case a link might help)? Does it mean that the result of the glaciation is atypical? Does it mean that the glacier was atypical? I'm partly curious and partly concerned about the whether the term would be understood by readers.--Northernhenge (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Chile

"This most active section of the Andes runs through central and western Chile,"

Western Chile seems like a rather strange concept. Which part of Chile is western Chile ? Anyway, this volcano or caldera is shown on the map as being on or close to the Argentinian frontier. Surely that is eastern Chile ?Eregli bob (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quizapu crater cerro azul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Quizapu crater cerro azul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Seca Tuff

stumbled onto this, not sure if it's any use - or even if it has been cited already? EdwardLane (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cited already, as "Hildreth".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jo-Jo EdwardLane (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing could be improved, not up to FA quality.

In my opinion, the referencing in this article could really use some work. For starters, the inline SFN references aren't linked using a proper template, leading to it not being very clear what publication is being referenced. Also, there is a mix of SFNs and full citations within inline references, which is inconsistent. I think the prose is good enough, but the referencing (including the Bibliography, which has inconsistent cite journal citations in terms of name and date formats) is not nearly up to FA quality.

I have added this article to FARGIVEN.

Cheers! BhamBoi (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that not using the reference templates makes the citation style broken or inconsistent. I did standardize the name and date format a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parking for future reference this list of potential sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BhamBoi: Linking short notes is not a requirement. It is also common to use a consistent format of using inline references for websites, and short notes for journal articles, but some of the journal articles are missed here, and should be converted to short notes. That would require a minor amount of work. None of that is enough to warrant a WP:FARGIVEN. On the other hand, if there is a failure of comprehensiveness per the list of sources given by Jo-Jo, that would be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad. I'll de-list it. BhamBoi (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I shall check for source comprehensiveness, but it might take a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BhamBoi, I see you are changing the citation style; see WP:CITEVAR and did you check with Ceranthor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think that applied as is its still the same style (shortened footnotes) but now is in a linking template. I haven't asked. BhamBoi (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short notes without sfns are an acceptable citation style, and not everyone likes sfns; would be good to hear from Ceranthor, as they might not mind, particularly with you doing the work :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reach out right now. BhamBoi (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a talk message on their page. I'll finish up the changes then revert if contested. Cheers, thanks for the notice! BhamBoi (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind references being converted to the {{sfn}} style if you're volunteering. I do, however, ask that in the future you reach out to the primary author(s) of FAs (or really, any article) before 1. adding templates to the page; 2. changing references based on your personal preferences; and 3. listing the article for FAR. Thanks. ceranthor 19:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, we now have a consistent citation style that involves sfns for journal articles and inline refs for websites. SO, the remaining issue is whether Jo-Jo thinks there are any comprehensiveness issues. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think so, yes. If so I'm happy to work with Jojo to address. ceranthor 21:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paging through the sources, my first impression is that this volcano hasn't seen much research in the past decade. Probably b/c unlike Laguna del Maule (volcano) it doesn't show much sign of ongoing activity. Anyhow, among the sources to use:

[1] Does it warrant mention of the Las Loicas trough? Other source
[2] Does mention two eruptions and codes them as "V" and "S".
[3] Rock art in the "Calabozos" valley, not sure it's about this volcano.

I am adding some information myself; the above list is mainly for unclear sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Jo-Jo! I'll unwatch now, and this is in your competent hands, and we don't seem to be in FAR territory. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Should I just stick to these three above, then? ceranthor 01:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, really, this is something I need second opinions on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other source on geothermics, but I am not sure if it's necessary information: [4] has This is located 240-km southeast of Santiago, in the central-southern zone of Chile, near the border with Argentina. Results include promising possibilities pointed out [47] and [48], based on large volumes of erupted silicic magma, high flow rates of the thermal springs (>240 L/s), and the estimated subsurface temperatures >250�C; hot springs range from chloride and chloride-sulfate to bicarbonate types, suggesting a liquid-dominant geothermal system; and MT-TDEM geophysical surveys, plus water and gas geothermometry, indicate subsurface temperatures 235e300�C Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]