Talk:Huaynaputina

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Huaynaputina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Huaynaputina 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 will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2025.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 2, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
March 26, 2021	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 12, 2021	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 19, 2009, February 19, 2010, February 19, 2011, February 19, 2013, February 19, 2015, February 19, 2017, February 19, 2018, February 19, 2019, February 19, 2021, February 19, 2022, and February 19, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Volcanoes High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peru High‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Peru To-do:

Assess and prioritise articles (log)
Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate
Create:
Expand: new articles; top importance articles
FAC / FLC: Peru national football team
GAN:
Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture
Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes
Translate: National University of San Marcos
Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive
Wikify: articles needing attention

Mountains High‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

IUGS heritage site

How much information do we take from this. I've put in a small paragraph here. This paragraph seems kind of excessive, especially since the IUGS site isn't actually the volcano that the article is about; rather, it's the archaeological site that is mentioned in passing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 update

Mostly done, save for the following:

"Ekaykin, A. A., and A. N. Veres. "Temperature shifts in Central Antarctica after major volcanic eruptions in the second millennium of the Common Era." АРКТИКИ И АНТАРКТИКИ 69.3 (2023): 375" unknown source and do we need a discussion on temperature of Antarctica?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geotourism section?

I am not sure whether this report on its own justifies a section on geotourism (maybe with a secondary source?), but if we want a section then it would be an eminently well-suited source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 update

This Spanish meta-discussion about the relative importance of religious and scientific interpretations may be worth citing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Opening discussion on whether we need the footnotes to explain terms. I know at FAC some people want the terms explained and not just linked to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsee this is a featured article, if you want to make changes, major / bodywide ones, discuss with the other editors, you do not have the right to enforce your ediorial changes without notifying Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No other article I have ever seen uses footnotes in this way. All of the footnotes that I removed were redundant as the term that might need explaining was already linked. Readers can follow links; it's the whole point of a hyperlinked encyclopaedia. Atsee (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References do not have to be directly after the claim made; they just need to be the next reference after the claim, even if there is an intervening sentence. What is a problem is when a different reference is between the claim and its source; that's bad, because it makes the claim look like it depends on the different reference, which may not support it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, if anything, is wrong with this version, from before Atsee's first edit? Atsee, Dora the Axe-poorer is right -- you can certainly edit a featured article, but if it's featured it means multiple editors have agreed to the text, so you should generally be a bit more cautious, and if reverted the talk page is the way to go. And re the footnotes, personally I'm OK with linking terms but there are many editors who feel explanatory footnotes are helpful in articles with a lot of technical terms. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with it is what I put in my edit summaries. Did you read them? Atsee (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are major changes you're making to a FA without actively searching for a concensus with other editors. edit summaries are not a place for discussion. Stop this behaviour or you will be reported to the administrators Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting for no reason other than to edit-war. Atsee (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor that seem to disagree with the footnote placement and inline cite. You are the one with the problem, don't turn this argument around. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the only editor who disagrees with you; I do and apparently so does Jo-Jo. Dora the Axe-plorer, I don't think they've reached 3RR yet -- it takes three reverts in a 24-hour period, which as far as I can see has not happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are three reverts though, and an IP revert earlier. The first username revert didn't trigger the undo tag but the edit summary suggest a revert and subsequent changes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I see that Atsee ate an indef block. Does anyone else agree/disagree with keeping/removing the footnotes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reverting to the version before their first edit, unless there are intervening beneficial edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]