Jump to content

Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleLaguna del Maule (volcano) 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2017Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 14, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
December 17, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 9, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Laguna del Maule is a volcanic field in Chile that has been inflating at a rapid pace during the last decade?
Current status: Featured article

Nice article

[edit]

A little technical, but looks very comprehensive and well written to a non-expert. I took the liberty of removing the unreviewed template after doing some copyedits and reading through the whole article. I don't know the project criteria, but left to my own judgement I would rate it at least B-class. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above. It's well-written and vastly superior to the previous versions. Although, it's more technical than a general interest reader would probably care to know, and in my view this may detract from the most important aspects. Consider, should you really have to wade through climatic descriptions and the evolving density of vesicles to get to the part about near term eruptive potential? Probably at least b-class, but I'm not experienced with article rating. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some of that information is necessary for comprehensiveness - especially given that these things are in separate sections. IMO, excessive detail before important information within the same section is more likely to be a problem, but then I love details so I am most likely not the best person to judge this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by starship.paint

[edit]
Lede and Geography
  • Should we mention that the Andes is a mountain range in the first time of mention in the lede/body?
    Probably yes.
  • If the field is partly overlapping the Chile-Argentina frontier, could you provide more information about which part of Argentina it is in?
    Mmm, Wikimapia suggests it could either be Mendoza or Neuquen province ... will have to check more closely.
  • The field was a source of obsidian with regional importance. - mentioned in the lede but I don't think the body explains this importance well.
    Maybe adding "regional importance" should help there. I agree it's a bit vague.
  • I still don't know how is the obsidian is of regional importance...?
  • I was more of wondering what the obsidian is being used for, since it is important.
  • What is the Paso Pehuenche?
    It's a major mountain pass from Argentina to Chile. For some reason we don't have an article on it...
  • The Domo del Maule lava dome is of rhyolitic composition and generated a northward flowing lava flow that dammed the Laguna del Maule - the appearance of this Domo is very abrupt. The subject should be the Laguna, as the previous paragraphs are about the Laguna.
  • The Colada de las Nieblas also abruptly appeared. What is it?
    Both of the above: Oy. In retrospect this section may be pointless - the source article indicated the authors described these features as the most important ones.
  • If the Colada de las Nieblas is a lava flow, it should be said so.
  • Is it basalt-andesite composition or basaltic andesite composition?
    The former.
  • Especially the older volcanic rocks are affected by glacial action.[14] Some ice effects are still active, with terrain around the Laguna del Maule displaying gelifluction.[14] - these sentences are not very clear.
    Aye, this one needs a wholesale rewrite. Shall look at it later.
  • Should 'The name of the volcanic field comes from the lake,[4] and the Maule river originates in the lake.[20] be moved to paragraph 3?
    Yes. It's more general than mere lake based information.
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - my comment for Geography and structure. starship.paint ~ KO 13:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint Just a note, pings only work if they are in a new line with a new signature - editing them into an already existing post doesn't work. I may edit the article itself later - yesterday I burned myself out on the Pakistani volcano so I am feeling a bit down at the moment.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Present day threat
  • Laguna del Maule is a highly deforming volcanic system needs explanation or wiki-linking. Same for A ground inflation has been noted.
  • possibly due to faults and fluids being pressurized by the intrusion - what fluids, and what intrusion?
  • from injection of magma over migration thereof to volatile phases being released from the magma seens a bit convoluted. Migration of what exactly? Volatile phases of what?
Starship.paint I've edited the article to address these issues. Does it look better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Climate and vegetation
  • Good enough except for a better explanation of Poorly developed moraines preferrred.
  • Writing Poorly developed moraines... and moraines... seems awkward. Are the latter moraines better developed moraines?
Eruptive history
  • Whoa, getting technical here. I'm glad for Wiki-links, but some are higher up in the article. Oh well.
  • rhyodacitic Bobadilla caldera, the ignimbrite borders Laguna del Maule lake in the north - could you relate the caldera to the ignimbrite in this phrase?
  • the Valley unit - why is it called a unit when the rest are not? Same with volcanic units later on - what are they?
  • How do eruptions form a volcano like forming the basaltic Bobadilla Chica volcano?
  • These two phases were erupted within 9,000 years of each other and may have been sourced from different reservoirs - what phases... time phases? and what reservoirs?
  • This rhyolitic flare up - could flare up be explained clearer?
  • provenience - if you could use a simpler word...
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's all from me today. starship.paint ~ KO 08:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: I think I got these issues. Technical writing is indeed an issue, one I cannot easily figure out on my own - I tend to be familiar with such concepts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • It would make more sence to highlight volume rather than "frequency" which seems to be somewhat vague. I guess that by frequency it is meant that rhyolitic rocks are to be found at various locations. Then I do also wonder why is "rhyolitic rocks" used and not just rhyolite. Mamayuco (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact text of the source is The abundance of rhyolites at Laguna del Maule distinguishes this volcanic center from more southerly volcanic complexes in Chile., I agree that "frequency" is probably not the right word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By looking into a geological map and/or some volume estimate is not possible to get some grasp of what might be meant by frequency? Until this done I suggest using the word abundant as a good replacement for frequent in order to use a less technical wording (yet technical but un-precise!) and avoid close paraphrasing. Mamayuco (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tag: Four rock types

[edit]

The following phrase:

"basalt over andesite and dacite to rhyolite, the only place in Chile where all four rock types are found together."

Is with most likehood false. First the source is old. In 1976 very little was known about Chilean volcanoes and it seem to contradict the following sourced statement of the Puyehue-Cordón Caulle article:

"Cinder cones, lava domes, calderas and craters can be found in the area apart from the widest variety of volcanic rocks in all the Southern Zone,[4] for example both primitive basalts and rhyolites."

Mamayuco (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamayuco: I agree, there are some sources claiming that the PCCVC has erupted all four rocks on Google Scholar. Seems like prior to 1976 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle had very little volcanological research done on it, so most likely the claim was true until petrological research was conducted on Puyehue. I wonder, are you perhaps familiar with other Chilean volcanoes that have erupted all these four rocks? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lanín and Villarrica for example. see geochemistry here Mamayuco (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Wikipedia article on the Chilean volcano Zapaleri, Jo-Jo Eumerus wrote that its "Volcanic rocks are andesite, basalt, dacite and rhyolite", with a source reference: Munizaga, Francisco; Marinovic, Nicolas. "Evidencias preliminares de un volcanismo cenozoico superior en el area del Vn. Zapaleri, II Region, Chile" (PDF). SERNAGEOMIN (in Spanish). Second Chilean Geologic Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
Zapaleri is on the borders of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, so a geological map of Zapaleri would probably have to be consulted to confirm if all four rock types occur in the Chilean sector. GeoWriter (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hum - am I using the wrong search terms, or does the SciELO article not mention rhyolite at all? For that matter, the SERNAGEOMIN article (aside from being unsearchable) does not discuss in depth which rocks appear in which part of the area, and it only mentions rhyolite in a diagram. Anyway for Laguna del Maule, based on what is said here perhaps it's best to remove the claim that these four rock types appear only there, at least for PCCVC it's clearly established that all rock types in question have been erupted there during PCCVC's history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I've specified that Puyehue also displays all four rocks. If more volcanoes shown up with this propery, it may need further change. Not sure about Zapaleri (really, for being a volcano beneath a triple point and near to a major obsidian source, there is little coverage of Zapaleri), Lanin and Villarica. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new statment still problematic:

"Dacite and rhyolite are also found, (Laguna del Maule is the only known place in Chile where basalt-andesite-dacite-rhyolite are found together),[4] although the presence of all four rocks was later demonstrated at Puyehue-Cordón Caulle"

There is nothing overly rare with rhyolite, dacite, andesite and basalt erupting from the same volcanic complex. Further Laguna del Maule was in 1976 the only known place in Chile where basalt-andesite-dacite-rhyolite are found together. Again in 1976 is very long ago when it comes to the geology of Chile. In better explored countries with more science perhaps they had by 1976 a good overview of volcanic rock types in each eruptive centre, but this is not the case in Chile. Therefore the 1976 statement is a statement from ignorance that should bot be repeated here. Mamayuco (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine to write something like "basalt, andesite, dacite and rhyolite are found together at Laguna del Maule", but I agree with Mamayuco that the claim, that Laguna del Maule is the only place in Chile where these 4 rock types occur together, should not be included in the article. GeoWriter (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence altogether. If it's that generic it's probably not noteworthy. As an aside, @GeoWriter and Mamayuco:, I wonder if either of you had more comments on the article content, seeing as you are the only folks I've encountered here so far with understanding of geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Excellent complete article, definitely GA

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well written, perfect prose, grammar good
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All very good
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Sources are linked and accessible, also sources where no subscription is needed are available and kept up-to-date
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Perfect
    C. It contains no original research:
    No OR, just a good compilation of information that was already available but never this well summarised
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Nope
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Enough overview of the various themes
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    And also enough detail in the chosen chapters
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No issues
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Nope
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All ok
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Added some relevant ones, could be more added, but that's a personal taste
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    No doubt; another excellent article by Jo-Jo Eumereus, well written, complete, detailed, heavily referenced, interesting and just good
Hum. @Tisquesusa: seems like the passing has not been registered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laguna del Maule (volcano). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some pre-FAC work

[edit]

So, I've begun to do some pre-FAC prep work as I plan to send this article there once Coropuna has passed. One first question that comes is how the list of caldera-forming eruptions in "Eruption history" is best formatted; as is it's a long snake like sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around all of those coordinates is a chore; I'd be a fan of using a table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a map similar to that on Lascar (volcano) would work ... although accessibility would be an issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it doesn't seem like there is a map that shows the Maule region in a sufficient resolution. WeHaKa, since you did create the Atacama map is it possible to make one for the Laguna del Maule area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the resolution of the Demis-maps I used is too poor to make a reasonable location map of the Laguna del Maule surroundings. Let me know, if you find a better map base. WeHaKa (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of hoping that someone could create a freely licensed version of the 1B map here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have a look on what I have found here: https://opentopomap.org/#map=11/-36.0807/-70.5576 WeHaKa (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WeHaKa:I think such a map would be useful iff it includes some of the coordinates and some of the colour coded mapping in the afore mentioned map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the caldera forming eruption section so that it uses less snakes. I am not sure if a table works for the coordinates as it breaks the connection with the location; perhaps putting them in notes would make them less obstructive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I am traveling and can look when home. I will add this to my to-do list; please ping me again if I forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that caldera collapse does not automatically imply an eruption. So unless the the sources directly or indirectly states caldera collapse was accompained by an eruption it should not be listed. Mamayuco (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sourcing, it seems like these caldera forming events did in fact involve eruptions (while not impossible, caldera formation without an eruption is unusual). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, moved the coordinates into notes and added some non-breaking spaces. Still need an idea on how to list the caldera forming eruptions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did apply a prose-based solution, although a list would also work. Courtesy ping to SandyGeorgia although I figure we have more pressing matters to attend to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to SandyGeorgia as I plan to get back to this. You did comment that this has some hyphen and prose issues; I take we are talking about e.g hyphens-after-units like at Talk:Mount Takahe? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, since exam season is beginning to wind down and Mount Takahe passed FAC I can come back to this. Pinging SandyGeorgia in case they have time available too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad italics

[edit]

Jo-Jo, see WP:BADITALICS. Proper nouns in non-English language are not italicized. But this articles uses the Language template on Spanish words, which automatically italicizes them. I'm not sure why use the language template when translations aren't given. The options are to just remove the language templates, or to add the paramter |italic= no on proper nouns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sample
  • {{lang|es|Crater Negro}}, a small cone in the southwestern sector of the volcanic field;
  • renders Crater Negro, a small cone in the southwestern sector of the volcanic field;
  • {{lang|es|Crater Negro|italic=no}}, a small cone in the southwestern sector of the volcanic field;
  • renders Crater Negro, a small cone in the southwestern sector of the volcanic field;
  • Crater Negro, a small cone in the southwestern sector of the volcanic field;
  • (remove the lang template)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did apply |italic=no on all these items. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • Volcanic activity has generated cones, lava domes, lava coulees and lava flows which surround Laguna del Maule lake. The field gets its name from the lake which is also the source of the Maule river. Some of the volcanic centres were active during and before the last glaciation; at least three caldera formation events are associated with the system.

Goes from volcanic activity, to name, back to volcanic activity ... can the sentences be rearranged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, "it has been suggested"? Is it or isn't it? "Has been suggested" seems to suggest attribution or a source is needed as to why this is unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
  • covers a surface area of 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) and contains[1] 130 volcanic vents[12]

Why the citation after contains? Placement is odd ... is it citing the surface area? Is it citing "contains" (which seems to be covered by the next citation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description of individual flows

[edit]

​Basically, the section that begins with Among the various structures in the volcanic field, Domo del Maule lava dome is currently only discusses the systems mentioned in its source. I was wondering if other parts of the system should be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

[edit]

Three major caldera-forming eruptions took place in the volcanic field during pre-last glacial times, 1.5 million, 990,000–950,000, and 336,000 years ago.

This feels tangled, and more detail than needed in the lead, and laypeople need to know that is a defined Period, rather than having to click on the link. Dan it say :
Three major caldera-forming eruptions took place between 336,000 and 1.5 million years ago, before the Last Glacial Period.
Probably better to strip out the exact dates; these are more detail material. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postglacial volcanic activity has included eruptions with simultaneous explosive and effusive components and eruptions where only one component was present.

Could this be:
Postglacial volcanic activity has included eruptions with simultaneous explosive and effusive components, as well as eruptions with only one component.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The field gets its name from the lake which is also the source of the Maule river.

Can this be moved to the end of the first paragraph, right after the lake is mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Laguna del Maule volcanic field is centred around 36.1°S 70.5°W, straddling the Chilean-Argentine frontier with most of the complex on the Chilean side.

Can the coordinates be moved out of the sentence, to a footnote (like others), with ...
The Laguna del Maule volcanic field straddles the Chilean–Argentine frontier,(put coords footnote here) with most of the complex on the Chilean side.
Also note MOS:ENBETWEEN SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved them up to the infobox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The locality belongs to the Maule Region, of Talca province in the Andes mountain range, close to the confluence of the Maule and Campanario rivers in the Maule's valley.

Could it be:
The locality is in the Maule Region of the Talca province in the Andes mountain range; it is close to the confluence of the Maule and Campanario rivers in the Maule valley.
That works and is implemented now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subduction of the Nazca plate beneath the South America plate has formed a volcanic arc about 4,000 kilometres (2,500 mi) long, which is subdivided into several segments distinguished by varying angles of subduction of the Nazca plate.

Subuction of the Nazca plate ... distinguished by ... subduction of the Nazca plate ... redundancy reducing needed, recast the sentence ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the second mention of Nazca; I don't think that we can go without the second mention of subduction as the question would be "angle of what?". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the volcanic belt named the Southern Volcanic Zone alone contains at least 60 volcanoes ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benches and beach bars developed on the lake ...

We don't know what a beach bar is ... either create a stub, or give us an idea here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benches and beach bars developed on the lake,[22] which has left a shoreline around Laguna del Maule.[25] Additionally, tephra fallout has impacted the lake through the Holocene and affected life in the lake waters.[26]

We can guess the shoreline isn't around the volcano, but it's not clear. ANd how has the fallout impacted life ?
Benches and beach bars developed, and left a shoreline around the lake. Tephra fallout through the Holocene has ... describe exactly what it did to the lake ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the "lake". I don't think we can answer the second question - the source doesn't go into detail and nobody had access on WP:RX to another source that looked like it might have more detail, so waiting for another source is the only way to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

with length that varies from 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[29] to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi),

Why can't we say 5 to 6, instead of backwards, 6 to 5? I understand when we have to go backwards on years, but why length? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slopes around Laguna del Maule are covered by colluvium including talus slopes.[20],

Because there is a lake and a volcanic field, this sentences leaves a lack a clarity about whether these are slopes around the lake or slopes throughout the volcanic field, or slopes outside the field ... ??? Also slopes ... slopes ... redundancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subduction of the eastern part of Nazca plate beneath the western margin of the South America Plate occurs at a rate of about 74 ± 2 millimetres per year (2.913 ± 0.079 in/year); this process is responsible for events such as the 1960 Valdivia earthquake and the 2010 Chile earthquake. This subduction process is responsible for the growth of the Chilean Andes and the volcanic and geothermal manifestations therein, including Laguna del Maule which formed 25 kilometres (16 mi) behind the volcanic arc.

Ack. How about ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subduction of the eastern part of Nazca plate beneath the western margin of the South America Plate occurs at a rate of about 74 ± 2 millimetres per year (2.913 ± 0.079 in/year). This subduction process is responsible for growth of the Chilean Andes, and volcanic and geothermal manifestations such as the 1960 Valdivia earthquake and the 2010 Chile earthquake, as well as Laguna del Maule, which formed 25 kilometres (16 mi) behind the volcanic arc.
That works better, added it thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to increased convergence rates of the Nazca and South America plates for the past 28 million years, a phase of strong volcanic activity commenced in the Andes 25 million years ago.

Change "commenced" to "began"? Simpler is better ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cola del Zoro Formation

Worried this is a typo or a source problem? Unfamiliar with the word zoro in Spanish (as opposed to zorro). Doublecheck, and check multiple sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faults lie within the volcanic field, such as the Troncoso Fault in its southwestern sector, which is alternatively described as a strike-slip or as a normal fault and which separates distinct regimes of tectonic and volcanic activity within the Laguna del Maule volcanic field; and various north-south cutting faults are found within the Campanario Formation.

A snake for chopping; way too much info in one sentence, and reader gets lost. Also north TO south = WP:ENDASH north–south. Between and to should always remind one to ENDASH, not hyphen. Maybe ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Faults such as the Troncoso Fault lie within the southwestern sector of the volcanic field. Troncoso is alternatively described as a strike-slip or as a normal fault; it separates distinct regimes of tectonic and volcanic activity within the Laguna del Maule volcanic field. Other north–south cutting faults are found within the Campanario Formation.
And then move mention of the Campanario Formation to the beginning of the next para, which discusses it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did the rewrite, but I am not certain that the Campanario Formation relates to Cerro Campanario in a way that could be easily expressed if we merge them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna del Maule has erupted andesite, basaltic andesite,[12] basalt,[39] dacite,[2] rhyodacite and rhyolite,[39] the andesites and basaltic andesites having medium K contents[48] and in the Loma de Los Espejos rocks a SiO2 content of 75.6–76.7% per weight has been noted.

Needs disentangling-- two sentences? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's split now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several silicic rocks are known from the Quaternary.

Unsure what this is trying to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cut that mention altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The total volume of volcanic rocks that are part of the Laguna del Maule volcanic field is over 350 cubic kilometres (84 cu mi), of which about 40 cubic kilometres (9.6 cu mi) were emplaced postglacially.

"Total of" is almost always redundant (good to go through all exercises at User:Tony1, he also explains dashes and hyphens). How about ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the more than 350 cubic kilometres (84 cu mi) of volcanic rock in the Laguna del Maule field, about 40 cubic kilometres (9.6 cu mi) were emplaced postglacially.
Took that up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mostly postglacial Lake unit includes glassy rhyolite ...

When words connected together modify a noun (unit) like this, they require hyphens ... better to recast the sentence ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Lake unit is mostly postglacial and includes glassy rhyolite ...
The postglacial rocks have very similar element compositions. --> More direct, The postglacial rocks are composed of similar elements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SEASON, reader might not know when these occur there: Precipitation related to cold fronts falls during autumn and winter,, spell out months of autumn and winter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done but I am a little concerned about WP:OR in that context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum what? with a maximum occurring between 25,600 ± 1,200 and 23,300 ± 600 years ago SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum extent I presume. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During this time a 80 kilometres wide ice cap covered the volcano and the surrounding valleys.

This is the kind of construct with modifiers that requires hyphenation. It should be "80-kilometre-wide" ice cap, but with a convert, that becomes ugly, so recasting the sentence is better. Something like, An ice pat that was 80 kilometres wide ... so it does not modify a noun requiring hyphenation. I just am going to run out of time to keep fixing hyphens and endashes :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the alternative is less ugly but also a lot longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Eruptive history

[edit]

Jo-Jo, I see a lot of work needed from Eruptive history on; if you are able to work through it again (noting issues like those above), and then message me on my user talk, I will review those two sections after you've been through. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:I've done some cleanup, but I think here a big question is a general structure one: What is the ideal structure for a section that consists mainly of many combinations of date-name-some details. A bulleted list? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eruptive history
Date Name Location Notes
and
Sources
I will keep that question in mind when I turn my attention back to those sections ... I need a day or two to finish up some work with Eyoungstrom, who is going to think I've fogotten him!! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if you do a table? Because I am not looking forward to reading through all these numbers. Let me know what you decide, and I will continue with this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'll see to it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow; a bit late for it this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. That took five days. And tablification was a pain. The Holocene paragraph will need some dissection; not all of its content fits for a table. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will be worth it :) But I am now completely confused, so will start a whole new section below to try to explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Present-day threat

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference LeMevel6593 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Amigo463 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • and the total deformation has reached 1.8 metres (5 ft 11 in)[105] to 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in).[
Total since when ? what time period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume until 2018 (the publication date) but the sources do not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of a sill is also supported by magnetotelluric measurements indicating conductivity anomalies at depths of 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) beneath the western side of the volcanic field and at 8–9 kilometres (5.0–5.6 mi) depth beneath its northern part, indicating the presence of rhyolitic melt, but they do not show a magmatic system associated with the southeastern vents, leaving their magma supply route uncertain.
Cut into two sentences? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A volume of 115 cubic kilometres (28 cu mi) of crystal-rich mush with about 30 cubic kilometres (7.2 cu mi) magma embedded within the mush have been estimated. This reservoir may have moved away from the old vents towards its present-day position and is being resupplied by more crystal-poor deeper magmas.
I got lost in this. Can it be:
A reservoir of crystal-rich mush estimated as having a volume of 115 cubic kilometres (28 cu mi), with about 30 cubic kilometres (7.2 cu mi) of magma embedded within the mush, may have moved away from the old vents towards its present-day position. It is being resupplied by more crystal-poor deeper magmas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that can work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swarms of earthquakes occur every two or three months and can last from half an hour to three hours.
This needs a time frame ... Since x year, over the last decade, since the X period ... something delimiting it. Does it go back to the uplifting that seems to have began around 2004 ? Since the uplifting began is the time frame? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the timeframe, but it reflects only one study. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this can be fixed. But. Baños Campanario makes no sense in Spanish, and I see other places refer to it as Baños del Campanario, which is grammatically correct. I guess it depends on what your sources say, but ick ... weird to read Baños Campanario, which is ungrammatical Spanish.
    Similarly, please check your sources for Colada Las Nieblas vs. Colada las Nieblas (article las no uppercase). Elsewhere the article uses Colada de las Nieblas which is even better. Note the correct use of Caverna de las Brujas and Laguna del Maule (correct uppercase on articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. Seems like the issue may be that toponyms tend to drift from correct grammar, especially when used in non-native language sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another proposal is that the inflation may be situated in a hydrothermal system[121] although there is little evidence for the existence of such a system at Laguna del Maule, unless the Baños Campanario 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) away are part of one.
Overall, I don't know how to fix this or explain why it's convoluted. A better copyeditor than me (that's just about everyone) may flag up things like this and/or fix them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote that, but yeah, it's hard to put that in good terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laguna del Maule is considered to be one of the most dangerous volcanoes of the Southern Andean volcanic belt.
Would it make sense for this to be the first sentence of the section, so the readers knows where all these numbers are going? Should this be mentioned in the lead? It seems significant enough for lead mention.

Done with this section (Jo-Jo, I hope you realize you can revert anything I do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm. For such a strong statement to appear in the lead, I'd probably want to see if 2019 or 2020 sources agree ... the latter no earlier than Christmas though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC: image alt texts

[edit]

The alt text for the infobox image should not just repeat the image caption information; alt texts are missing for the other images. See MOS:ALT for advice.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This is partially a reply to the replies on my query at WT:FAC) @RL012729:Deduplicated links and added ALT text. I removed the images of Chaiten and Descabezado Grande because they are two other volcanoes. @Buidhe:, the citation format is deliberate; the footnote is for the per-page-number references and the bibliography for all these where I used more than one page number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, good work but there are still at least two dup links, see "Sr" for example.  ~ RLO1729💬 10:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am only seeing one, and the Sr is deliberate (for clarity). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sr linked in last para of "Composition of erupted lavas and pyroclasts", then twice in next para.  ~ RLO1729💬 11:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it uses Template:Strontium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, in those cases when the caption is adequate for alt text, you can say, “See caption”. On dup links, it os important to check for them, and eliminate dupes where appropriate, but also to remember that guidelines are guidelines (Not policy), our first service is to our readers, and occasionally in very technical articles, it can be necessary or useful to repeat links. I do not believe any Coord would disagree that some leeway and discretion is allowed on very technical topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive history queries

[edit]

Pardon my ignorance while I lay out lots of things I don't understand :) I like that the table eliminates a whole lot of number-filled text. But it presents things that show my ignorance of the topic (which I think would be typical for layreaders), and that I only figure out after studying it for a long time.

  • First I encounter that eruptions occur about every 1,000 years ... but the chart shows nothing of the sort.
  • And I encounter that Laguna del Maule has been active since 1.5 million years ago ... but the chart shows half that on dates.
  • Then I read that Eruptions include both caldera-forming events and eruptions which did not leave a caldera ... so the reader expects the text to be divided accordingly ... and I eventually figure out that the table is only of the non-caldera forming? A heading to say that ? But even better ...
  • Caldera says they form right after an eruption, so reader is confused why the caldera-forming don't show in chart ... so figures out that the chart is only non-caldera forming ... better just to add the caldera-forming to the chart, which would be ideal, as less number-laden text to read. That could be accomplished by adding a column that indicates caldera-forming vs. non-caldera-forming. And doing that would eliminate all of the confusion I mentioned in my points above, as the reader eventually figures out that we have caldera and non-caldera-forming, but only one of them in the chart ... why not add all in the chart, and use the notes field for the text. Much easier on the reader.

I'll keep going after decision is made on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a bit of a "well the sources say this so that's what we'll say as well" matter:
  • I dunno. I think that applies more to the Holocene whose list isn't tablified yet.
  • That's presumably an artifact - older eruptions tend to be buried by younger ones, so the eruption record becomes sparser the longer back you go.
  • That was only to prevent duplication and because calderas are discussed a little more in-depth.
  • I am not so sure about that. Caldera forming eruptions leave more evidence than others, putting them in the same list might suggest that there is a pattern of caldera forming eruptions followed by a patter without them when no source suggests so.
That's it basically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how can we fix these so that other readers aren't stymied as I was? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it'll look clearer after the Holocene is tabulated, which I'll try tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tabulated the Holocene in three tables, as there is some table-unsuitable info that has to be put in between to keep it chronological. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you change the threetable headings to more specifically state what each table summarizes? Will read today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great ... I'll read through that section then, and I suspect you are as close as you can get to being FAC ready after that. I am dizzy by now with the numbers, and expect that there may still be some prose smoothing needed at FAC. I am wondering if the sub-section headings in the Eruptive history section can be trimmed? I have done all I can for now-- time for fresh eyes! Unwatching, ping me if needed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgiaI don't think that will work - it'd leave the paragraphs with no indication of their content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

I do not see any rationale for adding a (unsourced and poorly written) pronunciation of the name on the page. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the pronunciation is not obvious for anglophones. I have responded more fully on your talk page. Awien (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying here to centralise discussion:

Indicating the pronunciation is not a random parenthetical. It is the addition of pertinent information. But do feel free to supplement it with the IPA if you wish. Cheers! Awien (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of merely removing useful information, why don't you fix the wording to your satisfaction? Improve, don't delete. Also, uncontroversial common-knowledge facts don't need to be referenced, and there's nothing controversial about this pronunciation, which simply might not be obvious to Anglophones.

Please self-revert.

Awien (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. A hispanophone says the name in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRdyHM_cfZs How about this, since "rhymes with" is specifically permitted: Pron. MAU (rhymes with "cow") le (rhymes with "lay").

Awien (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree for a couple of reasons:
  • One, that parenthetical was very poorly written; the examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation and Help:IPA have a distinct formatting and are not written in this chatty tone. I don't have the understanding with which to write an IPA note.
  • Two, I cannot find any evidence anywhere that pronunciation of foreign terms is exempt from the normal sourcing requirements. Remember, this is a Wikipedia:Featured article and thus there are stronger expectations with respect to sourcing. And I am rather doubtful that a YouTube video in and of itself constitutes an adequate source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."
So don't delete pertinent information because you disapprove of the tone and/or the format. Fix the tone and the format. WP is supposed to be a collaborative venture.
Awien (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also disapprove of the lack of sourcing, and "lack of sourcing" is a legitimate reason to delete content especially when the content is poorly written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The video was FYI, because you seem to think I'm wrong, but now at least you know I'm right: the Chilean reporter on a Chilean television station talking about this Chilean volcano pronounces it MAU (rhymes with "cow") le (rhymes with "lay"). As for finding an acceptable source for the pronunciation, you're not going to for the same reason you're not going to find a source for the pronunciation of Heukäufer or Eumerus: the spelling of Spanish, like German, is fully phonetic and therefore self-evident if you know the rules. Most Anglophones don't, so need help. Awien (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't thinking that you were wrong, I was thinking that you weren't giving sources and these are an expectation of Wikipedia articles, especially FAs like this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So is the source for this pronunciation just the one video of someone speaking the word? Because for this kind of thing, you'll need a source stating directly that that is the standard pronunciation. A simple video of someone talking isn't enough, as that's only a source for how that one person says the word unless its directly stated that that's the standard pronunciation. I usually pronounce "fire" as "fahr" and "iron" and "ahrn", but that doesn't mean that's how those words are really generally pronounced in AmEng. A simple video of one person saying it is not enough to reliably source the standard pronunciation. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, do read before you respond. Awien (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anglophones who don't know Spanish will not have a too distorted impression on the actual Spanish ponunciation. First language Anglophones are accostumed to Spanish, including placenames in the US, familiar words like amigo as well as hearing it. Spanish and English are languages with a long history of knowing and influencing each other, as well as having much common heritage (e.g. Latin, Latin alphabet) What I am saying is that inclusion pronunciuation would be more critical if Spanish was one of such "rare" languages of which a normal Anglophone would have no clue on how the words may sound. Mamayuco (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamayuco, what you say may be somewhat true for the US, but certainly not for the rest of the Anglophone world. Most anglophones would probably pronounce Maule to rhyme with haul + y. Awien (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict. My response to Eumerus:
"Ignore all rules" is one of Wikipedia's core principles.
Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Clarifications include:
"Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."
"Editing Wikipedia is all about making improvements, not following rules." See above for why giving the pronunciation is an improvement to this article.
IPA (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈmawle]), MAU(rhymes with "cow")-le(rhymes with "lay")
Sincerely, Awien (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is tempting to add a pronunciation in the format of "MAU (rhymes with "cow") le (rhymes with "lay")", my reading of the Manual of Style section on pronunciation, combined with my own linguistics knowledge and foreign language use, leads me to the conclusion that foreign words should have IPA pronunciations only, because any other style is very likely to be not actually accurate - it may be close but close is not good enough in an encyclopedia. By the way, I encountered a very similar issue with the pronunciation of the New Zealand volcano Whakaari in the Whakaari / White Island article. The correct Maori pronunciation is nowhere near how it looks at first sight to non-Maori speakers. At first, I was very tempted to add a non-IPA pronunciation (Fa-KHAA-Dee) but after finding that this is discouraged for foreign words by the Manual of Style, I forced myself to resist the temptation of adding it to that article. I'd resist doing similar in this Maule article. Awien, I respect your good faith intention to improve the article, but I do not agree that a non-IPA-format pronunciation should be included in this Laguna del Maule (volcano) article. GeoWriter (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, GeoWriter. So setting aside the phonetic respelling, you would be in favour of giving at least the IPA? And thanks for telling me how to pronounce Whakaari. I would never have guessed. I would also totally support your adding it to the article on the grounds that usefulness overrides unquestioning adherence to "rules". Cheers, Awien (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an IPA pronunciation for Maule (using the IPA-es template) would be a relevant and helpful piece of information to include in the article. Perhaps native speakers of Spanish (at this talk page and also at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language) may be able to give some help on Spanish IPA pronunciation(s). GeoWriter (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, then: (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈmawle]) Awien (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sfns to template and make consistent.

[edit]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus, I noticed on this article that the shortened footnotes are not using templates, and I think it would aid in navigation if I moved them to the {{sfn}} templates. Would that be okay? Also, I noticed that some journal cites are inline, when they should be moved to bib. Is it okay if I make these changes? BhamBoi (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, OK. Careful about not accidentally moving citations or pagenumbers around, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did it just fine over at Calabozos, I can't really do this one because of the block-defined references, so I'll just leave it as-is. BhamBoi (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table of individual centres

[edit]

Hildreth and Fierstein 2024 and Hildreth 2010 have a list of units/centres, but I don't have the stamina to put a table entry for each one. I've opted to mention these that have some topographic structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laguna_del_Maule_(volcano)&oldid=1257128792"