Talk:Mount Meager massif

Hot springs & geothermal proposals/research site

Just a note that this is probably the place to do the material on the Meager Creek Hotsprings, unless those are to be documented separately; if they are, then so should the geothermal research site on the mountain's/massif's NE flank. I suspect there are separate cats for hotsprings and for geothermal developments, so if they're included here then those cats should be as well (?).Skookum1 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have herd of the Meager Creek Hotsprings and I was going to add it to the artcle since they are part of Mount Meager.Black Tusk 2:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Range template inappropriate

Just noticed the "notable volcanoes of the Cascades" template has been placed here; no doubt on Garibaldi as well. I wouldn't have an issue with it if it said "notable volcanoes of the Cascade Volcanic Belt" or Cascade whatever-it-is: it's not the Cascade Range. I haven't looked at the edit history to see if you placed this; could have been a statesider for all I know; but unless the Cascades template is reworded in its titling and doesn't focus on the "High Cascades" volcanoes, it's not suitable for a Canadian volcano, even Garibaldi (which Americans continue to think is in the Cascades, as if none of the rest of the Coast Mountains were and it weren't on the far side of the Fraser. Don't mean to be snippy, I'm just very particular about definitions; and even more particular about fuzzification of them. Is the template from the Cascade Range bunch, or from the WikiProject Mountains, do you know? If it's the latter I'll take it up with them in the forum there....BTW I found a really amazing couple of shots of the top of Meager, maybe it's Plinth or Devastator I'm not sure; google "Randall and Kat's Flying Photos" and tour the first flight, the 2006 one to Chilko Lake. User:KenWalker currently has a request in for permission to be able to use their pics for illustrating Wikipedia; have a tour of any of the flights and you'll see why....Skookum1 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who put it there, and I tried to put it as Cascade Volcanoes, but it didn't work Black Tusk (UTC)

PS here's the link to Randall and Kat's Flying Photos. Enjoy. (100s of great pics!).Skookum1 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see who made it, and take it up with them; probably at the Mountains project, I suspect, if not directly from Cascade Range; probably both.Skookum1 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to direct to Cascade Volcanoes, 'cause that's its title even if the volcanoes part isn't capitalized in the template name (it should have been, if they're going to use the phrase; othewise "volcanoes in the Cascade Range" y'see, which of course wouldn't include Garibaldi and northwards...the confusion partly dates to a time when the whole cordillera, even the Purcells or Selkirks were considered "the Cascades" - but not "Cascade Range", more "Cascade Mouhtains" until formalization of geographic and geological analysis got going, and on their separate paths, too, as geographic regions only rarely correspond to geological ones; the old usage and context can be seen on some topo maps which will say, on the spine of the Lillooet Ranges around Joffre, "summit of the Cascades as defined for legal purposes". But the term there is "the Cascades", not "Cascade Range", which is an American term; it's all confusing, as people always say Coast Range but the proper official name is Coast Mountains; why, I don't know; but it is citable that there are usages in BC where Cascades means the Coast Mountains not as a legal definition of same, but as a terminology in law to name the whole range, which hadn't been really named at that time (it would have been the Royal Engineers who first chartered that, then a guy named Frank Swannell, who needs an article...); just an abstraction, not a designation; and there was Cascade, B.C., somewhere along Highway 3 or so between Trail and Cranbrook, but I'll have to look at my ghost towns book again; in the silver rush, the mountains around there were also referred to as the Cascades...and those were largely Americans, as in the gold rush, and you'd think they'd know better; on the other hand lately Red Mountain's ad campaign has moved the Rossland Range to the "Kootenay Rockies" (which to me means on the east side of the Trench....).Skookum1 07:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NorthAmNative template inclusion

I've decided to add this particular page to the Indigenous poeples of North America WikiProject because the hot springs have a First Nations-lore component and it should be introduced and hopefully honed by First Nations contributions/perspective over time: the springs were named Teiq althoug I don't know what it means, or what the current spelling is; they were the farthest up the Lillooet River the spirit-beings/wizards known as The Transformers reached during their journey into the Lillooet Country, and were a "training" place for young First Nations men who would private themselves at the springs to acquire power and knowledge. In this area, also, was found the blackstone chief's head pipe that is so famopus of Lillooet artifacts; found buried in volcanic ash, one supposes from the 2500BP eruption of Meager; if its location and depth were recorded when it was found (BC Museum, or Vancouver Museum, not sure which; maybe MusAnthro at UBC...), it could be pinned to that eruption specifically; evidence of a high culture in the region before the volcano let loose; similarly in the lower Fraser Valley although there I can't remember if the story had to do with the volcano (Baker) or with the river (google Xa:ytem.

Picture

This could really use a picture"s", since it is generally considered the northermost major Cascade volcano as I read on the artical Cascade Volcanoes...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.206.52 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have lots of photos of this area, so I added one showing the three major peaks. I also have other photos of most of the individual peaks in the Meager group; Plinth, Capricorn, Pylon, Devastator. I'll add those to the other articles later. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Skier, do you have a picture of Perkin's Pillar? I'm just wondering, because it's a volcanic plug on the steep north side of Capricorn Mountain. Black Tusk 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no photos of Perkin's Pillar, either before or after its collapse. There is an excellent photo on the cover of the Geological Association of Canada 2003 field trip guide, with a helicopter hovering above the unbroken Pillar. Since the Pillar has now collapsed, this photo may be eligible for fair use under Wikipedia guidelines, or the photographer (a Geological Survey of Canada volcanologist) may agree to release it under a free license. I'll send her an email asking about it. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you have a photo of the north face of Plinth Peak? If you do, it could be useful for the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager article, since Plinth Peak is the most recent peak of Mount Meager to erupt. Why I'm asking for the north face is because It's the remnant of the inner crater wall, which was destroyed from the last eruption. Black Tusk 08:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have several photos of the north face of Plinth, including some which show the area of the vent for the 2350 BP eruption. I've been too busy this month to edit Wikipedia much, but I'll add some photos when I have more time (and also try to follow up on the Perkin's Pillar photo). --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For an FA...

This article is close to FA, but could use some touching up. Needs:

• References

• Expanded information

Once we get there, I'll see how we are doing. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is nowhere near FA or GA....it needs more references, infomation, sections and explanations. It also needs to be comprehensive, well writen and not just focusd on geology, although there is probably nothing much else to mention because it lies in a more remote location then the other Cascade volcanoes further south. If someone is interested improving this article to FA or GA I would participate. There is lots of geology about this volcano and is hazardous due to landslides and debris flows. Black Tusk (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, notice that was months ago. And um, lol, once we get there... —Ceran [ speak ] 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of these times I'm going to get this article to one of those ratings. I'm not trying to make this sound effensive, but lots of Canadians are blank with geography so no wonder lots of Canadian geography articles are rated "low importance" and don't get anything. I understand the harsh explosive power of Meager unlike many others and I know there's people living around Meager that arn't aware of the dangers. Researchers warn Meager could release a massive debris flow over inhabited areas anytime without warning and it will erupt again - basically an equality of Mount Rainier in Washington State. There's probably disasters related to Meager that nobody knows about, given the thickness of volcanic ash in this area. I may take this seriously but anyone who does not agree or thinks I'm fooling around must be mentally sick and should go to hell. An unexpected full-scale eruption or massive debris flow from Meager would be a catastrophe.....Finally, I'd be curious to see how many users would reply to this message. Black Tusk (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of this problem boils down to the merger of all the Canadian WPs and the creation of subs like Geog and Hist; not having subproject-specific ratings means a lot of otherwise important articles are given "low" because that's where they stand on teh (arbitrarily-judged) national scale. As for Meager's rating in WPCanGeog, it should have at least a Mid rating.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am going to start working on this article by gathering information so I can make a major expansion during one edit. This article will eventually become GA or FA status. Black Tusk (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP Abandoned Articles?

Who put that on there? I just read its project page, they said they picked the 1000 articles with the least-recent edits, which doesn't seem right here; the danger with that project is they may decide to send it to [WP:PROD]]. Huh?Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can remove that project if you want. Black Tusk (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Other articles were added as well, such as Tseax Cone, Mount Cayley, Mount Edziza, Mount Garibaldi and Hoodoo Mountain. It dosen't really matter if some of those articles don't get anything because I'll probably rewrite some of them. Black Tusk (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am plaining to do a major rewrite and expansion for this article with better sources once I have everything figured out. There is quite a bit about this mountain that could use some coverage. Volcanoguy 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. It is quite comprehensive now. Volcanoguy 21:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

questions during copy edit

• During copy editing, I noticed that there is a distinction b/w the Mount Meager massif and Mount Meager "proper". I do not believe this distinction is drawn clearly enough in the article (don't rush to fix it; it needs some thought). Moreover, does this mean the page should be moved to "Mount Meager massif", or...? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No it dosen't as the massif is commonly referred to as simply "Mount Meager" (WP:COMMONNAME). I would have thought this distinction would have been clear with "Mount Meager proper" in the infobox caption. Volcanoguy 06:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Many readers ignore infoboxes. At the very least, a bit in the WP:LEDE noting this distinction would be useful to such readers... more may also be necessary... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I just added "These form at least six major summits, including Mount Meager proper which is the second highest of the massif." to the first paragraph in introduction and reworded the sentence before that one to make it more obvious that the massif consists of several smaller summits. "Its summit is 2,680 m (8,790 ft) above sea level" sounds like a single mountain makes up the massif so I changed that to "Its maximum elevation is 2,680 m (8,790 ft)". Volcanoguy 08:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is clearly much better, in my opinion. Mmm, thinking aloud here (your input requested):

Mount Meager refers to both a volcanic massif comprised of six major summits in southwestern British Columbia, Canada, as well as its second highest summit, Mount Meager proper. Part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc of western North America, the massif is located 150 km (93 mi) north of Vancouver at the northern end of the Pemberton Valley, and reaches a maximum elevation of 2,680 m (8,790 ft). It is capped by several eroded volcanic edifices, including lava domes, volcanic plugs and overlapping piles of lava flows.

Note that this omits "originally known as Meager Mountain" and "in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor". Actually, after this ambiguity is cleared up, it makes much more sense to go back to copy editing the body text rather than altering the lede, which should be saved for last... this bit just sticks out, though... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I am wondering with that wording is why mention the two of them first thing while the article is mainly about the massif? The Mount Meager summit is a small topic in the article. I remember there was a discussion about "comprised of" somewhere and the result was to replace all "comprised of" with better phrases in WP articles. Volcanoguy 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that occurred to me too. You can either let it drift lower and run the risk that the relationship will be misunderstood (the reason it is crystal clear to you is that you are quite used to the idea that massifs and mounts can share a name.. until I read this article, I had no idea what a massif was), or put it at the top and run the risk that the reader will be puzzled about which of the two the article is actually about. Perhaps your way is indeed best, then, as the lesser of two potential problems... I must have missed the "comprised of" discussion you're referring to; can't imagine why anyone would want to disallow such a common expression (but Wikipedia is a weird place)... I was quite happy when I cut the "Sea-to-Sky Corridor", because it seems unrelated, and ditto for cutting the "originally known as". They both seem like excess information in the lede (entirely permissible in the body text). I was also happy to move the mention of six major summits higher up... but in retrospect, I agree that moving ME proper up may cause more problems than it solves... so...Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't the wording I made above clear? The reason I put the six summit and Meager proper bit at the end of the first paragraph was because the geologic features (e.g. volcanic plugs, domes, lava flows) show what the six summits are made of hence in the article body. I don't understand how the Sea-to-Sky Corridor is not related. It is a region Meager is located in. Volcanoguy 06:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly more clear. It may even be sufficiently clear. I was thinking that putting the bit about six summits nearer the opening was perhaps the clearest option, since it implicitly defines "massif" (for the uninformed reader) by giving a thumbnail sketch of this one's composition. In any event, I am only thinking aloud and testing my thoughts...the Sea-to-Sky Corridor is the location of the mount in relation to local highways. I was thinking that the references to "50 km (93 mi) north of Vancouver at the northern end of the Pemberton Valley" and "Garibaldi Volcanic Belt" adequately established its location w. respect to man-made and geographic landmarks, respectively. If you think the Sea-to-Sky Corridor info helps tourists or something, I suppose it is useful, but even so I am not sure I would put it in the lede. [By the way, somewhere or other I saw an article with extremely explicit driving directions. I'll scare it up again when I revisit this article in a few days... I also saw another with long and very detailed explanations of the geothermal exploration; ditto on the finding it again later.. did you mention meager is the most recently active in the area etc.?]... Again, I am testing opinions, and am open to any different opinions you have.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right about the Sea-to-Sky Corridor. I replaced it with the mountain range Meager is located in, which I suppose is better because it is a natural feature. Volcanoguy 12:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• "At least eight volcanic vents constitute Meager".. would that be massif, or proper? If it's the former, the sentence is in the wrong place. Actually it's in the wrong place if it's the latter as well... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It refers to the Mount Meager massif. Volcanoguy 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is the difference between "regional setting" and "local geography"? Looks to me like the latter could be moved up to the former; perhaps some info is repeated, and the bit about forests etc. in the latter is reminiscent of the discussion of streams in the former....Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "regional setting" section was mainly for geology of the Meager massif and "local geography" for the geography in the area. I don't have a problem merging the two sections but the section title would have to be changed. Volcanoguy 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The term "setting" seems a bit less than clearly defined. Sure you could argue that geormophology is a part of setting and local flora fauna streams etc etc are too, but... would it be better to differentiate the topics to a finer granulation? Forex, the "regional setting" sections seems to be almost all about geomorphology; should it be "regional geormorphology"...? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be better to change "setting" to "geomorphology". Volcanoguy 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is the difference b/w local and regional that GVB = local and CVA = regional? or is "local" even smaller, and equal to "within the Mount Meager massif area"? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The later. It is about the massif. Volcanoguy 10:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article contradicts itself about the northernmost point of the GVB. Moreover, does all that info about the GVB belong in this article? I'm not definitively saying that it doesn't. I'm asking. But... to me... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes. The paragraph is about the uncertain nature of Mount Meager in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, not the belt itself. There are sources that describe Silverthrone as the northernmost and others describe Meager as the northernmost. For example, stating Mount Meager is the northernmost volcano of the Garibaldi Belt could be an error because volcanoes north of Meager like Silverthrone are poorly studied. The inclusion of rock types from Silverthrone and Franklin are there to show evidence that the tectonic processes that created Meager probably extend north to Franklin, Silverthrone and maybe the Milbanke Sound Cones. It is pretty much there to avoid confusion, similar to the distinguish between Mount Meager proper and Mount Meager massif. Volcanoguy 10:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article places the northernmost point of the GVB at the Ha-Iltzuk Icefield. Now, it's true that the content of one article is not "responsible for" the content of another, so to speak, so technically there is no reason for the two to jibe. However, that is a mere technicality. From an intuitive point of view, there is every reason for the articles to have some uniformity. If the issue is under debate, the debate needs to be covered well in at least one article, and all related articles need to link back to that coverage of the debate... Is Mount meager the logical place to discuss this? Or the GVB article, or even the CVA article??? I defer to your opinion. It is of course OK to duplicate text between/among articles, but that practice should be held to a minimum.

It is stated in the Meager article that there is no definate boundary of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. The GVB article uses the broader form; extending north of Meager to Franklin and Silverthrone. Volcanoguy 01:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for the different lengths of the GVB if Meager is its northernmost peak and if Plinth is? It is strictly necessray, but it would help readers make sense of the debate, IMO.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Volcanoguy 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why does Bridge River vent get its own section, but seven other vents do not? Are they unnamed, or somehow insignificant? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The later. It is also more worthy to note than the other vents. Volcanoguy 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think the hydrothermal energy section (one paragraph) is a little underdeveloped (a little too short, and more importantly, too vague...no dates, etc.)... Jessop, A (2008). Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5906 (which you can view online via Google Books) has excellent info about hydrothermal exploration etc. that begins on page 33 and goes to the top of 45. In fact, this 2008 source says that commercial use of hydrothermal power was slated to begin in 2011–12. Did this fall through... or...? I suppose you could email the private company for info about this... The geothermal energy paragraph(s) should at the very least mention that there were two phases (gov't and private), list the organizations involved and date the periods of exploration, give at least a few sentences of summary of each phase... and might mention future commercial use (see above).
• That whole section could use an organizing sentence at its very beginning, to give the reader some orientation, e.g, there has been some pumice mining since xx year and exploration since xx year, with possibilities for future development.
• The "Local geomorphology" section talks about "at least four overlapping stratovolcanoes" in its frst sentence, but then a few sentences down we see "he volcano is made of volcanic rocks ranging...". Which volcano? meager proper? or is that a typo?

Revised. Volcanoguy 04:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• After you beef that up with 2 or 3 or sentences, I suggest you do these things:

1. double-check my edits to check for idiotic mistakes
2. rework the WP:LEDE to make sure it covers all major sections of the article (and BTW, the lede mentions both GVB and CVB, which believe it or not is quite confusing to the lay reader because you don't discuss their relationship to one another.. strongly suggest you either omit one of those two [my first preference] or explain their relationship [second option, but makes the lede a little diffuse])
3. send it through WP:PR (optional, but recommended)
4. Send it back to WP:FAC.

• Good luck! Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Eruptions and megathrust earthquakes

It has been clearly established that large earthquakes can trigger explosive and effusive volcanic eruptions worldwide. An example is the 1960 eruption of Cordón Caulle in Chile, which occurred 38 hours after the main shock of the 1960 Valdivia earthquake. Apparently volcanoes that rarely erupt are more susceptible to such ‘extrinsic triggering’. Thus Meager would probably count as one of them since its eruptions are typically separated by thousands of years. This hazard could be serious since scientists say the Cascadia subduction zone is overdue for a massive earthquake. Any opinions on whether or not this should be in the article? Volcanoguy 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too much like primary research to me. If you can find a source that explicitly states this or implies it then I think it's perfectly relevant for the article. ceranthor 01:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ceranthor's Comments

General

• Per the MOS titles of sections should not repeat words already used; they should be unique. This is a trifling comment and it doesn't need to necessarily change because I'm not sure how FAC usually deals with this.

Prose

• The precipitation is among the heaviest in North America, feeding lush forests on the mountains' flanks. - "The precipitation" seems a little disjointed. May be better as "this precipitation". I don't like the repetition of heavy either. Needs a little tweaking.

Changed. How about changing "the heaviest" to "the most extreme"? Volcanoguy 11:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it. ceranthor 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• However, there is evidence the Silverthrone and Franklin Glacier complexes are related to Cascadia subduction. - This is pure jargon. Needs explanation of "Cascadia subduction". The rest of the paragraph just seems to ramble a bit. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you meant here in the comments.

As someone who has brought subduction zone volcano articles to FA you should know what "subduction" means and what "Cascadia" is..... I'm not playing any games here. "Pure jargon"? It's geology so there is going to be jargon..... Volcanoguy 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If it comes up at FAC we can deal with it then. ceranthor 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is a 1,094 km (680 mi) long fault zone - I think there needs to be a hyphen in here somewhere...
• When the plate finally slips, the 500 years of stored energy are released in a massive earthquake. - This needs to be rephrased; it isn't the years that get released.

It would probably be better if it was "When the plate finally slips, the stored energy is released in a massive earthquake". A megathrust earthquake doesn't always occur at Cascadia every 500 years anyway. Volcanoguy 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "Local geography" section's first paragraph is extremely choppy. Try to combine some sentences for flow.
• More than 10 streams drain meltwater from Mount Meager, including Capricorn Creek, Job Creek, No Good Creek, Angel Creek, Devastation Creek, Canyon Creek and Affliction Creek.[25] - I think it would be more useful to name the specific streams in a footnote. See footnote 3 in 2005 Qeshm earthquake for what I mean. Feel free to copy the method of footnotes there too if you want.
• This includes Mount Rainier (500,000 years old),[27] Lassen Peak (25,000 years old),[15] Mount Jefferson (290,000 years old),[15] Mount St. Helens (50,000 years old)[15] and many more.[26] - No need to mention the many more. Includes indicates only selected volcanoes anyway.

Amen. Volcanoguy 13:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "the local name, Cathedral, was duplicated elsewhere, so the mountain was renamed Meager after the creek of that name which lies to the south of it". - Where exactly does this quote come from? It should be directly cited because it's a quotation and references for quotes should never be ambiguous.

The source is given at the end of the next sentence. I looked to see if I could fix the link but it looks like the search engine on that website is down right now. Volcanoguy 14:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, is it back up yet? ceranthor 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Volcanoguy 00:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was crushed, removed, and stored close to the village of Pemberton. Later the bridge that was used to access the pumice deposit was washed out and mining operations were not renewed. - Previously you'd been omitting the serial comma; for consistency, it's fine to omit it here.

Removed. Volcanoguy 11:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

More to come after these are resolved. Great work. ceranthor 02:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just post a reply here when you finish up so that I can make sure these are resolved before I move on. Thanks. ceranthor 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied. ceranthor 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I am not too active right now; busy doing other things. Volcanoguy 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mount Meager. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318021653/http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/VTrips/CascadesComp.HTM to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/VTrips/CascadesComp.HTM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/environment/pdf/green_energy_study.Par.0001.File.greenenergystudy-summary.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://198.103.48.70/volcanoes/gscvol_e.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://198.103.48.70/volcanoes/haz_e.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cangea.ca/images/uploads/Jack_Souther_Biography.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/landslides/fig_12_land_hope_slide.jpg/image_view

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

More Ceranthor Comments

• "The deposit was first held by J. MacIsaac. In the mid 1970s the second owner W. H. Willes investigated and mined the pumice. It was crushed, removed and stored close to the village of Pemberton. Later the bridge that was used to access the pumice deposit was washed out and mining operations were not renewed. Mining resumed in 1988" - verbose; "later" sentence is vague about dates and chronology of mining
• "A stress field controlled by regional tectonics has been commonly invoked to explain the dynamics of lateral flow (flowing laterally rather than vertically toward the surface)" - explained lateral flow, but it's wordy, and needs some ce
• Anything to mine from the first FAC sources?
• As magma rises to the surface over time, it will probably create much more vigour and heat - vigour meaning what? should be more specific
• "The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (GVB) has a long history of eruptions and poses a threat to the surrounding region." - GVB comes out of nowhere in the lead
• File:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt-en.svg should be bigger so it can be read - it might need to be moved around in order to do that effectively
• 'According to a BC Geographical Names letter written in March 1983, "the local name, Cathedral, was duplicated elsewhere, so the mountain was renamed Meager after the creek of that name which lies to the south of it".' - citation after this quote?
• "one of the five areas most capable of commercial development" - capable of doesn't seem right here; maybe most suited to?
• "Another sequence of rhyodacite lava flows were subsequently erupted and form the Plinth Assemblage" - tense switch here doesn't seem to work; same follows for much of the ensuing paragraph?
• "Later, a series of pyroclastic flows were erupted and travelled 7 km (4.3 mi) downstream." - don't think the "were" is necessary here
• "This was followed by monitoring of the mountain by NRC volcanologists," - I'd spell out Natural Resources Canada

Otherwise, I think it's in great shape, though I'm still concerned about the public domain text issue. ceranthor 04:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: Are you planning to take it to FAC still? ceranthor 04:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Not if you aren't. It does not matter to me. Volcanoguy 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately up to you, since you wrote the article. I think it's nearly there, my only concern being the public domain text, but I'd be happy to help with the process. ceranthor 15:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because I wrote the article does not mean you or any other user cannot bring it to GA or FA status. I would be happy to help with the process but my days of doing major contributions to this article are over. Volcanoguy 12:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for letting me know. ceranthor 17:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Rename?

I'm wondering if the title of this article should be moved from "Mount Meager" to "Mount Meager massif" to avoid confusion with the peak of the same name, given the fact that they are both mentioned here. An example is Mont Blanc and the Mont Blanc massif. Any comments User:Ceranthor? Volcanoguy 13:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. If you feel confident doing it, I trust your judgment. ceranthor 13:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I did the move and made Mount Meager its own article. FYI I have created an article for the 2010 Mount Meager landslide. Volcanoguy 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)