User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Rating

Hi, since you are member of WikiProject Geology, can you please rate the articles February 4, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake and May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake for this WikProject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually only rate articles I'm familiar with (I'm not an expert on rating). The articles you listed above arn't part of WikiProject Geology; they're part of WikiProject Afghanistan. Black Tusk 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK. However these articles are part of WikiProject Geology because they are about earthquake. See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
True. I just added WikiProject Geology on the talk pages and rated them. I hope they're accurate. Black Tusk 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The article ratings are correct, I assure you. Both are start-class level. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:For an FA...

 Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edziza and Tseax Cone

I rated the articles. Both are B-class. Tseax Cone will need considerable work before GA, but Mount Edziza just needs some expansion, references, and images. Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mount Garibaldi

Nope. Would you like me to nominate it, or would you like to, and I would be a co-nom? Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reply at my talk page. Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is nominated. Please comment, or add a co-nom. Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that will work. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Volcanoes Barnstar
For your excellent work on mount Garibaldi, and all the other volcano articles. Congrats! Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready to do maps

Hi Black Tusk,

  • I have removed the Milbanke Sound Group on the Anahim map, as you asked for.
  • The Wikicontest in WP-fr is now ended. Among others, my team has worked on one American volcano, it may concern you (fr:Mauna Loa). So, I am ready now to do maps for you. Which one do you want first ?

Sémhur 11:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When you finish the Black River Group map, you can start the topographic map here; it's already in the Garibaldi article, but the map currently in the article might have a possible copyright problem so it would probably better if someone created the map. Black Tusk 19 mai 2008 à 01:28 (CEST)
I'm able to do topographic maps, but for that I follow a process, to automatize a lot the map making. In this case, I cannot, so I'll have to do all by hand. It will be more slow.


I am in trouble to do the Black River Group map, because I can't identify it on maps. Could you give me the coordinates of the points NW, NE, SW & SE ? It will help me a lot. Sémhur 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made the Mount Garibaldi map. Please tell me if it's good for you. Sémhur 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty good. Just some adds, could you add Garibaldi Glacier, Columnar Peak, The Sharkfin, "Creek" with "Ring" to make "Ring Creek", Elfin Lakes, Paul Ridge, change Bishop Glacier beaneath The Tent, Mount Garibaldi and Dalton Dome to Cheekye Glacier? That's all what I know that's missing. I don't think the relief shadow is not much of a problem right now anyway. I'll let you know when I notice more missing data and if the relief shadow becomes a problem. (en) Black Tusk (d · c · b) 21 mai 2008 à 23:30 (CEST)
The map is now on Commons : Image:Mount Garibaldi topographic map-en.svg. I have updated it, except for Paul Ridge because I have cut the map above. Do you know from where comes the original map (before Flickr) ? Sémhur 11:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the map came from before Flickr. I asked the owner of the map on Flickr a few days ago but he forgot because it was quite a while ago. But it was somewhere on the internet. Could add the heights to some of the peaks? Columnar Peak is 1826 m, The Sharkfin is 2000 m, Glacier Pikes is 2145 m, Pyramid Mountain is 2158 m and I'm not sure what the heights are for the mountains northeast of the map. Black Tusk 22 mai 2008 à 19:26 (CEST)
I have added this altitudes. I have found few others in http://www.bivouac.com.
So, before you find coordinates for the Blank River Group, which map do you want till then ? Sémhur 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably a map for the Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field. The correct height for The Tent is 2465 m not 2678 m. Viking Ridge is 2079 m. Black Tusk 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"Dalton Cone 2633 m --> Dalton Dome 2653 m / Atwell Peak 2620 m --> Atwell Peak 2655 m". If that so, you have to modify Mount_Garibaldi#Subsidiary_peaks, because I have taken the altitudes here. Sémhur 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sémhur (talk • contribs)
 Done, but now this sentence is wrong : "The second highest peak is [...] Dalton Dome, 2,653 m (8,704 ft) high [...]. The lowest of the three is [...] Atwell Peak, [...] which reaches a height of 2,655 m (8,711 ft)." Sorry about my weather-eye... ;) Sémhur 16:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes

Hello, Black Tusk. I was wondering if you wanted to join a new wikiproject i was starting. If so, please sign up here. Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining here. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Hey Black Tusk. I noticed your page is getting super clogged up on this talk page. If you give me the go, I can easily create an archive for it to lessen the clutter. Have a look at my talk page to see what I'm talking about. I would leave like the last 4-7 talk sections, but just move the rest before that to it's page for reference or what ever. In any case, it makes it look neat on your talk page, and gets rid of old conversations. What do ya think? OldManRivers (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anahim hotspot lead

Could you please expand the lead of Anahim hotspot? I would, but I know nothing about the subject. It is imperative for the article to pass GAN. Thanks. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field-en.svg

A brand new map. (if you have any comments, please let it in a new subject). Sémhur 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I never seen a detailed map of the Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field before. Could you capitalize "cone" on Jacques Lake and Quesnel Lake? (en) Black Tusk (d · c · b) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Now if you still need it, I will made a map for the Mackenzie dike swarm - even if I don't know how I will proceed yet. Have you found coordinates for the Blake River Group ? Sémhur 12:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI Canim Falls

Same area as Mahood Falls and so on; Mahood Falls turns out to need an article, also the various lakes and rivers around there; let me know what you stub up, if anything; Canim Falls is likely a cut in a lava plateau.....btw send me an email and I'll send you a full copy of Holland's Landforms of British Columbia I found in PDF format. Lots of geo info and some maps showing volcanic areas....Skookum1 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mining tags

Good to see somebody getting the hard work done (australian mine arts) mind you there are still many holes in the potential australian mine articles - more to do than done i think _ cheers SatuSuro 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) And canadian volcano enthusiasts are alway welcome at my talk page - but its a long story - indonesian volcanoes are a particular interest of mine and my late father a long time ago used to live in both saskatoon and later in toronto and he always had good memories SatuSuro 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Special 4 U

Basalt Falls on the Dean River - found it while randmoly looking for waterfalls around BC; about to stub up Lava Canyon as well.....(if it's blue it's there).Skookum1 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

anahim hotspot passed!

Congrats on the outcome of anahim hotspot. Great job! ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to tempt me? =) ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cariboo/Cariboo Plateau

Don't take offense, BT, it was my mistake - I thought I'd already created the Cariboo Plateau article and didn't realize taht that was a reidirect I'd made myself when expanding hte Cariboo article hwen I first got into Wikipedifying an didnt' undestand article definitions/cats/titles. Like th BC Interior article this one needs a rewrite/split/organization adn the Cariboo Plateau should be adifferent article as a distinct concept from the Cariboo as a egion. Another plateau article missing at the moment is McGregor Plateau - NB Fraser Plateau sort of exists in the combo Fraser Plateau and Basin complex which is a WWF-derived name and not used in BC sources (the Fraser Basin doesn't mean what you might think it does; it's the lowland area focussed on Prince George within the Fraser Plateau, it doesnt' refer to the whole drainaige basin). Anyway I did find the link to the online PDF copy of Landforms of British Columbia which lays out all the definitions (these are the basis of classifications in BCGNIS and Basemap btw); I haven't been able to find the link to "Bull48-physiographic-map.pdf" which is somewhere on the same BC govt server but didnt' come up on a google for it; I'll look again in the source directory.. And my comment about "making yourslef useful" wasn't meant sarcastically but in earnestness; the Cariboo Plteau like other plateau articles has to be written from its start as a geological/geographic article, and it's a volcanic landform so you're the guy to write hte geology, no?" The current paragraph about the plteau in the Cariboo article can form the start of whatever you'll build on it. Chilcotin Plateau I suppose you've already been over before. I dont' have the tiem/space/energy to transfer what's in Holland into Wikipediak, other than much of what's already doen (remebmer I did three-four years of the same research for bivouac before coming to wikipedia....); hopefully you'll find Holland very useful; it's own citations will give you further palces to look; most images in it the crown copyright6-50 tempalte won't apply although "fair use" might apply (I can come wup with a letter from them we got re bivouac's usage).14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk)

It will also help you resolve that Edziza massif stuff and definitions of Spatsizi Plateau and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Cariboo Plateau is volcanic? If I knew it was volcanic in the first place I could have created a stub. As for the categories, I was just categorizing the plateau articles because I created the plateau category. I asked you about the Spectrum Range because it appears to be linked with Edziza by a lava plateau. And per one of my volcano books, the Spectrum Range appears to form part of a massive volcano including the lava plateau in that area; the Edziza Massif perhaps? I'm not trying to be ignorant in case you seen the discussion about Canadian volcanism on the Geography project talk page here. I'm just tired of seeing no one adding/creating geographical infomation. Canada has a rich geological history with volcanism dating back approximately 2,800 milion years in the Canadian Shield and nothing very small; see the Mackenzie dike swarm which built an extensive volcanic plateau about 1,200 million years ago with an area of about 170,000 km² (65,000 sq mi) representing a volume of lavas of at least 500,000 km³ (120,000 mi³) which is much larger than the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts plateau. Canada is much more than a country with communities. --Black Tusk (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, the Cariboo Plateau is the eastern half of the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts, as divided by the Fraser River, and also some of the Wells Grey-Clearwater Volcanic Field, though that's mostly Shuswap Highland and I think the southeasternmost bit of the Quesnel Highland and I guess some of the Bonaparte Plateau (which has various named subplateaus, btw). The "Highlands" btw should probably be in the Plateau categories as well as in teh Mountain Range categories, where I currently have them; they can be in both; even Holland is undecided/noncommittal about which they belong to; the usual usage for the Okanagan Highland, theoretically otherwise part of the Thompson Plateau is to call it "the Monashees" (which like the Cariboo is a geographic region in addition to/separately from the namesake landform, in this case teh mountain range), though the various tourism sites I've seen lately all seem faithful to the Okanagan Highland usage. Anyway of course the Cariboo Plateau is volcanic; our old friend the Chasm is the southern lip of it, for instance, and have a look at that big marsh west of Clinton/Highway 97 to Big Bar; flat as a board and full of holes...... The Quesnel Highland is also considered part of teh Cariboo Plateau by people who live there, e.g. the Barkerville folks, though "the mountains of the Cariboo" has also been used to desribe the locality (almost never "Cariboo Mountains" which are alwaqys spoken of as beginning east of Barkerville, or nearly mostly always). Holland's pretty clear about he Clear/marble/Pavilion Range being part of the Fraser Plateau btw, but I dont' think it's Cariboo Plateau; I'll have to look at his map again - make sure you use that PDF link above, it's worth having and it's also the "main source" for Cdn geographic definitions concernign BC; when other systems like the WWF/Canadian nat'l definitions/onmenclature like on Fraser Plateau and Basin complex Ecoregion page; untangling ecoregions, geographic regions, landforms and all is going to be on my todo list, or I'll make a todo list about it anyway. about taht one, btw, and other articles which YES lack geologic content, I just hope that you can cdiversify some and make sure glaciology is added in and other landscape-defining natural history. The Alert Bay Cones or whatever they're called, for example, could use a fuller history about sea levels, glaciation etc since they were formed; there's lots of "cones" in basemap's database by the way; not all are gonna be volcanic but I'll betcha most are. Tow Hill turns out to be near the site of Hiellen, one of the major Haida villages now-vanished; so keep your eyes open for mateiral on that.Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree the Alert Bay belt could use a fuller history about sea levels and glaciation but I don't think there's much about the Alert Bay volcanics; it's a poorly studied area. The belt appears to extend from Brooks Peninsula northwestwards across Vancouver Island to Port McNeil. Do you know any cones in that area? I've been wanting to add a list like the Garibaldi and Chilcotin belts. The only volcanoes I found are Haddington Island, Cluxewe Mountain, Twin Peaks Mountain and N-NE Jeune Landing. --Black Tusk (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I also meant it re teh Alert Bay article proper; i.e. don't just mention them as though they're white bread on the supermarket and everybody in town knows what it is; explain it a bit and when the fires were burning, and where the traces are; otherwise it's a big "huh?" on the page.....off to the gym....I'll look for (volcanic) dikes on Quinpool Road, shouldn't be too hard (the cloest Halifax gets to Commercial Drive, if at all).Skookum1 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be dikes or other volcanics in the Halifax area; the Bay of Fundy is a failed rift valley; I should make an article about the Fundy rift basin/Fundy basin. And of course there's the North Mountain volcanic ridge which is made of flood basalt lava flows when the rift valley was still active. I'm not sure about the Alert Bay proper. I added the Alert Bay belt to the article because it has the same name and therefore I'm not sure it lies in the belt. It's probably better if it were removed. --Black Tusk (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tulsequah Lake/Tulsequah Glacier/Tulsequah River

And Tulsequah Mine, although that probably has a more formal corporpte dba/govt name; it's just I'm closing open windows with various things I found and in the course of looking for that Bulletin 48 map that goes with the Landforms text, I found this. Not exactly volcanic and maybe you already have heard the Icelandic term jökulhlaup?Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Never herd of jokulhlaups. --Black Tusk (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Literally "glacier/icecap flows" - hlaupr as a verb is "to leap" or "to run" or "to jump"; Jokull as a word you've seen before in Vatnajokull; doesnt' necesariliy mean volcanic, but up that way I'd expect volcanism, ancient and modern; ditto the Chutine area.Skookum1 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
PS I've "only" studied Old Norse and don't have a handle on modern icelandic, but to me the word "Jokull" has a forbidding tone to it, reosnate of teh race of giants (jotnar sing. jotunn; not just a fels or vidda (high alpine and high alpine plateau, though fels also translates to "mountain" - pigg is "peak" btw, at least in Norwegian; Mount This or That they don't have, i.e. as terms you can translate. "Something peke" and "someone mountain", yes, but not "mount someone" or "so-and-so peak" like we come up with....Skookum1 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
See Glacial lake outburst flood - I imagine there's far more of these in BC than The Barrier and the Chutine and Tulsequah and Salmon Glacier ones....especially paleo-historically e.g Meager and/or the breakdown of the Texas Creek slide on the Fraser, adn more....the formation of the Bridge River canyon may or may not have to do with the Brdige River Cones, but the contortions in that region means that something caused the breaking of the Shulaps Range; at one point the upper Bridge must have flown out, for example, Churn Creek..Skookum1 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Glacial lake outburst flood sounds more familiar; they are common with subglacial eruptions. The Cayley area probably had some glacial lake outburst floods since there's subglacial volcanoes and formations similar to The Barrier there as well. Silverthrone probably had some glacial lake outburst floods since all/most of the ice inside the caldera must melt from the volcanic heat. --Black Tusk (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rift lakes

Hi Black Tusk,

The rift lake article states that "a rift lake is a lake formed as a result of subsidence related to movement on faults within a rift zone". Lake Superior is a lake formed by glacial and sub-glacial erosion within a long extinct rift zone, to quote from our article, "The land contours familiar today were carved by the advance and retreat of the ice sheet." In my view Lake Superior is not the same kind of beast as Lake Baikal and doesn't really belong in the article, any more than Loch Ness would be a 'strike-slip lake' because it was formed by glacial erosion along the Great Glen Fault. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, a rift lake is a lake that lies in a rift valley. Lake Superior has its origins in the Midcontinent Rift System per here. Lake Temiskaming lies in a still active rift valley called the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben. I'm the one that created the article so it might be my mistake. --Black Tusk (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I searched google on "Lake Superior" & "rift lake" together and virtually the only sources that include Lake Superior as a rift lake link directly back to the Rift lake article. This source [1], classifies all the world's large lakes as to whether they are tectonic or glacial and discusses the different characteristics in terms of sediment types etc. and classifies the Great Lakes as glacial. The key for me is whether the rifting contributes directly to the lake formation. Searching on "Lake Timiskaming" and "Rift lake" gives only eleven hits, all related to the Lake Timiskaming article. I feel, therefore, that these lakes should not be included. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Garibaldi

Well, after all your hard work, Mount Garbialdi just passed GA. Congrats! --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

A Barnstar!
The Maple Leaf Award
For your extensive work on Canadian geography articles, I offer you this red maple leaf. Keep up the good work. --Qyd (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

In response to your protecting the Supervolcano article I left the following message for an administrator recommended to me by a long time user. Perhaps he can help with this difficulty. Just me! (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dmcdevit-- I understand you are a helpful, if busy, administrator who sometimes takes an interest in history articles. I have recently had a difficult time on Supervolcano with an editor named User:‎Black Tusk. We appear to disagree on the term "historic time". When he deleted a small portion of the article - I reverted. Then he reverted and requested a source. I restored and found a source and an ex link summary and included it in the article. He responded by reverting "AGAIN" and protecting (evidently) the page. I sense a little bit of ownership - perhaps? I have left a message on the talk page. If you have time, could you chime in? Thank you.
Sorry to weigh in here, BT, but speaking as a historian and a reader of more books than I can remember for longer than I probably know, to me "historic times" in a strict sense means since the first exact, or relatively exact, dates on known events and persons; roughly 3500 BC I think; before that is the pre-historic era, the era before history began, before our written records can pin down dates. Often it's dates in those ancient calendars that give exact dates to know geologic events, like Santorini or the various eruptions of Vesuvius and Etna. "Historic times" is delimited by the "written record"; Christian and Talmudic theologians pin the Creation at 4004 BC, so that's the absolute beginning the West; I think Chinese and Indian calendars have events prior to that, I'm not sure. BTW in political/cultural history "modern times" is generally considered to be in the mid-1700s, with the dawn of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and mass populations et al.; and the birth of the prees....Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It dosen't matter now; it's solved. --Black Tusk (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Thumb, Nechako

While I was twiddling with Thumb (disambiguation) I checked out Devils Thumb and wound up adding hte BC Mtns cat as teh Alaskans who made the article hadn't bothered ;-Z). But I kneow there was noather Devils Thumb in BC and it's The Devils Thumb, just north of where the main arms of the Nechako Reservoir converge; looks to be volcanic to me, I know I've mentioned it elsewhere 53-36 N, 125-15 W for quick ref, or use baasemap fine-scale to get a closer detailed latlong. I'd start it but don't know what kind of volcano it is/was; looks like aplug by its shape..."range" will be the Nechako Plpateau; I'll try and get the Quanchus Range stubbed up; it's waht's in teh anble of the arms of the reservoir, almost an island now.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I just had a closeup look at the basemap for Deerhorn Hill and it looks like it also is a plug or some kind of volcanic feature; Irembmer all kinds of these around teh Nechako and West Road Countries when scanning basemap for bivouac; there's a lot of current geological work in that area, maybe there's more than enough info on each now; I see that The Thumb up in the Omineca is "outside the usual volcanic belts" - is that the case in this area, also?Skookum1 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; my internet is acting up. I never herd of Deerhorn Hill or The Devils Thumb before. The volcanic centers at Nechako are ether part of the Anahim Volcanic Belt or the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts. Many diatreme articles I created are outside the usual volcanic belts as well. --Black Tusk (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Baldy Mountain (Vancouver Island, British Columbia)

I wonder if I could build a lair on "Big Baldy Mountain" LOL. Big, Bad and Bald! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

reqphoto

Dear Black Tusk, you seem to have tagged several articles on South Shetland Islands' geographical features as needing photos, while in fact they already do have respective photos. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Apcbg, I don't know what you're talking about. I added reqphoto to some of the island articles that don't have photos. Are you talking about the map images (i.e Bridgeman Island (South Shetland Islands))? If so, maps arn't necessarily photos. --Black Tusk (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The articles Dryanovo Heights, Burdick South Peak, Breznik Heights, and Bansko Peak you added 'reqphoto' to have photos. Apcbg (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I can't remember why I added reqphoto to those articles. But I was in a hury adding projects and reqphotos to some Antarctic mountain articles so it could be just a mistake. You may remove the reqphotos if they're not needed. Black Tusk (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Best, Apcbg (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wells Grey-Clearwater cat created

Just to let you know it's there now, so if you're making more articles in that area it's there to use; nb for campgrounds, rivers, lakes, falls, non-volcanic summits et al; it's region cat, not a volcano one; maybe I should have titled it "Wells Grey-Clearwater Country" (which you still hear on newscasts) and may yet rename it, dunno; areas north of Mahood/Canim Lake are also in Category:Cariboo Country and I've put some of the various Mahood/Canim articles in both cats; Dragon Cone is south of Bonaparte Lake and so is in the Bonaparte Country/Plateau. I guess the Quanchus Range thing is because you copy-pasted the infobox from somewhere else; I've fixed most but maybe there's more I'm unaware of; certain summits like Kostal Cone maybe are in the Cariboo Mtns ratehr than the Shuswap Highland; didn't look too closely....I'm gonna make a Category:North Thompson for Little Fort/Barriere up to Blue River/Avola, which will overlap with the Wells Grey-Clearwater cat only on Clearwater River and the town of Clearwtaer River, and any nearby landmarks.Skookum1 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wells-Gray Clearwater Country is probably a better title also because of the other "country" categories (e.g. Category:Sea to Sky Country, Category:Stikine Country). The Quanchus Range wasn't from me copy-pasting the infobox from somewhere else. I thought the Wells Gray volcanoes were part of the Quanchus Range because I remember reading something about the area with "Quanchus" in it. So I just added Quanchus Range. Black Tusk (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There's probably volcanics in the Quanchus Range, maybe it was in a volcano paper of some kind in a parallel reference to things in Wells Grey-Clearwater. Deerhorn Hill and the Devils Thumb are just north of the Quanchus Range, on the other side of the Ootsa Lake Reservoir. The "Country" names on the cats are all my doing; at times I'm tempted to rename Category:Okanagan Country to Category:Okanagan and Category:Kootenay Country to Category:Kootenays but gonna engage a discussion first; reason is some article-names come in as "valley" (e.g. Bulkley Valley and others like the Okanagan and the Kootenays are usually referred to that way (the Okanagan also as "Okanagan Valley" quite commonly), ditto Chilcotin and Cariboo though "Country" is still often heard with them, but "region" seems always, or still, to be needed in Wiki-style, but not all cats I've seen from other areas go to the bother of naming regions as such, just using their name (or other smilar types of subcats). Other region cats are "waht they are" - like Category:Fraser Canyon; coastal cats that I haven't made include Category:Queen Charlotte Strait becuase there's a debate whether that should be a water category or a region cat, or if it can be both (see Category talk:Puget Sound, I think, where Pfly and I had a discussion about this.Skookum1 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Further thoughts: I've wondered about landform cats; we've already got Category:Canadian Rockies and Category:Coast Mountains, and I think previously I mused about Category:Pacific Ranges and Category:Kitimat Ranges, as well as Category:Boundary Ranges plus those for the Cariboos, Monashees, Selkirks et al. (those particular ones subcatted within Category:Columbia Mountains; likewise using the vairous plateaus. Maybe it's all category-clutter.....the reason I started these is I find the regional district cats very unsuitable for geographic and cultural features; they should only be used for member-towns and electoral areas and other institutionally-related/connected to RD-dom and not as geographic categories; though many people use them that way, looking for an equivalent to counties and such back east and south of the line....Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a category for the Columbia and Boundary Ranges like I did with Category:Coast Mountains. But I don't think there's enough mountain articles for such cats is there? There's only a few mountain articles that will go in the Boundary Ranges cat I think.Black Tusk (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, there's tons of them; don't forget Alaskans have been making articles too, but even in the Stikine area a lot of your volcanoes are in the group; likewise Unuk and Lava Fork....Tseax is I think Category:Nass Ranges, which would be a subcat of Category:Skeena Mountains, which i can't remember or not if it's a subcat of Category:Hazelton Mountains but I think it might be...Boundary Ranges has a lot, there's not too many in Category:Columbia Mountains, which for sure should include Category:Cariboo Mountains. The highlands can be in both the mountain range cats and those plateaus or other landforms west of them; I'll try to get to making Fraser Plateau properly and fixing up Bonaparte Plateau and Thompson Plateau tonight, as I had them wrong a bit; Cariboo Plateau needs to be broken off from Cariboo (it's only part of the Cariboo region) but for now all of them could just be CAtegory:Interior Plateau, which owuld give a parent landform-cat to the Clear/Marble/Pavilion and Camelsfoot Ranges, which currently don't have much in the way of catting....Trahyte Hills like Cornwall Hills would be good to stub up, but while Trachyte is a volcanic rock I as yet haven't found any reason why the hills are called that; NB tehre are other Trahcyte Hills elsewhere in the world......the Kitimat Ranges are teh ones where we dno't have many peak articles yet; the aera's pretty inaccessible and not many "notable" peaks in there, unless you're a prominence groupie. Category:Rivers and creeks of the Coast Mountains and Category:Communities in the Coast Mountains and subhcats have also come to mind; esp. CAtegory:Communities of the Canadian Rockes, Category:Lakes of the Canadian Rockies, Category:Rivers of the Canadian Rockies and so on; Category:Northern Rockies and an article for Northern Rockies are also called for; the division point is around Mt Ovington, though no one's ever come upwith a separate name for that part of the range to the north of Lake Williston.Skookum1 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll be creating more mountain articles anyway. Will try and make more mountain articles in the Columbia Mountains (and maybe the article itself) tonight; there appears to be several subranges that don't have articles. BTW should groups, glaciers and icefields be considered a mountain range? Bivouac uses groups, glaciers and icefields as mountain ranges. Black Tusk (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[undent]Icefields and glaciers and icecaps when there is no other range-name; usually this will be larger ones only like Juneau Icefield, Homathko Icefield, Stikine Icecap. Powder Mountain Icefield is really a range article, I guess, and for that region Pemberton Icecap would be the main "range" article. "Group" is used for non-official areas like teh Anderson River Group (aka the Llamoid Group) and the Five Fingers Group; some of those are gazetted in BCGNIS, but not many. The Selkirks in particular have a lot of named subranges, and the Monashees have quite a few; the Purcells not so much.Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about creating the Pacific Ranges cat because most mountains in Category:Coast Mountains are in the Pacific Ranges. I'm not sure about the Kitimat Ranges though because it's a remote part of the Coast Mountains and therefore lots of people don't know the mountains in that part of the range. Most of those mountains are probably unnamed as well. Black Tusk (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re subrange cats

Hi; I've been pondering whether or not the Mtn Ranges of BC cat should still be on pages that have refined Coast Mountains to Paciifc Ranges; this is so when someone goes to that cat they'll see all named ranges idnividually, plus the big-range subcats at the top; this is because most people won't know which of the big-range groupings to look in for most of them. Must be a Wiki rule about this, but there are cases where parent cats are still shown alongside the local cat; e.g. with the main articles for the region cats e.g. Bulkley Valley they're in both Northern Interior of Briitsh Columbia as well as in the Bulkley Country cat as the main title-article. Sort of same principle applies to the range cats.....maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't that make the categories partly redundant? I'm just following other similar mountain categories. Black Tusk (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, redundancy is a funny thing.....when there's multiple parents. Not in these cases I guess; but if Chilcotin Ranges is a subcat or Chilcotin District then there's no point in having the latter; even though the replacemed cat in this case was Coast Mountains. I dunno, maybe this is a point to take to the discussion page at WP:Mountains as it seems to me having a general jurisdiction-location cat is different from a named-range cat, i.e. Mountain ranges of British Columbia vs just Coast Mountains,which of course has been "bumped" here; there's nothign else in the cats to indicate location.....that's what I'm getting at; "partly redundant" yes, but given that a lot of these cats have multiple parents, it's an issue of which one gets bumped. And 'farther up the ladder' cats are sometimes included, though maybe that's not wikistyle and those too will eventually be anti-redundifed.Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The best place to discuss this issue is probably the WikiProject Mountains talk page. It would be more of a problem when there's subcats for the subranges (e.g. Garibaldi Ranges, Cariboo Mountains). --Black Tusk (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverthrone Caldera - Wow!

You really did expand it. The article looks great! Its almost ready for GA even! Keep it up, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverthrone Caldera

Yes, I would nominate it at Good Article Nominations. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Joining Volcanoes Wiki

Hi Black Tusk. i was wondering if you wanted to join my newly founded Volcanoes Wikia?

If so, please click here to find out more information:

[2]

Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe latter. Black Tusk (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I will make you an admin on the project, as well as assistant featured article director or any other position you wish. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please make a userpage? i have made you an admin there. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverthone suggestion

I was looking at the image-page for your Silverthrone Caldera sat-image to see if there was a link to the JPL/NASA photo archive, and found your link to this; wanted to suggest it would help give the other one context if a sat-image of this general aera, or larger, with the rivers and some peaks labelled would help serve as a locator map for hte other; with a cutaway box where the frame of your image is. And why I was going to the NASA site is I'm pretty sure there's clearer pictures, maybe with less snow or whatever, or just good lighting; I'll see what I can find; but some labelling would help; and a cutaway showing hte whole icefield would be welcome on Ha-Iltzuk Icefield - and Klinaklini River; likweise for its sister icefields to the southeast.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the smaller images because when I was cropping the images the larger ones wouldn't work. But since the larger images work now, I'll use the larger images as a better reference. I was also thinking about adding lables for the glaciers and mountains associated with the caldera but couldn't find out how to add such items. Black Tusk (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If Pfly weren't baby-busy I'm sure he'd help; I found one with better lighting but not at the right scale for your closeup; really good for locating all of the icefields, though, and maybe worth little-names-with-arrows to point out the major rivers; I know how to do it but I'm a klutz and make clunky graphics. It's a pity Queen Charlotte Strait and other lowland areas are fogbound, this would serve as a good illustration map for other things than the main spine of hte Coast Mountains; this one might be deceiving for illustrating the icefields though, as the snow cover might make the casual onlooker think they spanned all of that; I'm gonna keep on hunting but thought you'd liek the image. This is from the NASA links on my Map Resources sandbox.Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Another nice one, but again, not in fine-enough resolution for closeups; maybe better for regional illustrations like Rainbow Range and Pacific Ranges and Coast Ranges and the various inlets and rivers, though; and major peaks? This is what peak-locator maps hsould be; not where they are in regional districts (which I think are over-used in wikipedia to the point of original research....)Skookum1 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow - how 'bout this one? for all kinds of things; regions especially, all clear; little bit of globe/aerial distortion but not unusuable (esp. compared to the N-S distortion of the RD maps). I'll fly this by pfly who might find it more than useful for various regional closeup maps and island locators and stuff; I'll do a cutaway for Queen Charlotte Strait but the clarity on this one is great, could be used as a general map, doncha think?Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Those images are good for several things but none arn't great for the Silverthrone Caldera. The image I cropped in the infobox is the only close-up and clear image I could find for Silverthrone. There's a man-made photo of the Silverthrone Caldera here but I don't think it's public doman. If Pfly or someone else is interested in making the Silverthrone map the materials I used are also from here. Black Tusk (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah, gotcha; nice quality everywhere on the google/geonames maps; didn't know they could be sourced; would figure they have the best resolutions and visibility/weather selection; probabgly a composite; interesting in all maps how things like the Shulaps Range and Spruce Lake areas come up in different oclours because of their geology huh? Highland Valley Copper Mine (NW of Logan Lake]] is the largest feature visible from space in BC, I'd say (man-made, that is, unless you count Greater Vancouver as one feature); been looking for Giant Mascot Mine, in the area of the Old Settler in the southern Lillooet Ranges; can't find it, must not be such a big hole (thought it was). Discoloration around Princeton is interesting; "Tulameen" means "red earth" of course.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Is geonames a reliable source? Just want to know because I'll use it as a reference for the subsidiary peaks sections on the Silverthrone and Garibaldi articles. Anyway keep searching for clearer pictures if there are any. Black Tusk (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are invited...

to join the Earthquakes Wiki! Any questions can be directed to my talk page. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 14:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to know

Since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes, you may wish to know about this. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oz mountains

WP Geography is a parent of WP Mountains - how come some australian mountains get both? surely there is no reason for doubling up? SatuSuro 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other projects they are the samething. Black Tusk (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that doesnt make sense - you are adding cos they are the same? We have a situation in the Indonesian prject where volcano and mountain tags are on the volcano pages. But why duplicate project tags? Maybe im missing something but i would have though that like categories there is no need to add parent items (some people actually pull out parent/child cats when they see them on the same page) SatuSuro 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There's several talk pages with the parent and child projects included. Black Tusk (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that doubling upof project tags might be relevant wehre mountain and clmbing projects coincide, or where mountain and volcano coincide in Indonesia - but I am still lost as to why you have added geography to mountain in australian mountain talk pages - but hey in the end who cares - i suppose its better in the end with project tags - there is surely 50% of wikipedia arts with not a project or anything to mind the page anyways - or inactive projects where no one has ever tagged the relevant pages - so no big deal in the end - cheers SatuSuro 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the projects because they cover the samething. Anyway it dosen't really matter; it's just projects and tags. Black Tusk (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough a lot of projects simply dont have the type of eds to get interested in project maintenance - however where there are such - project tags, template design and format are significant - and it is there that the project tags are of vital importance for assessment bots and other various devices - but hey enjoy - whatever etc etc SatuSuro 02:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pemberton Icefield et al.

I see you beat me to it on creating Meager Creek today; I was just finishing up Ryan River, I guess, when you made it, as a few edits earlier it had been a redlink. The Pemberton Icefield article mentions the volcanic features between the Squamish and Soo headwaters; I didn't want to name them as that's your bailiwick.....there is a protected area, if not a provincial park, in the upper Soo Valley, I'm pretty sure; I'll see what I can find on it - "Soo Headwaters" in Google might turn it up; part of hwatever it is, ecological preserve or whatever, was protection of the volcanic features, whatever they are.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You may name the volcanic features if you want. I haven't had time to do much volcano editing for a few days and I probably don't know most of the volcanic peaks there anyway. Just created Volcano Lake on Vancouver Island as well. Black Tusk (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is I think they have names, I just don't know what they are......btw if Meager Creek Hot Springs redirects to Mount Meager I'll redirect it to the creek instead, as that's where teh hot springss- the hot springs knkownbest to the pbulic -are; the ones on the north flank where the test geothermal project are don't quite qualify....or rather, they're really two different springs....Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I should add more infomation about the hot springs at Meager Creek or Cayley; there's some infomation about both hot spring locations in one of my volcano books, including hydrothermal energy resources and other geothermal-related subjects. Black Tusk (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that there's anything volcanic up there, but I jsut created Monarch Icefield and also Category:Glaciers of British Columbia, which seemed about time to split off from the Canada-parent.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was about to create the glaciers category myself, but haven't had time for that either ;-). I should create Category:Glaciers of Nunavut as well. Black Tusk (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Silverthrone Caldera

I'll review the article straight away. Thanks, J.T Pearson (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The info about potassium-argon dating on rhyolite domes came close to "the technical", as well as the info about rock acidity content and classification. But honestly, its still a great article: you've done a good job. J.T Pearson (talk)
I, personally, do not find it technical, but I suspect that some readers might find it overly so. Of course, all the relevant internal links were in place, giving defenitions for the different words. Because of this anyone who didn't know anything about the subject could simply follow the links and have their problems solved. J.T Pearson (talk)
Alrighty then :) I've passed the article according to the GA criteris, although I'm sure you've seen this already. Good job. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll gladly review any article you need done. Just give me a shout. J.T Pearson (talk)

Brandywine Falls Provincial Park

The lava ledge these spill over, and the large lava-based plateau north from it along the river, make this your turf; didn't know what cats to add. Wound up at this page while looking over List of waterfalls; List of waterfalls in British Columbia needs making, with height/sort features; Shannon Falls Provincial Park article makes claims of being hte third highest, which to me is b .s. because that 335m isn't free-fall and if cascades like Shannon are counted I can think of dozens of largely-unnamed ones around Hope and elsewhere (like up Bute, Knight or Jervis inlets); those can be creek articles, if measrued, but with the waterfallas cat. Crown Lake Falls at Marble Canyon is at least 1000', but even it's in two stages; anyway waterfalls aren't really your thing, just a side-issue, but Brandywine's definitely volcnanic as afeautre, no?Skookum1 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Brandywine Falls is a volcanic feature. I seen some close-up photos of the basalt columns quite a while ago. But I don't know how old the basalts are or where they originated from. BTW I'm about to make a major expansion on the Wells Gray field article. Do you know of anything that might be useful? Black Tusk (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll think about that while I'm at the gym....but about Brandywine, remember the lake I told you about with the standing basalt crystal in it? Have a look at this and zoom in on the ponds to the upper right of Brandywine Falls (where the marker is, if it's still there on the link I jsut sent you); one of the ones between the powerline and the river is teh one in question; the whole area is a lava plateau. The pond at the top of the picture is I guess in the quarry; the road at upper left is the North Air Mine Road, as we used to call it, now the Callaghan Valley Main. I've got some real lava-like shots of Brandywine, I'll be back with those when I find them; just figured before the summer is out if you wanted a fun field trip head up to Brandywine; park there, then head up the walking trail past the bridge over the falls and keep on going, then bushwhack to your right where there's a low hillock by the trail; don't go to far, some of that drops off sheer (lava cliffs) to the Cheakamus River....the ponds are fairly warm; one in the satimage appears to have an island at the north end - that could be the one, with hte face of the rock crystal showing just under teh surface....was about 2-3 of water above its top when I swam there; another one like that is the lake up in the angle of the Squamish and Cheakamus Valleys, above Paradise Valley.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Pearson Ponds Plateau between Gold Bridge and Tyaughton Lake is another area that's quite likely a volcanic plateau; it's all rock, with ponds liek these ones; well not like these ones, but also studded with ponds; really round ponds.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

Hi, Yes I recall the discussion at Talk:2010 Winter Olympics, and now that I have read it again, I would probably reword what I previously typed. "Trivial" is not the word I meant, as volcanoes are clearly a destructive natural hazard. If either Mt Baker or Garibaldi erupt, Vancouver will likely be devastated. What I did mean (in the context of the 2010 Winter Olympics—a two week event) is that the probability of a nearby eruption is very low, and I would think is lower than the probability of an earthquake in Vancouver (comparing recurrence intervals of ~10,000 years for a Cascade eruption with ~200 years for an earthquake). What I was trying to get at on the 2010 Winter Olympics article was that inclusion of content covering natural disasters should appear on Vancouver (and I guess Whistler, British Columbia) articles. That said, I'm surprised that there still isn't a natural hazard section for either the Vancouver or Whistler articles! +mt 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I agreed form the start that an eruption occurring during the 2010 Winter Olympics is very low. But for some reason they arn't mentioned in many subjects other than volcanology articles. There's been eruptions from the Canadian Cascade volcanoes younger than ~10,000 years, including Mount Meager which experienced a major eruption about 2,350 years ago similar to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. And there's eruptions at the Bridge River Cones and Silverthrone Caldera that are undated but appear younger than 1,500 and 1,000 years old...... Since most of my work on Wikipedia is associated with Canadian volcano articles, I have added many potential hazards. There's at least 11 volcanoes in British Columbia (including Garibaldi, Cayley, Meager and Silverthrone) associated with recent seismic activity and the most recent of them is Nazko Cone beginning in October last year and no Canadian volcanoes are significantly monitored! The volcanoes associated with seismic activity are the ones most likely to erupt per the Geological Survey of Canada website...... Black Tusk (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And if a volcano has seismic activity or hot springs, it's not necessarily dormant or extinct, they are potentially active...... Black Tusk (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, in reply to Mwtoews, there's at least on the Whistler article one natural hazard mentioned - the bear control section. Given that, a natural hazards section seems already started, if not by name; the Vancouver article, like various other BC articles, should probably have such a section, though the tourist-board and CoC people who patrol the sites won't like to see it there. In Whistler's case the primary natural hazard, and the one most likely to affect the Olympics, is torrential rain causing highway washouts and slope instabilities (including hte Barrier and Porteau bluffs but, in fact, most of Highway 99, including Whistler to Cache Creek (though landslides beyond Cayoosh Pass are more likely to be rockslides due to thermic or seismic reasons rather than precipitation). The proximity of the Whistler Olympic Park to Mount Cayley likely wasn't something VANOC let the IOC know about, if they even knew themselves (not that a Cayley eroption would affect only the Callaghan Valley). BTW was there any correlation beteen the rockfall at Porteau and the recent quake?Skookum1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also noteworphy that Canada is vulnerable to an eruption. There are more than 200 potentially-active volcanoes in Canada, 49 of which have erupted in the past 10,000 years. [3] Black Tusk (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Callaghan Valley

I just substantially enlargd this article's geographic content; I didn't know enough about volcanic formations in the ranges surrounding it, or features actually within it like lava and such, so wasn't quite comfortable with putting a vocanic category on it; despite the descripton of the Brandywine Lava Plateau in the article....hmmm it includes some of the actual basin of c-creek if not the valley per se.Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm probably going to make some minor changes to it later though. I'm also probably going to give the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article (not created yet) a boost to GA status but currently working on the Wells Gray-Clearwater field article. Black Tusk (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know re geology/geothermal/hot springs info I found this which is a report on Callaghan Lake Park; aside from general geological details it mentions that in addition to the Cayley hot springs there's another on Brandywine Creek east of Mount Fee; not located on the map and unnamed....has me wondering if the back-country skiers and/or snowcat-tour operations frequent it, given its proximity to the highway, and to Whistler; going to search similar sources about the ones Iv'e heard about in the Soo Valley.Skookum1 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found too much geothermal info about the Cayley springs for some reason. All/most of the hot springs in that area is further evidence of continuous volcanic activity. Black Tusk (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find anything on the alleged (by me) hot springs in the upper Soo, but did go ahead and make Brandywine Creek (British Columbia), with the hot springs ref and cat, and also Brandywine Mountain, which I thought you'd better know about in case it's volcanic (as it probably is - ??).Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Brandywine Mountain is probably volcanic. There's a photo of Brandywine Mountain on Commons I uploaded a few months ago. I'll probably add it to the article later. Black Tusk (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to complete the set, as it were, I just made Powder Mountain (British Columbia); like other PM Icefield summits probably volcanic, no? I'll get to Sproatt and Rainbow at some point, though they're not volcanic (Rainbow maybe?).Skookum1 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Powder Mountain is likely to be volcanic as well. There's a few more volcanic peaks in the Powder Mountain Icefield but they don't seem to have official names (i.e. Pali Dome, Little Ring Peak). Black Tusk (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[undent]Thought you might want to look at the pic of The Red Tusk from bivouac.com. Few other Tantalus Range summits hvae articles so I didnt' bother to make one (I thought this was in the Powder Mtn area which is why I looked it up; it's visible from Whistler, just barely).Skookum1 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks similar to Black Tusk at Garibaldi Lake except The Red Tusk is made of red metamorphic rock. Black Tusk (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field

I have listed it as a GA. Good work. J.T Pearson 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes Newsletter (August 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by --Lord₪Sunday 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Monck Provincial Park

Thought you might want to know this park features lava beds - presumably Chilcotin Plateau Basalts, but I don't know as I think there are cones of some kind around the Thompson Plateau, and of course there's the Keremeos Columns so maybe there's other volcanoes in that area? The site I found mention of it on is the Nicola Valley tourism site linked through the Thompson-Okanagan tourism site; here it is; it's a bit overblown in saying it's one of only two provincial parks where you can hike along lava beds; are they meaning Nisga'a/Tseax or Garibaldi? Chasm? Callaghan Lake? Seems to me they missed the beat on that comment huh?Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's in the Chilcotin Playeau Basalts. Is the park near Kelowna? There's a cluster of volcanoes in that area, probably the youngest of the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts. Black Tusk (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Coast Range Arc

Updated DYK query On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coast Range Arc, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Another impressive piece of work! On the suggestion page I made a couple of suggestions on the DYK hook, and I think one point could be some clarified. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The images Mount Edziza volcanic complex map.jpg, Armadillo Peak caldera.jpg and Eve Cone lava flow.jpg seem to be derivative works based upon Google Earth screenshots. Google Earth images are not free. Jespinos (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it not free if it's not the same? Is there any free material I can use to make the samething with? Black Tusk (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
See Derivative work. Free material can be obtained from NASA World Wind (see restrictions) and http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/ (but right now the site is down). Jespinos (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about World Wind. I knew there was something similar to Google Earth made by NASA but couldn't remember what its name was. Black Tusk (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
How do you zoom in with World Wind? Black Tusk (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
See [4]. Jespinos (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Edziza volcanic complex GA review

I have reviewed the article, and have found it satisfactory. See the review page for more information. --Jordan Contribs 07:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been passed as a GA. Good work. --Jordan Contribs 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Well-deserved. Kablammo (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again. Now I have to make more GAs ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Updated DYK query On 15 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mount Edziza volcanic complex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Louvre Abu Dhabi GAN

I have nominated this article for GA status. Recently it has undergone a major expansion, and is hopefully ready for GA. If you have time, could you please review it? Your comments and advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Jordan Contribs 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. GA reviewing is something I haven't done before, nor am I part of the GA WikiProject. But I looked at the article and it seems to look pretty good. Black Tusk (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Get back to me if you need any more articles reviewed. Cheers, --Jordan Contribs 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Northwest Territories

We could raise it for discussion at WP:CWNB (and probably should, since there's a mix of both formats in use right now), but the actual AFD discussion was for Yukon-related categories alone. There's been a fairly strong consensus that just "Yukon" is the preferred usage in formal contexts, even if people still say "the Yukon" in casual conversation, but I don't think there's ever been as clear an agreement on what the preferred format is for NWT. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've raised it at WP:CANTALK#Northwest Territories. Please participate if you have any input. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September Newsletter

The September version of the WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter has been posted! Be sure to check it out! — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for a project you can really sink your teeth into?

I noticed you are a member of the Geography WikiProject. I thought you might be interested in this...

A huge collaboration is underway, in which participants all work on 247 pages at a time. That's right, there are 247 pages in the set, and we're all working on all of them! We kind of cheat, by using advanced wikitools like AWB and Linky that let you load or switch between pages quickly (and other tricks).

We're building a geography reference aid for Wikipedia covering every country of the world. Organized as topic outlines (a type of structured list), these pages present maps, pictures, basic information on each country, and links to essential articles about each country on Wikipedia. We have created 247 drafts (one for every country of the world), 28 of which have been completed enough that they've been moved to article space already (so people can make use of them, even though they're still under construction). The rest are getting pretty close.

Each of these pages in turn form part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge, and when completed, this branch of the outline will be the best general navigation aid for browsing country-related information on Wikipedia.

We're looking for users who love geography, and who use or would like to start using:

...to edit many pages fast.

While some of us work on completing one country page at a time, most of the work we do entails completing a particular knowledge item on all of the pages. For example, filling in the population figures for each country, or creating redirects to "bluelink" standard link names used throughout the set, or placing a specific type of map on each page, etc. etc.

Working in this way is kind of like traveling around the world, since you get to visit the page of each country of the world to work on it.

Tasks range from the simple (filling in blanks, search/replace, copy/paste) to the more complex (Customizing sections to each country, Google searches of Wikipedia to find relevant articles, etc.).

This project is very important, because information is only useful if you can find it, and these pages show you what's here on Wikipedia without you having to guess at what to type in a search box.

To give you an idea of what these pages will look like when complete, here are the most complete ones so far:

If you are interested in joining in on the fun, please drop me a note.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

leaving for a while

I'm taking an indefinite break. I'd consider you one of my closest "wiki-friends", so I thought I'd let you know I'm taking a break. While I'm gone, watch over WP:QUAKE for me. Hope to see you soon, —Ceran [speak] 01:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake

Please stop using geo-stub s for earthquakes! Geo-stubs are used specifically for articles to do with the geographical features of a location, not for geological or historical events. This is the stub scheme as it is used on articles worldwide - having articles for Canada using a different scheme would cause major problems for stub sorting (imagine trying to sort such things if different countries all used different systems and stub-sorters had to keep track of it all. I've made a suggestion for a specific earthquake-stub at WP:WSS/P - please feel free to join in the discussion of that. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a no. Earthquakes are part of geography. Do a simple google search. See here for example. I'm following natural standards period and they are also part of geology. Just because your an administrator doesn't mean your the boss. Black Tusk (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Me being an administrator has nothing to do with it. You following consensus does. These stub types are specifically designed for particular uses - using them incorrectly is disruptive to other editors. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok sorry. I thought you were being bossy, especially because of the exclamation mark. Black Tusk (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for that - it was more surprise that you were using the stub that way than bossiness. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Volcanology-stub}}

Hi again. I'm not sure why you did it, but you seem to have added {{Volcanology-stub}} to a heap of articles about volcanoes, none of which should be marked with it. Please could you help to remove them! Volcanology-stub is only to be used on articles relating to the science of volcanology, in the same way that glaciology stub is only used for glacier science but never used for specific glaciers, ocean-stub is used for oceanographic science but never used for specific oceanic locations, and geology-stub is used for the science of geology but never used for specific geological features. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be deleted. These stubs and categories are basically useless then since almost everything with this stub is a volcano, also before I started adding this stub on volcano articles. Black Tusk (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not true - it was made the way it is after consultation with various WikiProjects that use it, and consensus was that it should only be used for volcano science. As mentioned, this is entirely consistent with other stub types related to earth sciences. There are enough stubs on that subject alone to warrant a stub category - it was certainly well above the requisite threshold for a separate stub category for the primary stub type which had a supporting WikiProject. Please try to follow the established consensuses on stub-related topics rather than causing disruption by trying to re-scope specific stubs in different ways without discussing the matter with WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, Wikipedia stub templates/categories should be more simple to use since volcanoes are one of the top subjects of volcanology, and glaciers are one of the top subjects in glaciology. Black Tusk (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed they are, but as pointed out, the wikiprojects involved in these subjects were happy enough to have these stub types specifically designated for the science itself rather than individual volcanoes and glaciers concerned.In fact, it's ar easier to use Category:Volcanology stubs without the volcanoes being listed in there - you yourself point out that it looks as if there are no articles on the science of volcanology in there. There are, but they're so swamped by articles that shouldn't be in there that it's almost impossible to find them. Now, will you please help to repair the disruption you have caused, by removing those incorrect tags? Grutness...wha? 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I never said there isn't any articles on the science of volcanology in there. What I ment was very few. In fact, I looked in the volcanology stub category before I started adding those stubs to volcano articles. If there's lots of articles about the science of volcanology in that category now, they must have been tagged latter on. As for helping to repair the so-called disruption, I think I'm better off quitting Wikipedia then doing something like that because I totally disagree and I already went though pretty much all volcano articles with that stub which took me more than two days to nearly complete. Another thing, I'm one of the few members of WikiProject Volcanoes that put lots of effort in volcanology articles. Black Tusk (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In which case you should have been aware what the stub type was used for. And no, looking related changes in Category:Volcanology stubs, those stubs were there before you started your work. If you have no wish to help with putting right what you did, then that's fine, though sad - you simply wasted two days of your time, followed by wasting more time for other editors, time which could better have been spent on other projects on Wikipedia. It would be sad if you left the project - it's clear that you did more than simply add an incorrect stub, and the rest of the edits you did to those articles look good. It's just the stubbing which is the annoyance. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be another user that started using this stub, which is why I started adding this stub to volcano articles, but seems to have retired recently. How many articles had that stub before I started my work - 100-200-300? I could just be thinking 300 articles is not lots. I would help out with putting right stubs on articles, but which volcanology articles would have that stub? Black Tusk (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as WP:WSS is concerned, all stub categories should ideally have between 60 and 600 articles. Any less than that and they're better upmerged into larger categories; any more and they become difficult for editors to use and difficult for stub sorters to patrol. The lower limit drops to 30 is the category is the primary stub type for a wikiproject (like this one is for WP:Volcanoes). {{Volcanology-stub}} can still bee used for stubs on specific eruptions, eruption types, institutes, volcanologists, and possibly for hotspots (which would be double-stubbed with an appropriate geo-stub). I went through all the "A"s in the category yesterday, and there are still five articles beginning with A that definitely belong in there. Going by that there are probably 50-60 stubs in total that would use it - and that's without going through Category:Geology stubs to see whether some of those really belong in there too. Actually, that's one area where your knowledge on the subject would be very useful - there are a lot of articles marked with {{Geology-stub}} that could probably do with something more precise like volcanology-stub, tectonics-stub, mineral-stub or the like... Grutness...wha? 23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing with hotspots and possibly mantle plumes as well, since those seem to be more scientific. Black Tusk (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The chromitite article is a petrology stub as is noted on the page. To put a volcanology stub on the article is quite misleading. Chromitite has nothing to do with volcanoes. If a second stub is needed (doubtful) then it should be an economic geology stub (stub that doesn't yet exist as far as I know). Slapping a volcanology stub and volcanology project on talk to any igneous rock article is simply absurd. Seems some volcanology project enthusiasts need to refocus and do some article writing rather than slapping rather irrelevant stubs around. Vsmith (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The volcanology article currently says: Volcanology is the study of volcanoes, lava, magma, and related geological and geophysical phenomena. Intrusive/plutonic rocks are magmatic. And dunite seems to be erupted from volcanoes if it exists in volcanic bombs. How is this not part volcanology? Black Tusk (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There's bound to be some overlap with what are closely related subjects. There's nothing wrong with having both templates, or even three or four stub templates on a page (more than four is too many though), if it'll catch the attention of editors who are specialists in more related areas. Several of those articles could also comfortably take {{mineral-stub}} as well. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, overlap exists. However, chromitite has nothing to do with volcanoes and dunite exists as accidental xenoliths carried up with basalts on occaision. Komatiites are the volcanic expression of olivine rich rocks. And if getting more attention is the goal, then why remove the volcanology stub from all those stubby volcano articles - mixed signals there. Seems the mineral stub was the subject of discussion recently because it was too inclusive and therefore too large. Vsmith (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Not mixed signals at all - as explained previously, volcanology-stub is for the science of volcanology - WP:Volcanoes is using a talk page template for specific volcano articles and they and other landforms are always maed simply with the appropriate geo-stub, and given the sheer number of them they would swamp any articles on the science of volcanology if included in that category. The same categorisation practice occurs for a lot of related fields (undersea locations are not marked with the stub for oceanography, for instance, neither are glaciers marked with glaciology-stub, for instance). In the case of individual articles, I'll leave you and Black Tusk to argue over whether specific templates are relevant to specific articles, but simply wished to point out that there's nothing wrong with using both if both apply. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree both templates can be used, which is why I kept the petrology stub. But anything related to the science of volcanology should be part of WikiProject Volcanoes and have a volcanology stub as mentioned above. Black Tusk (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And there's nothing absurd about adding stubs and projects to articles. Actually that's what you are supposed to do for WikiProjects. Black Tusk (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well - that looks like the category's back to where it should be :) For your help in getting it to that state (and for not getting too annoyed with me in the first place!) I think you probably deserve this:

The E=mc² Barnstar
Awarded to User:Black Tusk for his diligent work in editing and patrolling pages related to earth sciences, and for his help in the laborious task of stubbing/restubbing/destubbing them. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I just finished. Do you think large igneous provinces should have this stub? Black Tusk (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It's borderline, but probably a little bit too big to be considered a stub. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean the main article, I'm talking about the subject itself. Black Tusk (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh - sorry, misunderstood. Mmmm. It;'s a borderline one. probably like the hotspots, double-stubbing with volcanology-stub and the appropriate geo-stub would be reasonable (in fact, I left a few like British Tertiary Volcanic Province exactly like that). In some cases the provinces cover such a wide area that using one specific geo-stub would be a problem though - in those cases probably just the volcanology-stub would make some sense. The same's true of any other similar types of article where the rock formation is spread over such an area that geo-stub's impractical (e.g., Borrowdale Volcanic Group). If that doesn't make sense from the scientific point of view, though, let me know - this isn't my specialist area (my partner Alice is better equipped for this sort of discussion - her interests include geochronology and paleogeography). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

not a volcano, but....

Yo; someone had added mention of Mount Breakenridge to the Harrison Hot Springs article in a special "Tsunami" section, so I finally went and made its stub....at one time I had a bunch of browser tabs open with pages/pdfs/images on Breakenridge but never got around to using them before I had to crash the computer or clear up RAM anyway; this was months ago, but I know there's lots out there. You're way better with geological materials than I am, and while there are tectonics involved here it more has to do with rock structures/composition....there's lots of stuff.....it's not a volcano but I know you like disaster-type stuff; I didn't cite what I put in the draft article so words like "potentially" crept in; Woodside and Bear, the two mountains at the foot of the lake, are only in the 3500-4000 ft range; enough to hold back the wave some, but between the canyon from Harrison Hot Springs to Kent Prairie/Agassiz, and the canyon of the Harrison River, any tsunami from Breakenridge will most likely hit the Fraser Valley hard, as well as dyke-sensitive lands downstream....and large numbers of fatalities, even if Harrison's not busy with tourists itself; a surge across the Fraser between Kent and Chilliwack could well crest across Sumas Prairie into the lower Nooksack.....I know that from various coverage ove teh years, it must be in some of the cites, though perhaps not phrased in such alarmist fashion. If yer dno't want to do it, let me know and I'll find someone else; I don't have the teeth for scientific materials.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm making a map for the several submarine volcanoes along the BC coast that could be used to replace the regional district map (e.g. Chelan Seamount, Dellwood Seamounts, Explorer Seamount, Graham Seamount, Heck Seamount). Took an OK image of Bowie Seamount here (which is in fact a former volcanic island) that could be used later on in the article if expanded. 1946 Vancouver Island earthquake is another article I'm plainning to expand. Black Tusk (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography WikiProject update

We've been steadily developing the set of country outlines, and they are getting close to being ready to move to article space. There's over two hundred of them, so this will be a pretty big event.

Penubag has been hard at work creating the images for the awards for this project, in preparation for a collaborative contest we will be hosting in order to recruit editors to the team.

In the meantime, I and a few others have been working on 3 fronts:

  1. On the outlines in article space to complete them so they will be good examples for editors working on the rest of the set.
  2. Adding or correcting other data (fixing redlinks, filling in blanks, etc.) in the overall set. This is the main type of work participants in "the contest" will be doing. The reason we're doing some of this now is to get a feel for it, to develop the fastest methods for each type of task.
  3. Improving the overall design and implenting changes on all 247 pages, whether in article space or not.

The main thing that needs to be done to the outlines so that they can be moved to article space is correct and complete the government branches sections, many of which include incorrect information that was placed there as temporary data by a template when these pages were created (in order to match the most countries and cut down on the work load).

We're looking for editors who love to work on lots of pages fast, who use or would like to use advanced tools like AWB and Linky. Most of the tasks entail working on a specific item on all of the pages in the set.

We're having a blast.

If you'd like to join in on the fun, drop me a note.

The Transhumanist    00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes Newsletter

Be sure to check out the October version of the WikiProject Earthquakes Newsletter for updates and news. Thanks, — Ceranthor  (Sing) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another country outline moved to article space!

Topic outline of Zimbabwe is now in article space. It still needs images and some bluelinking, and is undoubtedly missing some relevant links.

Please take a look at it. You will no doubt spot things you can easily fix that I overlooked.

The Transhumanist    19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Eruption pic 4 U

Hey Black Tusk, shoot me a wikimail (at left); a friend sent me a series of photos on the 2006 island-formation in Tonga, figure you might like to see 'em.Skookum1 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I created an article about the oldest seamount of the Louisville seamount chain yesterday called Osbourn Seamount which would be eventually destroyed by the Tonga and Kermadec trenches. BTW I finished remaking the Cascade volcano timetine to include the Cascade volcanoes in British Columbia. Black Tusk (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The images aren't PD, or I wouldn't think so....it's a series of shots from the yacht that was in the vicinity when the island breached the surface; begins with a "sand island" of pumice, they sail through it and then you see the eruption and the island-birth, Pretty neat to see; these guys are circulating the pics via email so they're in efectiev public-domain but still un credtied and "unreleased" I guess; myself I would have tried to selel them straight to GEO or Nat'l Geogrpahic....Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Volcanology stub

Could you please explain you rationale why you removed the volcanology stub from numerous volcanology related articles? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above. These stubs should only be on articles related to the science of volcanology, not volcano articles in general. Black Tusk (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volcanoguy/Archive_2&oldid=1190125569"