# Talk:Axial Seamount

Does this article really belong in Oregon or sub-category? The subject is 300 miles from any place in Oregon. Backspace (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Probaby not. ResMar 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely it does.  Its on-site study is staged from Newport, Oregon, and it is directly west of Portland.  If it does anything dramatic, it will definitely affect Oregon:  seismologically, emissions, weather, and the place where all the reporters will flock to.  —EncMstr (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

With a wealth of scientific papers regarding its eruption, this is looking to be an easy GA :) ResMar 02:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Doing.... ResMar 02:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll pick this up again. ResMar 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And again! My oh my. ResMar 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is erupting again!  See overview here and scientific details here.  15.234.212.124 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I'll put it on my to-do. ResMar 00:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(The bulk of a) removed post:

Someone wants the article to claim that the 2011 eruption "fulfilled the prediction" of a 16 year eruption cycle. First, there was no such prediction. The paper makes a cautious claim, specifying various caveats. Second, an interval of 13 years does not and cannot fulfil a prediction of a 16 year cycle in any case. 
I agree with the premise that banned editors are banned and should not edit; but I think this allegation is worth investigating. Restoring incorrect material is, after all, clearly not in the reader's best interests. At face value, it does appear that some of the claims need verification- certainly the maths behind the time-cycle doesn't seem to add up. Thoughts? — fortunavelut luna 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact 13 years is about 80% of the "recurrence interval of ~ 16 years between eruptions at Axial" predicted by the cited paper, so I don't see a problem with the existing wording. If anyone who is allowed to edit wishes to re-word it, please go ahead. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I see in any case the ~16y claim is now outdated, because of the subsequent 2015 eruption. I have updated the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This in the second paragraph must be wrong: “generated lava flows up to 13 m (43 ft) thick, and the total eruptive volume was found to be 18,000–76,000 km3 (4,300–18,200 cu mi).”
Correct value maybe stated later in article. 2605:59C8:3332:7300:E9CB:1C84:B632:44E2 (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)