# Talk:Hawaii hotspot

This is a nice, informative article.
I've made conventional copyedit changes to simplify verb tenses and remove redundant words that readers can fill in for themselves (E.g., "Pacific" instead of "Pacific Ocean".) Also conventionally, the "hedging" language that stipulates dates and measurements are approximate is removed...readers will automatically assume that figures are rounded without the article saying so.
Stylistically, the opening phrase "perhaps best known" is removed, since it's unprovable, and irrelevant whether it's the best known or not.
Spelling Hawaii as Hawai'i is not a standard English dictionary spelling, does not match the article title, and may serve to confuse readers away from the central topic of the article, which is the hotspot.
67.169.127.166 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up, but what is the basis for thinking that "hotspot" should be capitalized? As you point out for the spelling of Hawaii, capitalizing it does not match the title (and what are the rules that say titles are different from text?); the USGS does not capitalize it, and we don't capitalize it elsewhere in other hotspot articles. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page, but for closure -- for the benefit of future generations 75 million years from now -- I was struggling to figure out what the capitalization convention was. The original caps for Hawaii hotspot are restored.  Regards.  67.169.127.166 (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can currently developing a total rewrite of the article in my sandbox. ResMar 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Replaced. ResMar 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Still working on it. ResMar 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So yeah, I'm mostly done. ResMar 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I take that back; after then, I 3x'd the article, again. NOW it's done :P ResMar 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As requested I have gone through the article, I did a spelling, grammar copy edit and added a few coordinates to the last table.  Other comments are below:

If I can help let me know.Wikigillie (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
}}

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hawaii hotspot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I have just skimmed over the article for now, but there are several issues I can already see. Normally I would "fix it myself" but the issues are so numerous and pervasive, I think (in cases such as this) it is more helpful to let the nominator resolve these issues in order to "teach" them how to write better articles in the future.

TOC Odd placement of the TOC. The TOC should remain in the standard position unless there is an unusual situation that requires a different position.
Fixed. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Images Way too many of them, causing stack-ups. Also, image sizes should not be specified unless absolutely necessary. I would suggest not coding all the images together in one big stack, but instead, sprinkling them throughout the prose as well as alternating them from left to right (but only when possible, without placing them directly under 1st level headers, 2nd and 3rd are OK). You might want to leave out images which aren't directly relevant to the subject matter (such as the satellite photo of Hawaii Island), or redundant images (there are two photos of Pele's hair). I am not against photo galleries, but there are many who seem to think they don't belong in articles. Just a warning if you ever plan on nominating for FA in the future. For more info, see MOS:IMAGES.
Fixed, I believe. You say you still have problems with me putting sizes on several of the images, but that's because if they become too small the caption overloads. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of fixing this problem myself. Images should be relevant to the article itself, not merely decoration. Captions should provide as much info as possible, but they should not simply parrot large amounts of information already found in the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikilinks Problems with too many links, "easter egg" links, redundant links, and adjacent links (see WP:LINK). Piped links are ok, but it should be clear as to which article the link is referring to to avoid the easter egg problem. Adjacent links should be avoided because these can also confuse the reader. The sentence should be reworded to avoid adjacent links, or the links removed. Also there is a problem of overlinking, so simply removing a lot of the links to simple words (such as lava or maps) will reduce this problem. Example: In the introduction, changing [[Midway atoll|Midway]] [[atoll]] to just [[Midway atoll]], and removing the volcano link from [[volcano|volcanic]] [[hotspot]] will fix this problem. Also, wikilinks should only occur upon the first mention of the subject, and subsequent mentions of the word should not be linked. Linking words in the intro, and upon first mention in the body is OK, but third and fourth mentions should certiainly not be linked. There is still consensus-building regarding the linking of dates, but I am fine with it so I will let that one slide. There are also a fair number of ambiguous links, follow this link for more info.
All the dabs are fixed, and I think I've handled the overlinking adequatly. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Simple words that are understood by the common reader should not be linked. There are still easter egg links. Links should be piped only when necessary, and they should be as similar as possible to the article title, as this can cause confusion over what article the reader will be lead to when clicking on the link. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hope you removed enough to satisfy yourself, because you edit conflicted me. ResMar 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't removed enough, I haven't even finished scanning the entire article. I fail to see the point of your objection, I am simply enforcing the MOS, not trying to make your life harder. If you disagree with my assessment I can always fail the article and you can ask for a resassessment or renominate and let another reviewer handle the review. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How did this get to a standoff? ResMar 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I've fixed the overlinking. I've removed several dozen redundant links. ResMar 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I interpreted your remarks as indignant, but if I was wrong then I apologize for over-reacting. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Introduction The lead paragraph is too short (see WP:LEAD for more info). The lead should be a summary of the entire article. I find it is easiest to just take snippets from each paragraph (or in the case of longer articles such as this one, perhaps every other paragraph) and put the most interesting and pertinent information into the lead.
Still extending intro, referencing issues fixed. I'm not very good at introductions. ResMar 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Gah, this is hard...if I put in too much information from certain sections, it gets all off-topicy. ResMar 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The intro is getting better, however, the information is too specific. There shouldn't be any information in the intro that cannot be found within the main body. It is ok to have a few facts and figures, but nothing too focused. Mentioning the rate of drift is fine, but mentioning the fact that it would cover the state of California with a blanket of lava one mile thick is too much info for the intro (not to mention that the information is not also found in the main body). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the specific line you were talking about. ResMar 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Redundant cites This is not really an issue, but I thought I should point out that one does not have to cite refs at the end of every sentence. If a single reference is used for an entire paragraph, one can simply cite it at the end of the paragraph. The standard format is to place the cite at the end of sequence of statements which are supported by the reference, or the end of a paragraph, whichever comes first. It is also not required to place citations within the introduction (unless the statement is controversial or being challenged, which I don't think we have that problem here), providing the information is repeated (and referenced) within the body of the article.
Fixed. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Whew, ok, I think I have covered everything, and I haven't even given the article my "thorough" review yet. On second thought, this probably would have qualified as a quickfail, as it might take longer than seven days to fix all the issues. But the seven day limit is mostly a suggestion and as long as I receive a reply within seven days I am willing to overlook the time limit. If an editor has not expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, that is usually when I fail the article. So... good luck! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Italics There is improper usage of italics throughout the article.
I'm assuming you mean its execution in the "erupted objects" section. That is now fixed. ResMar 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Okina There is inconsisent usage of the okina accent mark within the word "Hawaiʻi". Common usage is without the accent mark, but I'm not one to say it should be one way or the other, just keep it consistent.
According to my highlighter, this only came up once. Fixed. ResMar 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ref formatting References should be formatted using the proper templates (such as {{cite}}, {{cite book}}, or {{cite web}}), and should include at least the minimum fields (for books, publisher, page number, published date, author name, and version or edition if applicable: for websites, url, title, publisher, accessdate, and author name if available)
The use of a ref formater is a MoS suggestion, not a requirement. I've filled out all of the refs I used, but I'll go over them once I finish the other issues. ResMar 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment from passer-by: There is no requirement to use cite templates. The only thing that is required is the information about the source and that the citations are consistently formatted. See WP:CITE. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You are both right, they are not a requirement, however most GAs and FAs use them, and most reviewers ask for them. It just makes it easier for other editors to use and/or modify the refs in the future. On the other hand, it is required that the refs have the minimum amount of information. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had time to give the article a thorough reading just yet. Please be patient as it might be a few days before I can comb through the article and give it a proper assessment. Also, (just a suggestion, not an issue) if you have a commons account, I would suggest creating a category or gallery over there, and linking to it using the {{commons}} template. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think all the technical issues have been resolved. All that left now is for me to analyze the prose. It shouldn't take too much longer (I got off work early today, woohoo!). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro "The Hawaii hotspot is responsible for over 129 volcanoes" - I was under the impression that most of the 129 volcanoes are now extinct. It would be nice to explain exactly how many are extinct and how many are still active.
Sorry, no can do. Most of the Emporer seamounts and some of the northwestern island entities still have yet to be named. No one knows the exact distribution, as far as I've read. ResMar 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for the names, just the numbers. Aren't there only four active volcanoes on the islands of Hawaii, Kilauea, Haleakala, and Mauna Loa, including the Loihi Seamount? The rest of them are dead seamounts, atolls, or extinct volcanoes, are they not? If so, just explain how many active volcanoes are in the chain, and subtract it from the number of extinct volcanoes (123 extinct, 4 active, 2 dormant). I'm not sure if that is an exact figure, but I just made a quick google search and I had to piece these facts together from different sources. We just need a more exact number of, and types of volcanoes. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a point. But we do not know the exact number; the figure changes every year or so. We could say something on the lines of "the chain has 4 active, 2 dormant, and over 123 extinct volcanoes[4]" ResMar 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Challenges to the accepted theory "The expedition was funded by the Ocean Drilling Program, an international research effort designed to study the world's seafloors, and the drill sites were numbers 1203 through 1206." - Do we really need to know the drill site numbers? I fail to see the relevance of this fact.
Removed. ResMar 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm about halfway through the article analysis, the issues above are the ones I've found so far. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics and study "in the years 1880 to 1881, who first confirmed the increase and age of the islands moving northwest" - Should this read "increase in age"? Or is it trying to say "increase in number and age of the islands"?
No, just age. The early geologists didn't know about the existance of underwater seamounts as an extention to the Hawaiian islands. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps a change to "increase in age" is appropriate? The phrase "increase and age" makes no sense in this context. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. What a silly mistake :) ResMar 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Characteristics and study "The complete model for the evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes was formulated in 1946. Since the time of the mid-decade, advances have narrowed the gaps between data." - I'm unsure if the actual intention was to say "mid-century"? About 1950 would be mid-century and certainly would make more sense. Also I think these sentences should be combined if this is the case.
Fixed. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Characteristics and study "In the 1970s, the entire area was mapped. More direct ship data was compiled with math-based SYNBAPS data, with the ship-based bathymetrics carrying the most weight." - How was the area mapped during the 70s? Sonar? Also, (especially in the absence of a stand-alone article) we need some explanation of what "SYNBAPS" is.
Fixed. It's an acronym for a synthetic form of bathymetric mapping. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How was the area mapped during the 70s? With standard sonar? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, standard sonar. Fixed. ResMar 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Characteristics and study "Data collected from the Emperor seamounts up to the Hawaiian island volcanoes provide a 43 million year record of the hotspot's activity, with the oldest seamount lava dated to the late Mesozoic era (Cretaceous period), and the youngest Emperor lava flows dated to the early Cenozoic (Paleogene period), right up to the modern day with the eruptions on Loihi and Kilauea, a total of 82 million years of activity." - This statement seems to contradict itself, it is 43 or 82?
Dubious to understand; it doesn't conta itself-rather, the Emporer seamounts provide 43, the Hawaiians 39, and in total it is 82 million. ResMar 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Characteristics and study "The top cools and forms an insulating, jagged "shell" on the bottom of the flow in the form of large basalt chunks, which insulates the bottom and keeps it moving." - I got confused here, does "bottom" refer to the "end" of the lava flow?
Bottom refers to bottom half. Fixed. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Uncited Statements
Challenges to the hotspot theory "However, this could (and was believed to be) a result of the relative motions of the North American and Pacific plates rather then the hotspot itself."
Cited. ResMar 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Challenges to the hotspot theory "The theory, at least as a modification to the hotspot theory, has since been mostly accepted by the scientific community."
Removed. ResMar 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes "This is possible as Kilauea has been erupting continuously for the last 26 years through Puʻu ʻŌʻō,"
Done. ResMar 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Table The table at the bottom of the article is mostly uncited. Ages should definitely always be cited, and notes should be cited if they contain major facts or claims. Example: "A much eroded shield volcano that makes up the western quarter of Maui" is OK left uncited, but "Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on earth" is not.
Do I really have to fill up the article with dozens of barely related citations when it is first and formost presented in their respective articles? The ages for sections two and three are cited (check the headers) ResMar 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes you do. Even though the citations can or may be found in their respective articles, you still need to cite the info for this article. You may simply "borrow" the reference from those respective articles, and this will save you some time. If the refs include links to websites, at least make sure the link is not broken before adding it to this article, and be sure to update the accessdate. Books and journals are fine, even if you have not personally checked the validity of those sources, we can assume whoever has cited them has added the refs in good faith. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
So filling out refs. ResMar 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in the tables. I had a hard time finding all of the ages. ResMar 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
i've been out lately. ResMar 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this is taking so long, but this article is pretty deep and I don't want to overlook anything. --ErgoSum|talk|trib 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have nitpicked enough. This article has been vastly improved and I think actually exceeds the requirements for a Good Article. Thanks for your cooperation, and good work, I'm sure this article must have taken a lot of time. And just to make this official...
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All issues addressed, article passed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article; I might add a couple links since I am working on some other Hawaii articles somewhat related to volcanoes (history). Two questions: I think Native Hawaiian link should instead be Ancient Hawaiian? "Native" refers to anyone of Hawaiian ethnic ancestry(or born in the state, ambiguous) of any time period. "Ancient" refers to the period before the Kingdom of 1810, (or contact with Europeans, generally 1778 or before). That is, it is the time period that is relevant here, not the ethnic nature or birthplace. Also what about mentioning Māhukona in the table? Or is it too minor to mention? Generally agree with your use of diacritics, although I would use them in island names like Niʻihau, Lānaʻi etc. but there are precedents for dropping them in the major islands. Mahalo.

I did the change to ancient Hawaiian. Would also be nice to have a citation for this, or expand it a bit in the main body under "History". W Nowicki (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See the last section, "Hawaiian mythology". This is cited and explained further. Thanks for making the change, and btw this article is currently a Featured Article candidate so if you have any more suggestions it would be nice if you could leave comments using the link listed at the top of this talk page. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was looking under the "History" section, while it is in another section tacked to the end. I tend to like chronological order, so would put the Mythology section before the one on modern history myself, but that might be just taste. And sure, I will add a supporting comment for featured status. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading through this article, I definitely believe that it should be a featured article. Good luck! Kevinmon (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It certainly should be, but it's nowhere ready.  Lots of work to do... Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have some time to work on the history later today or tomorrow. I still think putting the history in chronological order (as it is in the lead) would be more powerful. It is quite relevant to this article that Hawaiians had a dynamic model of the Earth when Europeans were taught it was created exactly as it was 6000 years earlier. (Some still might believe that, but let's avoid that discussion.) The Wilkes journals are a pain to go through, but I can take a look too.
(later) OK I added a summary paragaph on the 1794-1841 explorations. Wilkes' own journals say little about the geology, but there are other sources. American Journal of Science and Arts is on-line so that helps,  so I think that is fine now, but pelase review. I will also volunteer to update to modern typography, instead of the old simplified writing of Hawaiian words (except of course the word "Hawaii" itself, as we can grant that is now an "English" word). W Nowicki (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Did that, and fixed a few other nits: the famous Pele pic is at the Jaggar Museum, not the main visitors' center, HVO has been run by USGS since 1924, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(: ResMar 15:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great article, I hope you succeed in getting it accepted as a featured article.
As a latecomer here, I'm proposing a change rather than just doing it. The bold text in this sentence is poorly worded:
While most volcanic activity occurs along the boundaries of tectonic plates, powered by the movement of the plates, hotspots can occur far from any geological boundaries, and require a completely different mechanism for maintaining volcanic activity . . . 
I suggest something more like ". . . a different model is required to explain volcanic activity . . . "
Aloha! Awien (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The former 'controversy' section is now very much changed into a grab-bag "other features" section that still may need a little work. IMO the section should be removed and the info redistributed among the info on the hotspot itself. The metamorphasis of this section is due to the fact that on my inspection of the scientific literature, many of the claims cited to Don L. Anderson's article on mantleplumes.org are either unrelated, incorrect, or inconclusive. I'm currently debating having a small reference to him in the plumes section as a notable adversary to the general consensus that mantle plumes exist. But perhaps the main articles on hotspots and mantle plumes are a better place to that, as his opposition is in the vast, vast minority and isn't Hawaii-specific. Awickert (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that that section is somewhat of a grab bag.
Made some minor changes in preparation for redistribution. Areas of possible further change include:
More recent articles can be found to update the overall plume-plate motion - Tarduno 2007 & Whitaker 2007
Discuss case for deep-mantle plume further  - Clouard 2001 and Courtier 2007
Possible antipodal hotspot is Lake Victoria (okay, that's a theoretical stretch) - Hagstrum 2005
Implications of the ratio of He3/He4 on hotspot behavior - Hanyu 2005
Hawaiian hotspot track preserved in the Bering Sea (compelling article, but perhaps not here) - Steinberger 2007
Implications of Hawaiian hotspot 7Li/6Li ratios as compared to mid-ocean ridges on formation mechanisms - Widom 2006
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
MORE thoughts after reading some of the literature - The long-standing view that hotspot volcanoes such as Hawaii or Iceland represent the surface expression of hot, buoyant upwelling mantle plumes beneath the Earth's lithosphere has been the focus of some controversy over the past 15 years. For example, based on seismic tomography Foulger (Foulger et al 2001 DOI: 10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01470.x) concluded that the Icelandic hotspot was an upper mantle, plume, limited to 450 km in depth. Further Graham (Graham et al 2001 doi:10.1038/35055529) and Meibom (Meibom et al 2003 DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00038-4), argue the use of 3He/4He ratios not necessarily a valid signature for deep-mantle plume components, but rather could result from secondary convection in the mantle. These are valid issues that need to be addressed by the volcanic hotspot article. However no recent peer-reviewed article reaches explicit conclusions about Hawaii & recently published peer-reviewed articles appear to put many of these issues to rest for the Hawaiian hotspot. As a result, I think this article as currently written may place too much importance on the shallow hotspot controversy.
Think the same can be said for the fixed versus moving controversy, although a little more reading will be required to confirm this issue has settled out around a consensus that both the hotspot and the plates move.
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your additions and edits! I will be popping in and out, but will try to set aside some time to work in the near future. I wonder if we can take the substantial material here as a running start to work on the general hotspot (geology) article as Bill suggests - I bet we can. All the articles I've read about Hawaii have the plume sourced at the core-mantle boundary as well. Awickert (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The more articles I read, the less sure I am that there is a clear path forward. There is strong evidence that the Hawaiian hotspot is "deep", BUT the overall controversy is alive and well and the resolution must account for the Hawaiian hotspot as well as numerous other interesting features. The good news is the literature reads as if a major insight might be just over the horizon, allowing resolution.  Too bad editing Wikipedia is a hobby - this warrants a good week of concentrated study to get it right. For now I'll continue to review articles until it becomes apparent how to address a restructure of the characteristics section (unless you (Awickert) or any other equally dedicated geology editor should get there first).
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have not had the time to do this, nor will I in the next couple of weeks at least. And I've volunteered to do too many things here. Feel free to leave me a message if there's something that you don't understand in an article though, and I'll do my best to help. You're a lifesaver, Awickert (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style convention is to use the ʻokina for the big island (as it is in the GNIS, for example, and modern scholarly maps) but not the state or island chain. So I do agree on removing it from the phrase "Hawaii hotspot", but several times the island is mentioned, and the article seems to not make this distinction clear. W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dumped the okinas. Lfstevens (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Restored 'okinas for the island of Hawai'i, as per consensus. You respect Latin declension sufficiently to use "fora" on your user page - how about according the same respect to Hawaiian orthography? Awien (talk)
Fair enough. Hadn't caught the distinction between the island the rest. Thanks. And, by the way, I spent many hours adding okina to various Hawaii-related articles until I got zinged for doing so. I've also added appropriate accent marks to many Hawaiian words. See List of fish of Hawaii to see it. Lfstevens (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the 'okina wars! Wanna see my scars? Anyway, sorry I was snappy, one meets too many people who are totally impervious to reason. Aloha! Awien (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
14:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I also was bothered by one place that talked about the "main island". Generally the "main island" is considered Oʻahu, since it has most of the population (capital, etc.), while the others are called "neighbor islands" or other terms indicating few people live on them. But it is the big island of course that has the eruptions, so fixed that one. There are a few other places that are ambiguous: they just say "Hawaii" but if the hot spot is under the big island, then it should be Hawaiʻi island, not the state as a whole, or the more proper term "Hawaiian islands" for the whole chain. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello from 2022! Updated the article's ʻokinas to conform to the standard established here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This article now includes huge amounts of material that is only loosely related to its subject. Why are we learning about lava trees and ʻaʻā here? This article should focus on how the hotspot produces islands, not on everything Hawaii-volcanic. This article is very long, and highly duplicative of other articles that more closely target their subjects. Lfstevens (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree: a lot that could be spun off, or referenced via links. Awien (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "In 1987, Peter Molnar and Joann Stock found that the hotspot (is moving) relative to the Atlantic Ocean."

As Africa and Europe are quite stationary.
As Plate velocities in hotspot reference frame: electronic supplement (PDF). p. 111. Retrieved 2010-04-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help), uses a rate for the Eurasia Plate relative to the Iceland hotspot of 5 ±3 mm/yr, and a rate for the North American Plate relative to the Iceland hotspot of 15 ±5 mm/yr.
Implying so that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving westwards and it is a very bad reference point. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
New England hotspot migrated from the West side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to the East side. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not a reference position. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Correction, John Tarduno used the latutide giving by the magnetismus of the basalts to propose this fact. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

References:
Torsvik, Trond Helge; Steinberger, Bernhard; Gurnis, Michael; Gaina, Carmen (2010). "Plate tectonics and net lithosphere rotation over the past 150 My" (PDF). Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 291: 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.055. Retrieved 18 June 2010., uses a moving hotspot frame after 100 Ma.
Tarduno, John A. (2009). "The Bent Hawaiian-Emperor Hotspot Track: Inheriting the Mantle Wind". Science. 324: 50–53. doi:10.1126/science.1161256. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Steinberger, B.; Gaina, C. (2007). "Plate tectonic reconstructions predict part of Hawaiian hotspot track to be preserved in Bering Sea" (PDF). Geology. 35: 407–410. doi:10.1130/G23383A.1. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Poured a lot of blood into this article. Three failed FACs, that's enough. If anyone else wants to grapple with the ton of problems it has please go ahead, but more then enough for me. ResMar 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry. Maybe just a good article quality stamp is worth the effort. The featured article one seems to disappoint many wiki editors. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I do not try to bring lengthy articles to FA class..... BT (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Me and Mario put a lot of work into this article, and even though it never passed FA I am not disappointed in our efforts. I'd say the article looks pretty damn good, although perhaps we added lots of things that didn't necessarily belong here... it is easy to get carried away when trying to be "thorough". I actually would try again if I had the time, but I have other things I'd rather work on... so I'm with Mario, let everyone else deal with it. I am done as well. I'm sure someone else can do a better job with this as geology isn't really my strong point anyway. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see we agree on this. A Hawaiian volcanism FT was unrealistic, anyway...anyway I'm very aprehensive about launching anything right now because I have to go on vacation soon (aurgh I hate that place >.>). I still want to get an FL out of the list, though :L ResMar 02:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently different paragraphs refer to the oldest seamount as 82m or 86 million years old. If there is a difference in scientific opinion can we explain that, if it is an error would someone mind fixing it? Ta ϢereSpielChequers 22:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Oxford says and the journal of Petrology both say 85 million years, as does List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. Conflicting dates, perhaps? I'm going to go with 85. ResMar 02:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

After the recent surge of edits, this article has reached a plateau. Maybe it's time to nominate it for FA status! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe following references help:

JM Whittaker, RD Müller, G Leitchenkov, H Stagg, M Sdrolias, C Gaina, A…, Major Australian-Antarctic plate reorganization at Hawaiian-Emperor bend time, Science 318 (5847), 83-86 [1]
JM Whittaker, RD Müller, G Leitchenkov, H Stagg…, Response to Comment on" Major Australian-Antarctic Plate Reorganization at Hawaiian-Emperor Bend Time"  - Science, 2008 [2]
AK Baksi, M Hagos, C Koeberl…, A Review of the Radiometric Data Placing the Hawaiian–Emperor Bend at 50 Ma; Placing Constraints on Hypotheses Concerning the Origin of the Hawaiian–Emperor… - Topics in Igneous…, 2010 - books.google.com [3]
Page 56 has revised age determinations
B Steinberger, C Gaina, Plate-tectonic reconstructions predict part of the Hawaiian hotspot track to be preserved in the Bering Sea, Geology 35 (5), 407-410 [4]
Faccenna, C., Becker, T. W., Lallemand, S., Steinberger, B. (2012): On the role of slab pull and mid‐Cenozoic changes in the motion of the Pacific plate. ‐ Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L03305 DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050155 [5]
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The theory should be modified, the Hawaii hotspot might left traces at the Bering Sea, it changed its track at 50 Ma, as the Pacific plate changed its direction with the onset of subduction at Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc and later at the Kermadec-Tonga Subduction Zone too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hawaii hotspot. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://tor9.big.ous.ac.jp/People/torii/PDF/Tarduno03.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322153433/http://smu.edu/geothermal/heatflow/heatflow.htm to http://smu.edu/geothermal/heatflow/heatflow.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026010925/http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/I-map/i2809/i2809.pdf to http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/i-map/i2809/i2809.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 16 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Structurefan17046 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Structurefan17046 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The 'Volcanoes' section has a sum that isn't correct.  It says: "...at least 129 volcanoes, more than 123 of which are extinct volcanoes, seamounts, and atolls, four of which are active volcanoes, and two of which are dormant volcanoes".  Exactly '4' plus exactly '2' plus 'more than 123' equals 'more than 129', not 'at least 129'.  Would it be better to change it to 'at least 130', or to 'more than 129'? SandyJax (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It might better read "...at least 129 volcanoes, 123 being extinct volcanoes, seamounts, and atolls, four being active volcanoes, and two dormant volcanoes" ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)