Talk:Yellowstone Caldera

message: Notice the part where it says "none of these things are likely to have any effect and would likely cause an eruption." Well which one is it!?
:I removed the offending line. Now the sense of the paragraph (I think) is to indicate that such things would have no effect; there is no real need for such things anyway.  Cheers Geologyguy 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Contradictory Statements Batman 

message: Why cannot this bubble of magma be lanced like  a boil to let it all out slowly?--Light current 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a probable depth to magma of 8 to 10 km (26,000 to 32,000 ft), it is toward the limit of modern drilling technology, but not beyond it.  But, most drill bits and steel drill strings would probably melt in the magma, and as the pressure was released volatiles (water, CO2, etc) would come out and the magma would freeze.  Even if it could come up a drill hole, the volume would be soooooo tiny that even dozens of holes would have little effect - the "bubble" is huge.  And actually, long before the "supervolcano" explosion, great volumes of magma must come out naturally, to create the void space into which the roof of the caldera collapses, releasing the pressure over a wide area catastrophically, and thereby setting off the supervolcano eruption.  It will likely be a span of dozens, if not hundreds of years or more, of such small eruptions before the "big one" can happen.  Of course, maybe sometime in the next 100,000 years, we will learn how to "de-fuse" such an event.  I live 120 miles from it and I'm going to sleep very well tonight.  Cheers Geologyguy 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as a geology guy, cant you think of any way to release this pressure?--Light current 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - I would just let nature do it in her own good time.  Cheers Geologyguy 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I really needed to do this, I'd using consider a hydrogen bomb. However, this has certain drawbacks of its own, and often, trying things like this leads to quickly creating a very bad situation that otherwise might have been avoided. (See for example Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident.) If Mama Nature decides that it's time to drop the hammer on us, there isn't a whole lot we can do. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess the silver bullet would be a huge geothermal power plant on top of the bubble to transform the destructive power of this volcano into infinite amounts of usable energy. But I also guess that we will just have to hope that the volcano won't erupt until such a project is somehow feasible. --Mudd1 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the thing really becomes active, this is rather like having a windmill in a tornado. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you may want to take an object lesson from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Of8cm0kS8  71.229.179.61 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance  it? 

message: If you draw points on a map for the 3 supervolcanoes in the US, and make a triangle, in the middle of the triangle seems to be a basin located in Utah. Also, around the triangle seems to be a rim of mountains, some over 3 km high, and in the middle and around it is mostly lower land. This sounds like the shape of a volcano, so is it possible that this whole area is a massive supervolcano? Should it be kept away from the article? How big is the largest supervolcano except for this hypopethical one? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by the three supervolcanoes in the US, but in any event and no matter what they are, no, it is not possible that the whole areas is a massive supervolcano. The geology, tectonics, history, and everything else about Utah or any other vast area like that makes it completely clear that this is not the case. Cheers Geologyguy 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, also, have any valuable minerals ever been discovered in this area (diamonds, gold, silver, oil, coal, gas, water)? The landscape of this area seemsideal for that. When I said the 3 volcanoes, that includes Yellowstone, Long Valley, and anotherone in New Mexico. Should any of this (minerals, etc.) be in the article? Or is it unverifiable due to WP:NOR? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warehouse 13 showed a map in episode 2-12 of the Long Valley Caldera, Yellowstone Caldera and Valles Caldera triangle (but since 3 points always make a triangle....).  They are all still active.  Long and Valles aren't over hotspots and are not understood as to their source of energy.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes to the minerals question, all of the above except diamonds, plus huge amounts of copper and many other things. Many, many verifiable and reliable sources cite these dozens of mineral occurrences - I'm sure we have articles about them, see for example Bingham Canyon.  It is the rich and diverse geologic history that enhances the occurrence of these useful commodities, but it has nothing really to do with the Yellowstone Caldera and certainly does not belong in this article, IMO. Cheers Geologyguy 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the volcanic triangle 

message: Smaller steam explosions occur every 20,000 years or so; an explosion 13,000 years ago left a 5 kilometer diameter crater at Mary Bay on the edge of Yellowstone Lake (located in the center of the caldera).
No.  Volcanic eruptions occurred every 20,000 years from 640,000 years ago until 70,000 years ago.  During the last 15,000 years, there have been no volcanic eruptions but lots of steam (hydrothermal) explosions, including the one at Mary Bay.  Some may have occurred earlier, but evidence was largely wiped out by the glaciers.
A full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone caldera could result in millions of deaths locally and catastrophic climatic effects globally, but there is little indication that such an eruption is imminent.[citation needed]
''
Best citation is probably that by two of the coordinating scientists of YVO.
Lowenstern, J.B., Smith, R.B., and Hill, D.P., 2006, Monitoring Super-Volcanoes: Geophysical and Geochemical signals at Yellowstone and other caldera systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, v.264,no. 1845, p. 2055-2072.
It is available in pdf on the home page of the YVO website (link is there).  Article is written for a general scientific to lay audience.
>Geologists are closely monitoring the rise and fall of the Yellowstone Plateau, which averages +/- 1.5 cm yearly, as an indication of changes in magma chamber pressure.[citation needed]
The up and down movement is highly variable.  An average is not very meaningful.  The caldera has moved up about 7 cm each of the past two years.  A good description is in the article above, or you can simply link to the GPS data on the website.  There is also another USGS Fact Sheet (Brantley et al., 2004) on the YVO website that discusses uplift in some detail.
>Occasionally proposals are suggested for ways to safely relieve the buildup of dissolved gas in the Yellowstone magma chamber, usually involving drilling holes or using explosives to release small amounts of pressure in a controlled manner.[citation needed] 
You won't find any citations because there aren't any credible plans.  This is not technically feasible, as is pointed out here on the comment page.
69.144.201.130 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments from someone who knows about the Yellowstone caldera but not much about editing in Wikipedia. 

message: This report was released on March, but it doesn't appear to have made it here yet...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17629668
"Data shows that the caldera floor sank 4.4 inches from 1987 until 1995. From 1995 until 2000, the northwest rim of the caldera rose about 3 inches, followed by another 1.4-inch rise until 2003. Then between 2000 and 2003, the caldera floor sank a little more than an inch.
And then from 2004 to 2006 the central caldera floor rose faster than ever, springing up nearly 7 inches during the three-year span."
-Electrostatic1 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as these sort of measurements haven't been able to be made until GPS came into general use, it's not known whether these movements are indicative or just normal; there's simply no track record.  We already know the whole area lies above a lava pool 10-20 km down, so whether these measurements mean anything other than business as usual has yet to be learned. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Update Movement Data? 

message: The banner at the top of this article and the Yellowstone Plateau one say to come here to find the discussion of a merge.  I don't see any.  Is something out of sync or is there just no discussion?
This article appears to have been lifted word for word from wordpress.com (or vice versa).
I'd like to comment that the Plateau article talks a lot more about a caldera than a plateau.  IMHO, as it stands, merging it makes sense.  But speaking as a casual passer-by, it would be nice to see it stand on its own by showing and telling the how, what, and where of the plateau.  I don't usually think of plateaus and caldera as coexisting.
Kkken 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either expanding both articles or combining them is feasible, but the plateau itself has the caldera inside it, so merging this article into the one about the plateau would be best if done at all. That wordpress article is likely a mirror of this one.--MONGO 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Merge is definately warranted. especially considering the size of the Plateau article. Maybe use a name like "geography of the Yellowstone region"?--Marhawkman (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This article is currently confused b/c the Yellowstone Caldera is merely a geographic feature created by the most recent supereruption on the plateau! Yet the article goes on as if the two previous supereruptions on the plateau were from a thing called the "Yellowstone Caldeara." True, the plateau was largely created by these three eruptions and Yellowstone Plateau needs to be expanded. But I don't think a merge is in order; a move is. This article should therefore be moved to Yellowstone Supervolcano (which is now a redirect here) or to the more academic Yellowstone volcanic field if the focus is only the last three supereruptions and minor eruptions between. Eventually, we need to create Snake River Plain-Yellowstone Hotspot to describe the creation of the Snake River Plain through the entire series of eruptions (super and not so super). Yellowstone Supervolcano will be summarized in a section in that article and expanded on here. --mav (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about creating the hotspot article a few months ago but I don't know too much about the subject. Yellowstone hotspot appears to be the most common used term and currently redirects to Yellowstone Caldera which I find is inappropiate. The Yellowstone hotspot is also responsible for older calderas in the area. Black Tusk (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly fond of the name "Yellowstone hotspot" b/c the hotspot is not unique to the Yellowstone area. But I concede that common usage dictates otherwise and we should probably go with that - so long as - the proper geologic name of 'Snake River Plain-Yellowstone' hotspot is given in bold in the first sentence. --mav (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably better to use Yellowstone hotspot also because the other hotspot articles don't have "hotspot" capitalized. Black Tusk (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and made a stub for the Yellowstone hotspot article and made Snake River Plain-Yellowstone Hotspot as a redirect. Black Tusk (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the discussion of [[Yellowstone Plateau]] merge? 

message: From the article: "The caldera's apparent motion to the east-northeast forms the Snake River Plain." No, that is wrong: The caldera is a geographic feature that doesn't move any more than a mountain or a lake moves. The hotspot stays more or less in place while the continent moves above it; separate calderas are formed above the hotspot. Yellowstone caldera is merely the last caldera formed via this process from a supereruption. Younger calderas exist, but they weren't from a supereruption. Older calderas exist, but they are not older expressions of this caldera. The article also gives the impression that the Huckleberry Ridge and Island Park supereruptions and calderas were from a feature called the "Yellowstone Caldera". I'll fix the glaring errors but this article needs to be moved to a more appropriate place. --mav (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now more-or-less fixed. But a move is still needed. I'll do this myself before too long. --mav (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with a move, but I'm not 100% sure that Yellowstone Supervolcano is the right spot.  What would a geologist call this article?  Would Snake River Plain-Yellowstone Hotspot be better, or is that a even more general article that would encompass more then just Yellowstone? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The hotspot article would cover all the eruptions it caused as it created much of the Snake River Plain. Much more is known and written about the last 3 overlapping supereruptions from the hotspot. Thus it makes sense to have an article just on those 3 supereruptions and other eruptions in-between. --mav (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused mess

message: I had seen a show on TV about the Yellowstone supervolcano. In the show, they said it was likely to have caused the near-extinction of humans. I wondered if this kind of thing could be integrated into the article. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our species of human, sapiens, have only been around for about 200,000 years. But the last super-eruption of Yellowstone occurred several hundreds of thousands of years before that. However, there is good evidence that the supereruption of the Lake Toba supervolcano about 75,000 years ago may have caused the near-extinction of our species. See Toba catastrophe theory. --mav (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the previous version of humans could've almost gotten wiped out, too, which would've put a crimp in the evolution tree leading to HSs. Lake Toba sounded pretty severe, though. These big eruptions could still occur and we could be sent back to primitive conditions, if we survived. Plants, fish, animals, and birds would all be affected. Brian Pearson (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The eruption they're referring to is the Toba eruption in Sumatra, whcih occurred 75,000 years ago. There exists in our DNA a so-called "bottleneck", which indicates a point when our genetic stock became drasically reduced, some say to as few as 200 individuals worldwide. Genetic dating estimates put the bottleneck at roughly the same era as the Toba eruption, suggesting it could almost have wiped us out. Serendipodous 15:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near extinction of Humans? 

message: There have been three additional quakes on 31 December 2008, with the most recent one occurring at 0842 MST. I have edited that section to reflect this. I am watching activity here. University of Utah Seismograph Stations: Recent Earthquakes for Yellowstone Tr1290 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A question for you: how unusual is this seismic activity, really? I originally created the "2008 Quakes" section, and have since been reflecting on the flood of 'end-of-the-world' stories in the media in the last few days. Could this story be another one of those? Sstteevvee (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Short answer - yes.  Swarms happen all the time, and anybody can track these this data in near real time and over-react to it.  About once a year, on average, the press gets caught up and this is what we have.  Thats not to say that the earthquake activity isn't interesting, its just that December 2008 isn't particularly special - at least not unless something more extensive happens then an earthquake swarm.  I'm going to take a shot at turning the current section into something a little bit less sensational. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, rock on. Sstteevvee (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to be a camp counselor in Yellowstone. Alot of times different things in Yellowstone can "turn on". The whole place comes alive. Gysers may erupt that haven't for tens or somtimes hundreds of years. It's really kind of neat to think about. I agree that people can over react and the recent swarm isn't anything special as much as it is cool. It should however be watched. --Npnunda (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, are these earthquakes really that unusual? This is a geologically active area, after all, and earthquakes do often happen here, in fact earthquakes up to magnitude 6 are not unheard of. The recent quakes would barely be felt by someone standing right over the epicenter. ~AH1(TCU) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  No, they are not that unusual. Which is what we just said. --Npnunda (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2008 Quakes 

message: Observe
Due to the volcanic and tectonic nature of the region, the Yellowstone Caldera experiences between 1000 and 2000 measurable earthquakes a year, though most are relatively minor, measuring a magnitude of 3 or less. Occasionally, numerous earthquakes are detected over a short period of time, an event known as an earthquake swarm. In 1985, more than 3000 earthquakes were measured over several months. More than 70 smaller swarms have been detected between 1983 and 2008. It is believed that these swarms are not caused by movements of magma but of hot water and gas.[9] The most recent swarm occurred in December 2008 and continued into January 2009, with more than 500 quakes detected under the northwest end of Yellowstone Lake over a seven day span, with the largest registering a magnitude of 3.9
more than 3000 over 'several months'
'it is believed that'
perhaps re-word this article to be more informative then questioning  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamesMaxter (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure much? 

message: Second paragraph under "Volcanism" states: "At least a dozen or so of these eruptions were so massive that they are classified as supereruptions."  In the next paragraph, "within the past 17 million years, 142 or more caldera-forming eruptions have occurred from the Yellowstone hotspot."  Is this a difference in opinion (I know the 142 number just came out recently), or is there a distinction here between caldera-forming eruptions and supereruptions?   Do the last three eruptions over the last 2.1 million years qualify as either? SkoreKeep (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about a dozen caldera sites; see map in Bruneau-Jarbridge.  71.229.179.61 (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contradiction? 

message: Perhaps a mention of the Bruneau-Jarbridge eruption, which caused the ashfall that killed all the fauna at Ashfall State Park in northeastern Nebraska, 1000 miles away?  I essayed a mention.71.229.179.61 (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruneau-Jarbridge 

message: In the "Infobox Mountain", it says, 
Last eruption= 70,000 years ago (magmatic) / 1350 BC ± 200 years ago (hydrothermal)
and I have no problem with the figure for "(magmatic)".  (This comment is mostly about ambiguity, anyway, -- not [mainly] about whether the numbers are correct.)  
However, the figure given for "(hydrothermal)" is ambiguous.  It does not make sense, with the ridiculously repetitively ambiguity-prone words, "BC" and "years ago".  
If it just said "1350 BC ± 200 years", (without the word "ago"), then that would make sense -- it would mean "somewhere in the range 1550 BC to 1150 BC".  I don't know whether that is what was intended, but at least it would not be ambiguous.  (It also would not have to be updated, from one year's "edition" of Wikipedia to the next.)
[...snip... (long comments not needed any more!) ]
I looked again at the "source" web page,  http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1205-01- , -- that is, the web page that reference "[2]" (the one that says  ) has a hyper-link to -- and NOW I see, where those numbers (the numbers "1350" and "200") came from!  They are in the "Last Known Eruption:" field at the top of that web page. 
SO... the answer is, that the word "ago" just needs to be removed.  I plan to make that change.  
Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, if anyone is interested in the (even longer) text of this section, that was deleted because it is no longer needed, then you can refer to the non-latest version (before this one), in the "history" of this "TALK" page.  :-)  ["revised":] --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: PS: One of the nice things about this CHANGE [which has now been MADE],  to the (Infobox of) the article, is that NOW, the "Last eruption" field, has a value that can fit on 2 lines!  (vs. 3 lines). Just FYI.  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I pulled it before, and I won't edit war, but I would pull it again.  Technically the caldera is still experiencing hydrothermal eruptions even as we speak.  It is a bit of a stretch to directly equate periodic violent hydrothermal activity with an "eruption" of the caldera; in my opinion the hydrothermal behavior at best can be categorized as side effect of the caldera. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYOHelp!) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a lot of verbage to make one small change.  Whoo.  After all that the text doesn't plainly mention the last event.  It was Indian Pond and I tied the text to the caption.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.163.245 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  excessive overkill leading to ambiguity 

message: Regarding the edit warring, ambiguity and misinformation:
Here's what I would like to say. Those updating this article may wish to solely base their edits and conclusions on the scientific data and actual reports released than on the various other speculative, misinformative and/or downright incorrect sources - including the USGS's very own little video segments on this issue (look at their reports - not their "for public consumption" material).
As a for instance, the US government, on the NON USGS site, has a page about Yellowstone that downplays the possibility of an eruption as nigh impossible due to the "mountain" it sits under (I'll provide the link if I can dig it out of my bookmarks). This is totally erroneous and based on absolutely no scientific data whatsoever - moreso, the scientific data and history prove otherwise. 
For instance, we already know that the Snake River Plain was created by the vulcanism of this hotspot... this hotspot has already ripped a chunk out of the Rocky Mountains big enough to fit the majority of the Appalachian Mountain Range in. (See: http://www.robertmauro.com/Images/Yellowstone/Yellowstone_and_Elevations.jpg) - this has already been outlined in various USGS reports, yet a non USGS government site contains such a nonsense claim.
The above map is the LongValley Caldera Digital Elevation Data (DEM) by the USGS with a box overlaid showing the hotspot's "travel"/eruption path (Yellowstone-Newberry hotspot map) - and yes, I know it's not the hotspot that's travelling - it's the tectonic plate. So, we know this hotspot has already levelled a lot of mountain, and we also know it really isn't sitting under one right now - it's sitting under a valley and plateau it created.
That is just one example. Another interesting thing I found was this... if one reads Bob Christiansen's report (the 90+ page 2005 one I believe), he notes on the first page that a large super-eruption is unlikely because certain other criteria need to be met. Yet, about 2/3rd of the way through the report, he notes that most of the precursors are already occurring. The rest (larger hotspot than we previously believed containing molten rock, increased ground swelling, etc) we have come to understand (since the report) are also occurring.
So, my point is this... I suspect all this edit warring and misinformation is being caused because a lot of people are simply reading the misinformation out there on this topic.
I'm not sure why various other sites (especially other governmental sites) are spreading such misinformation - nor why the USGS themselves (in possibly their attempt to "dumb down" the content to understandable levels for the general public) are stating things that are either somewhat or entirely different than their own scientific conclusions... but fact of the matter, that seems to be the case. Maybe it's to prevent mass hysteria or a public scare?
Regardless, it will be the cause of a lot of conflicting information on this topic (and thus probably more edit warring). Perhaps properly and/or thoroughly citing each conflicting claim or piece of information will retain the article's accuracy and minimize edit warring. I haven't added anything to the Yellowstone page simply because I've got over 100 links, articles and reports I'd have to wade through to properly cite any claim I post (and dont have the time to do that) - and thus wish to avoid becoming embroiled in an edit war or create additions to the article that are not properly cited.
Related (or unrelated?) note: I've been studying this issue (as in researching the existing reports, claims and data - not as in going to Yellowstone as part of the survey team) for one of the jobs I am working on. So, it's more than just a passing interest to me.  
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring, Ambiguity, and Misinformation... 

message: The article currently states that the oldest identified caldera remnant of the Yellowstone hotspot straddles the border near McDermitt, Nevada-Oregon. However there may be a dispute with this claim. Volcanics of the Carmacks Group in southwest-central Yukon were previously thought to be products of volcanic arc of back-arc basin volcanism due to the potassic character of them, but more recent studies have shown that the Carmacks Group was erupted during a magmatic lull and they lack coeval calc-alkalic batholiths such as are commonly associated with continental volcanic arcs. Volcanics of the Carmacks Group are petrologically similar to plume-related Eocene to Pliocene age potassic lavas of western United States and hotspots with lifespans of around or greater than 100 million years are common. The Yukon-Tanana Terrane and Intermontane Belt appear to have experienced less than  northward translation with respect to North America since 70 million years ago, consistent with geological estimates of motion along plausible accommodiating faults. In addition, past mobility of the Hawaii hotspot implies that hotspots in the Pacific Ocean may have experienced  of southward motion from 81 to 47 million years ago. If this analysis is correct, the Late Cretaceous location of the Yellowstone hotspot if it existed 70 million years ago would likely have created the Carmacks Group, which currently lies more than  north of the plume. Volcaniclastic piles and arcuate faults in the group are understood to define caldera complexes with diameters of more than . So the claim The oldest identified caldera remnant straddles the border near McDermitt, Nevada-Oregon is likely to be doubtful. BT (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Northwest Nevada volcanic field and the McDermitt volcanic field activity was at the time of the Columbia Basalt Group activity, i.e. 17 Ma. As stated on the Yellowstone hotspot article. Anything that happened 81 to 47 Ma does not modifiy this. The claim can be modified if the reference is good enough. We need an animation of the Pacific sea floor plate during the last 100 Ma. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look here and here. They are reliable sources. BT (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is what I am suggesting. It would be better off doing that because it would make this article go way off topic. More information about the Carmacks Group would be better on the Yellowstone hotspot article. BT (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a 60–50 million year old volcanic feature called the Crescent Terrane that was likely formed by the Yellowstone hotspot as well. BT (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Location and reference available? :P --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It states here that both the Carmacks volcanics as well as the Crescent Terrane volcanics have been interpreted as originating from earlier stages of the Yellowstone plume, prior to its main expression as the Columbia River LIP at 0.017 Ga. A map of the terrane can be found here. BT (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The animated graphik shows a island arc being accreationed to Washington (U.S. state), (). So, or is the Crescent Terrane part of the Yellowstone hotspot trail or the Carmacks volcanics, not both. If I see it right. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest caldera remnant 

message: This article states that " Although the hotspot's apparent motion is to the east-northeast, the North American Plate is really moving west-southwest ".  The last time I checked, Wyoming was to the west of Nebraska, not east. North and south are correct, though.  I just changed it, so it should be right, but I make mistakes too.  Just thought it should be known.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetrellan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was right. The North American craton is moving to the Pacific Ocean, resulting in an apparent motion of the Yellowstone hotspot from NW Nevada to Wyoming. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, in another 30 million years or so, it will be Canada's problem, not ours. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left is not Right 

message: This article may need to be updated to include the lastest info on frequency of eruption. I am not qualified to do so. However, here is where I saw the new info:
Closer Than You Think  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.148.242 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Information about Frequency of Eruption 

message: There's no reason we should include running tables with every earthquake since 2000 down to magnitude 1, is there? Geogene (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no...anything under 3 is probably unnecessary.--MONGO 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I think that reads better now and File:Yellowstone earthquakes.JPEG has it covered in a neat, concise manner. I didn't even notice that figure before. Geogene (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a lot easier to just have it in text a a brief mention of anything over 3-4 or if there have been earthquake swarms.--MONGO 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsessively Cataloging Earthquakes 

message: I'd like to call attention to reference #37, "Yellowstone is being monitored!". This is someone's private blog, not an authoritative source. Belnova (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Blogs by non-experts aren't a reliable source, even when they're summarizing a news article. Given that that statement is forward looking ("experts have proposed") and is referring to a paper from 2005, I'm going to strike that sentence and its reference from the article. If there are objections, feel free to revert. Geogene (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unauthoritative Reference 

message: I'm so sorry, I was reading this article, and saw some weirdness at the end of the "Earthquakes" paragraph. It reads as follows:  "This swarm reached the background levels by 21 February. i was pua stoned and it went fucking kaboom martin shit himsel"  I seriously don't think this belongs. Just figured I would bring it to y'alls attention, so you could get it fixed. Thank you! :) 24.249.236.5 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, within a minute of it being placed (according to the edit history, both the edit and the reversion of it are registered at 13:48, 9 January 2014‎.  Ignorant screwballs are forever, apparently. Thanks for your caring.  SkoreKeep (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Does Not Belong.... 

message: :The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory issued a statement on its website stating,
::"Although fascinating, the new findings do not imply increased geologic hazards at Yellowstone, and certainly do not increase the chances of a 'supereruption' in the near future. Contrary to some media reports, Yellowstone is not 'overdue' for a supereruption.[31]
I was tempted to add to that:
:Also, from Rick Liebermann* of the Yellowstone Observatory, 
::"The chances of a so-called super-eruption are on the order of 1 out of 600,000."
:(*) BBC, "Supervolcano".
Not that I do totally agree with the real quote, but unfortunately the ground has already been plowed with salt and the well truly poisoned. One has to fight the good fight, nonetheless. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality following art?

message: A the segment that is both italicized and bolded was recently added to the article: This is about 2.5 times bigger than scientists had previously imagined it to be, approximately the same size that Yellowstone's magma chamber was during its last major eruption. However, some scientists believe that the proportion of melt is much too low to allow another supereruption.[15][16] I can't find the bolded text explicitly in the sources given, but I do have something similar in one : The larger imaged size of the magma reservoir better matches the geologic record of Late Quaternary volcanic eruptions and lava flows but, importantly, does not increase the volcanic hazard in the Yellowstone region. I find these two statements are not equivalent in meaning and am inclined to strike the bolded part from the article as well as the qualifier "some" which implies this is a minority view among scientists. A lot of readers are probably interested in the possibility of a "supereruption" at Yellowstone, I think it's a good idea not to put things in that article that are likely to be taken out of context or reinforce fears. The most important thing in the source is the explicit statement that the risk is not increased by the findings. Geogene (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Present-day caldera size and eruption history

message: Could this be an interesting picture to add?
http://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Dedman/Academics/Programs/Geothermal%20Lab/Graphics/TemperatureMaps/SMU_2011_35kmTemperature.ashx?la=en
(yeah, the red dot is Yellowstone)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.87.62 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the US at 3.5 km depth

message: Firstly, no need to create public panic about a volcano that isn't likely to erupt soon.  Showing the last eruption as 1350 B.C. gives the impression it erupts more commonly than it does.
Secondly, a volcanic eruption, by common definition, requires the release of lava or volcanic ash.  Neither of these has happened in at least 70,000 years.
The 1350 B.C. time frame refers to a single, or possibly a series of steam explosions.  Steam explosions are a by-product of volcanic activity in the same way that earthquakes are.  Even if the steam explosions produce mile-wide craters (which Yellowstone has produced in the past), these are not volcanic eruptions.
If steam explosions were classified as eruptions, you'd have to pick a line where a steam explosion is big enough to be an eruption, or just a geyser exploding.  We can't reset our 'Days since last eruption' signs every time a geyser blows its top off.
The most scientifically correct statement to make regarding the last eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera is that the last eruption was a lava flow at least 70,000 years ago.  This is the correct figure for anyone searching for this information to find.  If they want to look deeper into it, then they can find information regarding massive steam explosions in the Yellowstone Caldera in the references and know that these are not technically eruptions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:6002:418B:941D:6754:C42F:5A1B (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. Please, be our guest and do a rewrite. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last eruption was 70,000 years ago, not 1350 B.C. 

message: I removed a block of text that had been recently added on the University of Utah study. Firstly, it's not exactly correct that the size of the reservoir is larger than was thought. Rather, it's that a connection between the shallow chamber and the plume that had been predicted by theory was located. As the source says, the actual volcanic hazard is concerned with the shallow chamber. The quote was also unnecessary (don't quote in an article unless the person quoted is saying something potentially ambiguous) and there was a copyright issue with the text, which was much too close to that of the source. And finally, I'm not sure this was weighted appropriately. It's a recent finding, by one research team, that seems to fit with the existing theory. It could be left out completely, or better yet, worked into the text in a less conspicuous place. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly surprised copyright would be a concern.  Nevertheless, it feels unfortunate that the verification of the aforementioned theory should be left out - if not you then could someone do a rewrite that would be more fitting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.250.165 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lower crust chamber 

message: The current earthquake swarm is missing from this article. 108.171.131.168 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly had no idea any of this was going on until you mentioned it just now. Definitely seems like it's worth mentioning, but I'm no expert. Anyone else? PureRED | talk to me  | 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @PureRED: The article you linked quotes a researcher who says it's "nothing out of the ordinary", so at least there's no urgency in adding it. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yeah the headline got me. Good catch. PureRED | talk to me  | 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yellowstone Caldera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610222507/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/bul/1347/sec3.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/bul/1347/sec3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Yellowstone hotspot origin" relies in its vocabulary on a term defined elsewhere in the article. I therefore thought it advisable to make "Volcanism" the first section, clarifying its title in the process, and to relegate the "origin" section to appearing second. Harfarhs (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks reasonable to me. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resequenced text 

message: At Talk:Main Page, User:Jesseleeo has pointed out that two different names and dates are given for the eruption that created Big Thumb Bay/Lake:
: "...West Thumb Lake which is said to have been created 174,000 years ago. Later on in page West Thumb Bay of Yellowstone Lake is correctly named but with date of 150,000 YA. They are the same geologic feature. The correct date is 174,000 YA."  
And presumably the correct name is "West Thumb Bay' not "West Thumb Lake".
Is that correct?  And if so, can someone correct it in the article, please? 213.205.251.81 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited in citation 10, which is reliable, calls it "the West Thumb of Yellowstone Lake". This appears to be consistent with the official NPS map, and I have changed the wording accordingly. The 150,000-year wording does say "around"; we obviously don't know the exact date. RivertorchFIREWATER 23:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Thumb Bay/Lake 

message: This showed up in print today.Mapsax (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful information or just a reiteration? 

message: Malachite Man 
paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm
...was discovered in the 1970s, and has been revisited yearly by professionals from all over the U.S.
It would seem quite possible, that the layers under which the skeletons were recovered, were deposited by eruptions of Yellowstone.
The age of the layer under which the skeletons were recovered should reflect the eruption on a timeline that will coincide.
This will offer some kind of relative dating for the nativity theorys present at #42LE561 The Lacamas Morass in SW Washington State.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muleywagon (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the linked source, the bones appear to be Native American bones buried in excavations in the Dakota Formation, and likely no more than a few centuries old. They're not relevant to the Yellowstone caldera. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malachite Man, Sandstone Layers and Azurite Mines 

message: I think we should change the name of the article to 'Yellowstone Supervolcano' or 'Yellowstone Plateau Volcanic Field' and remove the other page called that. USGS refers to the volcano as the Yellowstone Plateau Volcanic Field on their website and the Yellowstone Caldera only refers to the caldera formed by the latest eruption. Faren29 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can migrate stuff on this page that is not specific the caldera to Yellowstone Supervolcano, renaming the latter to Yellowstone Plateau Volcanic Field if that seems appropriate, and focus this article on the actual Yellowstone caldera. I think a hatnote "Not to be confused with Yellowstone Supervolcano" might be in order. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a name change be viable?