Talk:Cerro Tuzgle

message: Jo-Jo Eumerus Well done! This one is even better than the last one on the other stratovolcano. Just a few comments:
1) The second sentence in the lead begins:
*It is a prominent back-arc volcanic centre
I'm wondering if it would make sense to link "back-arc" to Back-arc basin.
Also, I'm wondering why you're using British English spelling. It's O.K., but why?
2) In the second paragraph in the sub-section "Regional setting" in the section Cerro Tuzgle#Geology and geography is the following sentence:
* A large low velocity and low seismic attenuation anomaly is found between 20 and 24° latitude.
I'd like to link either "seismic attenuation" or "attenuation" so a non-expert can read more. I found two possible articles:
:(1) Attenuation#Earthquake
:(2) Anelastic attenuation factor
I wonder if one of these might be good.
3) In the last paragraph in that same section is the phrase "two monogenetic volcanoes". Would it make sense to link "monogenetic volcanoes" to Monogenetic volcanic field, or some other article?
4) The last sentence of the first paragraph of the section Cerro Tuzgle#Local setting is:
*There is tomographic evidence that lithospheric delamination is currently underway beneath Tuzgle.
I'd like to link "delamination" to something but I couldn't find the right article. There is no mention of "delamination" even in the article on the Lithosphere. There is an article on Lamination, but it has nothing to do with the lithosphere or plate tectonics.
5) In the second paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:
* Later, the first lava domes were erupted.
I believe I may have brought this up when I copy-edited the other long article on a South American volcano a few months ago. To a non-expert like myself, the passive voice form of the verb to erupt, "were erupted", sounds strange. I think I know what is meant, that the lava domes were forced up and out of the earth by the force of a volcanic eruption; in other words, the eruption created the lava domes. But most non-experts are used to seeing the verb in active voice: the volcano erupted, or the volcano is erupting. Later, there may be descriptions of what exactly occurred, and you might see things like, "Lava spewed forth and flowed down the sides of the volcano", or "Molten lava and hot gases shot high into the sky", or "The volcano ejected boulders and hot gases". Ordinarily, you would not see "X was erupted [by the volcano/by the eruption]", or "Ys were erupted [by the volcano/by the eruption]". Therefore, I must assume either that this is language used mainly by experts in the field or that it is a translation from Spanish. If it is language used in English by experts in the field, it's O.K. It can stay in the article, but I'm wondering then whether it could be briefly explained the first time it is used (perhaps not in the lead, though), perhaps with a parenthetical phrase such as:
*Later, the first lava domes were erupted, or created in an eruption.
or:
*Later, the first lava domes were erupted (forced out of the ground in an eruption).
That way, an average non-expert reader would know what "were erupted" meant. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I re-arranged the sentence; hope I got the information right. Can you please check to be sure the references are in the right place? I wasn't sure whether to move a reference to an earlier place in the sentence. Corinne (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged one reference to account for the location change of the information.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments following a GOCE copy-edit of January 26-27, 2016 

message: hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus!  i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
* is "flank collapse unit" a technical term used by volcanologists?  i tried searching for it via google, but the results appear to only include this article, its blurb, or sources that apparently copied from wikipedia.  i am admittedly not sure if there are enough context clues in the blurb for most main page readers to confidently determine the meaning of the term.  (my current guess is that "flank collapse unit" means "a geological feature formed by a collapse on a volcano outside its center", but that was only after looking through the article, and i am still not sure if i am understanding it correctly.)  i think the scarp and the depression mentioned in the first section of the article are the units being referred to, but the article states that the scarp "probably formed through a localized collapse" and the depression "may also be evidence of a collapse", so i am not sure if one of them has been confirmed to be a flank collapse unit.
* in "Subsequently, lava domes were erupted and several lava flows;", is "several lava flows" a clause?  if so, i am guessing that "flows" is the verb, but this would mean that "lava" is being treated as a plural noun, which doesn't agree with "flows".  alternatively, if "were erupted" is the verb phrase associated with the noun phrase "several lava flows", i think this use of ellipsis is confusing.  (similarly, "Jo-Jo Eumerus edits wikipedia and dying" is also likely difficult to parse.)  i was thinking of rephrasing this as "Subsequently, lava domes and several lava flows erupted;" (or even "Subsequently, several lava domes and flows erupted;"), but i don't know if this would be accurate.
dying (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, . I've moved this conversation to the article talk page, since it has more to do with the article than with me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

text: No, "flank collapse unit" is the term I use to describe the unit formed by the flank collapse. Maybe calling it "unit formed by the flank collapse" is less misleading? I've rewritten the other part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  , i admittedly think the wording would still be a bit awkward, in either "a confirmed unit formed by the flank collapse and a possible one" or "one confirmed and one possible unit formed by the flank collapse".  was there only one flank collapse?  also, i think neither the blurb nor the article lead mention a flank collapse before referring to the units, so perhaps using the definite article would be inappropriate.your response led me to realize that "flank collapse" is a technical term, which appears to be discussed on wikipedia here.  is this something that you think would be appropriate to link?  i also recently found the stratigraphic unit article.  is this what you mean when you use the word "unit"?i am still unsure if the scarp and the depression are the two features being referred to as the confirmed flank unit and the possible one, but if so, would the following rewrite of the sentence in the blurb referring to them be accurate?note that, if "unit" does refer to "stratigraphic unit", i felt that this may not be obvious to many main page readers, even if the term was linked, so i thought that simply stating what the units actually were would make the blurb more clear.  also, i did not state that the scarp was confirmed to be the result of a flank collapse, as the article body appears to be less certain, only stating that "it probably formed through a localized collapse".  dying (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that rewrite works. I don't think we ought to specify "stratigraphic unit" as the term's a bit fuzzy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  , would you mind updating the blurb for me?  it is currently under cascading protection and i am not an administrator.  dying (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not doing the edit myself, mainly b/c I am not sure what to put in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

text: oh, i'm sorry, .  i had suggested simply replacing the sentencein the blurb with the following one.everything else in the blurb would remain the same.  my understanding is that you stated that this "rewrite works".  is this not the case?by the way, i think (but am not entirely certain) that edits like this are generally requested at wp:errors.  dying (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  , by Schwede66.  dying (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  cerro tuzgle 

message: In the first paragraph it says
"The region is arid, with less than 100 millimetres (3.9 in) annual precipitation"
but in the second
"Annual precipitation there amounts to 135 millimetres (5.3 in)"
either this is referring to two different parts of the area and 'there' in the second paragraph needs to be more specific or it's a contradiction.
Bob Palin (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  climate 

message: Congratulations on your featured article status. It takes a lot of work to reach this level of excellence. Thank you for your hard work. Best Regards,   Barbara  ✐✉ 13:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job 

message: Frequent vandals have been coming to this page. A moment ago, the image of the volcano was literally replaced with pornography. Wikentromere (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wikentromere now that person is removing and re-adding it rapidly? I'm not sure why, but maybe that makes it harder to stop them. all I know is that I just saw porn on my work computer TimPerkin9 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting protection on this article  

message: Someone has uploaded a pornographic video to this article. 2A00:23C7:F789:7B01:14B7:254E:C61D:8D47 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn’t been hacked. This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit things. It’s vandalism, let’s not blow things out of proportion here. It should be given edit protection and the account @Spanishabbcyshould be suspended. Wikentromere (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomayto tomaaato. It’s my shorthand version of saying what you just said. Lol blow things out of proportion is that a volcano reference. 2A00:23C7:F789:7B01:14B7:254E:C61D:8D47 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has been hacked 

message: This lead in this article states that “Tuzgle is a prominent volcano of the back arc of the Andes”. However, the linked article on “back arc” states that:  “Presently all back-arc basins are submarine features associated with island arcs and subduction zones, with many found in the western Pacific Ocean.” Isn’t that a contradiction?  Tuzgle is well-inland, according to the map in the article, so how can it be a “submarine feature”? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think back-arc is incorrect; the physical definition of a back-arc basin does not require that it is submarine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you fix the other article, then?  I don't know enough to be comfortable doing so, but the two articles shouldn't contradict each other. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, nevermind, I see the actual problem: Back-arc is a redirect to back-arc basin even though it does not refer solely to these basins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Should that link be there, then?  I’m a reader with no geology background, and it seems contradictory to me. What’s the difference between a back-arc and a back-arc basin, and shouldn’t that be made clear? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Back-arc generally refers to the region behind a volcanic arc-subduction zone. Sometimes you use it to talk about certain types of volcanoes that occur in back-arcs. Other times you mean a back-arc basin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is ambiguous, and seems to me to require that the reader has a geological background to understand.  For someone without geological information, the wikilink is leading a reader to something that does not apply here.  The link takes the reader to a discussion of sub-marine formations.  How is that at all relevant to a discussion of a volcano that is well inland?  I think that link should be deleted.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. As it stands, it seems like most of the links to back-arc do not refer to the basin ... because I have linked it on a lot of my articles. I dunno, perhaps the redirect should be sent to WP:RFD; it may qualify under WP:RFD#DELETE §10. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Back-arc region is the article that back-arc should be linking to; I've changed the redirect to reflect this. Volcanoguy 08:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Back arc” - contradiction with other article?