Talk:Mount Takahe

message: I got a feeling that the eruptions 8,200 and 7,900 years before present are actually the same event, but I am not sure if the source can be interpreted that way - that source defers to this one which mentions no 7,900 event but does have the 8,200 one. Also, should the 8.2 ka eruption in this abstract be considered the same source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  8200 or 7900 eruptions 

message: Jo-Jo, I will slowly add as I have time.
* is a 3,460 metres high snow-covered shield volcano 
::: This has the same hyphenation problems we discussed at Coropuna.  It would correctly be hyphenated as "3,460-meter-high", which introduces too many hyphens, especially with the convert, so the sentence is better recast to avoid that mess ... is a snow-covered shield volcano that is 3,460 meters high and stands 200 kilometres (120 mi) away from the Amundsen Sea ...
* ... is a c. 30 kilometres (19 mi) wide mountain with an up to 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) wide caldera and parasitic vents.
::: Same problem.  Correctly hyphenated, it would be 30-km-wide mountain with ... 8-km-wide caldera ... which is a mess with converts and hyphens, so best to recast sentence entirely ... It is a mountain with parasitic vents that is 30 km wide with a caldera that is up to 8 km wide.
* formerly it was thought that it had formed entirely underneath of ice ... I am not sure what this means ... had formed entirely below ice ?
*:Yes. I wasn't sure of the ideal formulation there, but your version is clearer - changed it to that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that kind of hyphenation issue. I did check some style guides and it looks like the second hyphen is needed, so added it. I don't think that recasting the sentences is the better solution, it makes them much longer and wordier and sound a little off too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the convert template will handle it, with the "adj=mid|-wide" construct. If the units are abbreviated, it intentionally drops the hyphen between the number and unit.  vs. . Note that you do have to specify the target unit when using that construct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Huh, didn't know about that parameter . Thanks. Also, seems like I might have messed up the first ping to . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No time to look today ... finish addressing per JHuntrJ, ping me tomorrow to remind me ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SG review 

message: Jo-Jo, starting over because I forget where I left off; my apologies if I hit something already covered.
* Snow, ice, and glaciers cover most of Mount Takahe; formerly it was thought that it had formed below ice.  ... It is a bit jarring to find something in the lead that was formerly thought to be the case, without understanding why or how that earlier thinking changed.
*:Decided to just cut this sentence; it's a bit too off-field for the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further SG review 

message: One of the main things I became curious about once I opened this page was whether humans have ever climbed the mountain. However, the page currently only includes the single line  "Visited" is quite vague—does it mean summitted, or that someone walked up to the base, or that they just flew by in a plane? And has there been any activity since 1968? It'd be nice if the article better addressed those questions.  talk 00:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Added another mention of 1985. Per LeMasurier et al. 1990 it appears that the outcrops in the summit region were visited in 1985-1985 but none of them coincides with the summit exactly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human activity?