Talk:Monowai (seamount)

message: Just a comment, but: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4455483a10.html indicates this volcano is currently erupting.  I removed the references to "Last erupted in 2006" as a result of this information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This website is definitely non-academic. "Big acoustic event" is not an eruption. See also National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website. I couldn't find there any info about supposed eruption. When confirmed by professional sources, I would not have problem with it. - Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in no hurry, so fine -- we'll wait for an "academic" confirmation of an eruption before updating the latest eruption date.  But note that while it's often desirable, there is no requirement in Wikipedia for footnotes to be from peer-reviewed academic sources.  The news report quotes academics, and the news report refers to an eruption in progress.  The one area in which it falls short is that it doesn't directly quote an academic saying "an eruption is in progress".  — Myasuda (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, better wait for that. You know, I always try to keep eruption dates on reliable level. I revert every week anonymous IPs inserting revelations about "new eruptions" from "reliable sources" like CNN and other news. Not every activity is an eruption, most common mistake is that when volcano is spewing ash it is an eruption. It looks spectacular on tv news but it is not an eruption even if nice blonde journalists tell so. :) Eruption are an "events that involve explosive ejections of fragmental material, the effusion of liquid lava, or both." This, as for now, doesn't apply here. - Darwinek (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The question is then, given the relative obscurity of the volcano, it may be some time before the information can be accurately cited.  In which case the information on Wiki will clearly be wrong until then (presuming that the media site is right of course).  Could a note be added that media have reported activity and this is yet to be confirmed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambic (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, this kind of note would be fair. Wording should mention only "activity", since active volcano doesn't have to be erupting, which seems to be this case. - Darwinek (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monowai 2008 

message: See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18040658 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter 2011 

message: With the rising frequency and strength of eruptive activity near the seamount and its location on an active seismic ridge, this looks like something that could very likely produce an island in the next few decades. it's likely that NZ seismologists would have tried to research that angle, so could someone look for that kind of scientific assessment? 83.254.151.33 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future island? 

message: Courtesy ping to .
I am not sure that  is appropriately supported by the article content. Several sources give different dates for the discovery of Monowai and I suspect that the 1877 - 1977 discrepancy is due to a typo somewhere but it's nowhere explicitly flagged as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sentence, as it was, appeared to make no sense to me: "The seamount was discovered in 1877 - 1977" What does a 100-year range mean in terms of discovering something? I had to read the article before I could figure out that there seems to be uncertainty how you define discovery, or maybe there were different dates recorded in different sources. Feel free to reword it as you wish; I'm not wedded to my copyedit. But it has to be something more meaningful than what was there before. Schwede66 17:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, looking at sources did not clarify the argument that much. I've reworded the text so that it makes sense and is free of OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That reads better. Thanks! Schwede66 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery date