Talk:Lists of volcanoes

message: Following a suggestion on User talk:D6, I'd like to format the coordinates here with Template:Coor (or rather Template:Coor dm and Template:Coor dms) to provide links to maps. Where there are several formats offered, e.g. the entry for Cordon del Azufre, I'd use just the dms instead of the decimal format. -- User:Docu
Can we also have a link to the subject 'volcano' and vice versa?Thank you.Gammadion 05:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates|WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates]] 

message: When editing the article of an active volcano, remember to add :Category:Active volcanoes.  The definition of "active" is broad and includes more than those which are presently erupting.  (SEWilco 19:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Active volcanoes 

message: I noticed that someone added Devils Tower National Monument to his page. Being a product of an intrusion rather than eruption, can Devils Tower really be considered a volcano? 青い(Aoi) 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devil's Tower

message: Shouldn't this article be split into two because of size? I opened this article and it couldn't load at all on an old computer...  Kookoo275 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smartest thing would be to have one site for the different continents, then from there you can click down to Europe volcanos, Spanish volcanos, Madrid area volcanos or something similar. This just looks messy and loads quite slow even on new computers.--NoNo 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would split the others based on continent. Eventually, more countries would require their own article once they are more populated. I thought about doing a continent article for Canada and the USA but both lists alone are large enough to warrant their own page already. RedWolf 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Split of USA is finished.  I used the first name above, but it can be changed easily if others prefer the second.  Continents are next (anyone else?)... --Spiffy sperry 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File size 

message: I came across this when List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia was nominated for deletion. Take note, that using the current system of giving each region a separate article, there are currently 44 articles listing regions which have only 5 volcanoes or less.
*Afghanistan (2)
*Armenia (5)
*Ascension Island (1)
*Brazil (1)
*Cambodia (1)
*Cape Verde (3)
*Comoros (2)
*Democratic Republic of the Congo (5)
*Djibouti (4)
*Dominica (5)
*Equatorial Guinea (3)
*Fiji (4)
*France (1)
*Georgia (4)
*Grenada (2)
*Guadeloupe (1)
*Honduras (4)
*India (4)
*Korea (5)
*Libya (2)
*Madagascar (5)
*Malaysia (1)
*Martinique (1)
*Mongolia (5)
*Montserrat (1)
*Myanmar (3)
*Netherlands Antilles (1)
*Nigeria (1)
*Norway (5)
*Pacific Ocean (4)
*Pakistan (5)
*Panama (3)
*Poland (3)
*Macedonia (1)
*Réunion (2)
*Rwanda (3)
*Saint Kitts and Nevis (2)
*Saint Lucia (1)
*São Tomé and Príncipe (1)
*South Africa (2)
*Sudan (5)
*Tristan da Cunha (1)
*Wallis Islands (3)
*Western Samoa (2)
Still, that being said, I can understand a list, under certain circumstances, including only 5, or maybe even 4 items, but still, that leaves 29 articles that only list 3 volcanoes, and if that’s not enough there are 14 articles that only list 1. Surely, if this is the system of classification we’re using, it’s not a very good one.
What I propose is that rather than having all of these separate articles, all of which list a very small number of volcanoes, we simply merge all of the articles listing 3 (or possibly 5) volcanoes or less. This would be reasonable, in that while it makes sense to have separate articles for regions that have a significant number of volcanoes, having almost 30 separate articles that list only a couple of volcanoes is a ridiculous way of spreading out information over an unnecessarily large number of articles. A single article that lists such regions would not be unreasonably long, and all existing articles could be changed to redirects. All I haven’t been able to figure out is a name for the new article.
So tell me, what do you think? Calgary 06:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. List of volcanoes was extremely long, so it was split into separate lists for each country or territory. I got your point although I personally see no problem in having separate lists even for countries with a few volcanoes. It brings a consistency and a unified standard. However, I will drop a note to a WikiProject. Let's see what other users think. - Darwinek 10:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How about listing them by continent, except for countries with enough volcanoes, or countries with complex enough information to need separate lists?  For islands, make a list for "Volcanoes by islands of ocean X"?  (SEWilco 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging of articles

message: * I noticed that in the list of active and extinct volcanoes sorted by country Portugal isn't present altough Azores appears in the list. The Azores are a portuguese archipelago, i suggest to replace List of volcanoes in Portugal instead of List of volcanoes in Azores.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.74.210 (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. It would also provide a natural place for Madeiran volcanoes. However, copying and pasting the Azores list (as you have done) is not the best way to move it, because it doesn't maintain the edit history. We'll need an admin to help fix this now. I'll request this at WP:SPLICE. -- Avenue (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you've added that comment under the Portugal/Azores heading. Anyway, our list of volcanoes in Australia is listed here. --Avenue (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcanoes in Portugal (not Azores)

message: Are mud volcanoes meant to be included in this list? Baratang is described in Wikipedia as a mud volcano, but it is included in the list of volcanoes in India. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mud volcanoes 

message: That list has just one entry. It is not a list at all. Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, we probably need to re-examine many of the subpages, as there are quite a few with only 1 entry (eg. List of volcanoes in Saint Lucia, and List of volcanoes in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), and many with 2-4 entries (eg. List of volcanoes in Saint Kitts and Nevis). Perhaps ping Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes for input? And/or retitle this thread for larger scope? HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right, I'll do that soon. Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just happening upon this discussion: the singular or near-singular nature of many of these lists is inherently necessary to maintain the whole sets' parallelism, and it's a nagging issue from a set of lists constructed long ago. I prefer not to think about it too much; see for instance List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain or List of volcanoes in Indonesia for examples of "well-constructed" lists (no comment on the former's choice of table design). ResMar 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of volcanoes in São Tomé and Príncipe]]