Talk:Coropuna

message: Not sure about adding :File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg to the article - AFAIK none of the other sources on Coropuna mention fumarolic activity and that makes me wonder about the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg 

message: :Regarding the "Name" section, I made two small grammar corrections. I'm still not sure about the structure of the last sentence: I think it would suffice just to mention that another volcano exists with the same name;  is not really necessary and would be difficult to improve or elaborate on. Nothing else caught my attention here.
: Jo-Jo and I are fine establishing en-GB as the ENGVAR for consistency and future copyediting: can we go ahead converting it? (Side note: I'm probably not best suited to copyediting in en-GB.)
:Should I copy here my comments from the FAC (excluding those that I struck)? Later today, I'll give it a top-to-bottom read and start posting additional comments.ComplexRational (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I leave the choice of ENGVAR style to you all; make it easiest on yourselves and F&f.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Converted to en-GB as Jo-Jo originally asked. ComplexRational (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-discussion

message: *I know MOS pages are long and unwieldy, but from what I can gather in regards to units from MOS:UNITNAMES, I think we should consistently do the following:
**Always use figures (including 0–9) unless the unit is fully written out (e.g. kilometres)
**Make sure every usage is grammatically correct – when the unit used as an adjective, the unit should be singular and they should be joined by a hyphen (e.g.  → five-kilometre (3.1 mi) long)
**Abbreviations should be consistently used after a unit is fully written out on its first occurrence
*Someone will need to do a thorough check for commas in accordance with BrE rules.
:: Agree.  I can't help with British commas.  If we get the MOS basics that affect grammar and give a consistent usage of numbers and abbreviations above dealt with, I can easily run through and add minor things like NBSPs.  Earlier, there was a problem distinguishing hyphens and dashes, but I think that is sorted now.  At any rate, I can check that sort of thing pre-FAC2.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: MOS stuff

message: * ah, the master of edit summaries shows up!  Yo-man is a semi-retired FA writer, whose edit summaries delight, and whose copyediting advice is always helpful ;)  He also speaks Spanish. His samples are good ones that should be searched out in the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  12:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. I've been busy IRL with exam prep and on Wikipedia with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1669 Etna eruption (turns out that writing a Wikipedia article with print sources takes much more effort than without) but I can get some time for this as well I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a funeral today, but will get on this later this week.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  10:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   I just peeked in, and it looks like we're not ready for me to do a read-through yet.  I still see the unfinished Notes string, with the new text (that needs wordsmithing) not yet in. I am in the midst of a major update at Tourette syndrome, which needs my undivided attention for several more days; please ping me when I should come back here for a read-through.  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the reason why the Notes string is still there is because the new text isn't yet in. I am thinking of putting a shortened version of the new text in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: While we're on Notes, Jo-Jo, why do we need to list the other three?  (That is, why did you not like this?)  Does the reader really need to know the names of the other three?  They can find them in a Wikilink if they want to delve deeper.
* The volcano is part of the Central Volcanic Zone, one of the four zones of the Andean Volcanic Belt.
SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note A 

message: "Coropuna is a dormant volcanic complex"..."The Coropuna is a stratovolcano"..."eruptions of Coropuna itself"..."The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca"..."The volcano also appears in legends". Just in the lead you are describing it/them in five different ways. "The Coropuna" is never mentioned again, so I assume that the "The" is left over from some previous phrasing, and the stratovolcano/volcano/mountain wouldn't be bad if it wasn't defined in the first sentence as a volcanic complex. The "volcanic complex" is never mentioned again either, though it is referred to obliquely: "The volcano ... consists of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven separate coulees". I imagine it is going to be a bit difficult to resolve if you want a shorthand for "volcanic complex" that isn't "volcano" and while the literature probably says "volcano,volcano,volcano". If the opening sentence could be something like "Coropuna is a dormant volcano in the Peruvian Andes formed of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven coulees", (and with a link to volcanic complex in there somewhere) you could avoid the problem entirely. Yomanganitalk 10:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out some issues, mostly introduced by me.  The thing is "Volcanic complex" is scholarly usage.  See here, and I didn't even ask for scholarly articles. Indeed it is called "NCVC." (Aside: Note also the more common use of Nevado in the scholarly literature,  662 with  vs 530 without, but this has been addressed in another section.)  A problem earlier was that Volcanic complex was linking to Volcanic group, whereas we want it to link to Complex volcano; however "Coropuna complex volcano" is not scholarly usage, indeed not any usage. This I have fixed.  Another problem, and Jo-Jo being the expert will correct me, is that Coropuna is used for the region of 240 sq miles, and also used for the main cone.  This I haven't entirely.  As for "coulee,"  do you mean "lava flow"  or "gulch?"  The main thing for me is that our usage has to be consistent with the usage in the sources, and "stratovolcano" "coulee" and "Coropuna"  don't seem to go together. I've now gotten rid of the obvious issues.  I haven't touched the bit about Coropuna's distance to a city because I don't know what is meant.  "The Coropuna" was my work, in keeping with "The Matterhorn".  But I realized later, they don't use "The" in the literature, just as they don't  write the K2. But I never went back to it.  (Did I mention I have ADD?) The biggest problem right now is that we can't really fix the lead until the rest of the article is fixed.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not start with "Coropuna is a dormant complex volcano" or "Coropuna is a dormant compound volcano"? The terms "complex volcano" and "compound volcano" seem well represented in the literature, you wouldn't be giving it the title of "Coropuna complex volcano", and you could use "volcano" with abandon in the rest of the article. (Anyway, why are you hanging around here? Haven't you got a review to finish? Arf.) Yomanganitalk 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Jo-Jo would know the answer to your questions.  All but the last, that is.  I replied because the lead was my handiwork, albeit written hurriedly during the FAC, with limited knowledge. I'm not attached to my version.  I note though that "Complex volcano" is not used much in describing Coropuna itself, and I don't mean in naming it.  One could use some paraphrased version of "Coropuna, Peru's highest and largest volcano, is a massive ice-covered volcanic complex with at least a half dozen summit cones scattered over a 12 x 20 km area."  This is  the Smithsonian/USGS's phrasing.  Their picture graces the article.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine too. The problem as it stands is that Coropuna is not identified as a volcano in the opening sentence, so anything that gets round that will work. Yomanganitalk 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

text: (not sure if "Fowler&fowler" is the correct markup for the ping) "The Coropuna" is definitively wrong and should be excised. I think that using "volcano" for most of the article except for when we say "Coropuna is a stratovolcano" and "Coropuna is a volcanic complex" would be the correct approach. The problem is that "volcano" in the academic literature is used either for specific "edifices" that are part of a larger complex or for the entire complex (which is then called "compound volcano" or "complex volcano" depending on the whims of the authors), often with little explanation. And thanks for the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't they great ?  They keep me and my prose in my place!  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the correct markup.  Sorry for the belated response.  I agree with you and like Yomangani's change in the lead.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex (in many ways) 

message: Following, as always, the brilliance of Yo-man's edit summaries, I came to see this.  I thought I fixed all the dashes and hyphens once, but this presents a new example of things to be addressed throughout, while using User:Tony1's examples of reducing "snakes".
* The Upper Sencca ignimbrites are a 2.09 - 1.76 million years old composite ignimbrite which form a  thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents.
: The 2.09 - 1.76 would need an endash, not a hyphen.
: The million years old requires hyphenation. 
: The 30m-thick apron also requires hyphenation. (I can't even figure out how to make that happen with the convert.)
But if we do all that, we end up with a mess of dashes and hyphens:
* The Upper Sencca ignimbrites are a 2.09–1.76-million-years-old composite ignimbrite which form a -thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents.
indicating that the entire sentence should be recast to avoid this problem.  At the same time, we can hopefully avoid the redundant use of the word "ignimbrite" three times in one sentence. And we can separate all those numbers to a sentence the reader can gloss over is they want the big picture rather than the minute detail.  My prose stinks, but something like ???
* Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents.  These composite vents form a thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes.  They are between 2.09 and 1.76 million years old and  thick.
This kind of work is tedious but needed throughout.  (Not sure why one Ignimbrite is in upper case?)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. To be honest, while I see the Seeschlangen problem (that's how we call the overly long sentences in German) I don't like the proposed rewrite; it looks staccato/jumpish to me. I did write like this in my initial Wikipedia career but it always came off as uneven. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other castings are available (apologies for any technical booboos - the plural/singular ignimbrite is a bit difficult and "thick" relies on the reader already understanding the term): The Upper Sencca ignimbrites, which form an apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes to a depth of 10–30 m (33–98 ft), are a composite ignimbrite that formed  years ago; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents. Yomanganitalk 11:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to solve the problems, except could we avoid form ... formed ... formed three times ? (I added a needed nowrap template to your suggestion.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Second "formed" can be replaced with "were emplaced" if we accept the extra length.  I believe you want  for the hyphen in the convert template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks :) Anyway, please don't feel you have to satisfy me on the final wording chosen; just offering examples :)  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample 

message: Randomly picking a new section to see if problems mentioned earlier persist.  What do you think about shortening the Section title "Importance as a source of water" to something like "Water source"?  This may be personal preference, but I really dislike overlong section titles.  Also, using that section for an example, heavily cited articles can present such a distraction to readers.  What would you think about (just as an example) combing the two citations here:
* Meltwater from the glaciers on Coropuna sustains the baseflow of the rivers[131] during dry periods;[89] Coropuna is an important source of water for the valleys of the surrounding areas and for the desert-like piedmont,[105] with an estimated 38,000 people depending directly or indirectly on water originating from it.[69]
thusly:
* Meltwater from the glaciers on Coropuna sustains the baseflow of the rivers during dry periods;[89][131] Coropuna is an important source of water for the valleys of the surrounding areas and for the desert-like piedmont, with an estimated 38,000 people depending directly or indirectly on water originating from it.[69][105]
that is, could we not in cases like this ask the reader to wait for the punctuation to find the citation?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. To me "water source" sounds like a section that discusses where the water that snows onto Coropuna comes from. That's not a very important question for Coropuna specifically, but certainly for regional climatology so it's not an implausible (mis)reading of the section header. Regarding the citations that's a question that I've faced at the peer review of African humid period - dispersed citations make the source-text correspondence clearer, clumped citations make the text more readable. It's a bit of a tradeoff.  You've probably seen that I've been editing some sections. I am making my long promised pass-through and will write a list of sections which are IMO ready and those where there are prose questions. I suspect that we are at the stage where most of the actual writing problems are resolved and what is left are either style choices or things - like the referencing point you are asking about - which require tradeoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK to all ... I am probably getting ahead of you and getting in your way now then ... just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten you!  I'll hold off on any further suggestions today.  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water source 

message: * Still concerned that we should have more information on fauna; is there nothing else?
* See MOS:DATETOPRES:   which logically would apply also the elevation ranges, although I don't want to troll through all of MOS to find that.  It just reads weird to see "Between 3,000–4,000 m" for the same reason it does on date ranges.
* WP:OVERLINKing of common terms like onion, potato, rice, garlic ...
SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take another look at the fauna, but I am not terribly optimistic. I suspect this is the kind of information that you either find in sources that talk about the region and not the volcano specifically, or in tourism brochures which raise WP:RS concerns. I'll get the rest of these points during my above mentioned list pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   I found a possible way to back into fauna.  From tourist sources, I find mention of llama, alpaca, guanaco, fox, eagle, falcon at least in addition to those already mentioned.  And by scholar.googling on these (English and Spanish), you can access scholarly sources that mention them.  Since I don't have journal access, I have to leave that to you :)  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like all these sources merely mention both animal and Coropuna without actually connecting them. Same for Google Books search results I've seen. I've attempted to expand the animal list from the bulleted list, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetation, fauna and agriculture 

message: :: So, am I sensing now that with read-throughs by the others, you are close to FACcing?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, providing that there aren't any "blocking" problems or objections of course. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel like you could go back to FAC now; my only concern is that each time I look, I see something new, so it would seem better preprared if one of the more-competent-than-I other reviewers would do a full read through. We don't need perfection,just enough to be FAC ready. .  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see for their input. Incidentally, after Coropuna I plan to bring Laguna del Maule (volcano) to FAC if anyone's interested ... it's one of my older articles so while it (hopefully) doesn't have as many snakes it might need more work than Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would love to help out there, but timing is really bad for me.  Since my prose stinks, and with Colin, Yomangani and Outriggr combing through Tourette syndrome before mainpage day, they are keeping me busy to the point that my arthritic fingers hurt from typing!  And, I am contemplating adding a whole new section to that article, after a discussion at WT:MEDMOS suggesting there is support to broaden the scope of medical content.  That will keep me busy until after March 3, but I will try to remember to look in.  If I get busy and forget, please ping me so that at least I can do some petty MOS stuff before you FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC ready? 

message: I can't access the source, so can't correct the typo in this number myself:
* According to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it.[131]
SandyGeorgia (Talk)  04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the prior structure was better as it doesn't spread the names across the paragraph (and it's Casulla, not Cassella - corrected this one). This, I'd copy El Toro to the list of peaks with names, rather than to the beginning of the paragraph. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do as you wish, again ... I'm not fixed on any given construct, just did it myself this time to try to same time so you could get moving towards FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes needed 

message: This paper discusses thermal anomalies at Coropuna in its supplemental information sheet, but not in the actual paper. Not sure if it should be included or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information in the supplemental information to an academic paper 

message: This paper includes some information that could be useful for inclusion iff it refers to archeological findings on Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this refer to Coropuna? 

message: To some movie poster ....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.116.229 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone changed the title picture 

message: Going by this it seems like lots of people are interested in the lead and fewer into the climbers. About 1/1000 also in the naming examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readership numbers 

message: I am not sure if this is a paper or a thesis; if the former, we could use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 

message: Currently the article says Casulla, but this older source proposes it might be El Toro instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is El Toro or Casulla the highest summit? 

message: The article says in 1965, but this other source mentions 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the mummy found? 

message: * The SVG showing the retreat of ice may need updating.
* This old source might make a point about the name of the mountain being originally of the high plain.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates