Talk:Mount Mazama

message: Anyone have an approximate timeframe for the events described in the Next Phase? section (and that ? needs to be removed, so I may edit that to something else)? Given the thickness of the walls of the crater and the slowness (in human terms) of geological processes, I'd assume this is several million years in the future, as are any potential future eruptions. I just want to clarify for the geologically-challenged that their hotel reservations for next summer aren't in danger.
I was surprised to learn there is still volcanic activity. I would have assumed that the massiveness of the explosion had completely emptied Mazama's magma chamber, and that by now any magma plumes or subduction zones or whatever had moved sufficiently to make Mazama an extinct volcano, but I'm not a vulcanologist--I just took a geology class in college. I guess 7,000 years isn't long, though (in geological terms). cluth 11:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future events 

message: llao rock is a dacite flow down a glacial valley, not a pyroclastic flow.  Source: http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/notes/vol10-3b.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.248.3.2 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the water would initially flow only at the level of the low point in the rim, water flowing over this point would rapidly cut the notch deeper increasing the flow rate and the rate of erosion.  This is a positive feedback cycle that could rapidly empty the caldera one started.  It would take a considerable reduction of the rim to even begin this process, so any flooding would likely be far in the future.  The was a similar concern at Pinatubo. --Burntnickel (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but there is no reference to state such nor geologic equivelant.  Only ice dams erode fast enough for these types of 'massive floods.  I believe that without a firmly established reference (IE: USGS), this statement needs to go. And I'm removing it. It's been six months without a reference. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that without a source it should go; thanks for removing it. Your statement about ice dams isn't true, though; unconsolidated tephra can also wash away very quickly. For example, a massive flood (c. 80 km³) escaped from Lake Taupo after deposits from the Oruanui eruption were breached. (See the Manville and Wilson paper cited there for details.) For a U.S. example, see McGimsey, R. G., Waythomas, C. F., and Neal, C. A., 1994, High stand and catastrophic draining of intracaldera Surprise Lake, Aniakchak volcano, Alaska: in Till, A. B. and Moore, T. E., (eds.), Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin B 2107, p. 59-71. -- Avenue (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: What is the status of this volcano - extinct, dormant or active?  In the "future activity" section, it says "Assuming no large eruptions destroy it first" which would suggest it's either dormant or active, but it isn't stated which explictly. 
Shouldn't there be an entry for the status in the infobox?   Seems like a pretty basic (and important) bit of information.   86.147.160.133 (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms active, dormant, extinct don't seem to be favorite terms of vulcanologists.  However, a listing by Iwatsubo 75% to the bottom, in Volcano and Hydrologic Monitoring suggests it is potentially active.  Other parts of this same summary indicate the last eruption was 700 to 800 years ago.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: Not anything big, but while reviewing the Mount Mazama article, it seemed a little odd that the majority of the article deals with scientific & historical information on the volcano; Physical geography, Ecology, Native History, Eruptive history, Geology.  Then the small very last section is "Recreation".  For such a well written "hard science" article, "recreation" really does not seem to fit.  Much of the same recreation information can be found at both the Crater Lake National Park and the Crater Lake articles which are linked to from here.  One would expect this in articles on a park or lake, the inclusion in an article made to feature the dramatic explosion of a large shield volcano almost 8,000 years ago and it's historical effects on nature, geology and the indigenous peoples?  Seemed out of place.  Not too relevant, but worth noting that people probably don't look up Mount Mazama to find encyclopedic information on recreation.  It's be similar to reading about the Missoula Floods hoping to find information on eastern Washington fishing. 😉 Crater Lake and the park are what people would be searching.
But  raises an interesting point when he stated, "Given this is featured article and community review didn't appear to have an issue with this section, suggest discussing on talk page to find consensus for your change".  I had missed the featured article star. I would certainly feel that if others felt the section fits, it could remain.  My feeling is that it makes for a clearer, less cluttered, concise article if it sticks to way it was originally created back in 2012, and continued for many years, without the inclusion of less relevant information already viewable in other articles.
Thanks for your time & consideration. → 72.234.220.38 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ps. ping'n  the administrator who submitted this article for its FAC consideration  →72.234.220.38 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this post as well. I think for the sake of comprehensiveness that section should be kept, we are not obliged to have it on only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking time to comment  As I mentioned, it's no big deal either way.  Tho, I see lack of clutter and clarity is strived for on the better Wikipedia articles.  That's why this one struck me as odd.  Using the example I pulled out of the air, would one think that sections discussing the fishing and boating on lakes left behind by the millennia-ago Missoula Floods would fit in that article?  As with that one, the Mount Mazama article started out as, and has mostly been over some years, a similar scientific and historic write up on events taking place millennia-ago.  The "recreation" section was a somewhat recent addition.  Just food for thought. →72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note! I think it's fine as is, since the section is already quite short compared to recreation sections for comparable volcano/mountain FAs. But I'm not entirely opposed to shortening it if that's what consensus dictates. ceranthor 13:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Mazama  "Recreation section" - yes/no? 

message: How does a solid mass collapse, unless it's into something like a void beneath? If a void, how could it possibly form (do magma chambers somehow drain themselves away?) 2.96.206.125 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reporting this. The major eruption emptied the magma chamber and the overlying edifice collapsed because it was no longer supported. I have added some text to the article to clarify this. GeoWriter (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's helpful, thanks!2.96.206.125 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does this mean "the mountain collapsed"