User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Volcanoes and ranges

Saw your addition of WP:Volcanoes to Coaswt Mountains. Thing is, then so also the Alaska Range, the Interior Mountains, maybe the Hazelton Mountains, theYellowstone, Great Basin and all of the Sierra Mader (incl. del Sur) and every other range int he Ring of Fire; the Andes, the Kuriles, eveyr island chain with volcanoes etc a=tc. I dont' think it's meant to be that broad in scope/definition.Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

specific subranges maybe, but not big macro-ranges e.g. Tuya Range and Rainbow Range of course....but the macro range includes the Lillooet Ranges and Douglas Ranges et al...which are as I understand it plutonic ratehr than volcanic....Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Coast Mountains were mostly formed by a large volcanic arc environment millions of years ago. The plutonic rock that forms to this day is the magma that cooled beneath old volcanoes. The Coast Mountains also contain several volcanoes; the Cascade Range and Wrangell Mountains are within the project's scope as well. Black Tusk (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cascade Volcanos

I finally got a chance to take a look at this and it looks like you took care of it yourself. Your image looks good, sorry I wasn't able to help. Kmusser (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't anything hard. I thought you would be better creating it because I don't really have any mapping skills. But if it looks good I guess there's no problem. Black Tusk (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Coast Mountains

Hi Sémhur. I'm plaining to make a major expanson for the Coast Mountains article and I noticed there are images on the website here that would be useful for my expansion. Is there a possibility you could make these images? Black Tusk

Hi Black Tusk. I'm afraid I won't be able to do theses images. I have less time for WP in this period. I suggest you to ask the Graphic Lab to do that. Sémhur 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have started making maps and images actually; see the Cascade volcano eruption timeline here for example. So I'll try and make them. Black Tusk (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Volcanic Group

Thank you for your interesting additions to the volcanic group listing. They contribute significantly, especially for Canada and the North American continent generally. Gubernatoria (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will expand the list when I find more. Black Tusk (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Gubernatoria (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW when you create volcano articles can you add the Volcano WikiProject on its talk page? Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do Gubernatoria (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think Volcanic group should now be Volcanic groups? Gubernatoria (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at other volcano categories. See Category:Stratovolcanoes, Category:Shield volcanoes or Category:Volcanic calderas. The name should be plural because there is more than one volcano in the category. Black Tusk (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Black Tusk (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's 1.40am now. I'll sleep on it Gubernatoria (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

However, I'm not saying the volcanic group article should be renamed to "volcanic groups". Black Tusk (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacktusk-- I see you deleted some categories from Duluth Complex. The article also covers the North Shore Volcanics (which, as you see, redirects there). The two formations seem to be treated together a lot, and they interleave both temporally and spatially. I don't get too worked up about categories, but there was a reason why the editor added them there. When I find a public-domain map which shows the relationship (at least in two dimensions) of the intrusive and extrusive rocks, I'll add it (or create one myself). Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the Duluth Complex was only intrusive because that's what it says in the introduction. But I did see the North Shore Volcanics photo near the middle so I am aware there's volcanics there. BTW I'm plaining to make a major expansion on the Volcanism in Canada article. Is this something you would be interested in? The history of volcanism in Canada is extensive. Black Tusk (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll sure take a look at it. I don't have your knowledge base, but may be able to read it over for you. I think my work is always benefitted by having someone else read it over. Kablammo (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

All what I do is search for infomation then add it to an article. Recently, I have made maps and images for Hoodoo Mountain, Silverthrone Caldera, Magic Mountain and Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents but they still need to be uploaded on Commons. Black Tusk (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Um, notice that was months ago. And um, lol, once we get there... —Ceran [ speak ] 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It dosen't matter if it was months ago. What matters is to get things correct :-). Black Tusk (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:WikiProject Earthquakes categories

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Earthquakes categories, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:WikiProject Earthquakes categories has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:WikiProject Earthquakes categories, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New Plateaux articles

• Interior Plateau - not new, but being revised; see last section on talk:Interior Plateau
• Fraser Plateau - much late in making this, still have an issue with its definitino see Talk:Fraser Plateau
• McGregor Plateau- may need revision; part of Interior Plateau and I thought part of the Fraser Plateau, according to Holland, but the Fraser Plateau according to BCGNIS doesn't include either the Nechako or McGregor. There are northern BC plateaux too, e.g. the Dease Plateau, the Liard Basin, not in the mood to re-read Holland to sort it all out; figured you'd be interested in the Fraser Plateau because it's largely lava-based.Skookum1 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• note also my additions to Arctic Pacific Lakes Provincial Park and the emendation on one of the Edziza-area articles the Arctic Lake Plateau. Iv'e rdirected Pacific Lake to the aforementioned park article but because there's two Arctic Lakes left that one "open"... the Edziza one could perhaps be Arctic Lake (Stikine) while the other could be the undisambiguated version; but would only be a redirect to the park article; not sure about how relevant the one in the Stikine is - is it large enough to warrant an article, or notable in other ways? Just noting the redlink on Arctic Lake Plateau....Skookum1 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When I created the Arctic Lake Plateau article I couldn't find too much material about the Arctic Lake in Stikine Country, so probably not. I've been wanting to recreate the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts article but haven't had time because I've been collecting infomation for article remakes, such as Coast Mountains and Volcanism in Canada; large portions of Canada were formed by volcanic activity and the Coast Mountains is quite complex as well, consisting a broad range of volcanic origins. Some plateaus you mentioned are smaller portions of the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts, including the Fraser Plateau. I'll try and help out with some of those plateau articles if I have time. Black Tusk (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, sounds like I should redirect Arctic Lake to the park then, as that's clearly the most common usage; I haven't searched USGS for this name but there's no pre-extant article. Conceivably someone might make small-case "Arctic lake]]" but there would be millions of those LOL btw Category:Mountain lakes strikes me as inane and covers 90% of the lakes in British Columbia, and all of those in the Yukon; "not a proper geographic object" I think I protested its existence somewhere but it's still there. Now BTW "Cariboo Plateau" officially is a landform on the south side of hte Eagle River east of Sicamous, sort of a high western shelf of the Monashees, between Sicamous/Shuswap lake and Wap Creek, which is the north fork of the Shuswap River; east of it is the Sawtooth Range (British Columbia) on the other side of which is the uppermost Shuswap River, north/upstream from Sugar Lake; Wap Creek ends at the north apex of the Sawtooth, I think the pass back into the upper Shuswap is Joss Pass, but north of that apex is a short gap which is where Three Valley Gap is, the little ghost town/amusement park/lake resort at the summit of Eagle Pass. Anyway in your various volcanic and esp lava plateau readings you're going to come across descriptions of the Cariboo Plateau which isn't in BCGNIS but I'm pretty sure is in Holland (Landforms of BC, 1976); but geology reports mentioning it will suffice for proper sources in lieu of Holland; so keep your eyes open; I woulda thought you'd hve been all over the Quesnel Lake volcanoes by now.....and what's the news on Nazko? Any more rumblings?Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nazko earthquakes ended in late December last year and things have been relatively quiet since then. I don't believe BCGNIS has all the official names of geographic features because they don't list any submarine feature along the coast, such as Bowie, which I sure is an official name. BTW should the Waddington Icefield have an article or should that be a redirect to Waddington Range? I see all of the other large icefields in the southern Coast Mountains have articles. Black Tusk (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Black Tusk: This article on a Colombian volcano is now being reviewed for promotion to a featured article. Would you be willing to take a look at it, and post your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz? The featured article process is short of reviewers, and additional folks are needed to look at articles. As you can see, this article has been reviewed for sources, images, and citation and manual of style compliance, but it would be helpful to have one conversant in the field (such as you) give it a critical review to see if it is comphensive on its subject matter, and represents Wikipedia's best articles. The featured article criteria are what articles are judged by. Even if you have not reviewed an featured article candidate before, your contributions should be welcomed. Most writers want their articles to be reviewed by objective outsiders who can spot things they overlooked, or make suggestions for improvement. Kablammo (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Black Tusk (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and posted my comment. Black Tusk (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometime in the future I'm going to try and get Volcanism in Canada to FA status. I already have rewriten infomation for this article stored in my system 60 kilobytes long..... Black Tusk (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cone Mountain

No proof it's a volcano, so far, but I thought you might find this interesting, given its location (Lava Fork et al. is to the SE).Skookum1 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.......well, if it's not in the Iskut-Unuk River Cones area then I'm not sure. I checked some volcano maps and there seems to be nothing volcanic northwest of Hoodoo Mountain. So the safest thing to say is Cone Mountain probably contains intrusive/plutonic rock. But these volcano maps only include volcanoes and volcanic areas younger than 5 million years, therefore volcanoes like Ilgachuz Range, Rainbow Range, Bennett or Clisbako are not included. Black Tusk (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I confused Iskut-Unuk with Lava Fork, same general region though....but given the location of Stikine Hot Springs (Choquette Hot Springs Provincial Park) and the Iskut-Unuk, and the huge ice masses in between the Iskut and Stikine, I'd venture that this is just insufficiently explored turf, like the Homathko Icefield and other areas farther south where the technology just doesn't exist to know what's under the ice.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about the unexplored areas. Lava Fork volcanics are part of the Iskut-Unuk River Cones as far as I understand it. Interestingly, during the mid-1980s the Iskut River canyon was studied as a possible site for a hydroelectric project. But the project was abandoned in part because of the uncertain volcanic future in the area. Black Tusk (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that....curious, though, that the same volcanic inhibitions don't seem to be in place re the Homathko and Klinaklini River run-of-the-river projects, given Franklin Volcano and Monarch; and likewise Toba re Meager and who knows what else is around Meager...you'd think by now they'd have ice-penetrating ground radar able to pierce what's under the Homathko and Lillooet and Pemberton Icefields....I imagine one day someone will find out, or in the meantime something will erupt.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of that area is unknown and largely unexplored due to its remoteness though; see Template talk:Cascade volcanoes if you haven't. If there are volcanoes (most likely calderas) under the Pemberton, Lillooet, Homathko or Monarch icefields, most of those volcanoes have probably not erupted for thousands or even millions of years. The last eruption from Franklin is thought to be at least 2.2 million years old and therefore probably extinct. But because of its remoteness and the lack of knowledge in that area, there could easily be younger volcanic outcrops which have not been found, and large areas of volcanic rocks could lie buried under 100s of metres of ice. But there appears to be no published evidence for that; I should mention some of this to the Geological Survey of Canada if I time. I'm not saying there will not be any more eruptions in those areas given the recent activity at Silverthrone (less than 1000 years ago), but the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is less active than other volcanic areas in British Columbia, even though I understand your comment about the large amount of glacial ice. As for the Iskut River canyon, if a dam or some other hydroelectric structure existed in the Iskut River canyon and an ice-capped volcano erupted to produce significant melting, flooding and mudflows down adjacent river valleys, you would get the picture. The dam would likely rupture from weight of the significant meltwater and mudflows to produce a larger flood.....apparently there was a project at Hoodoo Mountain in 1997 to determine the volume of water on the volcano's summit which could be mobilized in the event of an eruption, using ice-penetrating radar. Black Tusk (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dil-Dil Plateau

I'm just stubbing this up, all I can really provide is elevation and give a basemap-calculated estimate of its area; but check out this page, about 3/4 of the way down on the right, for a neat picture. Hard to believe it's anything but a lava plateau when it looks like that; been trying to find geology reports but no luck so far; even though the area to the south of it is extensively surveyed for mineralogy.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to stub up The Red Tusk as well. Apparently not a volcano, but an impressive mountain. Black Tusk (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I note you added the {{Volcano}} tag to it....I know it look like a lava plateau, but are you sure? It's conceivable it could be some kind of old glacial lake-bottom; if it's volcanic then most likely so is Mount Vic, which is cone-shaped and lies off its southwest end, so I'll make the Mount Vic article and see if MINFILE has anything on that area. That same gallery page has pictures of what is only officially known as Dash Hill but that gallery and other South Chilcotin-related sites have dubbed the Dash Plateau, which stands to the west of Churn Creek and off the north side of Relay Mountain; Dash Hill is a cone-like protuberance on the top of the plateau, which is a sort of mesa standing up above the main Chilcotin Plateau which lies northwards; that area probably has geology reports on it. There's a number of buttes out on the plateau north and west of this area; Mount Tom comes to mind I can't remember others....what I might do when the urge strikes me is use one of my spare email accounts to get a free one-monther at bivouac and use the peak/radius listers...not right now, though, don't want to mountain-obsess, got too much stuff going on in real life and also elsewhere in wikipedia...Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hit the Jackpot - Geology and Mineral Occurrences of the Taseko - Bridge River Area. I've downloaded the two sections which mention Munt Vic and am going to look them over; one makes mention of breccia/sandstone/shale features 2.5km NE of Mount Vic....I'll re-search for the Dil-Dil as I've just noticed in their list of illustrations "Rat-lying basalt flows of the Chilcotin Group, east side of the Dil Dil Plateau" so it would appear in the main document a seaach for "Dil Dil" will find the required citations that this is a lava flow. The thing about this particular report is it covers an intensely-studied area; I've got other private reports on the mineralogy of the region but this looks to be a source doc, dated 1997; metamorphic in one chapter, tectonic in another. You're the geology guy so I'll leave it to you to understand it; I note there's a volcanic mention re the Cadwallader Creek terrane (one of hte most important in the region because of it being the location of teh Bralorne gold mine/ore body). Interesting that they use this name - which is far more descriptive than "South Chilcotin" which though popular is a misnomer as I've said before as much of the area described by that term is Bridge River Country, not hte Chilcotin. Anyway, enjoy and Happy New Year.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

the other summits I was thinking of are Piltz Peak and Hungry Mountain, see here and find the second occurrence of "Dil-Dil" (with hyphen). I'm considering that this particular cite which is the "1 CARIBOO CHILCOTIN LAND USE PLAN" on this google can be used to affirm that the Dil-Dil and other locations are used for commercial recreataion purposes; btw in the first cite it says ~2000m-2500m somewhere re the Dil-DilSkookum1 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dosen't one of those sites mention the Dil-Dil Plateau is made of basalt? According to here, basalt flows cover most of the Dil-Dil Plateau. Black Tusk (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read them fully, only scanned the index/intro....like i said, you're the geology guy, you read 'em, my hard drive's full enough of pdfs as it is...; note above "Rat-lying basalt flows of the Chilcotin Group, east side of the Dil Dil Plateau" in the list of illustrations. The implication is also that Mount Vic is a volcano, but I saw nothing directly about that....Skookum1 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about Mount Vic. It's possible Mount Vic is made of volcanic rock but I don't think it's necessarily a volcano because I'm sure no volcanoes in British Columbia reach heights of 3005 m; Mount Silverthrone (2864 m) and Mount Edziza (2793 m) are among the highest, although there's some references that state the elevation of Silverthrone Caldera as 3,160 m. If Mount Vic is indeed volcanic it's most likely uplifted volcanic rock from tectonic movements (mountain building (orogeny)), unless it's one of those poorly searched areas like others mentioned above. Black Tusk (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, just speculating, as there's a general slope of the Dil-Dil as it extends northeast from Mt Vic....the otehr butte-like protuberances other than Mount Vic are Tete Hill (with a circumflex) and Cone Hill....most geological work in that region is south of that, from Warner Ridge eastwards and Relay South; a lot of that area of teh plateau (Chilcotin Plateau) is big marshy swamp, not very favourable for prospecting/mineral research...though Mt Vic's in an area i would have thought would have been surveyed; but the Taseko area should have been studied thoroughly because of hydro proposals in that area....Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bivouac seems to mention a similar description for Mount Vic: Mount Vic is a light gray colored rock presumably uplifted volcanic, and the slopes are mostly scree.[1] Black Tusk (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park

As far as I know, this park includes most of the Rainbow Range as well as the Charlotte Alplands; Itcha-Ilgachuz is a different park, of course. Just thought you might want to expand it some as it obviously has volcanic features, no?Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm meaning to add some volcanic info on that article. BTW did you see my note on Talk:Tweedsmuir North Provincial Park and Protected Area? This park name does not exist on BCGNIS. Insted it calls it Tweedsmuir Provincial Park. Black Tusk (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Chilcotin Ranges

Don't know if you noticed this or not....I'm uncertain whether to include the Niut and Pantheon Ranges; Holland says the northwestern boundary is the upper Klinaklini River, but whether he means the near stretch of that or the far stretch isn't clear from his text. Most summits in it currently are SE of Taseko, and that's the only area that there are named subranges other than Niut and Pantheon; I guess you did see it re Dil-Dil Plateau, and I should probably note in its lede that it's not a subcategory of Category:Chilcotin Country as parts of the ranges are in Category:Bridge River Country....I suppose it could have both "countries" as parent-cats though....Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I seen this category last night while searching through Category:Pacific Ranges - added the Mountains WikiProject on its talk page. I know I wouldn't include the Niut and Pantheon ranges becuase of unclear text, but that's mostly because I'm not very familiar with those ranges. While doing some mountain editing I found this recently created article, which must be false; see the edits before I started deleting misleading infomation. Black Tusk (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount McKay Photo

No problem. :) I'll try and get some pictures from the top eventually. If there is anything specific the article might need just let me know and I'll put it on my ever growing to-do list. :) vıdıoman 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Are there any more sills around Thunder Bay? Surely more images of sills related to the Midcontinent Rift System would be useful. Black Tusk (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount McKay is part of a small chain of mountains just like it, called the Nor'Wester's. McKay is the northernmost, tallest and most visible but there is a whole wall of them separating the Slate River Valley from Loch Lomond. I think Rabbitt Mountain is a sill as well, but don't know for sure. It's very flat but looks similar to the example in the Sill article if that sill was very weathered. I don't know is the Sawtooth mountains in MN are sills but it runs along the same axis as the Midcontinent rift. vıdıoman 10:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good sign ;-). Any mesa-like mountains are likely to be sills (i.e. Rabbit Mountain, Mount McKay). While checking some references on the Mount McKay article I found Pie Island and Flatland Island which appear to be sills as well, along with others at Lake Nipigon, which appears to be a failed arm of the main rift called the Nipigon Embayment. The other sills can be found here. I'm wanting to take some pictures of pillow lava formations around my area but I don't have a camera lol. So I'll have to wait until I have one. Black Tusk (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Flatland Island is a completely flat island southwest of Pie, I don't know why they mentioned it on that site, I don't think you can see it from the city. It's down by Sturgeon Bay. Pie Island is FN land, accessible only by boat but I can get pictures of it from the city. Getting up to Nipigon would be harder, I don't have a vehicle other than my bike. I'll try to find some photos of Pie Island and others in the photos I have already taken. vıdıoman 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just some suggestions because I know you cover areas related to Northwestern Ontario. If you're at Lake Nipigon (northeast of Thunder Bay isn't it?) sometime in the future there should be sills related to volcanism of the Midcontinent Rift System some 1100 billion years ago as well. Black Tusk (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1100 Billion? Lake Nipigon is pretty far away (two hours at least) but if I ever go up there I'll get pictures of the hills. vıdıoman 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I ment 1100 million. The pillow lava formations in my area are at least 2000 million years old. The sills at Lake Nipigon form cliffs along the shoreline I think. Black Tusk (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Volcanoguy. You have new messages at Mizu onna sango15's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Little Rocky Mountains, Montana

Figured you might want to have a look at this and decide if these belong in the Volcanoes WP. Been bugging myself to get around to making this stub for a while, knew they were there frmo my bivouac days...there's several other buttes in Montana, right up near the SK/AB border, prob similar in formation...(hot spots?)Skookum1 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

and you might want to have a look through other papers in this google; note Azure Cave, I'll see if that exists, probablay does knowing hte spelunking crowd....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Grass Hills, Montana

Ditto on the above, but the geology page I found says even more pointedly "igneous". These need an article; see Whitlash,_Montana and this google for West Butte, which is their highest summit. They're in the prominence sequence connecting the Cypress Hills in SK-AB to White Calf Mountain and the Rockies. Boy do I ever know that....took me a while poking around all the elevation points on USGS maps to trace teh sequence when I did my work for bivouac.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Never herd of the Sweet Grass Hills or Little Rocky Mountains. Black Tusk (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Seamounts...

I'd be glad to. Give me a couple of days, and I'll contact you when I'm ready. Happy new year! ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Doing...
  •  Done Wikipedia:WikiProject Seamounts. Expand it as you wish. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to new cat

1946 Vancouver Island earthquake does deserve more than that. I'll get around to helping in the next few days, from prior-to-now searching I know there are plenty of sources. Personally, I find Canada fascinating, I hope to travel there someday. :/ ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been wanting to get that article to GA or FA status, but I've been busy doing other stuff. The other earthquake articles within the "Open tasks" section should probably have that category as well. Black Tusk (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to focus on these kinds of articles. I'm kind of busy with a lot of other articles right now, but would you mind giving me some feedback on this article? I already have a GA reviewer, but you could leave your feedback there, if you wish. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try my best if I can. I tagged the 1985 Nahanni earthquakes as needing attention while ago as well which appears to be another important earthquake area, see here for example. Black Tusk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of {{infobox Mountain}} vs. {{Geobox/type/mountain}}

.. occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. You're welcome to join in the discussion. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and posted my comment. Black Tusk (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mess at Western Cordillera, North America

Hi; figured I'd better clue you into User:Thompsma's brave but deeper-than-he-knows-deep-water attempt to tidy up this misnamed article and the complexities of physiographci belts/divisions; already he's confused ecozone/ecoregion content with montane/landform content but I've explained that to him; see my sections laying out issues at the bottom of the talkpage (starting with the one titled "from bad to worse")....Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not it - that's a redirect to Pacific Coast Ranges......aaaargth. Gimme a minute gotta go in my history, I'll be back....Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaargh. Western Cordillera of North America, and now I'm right pissed off, just got insulted by the guy who's tried to "fix" the article without having a f**king clue about what the subject matter is, and then tells me he's not going to bother reading my explanations of Holland's definitions "because theyr'e not cited" and he'd rather read peer-reviewed works. See Talk:Western_Cordillera_of_North_America#From_bad_to_worse. I held my tongue, i.e. I could have resopnded with a LOT worse, as you know. There's more editors than me who've worked on articles in Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia or Category:Columbia River and Category:Canadian Rockies, and apparently all my efforts to organize content in line with the official system established by Holland/BCGNIS just isn't worth his time; and he's engaged in a name-change process without actually looking around to see waht other articles said. I'm the big bad guy as usual....I should have just ignored this article, which was a mess in the first place...but there were a lot edits from an IP user all over various mountain range articles - you've probably noticed them, re this name change bullshit...no doubt I'll get my wiki peepee slapped, but right now I'm just gritting my teeth; I was going to try and get history articles written tonight and isntead decided to help out and save this guy soem time; and wound up getting insulted for my efforts. What a little creep....Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's when you're supposed to teach him a lesson. I seen this earlier, as well as Talk:Interior Plateau (same person?), but I didn't go too much within it because I'll likely be involved with something else. I left a comment at Talk:Mount Meager last night about stuff as well.....I'm not saying you are blank in Canadian geography, however, because I know you arn't. Black Tusk (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to teach him a lesson; now he's telling me that he doesn't have to listen to me, that he feels it's not a phyisography article, he wants to make it into a physiogeology+ecozone+whatever article, with a dash of molecular systematics - blatant OR...I'm getting real sick of it. I've gone to User:Spireguy who I know from prominence work/corerspondence from my bivouac days and while "polling" isn't supposed to be on, we're faced with a real arrogant rookie here, and as you know, me, I'm a WOOKIE and don't suffer fools gladly; the article is supposed to be about the montane classification/toponymy system, not about the geology of the mountains or what botanists like to call their regimes, it's about mountain ranges; fine to embellish them as you do so well, but you see the point of a distinction between volcanic system articles and mountain range-system articles (e.g. Cascade Volcanoes vs Cascade Range, Garibaldi Ranges vs Garibaldi Volcanic Arc etc...) He refuses to and is insistent that new definitions have to be created out of all the bad references from people in other fields, or good references from six diferrent fields/nomenclature systems as if they shoudl all be united....that's OR/synthesis and I'm getting real tired of him..this is my note to Spireguy User_talk:Spireguy#Chaos_at_Western_Cordillera_.28North_America.29 who hasn't been around since November; I have his email somewhere, so.....we need "mountain range geography 'people in on this before teh biologists and geneticists make it over in their own image....Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bulletin 48 map (Holland)

Found it - Holland's map which shows the break-out of all the different regions/ranges/plateaus/etc within this four "Systems". As far as I'm concerned this is "official" in the same way that BCGNIS and CGNDB are - from the horse's own mouth, though the horse is no longer Holland but the person who told me his work is the main foundation for all since; and that this is an Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources publication/offering to this day - particularly for use by the mining industry (and its geologists) makes you wonder why academic geologists have to come up with their own noemcnalture, i.e. not for things like Intermontane Belt but mistaken terms like "Stikine Mountains" and "Coastal Mountains" or the ecologists' wishy-washy take on waht "Fraser Basin" means (zoom in on the Prince George-Nechako area and you'll see hwat I mean; he also, via this map, points out the fragmentary nature of the Dease Plateau. This map/link canbe used as an "official cite" for pages like Dease Plateau - and note he titles it "Canadian Cordillera"; I'd be intersted to see a comparable USGS map and how his boundaries and theirs may or may not convergaa at the border; in 1964 he made an effort to correlate with American and "Yukonian" and Alaskan geographic terms; it's a pity that it seems like even the UNBC has smoe other kidn of toponymic agenda, along with U.Calg's (or U.Wash for that matter). "there can only be one". I see I made some "sometimes" wheedlings re the Kawdy, Taku and Stikine Plateaus being part of hte Yukon Plateau; I see only the Nisutlin is and I dno't know what the BCGNIS has redfined the BC portion of the Yukon Plateau as (they list it as 'rescinded" - but maybe only because the centrepoint is in the Yukon and not in BC. Only the Nisultlin Plateau seems to be part of it in this map, not sure about the Dease Plateau, which is an upland flanking the lower Dease River's share of the Liard Plain; and Liard Plateau is a southward (and lower) extension fo the....Mackenzies rather than the Seylwns I think, I'd ahve to refer to a larger scale map. One reason I wanted you to have this is because of all his volcano markings, or whatever all those red dots are (presumably volcanoes...??) I don't have it open now - memory crunch - so I'll ponder it later. Note that the many subranges of the Cassiars, Selkirks etc he doesn't bother trying to lay out, just to many to begin representing....gotta hit the hay now, sorry if I sounded like I was criticizing; I guess it was frustrating that I was trying to keep the tsunami or extraneous detail at bay and you added stuff that set things in motion that I woudl ahve preferred to contain; I'm recusing because of WP:OWN although may tweak the range-list some; if he starts adding too many lower-tier ranges the appropriate response (in true NPOV fasion) is to add them all - "and let God sort 'em out". BTW do you think we could come up with a better picture than the one of the North Shore Mountains (with cloud instead of summits?. Maybe I've got something in my own collection from up Bridge River way, though most of my stuff is dryland shots from around Lillooet that aren't really representative....do we have a good Tantalus Range shot?Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Remains a possibility. There could be better public domain mountain pictures with clouds on Commons or www.flickr.com - that's where I found some volcano pictures. I looked at Holland's map you linked and all the red bots are indeed volcanoes; Centres of Tertiary and Recent Volcanism. The red dot on northeastern Queen Charlotte Islands must be Tow Hill. Black Tusk (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW I created Mount Brew (Lillooet Ranges). Just letting you know because you were confused with Mount Brew (Cheakamus River) at one time. Black Tusk (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure *I* was, as I've been aware of that distinction since starting here, did I do a data/latlong error or something? There's another Mount Brew up in the Cariboo somewhere too....I think Mount Brew - probably now a disambiguation page? - was created as the "primary usage" (bigger though more remote) but maybe another editor started mish-mashing them? Not sure...not a mistake I would casually make, I've looked at Lillooet-area Mt Brew on and off for most of my life (having lived in teh area and its northern flank dominates the lower end of the Cayoosh Canyon/Seton Beach area....Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lillooet's Mount Brew I can for sure come up with a picture for....Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what you said on the Mount Brew page, unless I misunderstood. Black Tusk (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the 1MB range on Talk:Tsitsutl Peak, if you're interested to know I have rewritten infomation for Volcanism in Canada 73 kilobytes long.....it's going to become a major article. I'm planning to add mining infomation about it as well. Black Tusk (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost done!

I'm working on creating a Good topic for the Washington Cascade volcanoes, and I think that Glacier Peak will be the last on my list! Can you help me copy edit this before I send it to GAN? Thanks in advance, ₪Ceran →(slip→sled →snow) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! I can always use help, how is Anahim coming along? Ceran^→→ 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anahim hotspot you're talking about? I haven't really done anything to that article since it entered GA. Just added four satellite images. Black Tusk (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

North Coast Archipelago

Yo; moving to here from Talk:Archipelago and Talk:Western Cordillera (North America) our discussion about the "North Coast Archipelago"; I'll let pfly know it's here too as he was the other interested party; it may belong on Western Cordillera's talkpage but the waters there are pretty muddy for now....it's just I happened to find a reference to another, albeit older, term - Columbian Archipelago - used in a Klondike/Alaska Boundary dispute-era NYTimes article (or hmm maybe it was an Alaska purchase-era article, by Frederick Schwatka, not sure, read about thirty archival articles this morning...); "Columbian Archipelago" in google will turn up both this reference, and also (the more primary and logical-name reference) the Greater Antilles of the West Indies, i.e. the islands mostly discovered by Columbus (Cuba, Hispanolia, Jamaica etc). I think it's fairly safe to create North Coast Archipelago as it's the more modern usage, really just noting I'd found the older term; there isn't an article or redirect for Columbian Archipelago; the primary redirect should probably be the Caribbean one, just noting it here as an aside re the North Coast Archipelago....which I guess the best cite will be maybe a BC Govt ministry document using it....Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually re-googling i noted that most usages are small-case "central and north coast archipelago", mostly in botany/zoology papers.....I'll keep poking around, maybe seeing if I can exclude that phrase from the search....Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The most appropiate wording is likely the best to use as title. I highly doubt I'll create the article because I don't really know anything about the subject. But if Pfly or someone else has comments about this then feel free to post here. Black Tusk (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Seamonts Proposal

I designed an svg graphic based on Volcano.svg:

Proposal

Scalable; good for use as a placeholder or as the logo for the project. What do you think? Resident Mario (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong witht eh whitespace...Resident Mario (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Black Tusk (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it, I think. Anyway, I got Portal:Seamounts off the ground-come take a look. Resident Mario (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's purdy, but don't you think you should have some symbols for water and fishies and such to denote its underwater nature...?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Black Tusk (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...It's 6:35 where I'm at, so i'm not sure I'll be done today...Any suggestions, though? Resident Mario (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stikine Plateau update

I expanded this article with desrpitions of its subplateaus, working from Holland's map. I'm nominating you to at least do the subs for th other plateaus to go with teh Kawdy. It's interesting Holland's map shows the Tahltan Highland as being Stikine Plateau, as opposed to Coast Mountains, since his text says something along the lines of the opposite (though he's always non-committal about the various Highlands....on the map the Highlands are all shown as part of the adjoining plateaus, instead of the adjoining ranges, though...).Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I created Category:Kitimat Ranges and its subranges. Black Tusk (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to know; see disambig page Kitlope....thinking that we should carry the geographic regions into further categories, including Cassiar Mountains, Stikine Plateau etc....as an end-run on those ecoregion cats and the RD cats and as ancillary to the "Country" cats, which aren't always adequate especially in remote regions like the Cassiar (Country) or the northern Trench....Holland's writeup on each teh Stikien subplateaus has basic geology; I wish I could copy-paste from PDFs as "stints" to build rewrites on, but each stub will have to be done point-by-point raterh than cribbed....the Eaglenest Range and others I didn't bother to put in yet; I think the Eaglnest is on the Spatsizi Plateau, not sure about that though; the Three Sisters Range is on the Tanzilla I think.....and a peak up that way, pretty high and surrounding by spiny ridges, whose name has always fascinated me is Sharktooth.....`oh, Shark Tooth Mountain officially http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=15381 near Whiteswan Lake Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of mountains related to the Kitimat Ranges are probably in need for creation as well, given the lack of mountain articles in that area. Should Spatsizi Plateau be a redirect to Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Provincial Park? The park seems to cover most of the plateau..... Black Tusk (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the landform and the park should be kept as separate articles....we'll see, let me compare their maps later....also Sharktooth Mountain is the one I was thinking of; just made stubs for both it and Shark Tooth but I have to run for hte bus, they still need height/etc from bivouac; Sharktooth is the higehst thing around there and the core of a certain prominence region within Zus/Ulysses. Gotta run later.Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add infoboxes for those articles. Black Tusk (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just made Category:Hazelton Mountains and Category:Cassiar Mountains, along with their subranges. Black Tusk (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Eagle River Cones

Coining that name on the premise there may not be one. Found this in Holland while looking up Sharktooth just now:

At the head of the Eagle River, some 8 to 15 miles westerly from Eaglehead Lake, there is a group of five or more cinder cones of Pleistocene age. "The cones are generally elliptical in plan and conical in section . . . their symmetrical shape and long, black, talus slopes make them conspicuous landmarks in the region"

Quoted bit is from "Hanson, G. and McNaughton, D.A., Geol. Surv. Canada,, Mem. 194, 1936. p.11." This passage is on p. 61 of Holland's Landforms of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the cinder cone names are if they have any. I'll check the Geological Survey of Canada website since they list volcanoes with ages no older than 5 million years (i.e. Holocene, Pleistocene and Pliocene). Black Tusk (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these cinder cones in or around the Omineca Mountains? There's at least seven Pleistocene age cinder cones somewhere in the Ominecas with The Thumb being one of them. Black Tusk (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even close - Eaglehead Lake is at 58°33′03″N 129°14′34″W which is northeast of Dease Lake - west of Sharktooth, as I recall - ("Eaglehead Lake". BC Geographical Names.). The Eagle is a tributary of either the Turnagain or Major Hart Rivers, I've forgotten which.Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's Tanzilla Plateau and not quite into the Cassiar Mountains....I think those are teh Stikine Ranges subset right there, including Sharktooth.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So east of the Level Mountain Range. I'll go and have a look. Black Tusk (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be around the Dark Mountain area, which dosen't have an article. Black Tusk (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Mountain does ring a bell; I "prominenced" and peak-plotted through this area and I remember there's a tricky-to-find "col" in there somewhere....Maybe Dark Mountain's name has to do with its composition? i.e. dark-rock lava or volcanic scree?Skookum1 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent]I made the Dark Mtn stub, even though it's not by any means one of the more notable summits in the region, just "might as well" in case this or that turns up...I sorta remember its location, even, to the west of Cry Lake and against hte bend in the upper Dease River as it turns northeast; Cry Lake doesn't haev a provincial park but I think there's either a lodge there or a protected area or recreation area; I googled "Dark Mountain"+MINFILE and found an interesting page giving prospector's reports - only for 2000 at that link, I think probably substitute 2001, 2002 etc and other reams of prospector reports will abound; I'm downloading hte one from Dark Mtn right now, if I see anything interesting I'll let you know; can't vouch for the verifiability/reliability of prospector's reports, though, geology or otherwise; mining promotion can involve a lot of puff'n'stuff, though usually concerning assays and not core geology; they've probably fairly verifiable for core geology....13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, other than finding the memorable placename Chicken Neck Mountain, the prospector's report - handwritten mostly, with some nice pics - is mostly surface geology; malachite, quartz, copper sulfide if that tells you anything...I did see something about Ash Mountain on the main prospector's report listing, though, I'll look at that; Ash Mountain would be in Tuya River Provincial Park, though, wouldn't it? Not that parks can stop mining in BC (or mining exploration....).Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember another reason Cry Lake rings a bell - here is a MINFILE report on teh area, which is "mostly known for its large jade (nephrite) boulders". Asbestos as well as "volcanic mafic" materials. Lots of jade up in the area, might as well make Jade City if it's not done already; this is an area with lots of ghost towns and ex-mining camps btw....Skookum1 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff here, not volcanic-specific but probably full of all kinds of nice citable goodies...still poking around EMPR - they have four-letter codes for various landforms btw, which might prove useful, just trying to find the directory of them when I found this...Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Mountains does appear to be a volcano according to the Geological Survey of Canada website here, but the coordinates are not the same like the ones in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be because of the vagueness of BCGNIS coords, which are often rounded to the nearest dime/minute; or the differing citations are because of the location of the vents, not the summmit, which is what's in BCGNIS.Skookum1 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. There's other summits around Dark Mountain that may have the same citations (e.g. Dome Mountain[2]). Black Tusk (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on Ominecas and Cassiars

found this on p.62 in the Omineca Mountains section, which of course we could knit into both articles (and perhaps in Western Cordillera):

On the north the Omineca Mountains are arbitrarily separated from the Cassiar Mountains by the vallesy of Chukachida River, Cushing Creek, Thudaka Creek and Finlay River, although there is compelte topographic and geologic continuity between the two.

That last phrase seems important enough, as also the arbitrary nature of the division (other divisions are topograhically-defined and/or geologic).Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...

Well, we've been invited into the milestones list: (from Project talk page)
Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me..what do you think?
P.S. the reason I keep bugging you is becuase, being relatively new, I'm bound to make stupid mistakes a lot, so I do concensus. Some other stuff:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seamounts/to do To do list up
• WikiPedia:WikiProject_Seamounts/Images Images up
  

Cheers, Resident Mario (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
^{god this talk page is active...}

Sounds good (WP Seamounts?). You arn't bugging me, I actually like messages. The loads of messages on my talk page is from being a highly active Wikipedian ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm HAU too. I'm supposed to be studying for a badass Spanish exam now...Instead, I'm here.
Moving disscussion down here...

With scenery, now!

With scenery, just as suggested. Lots 'o room ofr improvement though, but this is getting a bit complex. Well Skookum1, how's it look? ^{PS.See that red reed in the far lef? That was me trying to make a crab, and utterly failing...you can still see the claws...}Resident Mario (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the background be dark blue with fish or some other marine life? The blue on the seamount could be brown like the rest if that's a good idea. Black Tusk (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

With a bit of tinkering, I got a scene of a shark chasing a fish. Will that do? As for "sea", I'm tinkering with that too. However, it making the background blue is a bit hard because I need to make some alpha chanell adjustments...give me a couple minutes... Resident Mario (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. Blue overlays fades the colors, unfotunatly, and slipping it under doesn't look real.Resident Mario (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
WTF? When I tried to reupload, it told me I was overwriting. Ummmm...that's not supposed to happen, right? Resident Mario (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Most likely because you're overwriting a file that already exists - was it File:Seamount 2.svg? I'll try and figure something out for the seamount. Black Tusk (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a little far-feched for a little graphic though, don't you think? I mean, it looks okay to me as is. Resident Mario (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And so it is. Black Tusk (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, I guess. Resident Mario (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Although having the dark blue insted of white would make it look more underwater. Black Tusk (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>494 edits; see, I TOLD you I'm still a newbie. :) I'll get to it, just give me a bit of time, currently working on comepleting Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seamounts/Images. I'll try to make it look good, but remember that it would require a blue background on pages to look natural (without a frame, of course). I'll think of something...by the way, you should get Inkscape. It's the best freeware in the world. Resident Mario (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Just letting you know ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Seamounts is built, but now it needs material for the "random images" and "random article" slide. Also, I did a bit of editing to the mainspace page. Anyway, I found this nifty little template that renders placemarkers on blank maps (altough I'm sure you already know abou this). Emperor_of_China_(volcano) is, I think, a good example. So I put up a snippet about that on the WikiProject Page.
How dark do you want the ocean to be? Sould it be regular blue at the top and dark blue/black at the bottom? Resident Mario (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that would work, but I've never really seen a good seamount image displaying the surrounding ocean. There's this image of Bowie Seamount's summit if that helps. Black Tusk (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look too good:
Gosh, glare. Well, unfortunatly it's 8:41 in NYC so I can't really do anyrhing major until tommorow afternoon. Tommorow I'll fix the glare and change the ridge surrounding it to a diff. color. I think the last thing I'll do today is pollute my page with this :). See you tommorow. Resident Mario (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice - but where are the fishies??.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The seamount must have killed them LOL. Black Tusk (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You kill. How about you try working it? I'll get to the fishes tommorow. I spent most of my time on Homework today. By the way, you should join. No prior experience required! You two have probably forgotten more about Seamounts then I shall ever know- my experience with it consists of my New York Earth Science Regents Course in 8th grade. Resident Mario (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an artist and I haven't forgot about anything. In fact, I'm one of the main users that got Bowie Seamount to GA status, unlike many other volcano contributers which have something against Canadian volcanism for some reason. Black Tusk (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"""::No, not fishes - fishies. LOL....sharks would be fine, maybe a giant squid wrestling a whale...but goldfish/angelfish is more along hte lines I was thinking of ..... I used to have a Windows wallpaper that was animated with different kinds of fish....some could eat others, it was pretty cool. Somewhere on a stashed hard drive I still have the fishies; if it was easy to get at I'd post 'em here....haven't seen any wiki-fishes....though I did get a wiki-beer once.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Something against Canadian Seamounts? I already tried a "Fish .svg" search query, didn't bring up anything particularly exiting. Resident Mario (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Squid .svg" is in the books Resident Mario (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This

Ah, fishies. GTG. See yah Resident Mario (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea. You will see the lack of contributions on Canadian volcano articles (not including myself) in contrast with other countries associated with large amounts of volcanoes (e.g. United States, Indonesia, Chile, Mexico), but Skookum1 helps out with that kind of stuff as well unlike many other Canadians; further evidence of a gap in the Pacific Ring of Fire?[3] It seems like more Canadians should experience nature for a change. Black Tusk (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for at least three hours to catch some fishies and it's 1:56 AM....LOL. BTW is that squid going to be added with the seamount pic? It could probably use some tannage from being in the too-too-too cold seawater, unless there are squids that white. Black Tusk (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resident Mario, just to let you know I was only kidding above ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That was implied, really. Do you have any useful ref sites I could use? Resident Mario (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. Black Tusk (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Darned Resident Mario (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean damned ;-). How is the seamount comming? Could use more squid. Black Tusk (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GetName says No Parent

Hey Skookum1, have you seen this? Robin must have been tampering with other mountain range names. Black Tusk (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Toozaza Peak

Funny, it's an unofficial name in Bivouac (if it's there) - I know because when I plotted it it was such-and-so-number Toozaza Creek, RT has renamed it but oddly enough Toozaza Creek isn't in BCGNIS, though it is in CGNDB 59°49′00″N 129°52′00″W. But looky looky what's in Catalogue of Canadian Volcanoes. Fire away....always thought it was a cool name...a MINFILE claim aroudn there is "GAZOO"....Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoulda known you'd beat me to it; but if you google "Toozaza Creek" and "iverson Creek" with "MINFILE" you'll get a lot of geological inforamtion. G'nite.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL I just search Toozaza in BCGNIS to see if Toozaza Peak is an official name but it isn't. However, Toozaza Creek appears to be an official name - it's on BCGNIS.[4] Black Tusk (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Toozaza Peak. Black Tusk (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Volcanoes site may have only copied what was designated by Bivouac. Robin's practice has been to give the highest summit of a a region a name, i.e. if it didn't already have one, and this one had been something like 23-40 Toozaza Creek in its original incarnation (i.e. when I plotted it); Toozaza became the name of the region, as this was its highest summit, and he transposed it to Toozaza Peak.Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think the GSC would have to figure out where or if Toozaza Peak is a volcano if they copied name from bivouac. When was 23-40 Toozaza Creek renamed to Toozaza Peak? The Toozaza Peak page you linked above has a date of August 19, 2005, but that is when most of the volcano pages were last updated. Black Tusk (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would have been Toozaza 49-52, or close to (48-51 conceivably); the numbers are taken from the minutes of the latlogn; and it was never "renamed", the old 49-52 Toozaza Creek was just a bivouac designation; now it would be something like Zus NE125 (that's the "Zus" prominence region and the direction/distance from Zus), but that's just antoher bivouac designation, and not a name. When Robin switched the systems over, I only vaguely remember; it was shortly afterwards I quit....Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a Zus NW28 with a line parent with Zus Mountain in the Stikine Ranges if that's what you're talking about. I expanded the subrange list on Skeena Mountains by adding mountains and discriptions. But right now there's lots of red links that need to be turned blue by creating articles for them. Black Tusk (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Border province

I just found this in the physiographic provinces category.....it's a US usage, seems inclusive of two "systems" of Holland's.....see Talk:Pacific Border province....maybe the Pacific Coast Ranges are just a subset of it (and PCR isn't a USGS usage either, maybe)....The wording of hte article currently is all US-based - "Puget Trough" (Georgia Depression/Coastal Trough).....the Coastal Trough, Georgia Lowland, Nahwitti Lowland, Argonaut Plain (where Tow Hill is), Hecate Trough (Hecate Depression?), Nanaimo Lowland etc are all lowland topographic landforms/physiographic objects in need of articles; Fraser Basin also....I think what I'll do later is make a List of physiographic regions of the Canadian Cordillera, using "Canadian Cordillera" so as to keep it to Canadian nomenclature...there's also the confusing matter of Mackenzie Mountains, which can be used to mean only the range, or can be used to mean a physiographic province (see the upper of the two insets on Holland's map)...I think....anyway easy enough to stub up the lowlands/troughs, I'm just thinking we ahve to work on integrating all this with the US articles...and any corresponding Mexican ones....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be merged with Western Cordillera or Pacific Coast Ranges if that dosen't become merged with the other related mountain system articles. Black Tusk (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not the Western Cordillera; it seems a combination of the Western and...Pacific? Systems in Holland; it seems to exclude the Cascades, did I get that right, or were they included...I'd have to look again. I've been pondering how to integrate US and Canadian classification systems without adopting one POV over the other, and also without creating new compromise terms, which would be synthesis; it's like the merger of Cascade Range (a US designation) with Cascade Mountains (the official Canadian oen); one or the other has to the title, e.g. Intermontane Plateaus vs Interior System (and its own breakdown); Yukon-Tanana Uplands vs...is that a Canadian term, or what is the Canadian term (we need a corresponding Yukon toponymy like the one that Holland/BCGNIS provides in BC...presumably that's Atlas of Canada/CGNDB but maybe the Territory has its own files on this (I'll poke around...they have some neat geological maps online I do know that....). Toozaza I'd like to find the meaning of; presumably it's Dunneza (Beaver) but it could be Nahanni/Kaska etc...Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Pacific Coast Ranges are part of the Western Cordillera. The Intermontane Plateau article is USPOV just like how the Western Cordillera used to be before you and User:Thompsma transformed it to make a more wordwide view of the subject. Black Tusk (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, part of the Western Cordillera, but not the same thing; just as the Rockies have a different article from Western Cordillera...There's Rocky Mountain System, too, but I think that's a redirect to Rocky Mountains; it seems like it should be similar to Eastern System in nature, i.e. including the foothills, maybe Eastern System includes the Columbias, too, I'd have to go look. Essentially we need to "get up" the articles on the "Systems" and also things like the Depressions, Troughs etc, to build the topographic/physiographic system, then organize it from there; and again, it's going to be tricky integrating US defs with Cdn and Mex ones (never mind that with Mexico we're also dealing with a different language and the nuances of translating terms...).Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in BCGNIS, but the first google up for Georgia Lowland was this, which is pretty interesting (and clearly based in Holland)...makes me wonder what else is buried within ministry sites of one kind or another.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about time we need to do more work on mountain articles and related features. Most of my edits today are related to Skeena Mountains and I'll continue to do so. Black Tusk (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Oh, I agree we need all the subrange articles and other lower-tier ones; I'm obviously concerned in the above discussion only with the macro systems and how frustrating it is to tie them together....the Connelly Range, for instance, I meant to do as a spin-off of Fort Connelly, given the naming history, and I wish we had a way fo coming up with range names of our own LOL (ilke what's between the Jennings and Rancheria Rivers....simple enough I guess, it's the northernmost subrange of the Cassiars, stated as such, doesn't need a name huh? But of the named ranges there's lots in the Skeenas, Ominecas, Hazeltons that need doing yet (also the Selkirks).....Skookum1 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But I'm also going to create/expand mountain articles outside BC; lots of work to be done in areas like the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, but right now I'm just creating some basic stubs. I've been meaning to expand the North Mountain volcanic ridge along the western coast of Nova Scotia (which I already made a map for here), but I'm too focused on BC stuff right now ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sub-surface mining

Hi, I started a discussion about changing Category:Sub-surface mining to Category:Underground mining, I wanted to see what the thoughts of other participents of WikiProject Mining were.--kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ferdinandea

Coming along just fine. I'm not done with it yet, though; there's still a wealth of information to be retrieved from this database that I haven't added yet. So tell me, does it look ready for a GAN reeval so far? I'm a bit sloppy with my spelling, so can you please copyedit it to correct what I missed? Thanks, Resident Mario (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating you on what I've finished lately:

1. Portal:Seamounts is done 100%, just needs more content for the "Random Selected Seamount" section.
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seamounts/Images is also comeplete.
3. Can you be the first person to sign my guestbook?

As far as I know, all GAs should be well-writen, all references have to give the publisher, date, title, accessdate, and all references should be reliable. If you nominate Ferdinandea for GA, a user will review the article to see what is needed for GA. I'll give you a hand if I have time, but I highly doubt I'll review it because I don't have a very broad knowledge for GA reviewing. Black Tusk (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The user who did the reassesment tought so too; see User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Ferdinandea. Unfortuanly, I can't get to that today. Resident Mario (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sections could use some expansion as well. The best thing you could probably do is compare the current structure of the article with another article with GA status. That way you will notice the needs and gaps for Ferdinandea. See Wikipedia:Good articles for a list. Black Tusk (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a gold mine of information that is still to be added, from this. I'll get to refining it once I extact that. Do you think that there might be a problem with reliable refs? Resident Mario (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I usually only use sources published by scientists and government. Black Tusk (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've looked at, they're really strict when it comes to refs; most of the articles used are news stories. Now that Breaks starting, I can finish what I started. I also want to nom it for a DYK, eventually; this dif proves how much the article has developed so far; can't be too hard to push it to 5x now that I can contribute actively. Resident Mario (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spatsizi Plateau

I created it as a separate article because of hte different categories that apply, and also because the park doesn't include all of it; fine for little parks, but I think on ones of this scale, where the geologic content and such can be quite expansive, best to keep them separate; a park is an administrative region, a plateau is a landform. I didn't know what volcanoes categories - I tried "lava plateaus" but no such cat exists - to add so I'll leave that to you, and of course there's lots of formation geology and volcanic features to be put into the article. There's also Spatsizi Headwaters Provincial Park....I guess I'll make the Klastline and Tanzilla Plateau article-stubs too.Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Volcanic plateaus exists. I'll try and find some geology infomation to add to the article. Black Tusk (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be lots; there was exhaustive mineral exploration in that area prior to park-declaration....Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the Edziza volcanoes part of the Spatsizi Plateau? A site about the Stikine River mentions: At 4970 ft (1,600 m), the plateau is a spectacular alpine region that includes the stark cinder cones of the Mount Edziza volcanoes. Black Tusk (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they're in the Tahltan Highland; and the Klastline Plateau is in between....Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call www.nahanni.com a "cite"....more of a promotions page, no? But quite often in tourism-related writeups, as much as in environmental/ecology and geology reports, exactitude in nomenclature is often ditched in favour of trendiness; e.g. many bad descriptions place Lillooet and Gold Bridge/Bralorne "in the Chilcotin Mountains", when in fact they're not. The Spatsizi Plateau has a famous name, the Klastline doesn't (even though teh Klastline is the one traversed by the highway). Look at Holland's map, it's pretty clear. Maybe later I'll write the authors of that site and point out their mistake; which is what I've often done, e.g. when I found a webssite that said Tulameen was in the Okanagan....and got a "thank you" response. Often the authors of these pages are just winging it; and it may be that in local usage the Klastline is referred to as if it were part of the Spatsizi Plateau; but I doubt the site author was from Dease Lake or Telegraph Creek....Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just created stubs for Klastline Plateau and Tanzilla Plateau.Skookum1 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That tourism site plays pretty fast and loose; that picture of a steamboat in the Little Canyon is a picture I'm familiar with - on the Little Canyon of the Skeena. I've never seen pics of steamboats on the Stikine....don't think there are any....Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The BCNGIS description varies from Holland's map, e.g. on the Klastline, it says between Mess Creek adn the Klappan River; on the map it's between the upper Iskut and the Klappan (Mess Creek is east of the Edziza/Spectrum formation); maybe I'm reading Holland's map wrong though, it's not terribly detailed....Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)what are teh two volcanoes in the Hogem Range, btw, between the upper Omineca and the river coming down into Tatla Lake? guess I'll look on basemap....Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comb Peak and Scallop Peak, looks like, just comparing Basemap and Holland's map....unless in the Connelly Range, which is just to their northwest?Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was false because I know the Edziza volcanoes lie on the Tahltan Highland. Never herd of Comb Peak, Scallop Peak or volcanoes in the Hogem Range. I created Shedin Peak in the Skeena Mountains, but still needs references for the claims I added; it's all per the links. Black Tusk (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Sorry to bother you, but I figured you'd know. I'me looking to use this image in Ferdinandea. Would a drawing whose copyright expired on a liscensed network still be considered Free Use Per Copyright Expirey? ResMar 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.....not sure. Different countries have different laws. For example, any image before 1923 in the United States is WP:PD and images before 1949 in Canada is public domain. But if the image's copyright has expired then I guess it would be public domain. Black Tusk (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN filed. All the information I could extract from the sources is present. Since it was me, you, and Malleus_Fatuorum that did the work, you can put another GA star on the register! As for the file...well, I posted on WP:VPP. Should get a response today. Cheers, ResMar 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mount Wrangell

I just happened to look it up tonight while research Wrangell placename stuff on GNIS....I added Level Mtn to the See also as couldn't see how to fit in mention of it, as I wouldn't konw the size comparison; the lede has a comparison to Shasta, I'm uncertain if a stratovolcano and shield volcano are the same kind of thing, but thought maybe you might have a stat on Meszah/Level Mtn to add in, or even Edziza.....BTW you've seen Edziza's BCGNIS name-history right?Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A shield volcano is a volcano with shallow slopes and usually dosen't explosive activity while a stratovolcano is the opposite (i.e. steep slopes and explosive eruptions). I seen your introduction to Level Mountain on Wrangell's page a while ago and Level Mountain is likely to be larger than Wrangell; Level Mountain has an area of 1800 km². Edziza was originally named Edziza Peak I think. Black Tusk (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Read "Mount Edziza". BC Geographical Names.....I got drawn to that page re looking up Ice Mountain, which needs to be disambiguated....(see also Buck Choquette).Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen nearly all volcano entries on BCGNIS. Ice Mountain could have had something to do with nearby Ice Peak as well. BTW I recently created Circum-Superior Belt. Black Tusk (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Atln-area volcano (Churchill?) - news cite

I can't remember if I already provided you this link:

• Active Volcano Near Atlin, Alaska., New York Times, December 1, 1898, Wednesday Page 5, 101 words)

I was compiling NYT links to do with the boundary dispute in that area and found it again. There's also items in the British Columbia Colonist archives (i.e. teh Times-Colonist archive)Skookum1 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That volcano must have a name by now if that was published in December 1, 1898. I looked at all Alaskan volcanoes on the Global Volcanism Program website and Mount Shishaldin is the only volcano I could find that erupted in 1898. It couldn't have been Churchill because that last erupted about 1,250 years ago. But I know Churchill is believed to have been the source for the White River Ash deposit across northern Canada and unconfirmed native legends from the area suggest that its eruption 1,250 years ago disrupted food supplies and forced them to migrate southward. Black Tusk (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could have been a northern lights effect....I recall something, though, about men fleeing cinders...odd that it wouldn't be in teh volcanoes database, unless it was a mass hallucation based on the northern lights. Which have seen strange sights etc.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, 50 miles north of Atlin is in the area of Whitehorse....Skookum1 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Remains a mystery ;-). You or I could ask User:GVP Webmaster who is the webmaster of the GVP website. Another thing I noticed about the GVP website is they don't include Cayley. This is most likely because it has not erupted in the past 10,000 years (Holocene), but they seem to include Pleistocene volcanoes that have volcanic activity, such as hot springs, earthquakes and fumaroles.[5] And Pleistocene Cayley displays hot spring and earthquake activity..... Black Tusk (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW Skookum1 is this Atlin the one in northern BC? Got me confused because you put Alaska for the boundary dispute area. If it is then this report is most likely the uncertain Ruby Mountain eruption on November 8, 1898.[6] Miners working in the area were able to work during the dark nights due to the glow of the eruption. But the eruption is considered uncertain because no evidence for an eruption has been found. Black Tusk (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The news article in question clearly refers to the Ruby Mtn event (Atlin Volcanic Field). With no physical evidence, and no reported observations of actual eruptive activity, it is definitely uncertain. It may have just been a big fire. As far as Pleistocene volcanoes goes, some with thermal activity are listed on the website (seismicity is NOT a criteria for inclusion). The change was made to list those online for various reasons, but a comprehensive review has not been done to include all such situations. Cases like Cayley, where work has been done that clearly indicates it is not Holocene, are not listed. GVP Webmaster (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I seen a volcanic status related to seismology somewhere. Just thought I would point out Cayley to you because Cayley appears to be the most long-lived (some four million years) volcano in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (i.e. the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc) and I have noticed long-lived volcanoes are also included on the GVP website. I have access to someone at the Geological Survey of Canada named Melanie Kelman which has done work in the Mount Cayley area. I also had access to volcanologist Catherine Hickson until October last year but has since moved on to work at a geothermal company. When I had access to Hickson in August, one of her exact responses to Cayley was: We are trying to get some field time on Cayley later this summer or fall - we don't know much about it other than what is in the literature. There are a couple of unpublished dates and we have some additional material in for dating over the next few months. It seems like the "last eruption" dates are only based on volcanics that have successful datings and there is/was undated volcanics in the Cayley area; the Mount Edziza volcanic complex has a similar dating technique because its so-called last eruption about 1,000 years ago was followed by at least two younger, but still undated eruptions (see source in article). Thus the age of Edziza's most recent eruption is most likely unknown. If the volcanics at Cayley are still undated it would make Cayley's most recent eruption unknown as well like Level Mountain, the Atlin and Tuya fields etc. According to the Geological Survey of Canada website, the age of many Canadian volcanoes is poorly known. Black Tusk (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The volcanic status related to seismicity is not applicable to Pleistocene volcanoes. Such a status is only used for recent submarine eruptions, and when supplementary evidence or analysis (of T-waves for example) indicates that material was actually erupted. Not sure what your point is about Edziza, it has clearly had Holocene activity. Your equating all undated deposits at various volcanoes into a single "unknown" category makes no sense, because what evidence there is suggests different times for each. I'm glad you have "access" to the GSC, and I hope the planned or completed dating gets done and published. I am also well aware of Cathy moving on, having talked to her last summer. Ben Edwards was also in my office just a few months ago. GVP Webmaster (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What I ment about Edziza was if there are undated volcanics that appear younger than 1,000 years, the statements saying Edziza last erupted about 1,000 years ago is misleading and therefore incorrect. And if the two younger eruptions are not dated like the ~1000 BP eruption, there is no clear evidence which one of those two undated eruptions is younger (e.g. one eruption could be 300 years old while the other eruption could be 100 years old). I know there is an undated air-fall pumice deposit throughout Edziza's lava plateau estimated from its state of preservation to be younger than 500 years old, but the vent of its origin is unknown.[7] If the age of the youngest eruption is unknown then the age of Edziza's most recent eruption is unknown. And Pleistocene eruptions are recent in geological terms. Black Tusk (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how is Cayley not Holocene if it has Holocene activity? There is a news report here about its activity. Mount Cayley and Mount Meager to the north were formed during the Pliocene period while Mount Garibaldi to the south was formed during the Pleistocene period and all three volcanoes have had Holocene activity. Meager, Garibaldi and Cayley are associated with each other. Cayley's Ring Mountain and Little Ring Mountain tuyas have unknown ages according to the University of British Columbia website here, which is a reliable source. With these undated volcanics, it makes sense the most recent eruptive activity at Cayley is not 100% sure. Thus the latest eruptions are unknown and therefore volcanic status is uncertain, which seems to fit with other Canadian volcanoes on the GVP website (e.g. Heart Peaks, Level Mountain, Fort Selkirk). Black Tusk (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The news report you linked has no mention of Holocene eruptive activity at Cayley, and if there was, Prof. Russell would publish on it, after which it would get into our database. The deep links to Prof. Russell's photos clearly indicate an unknown age (no dating has been done), but best evidence is not Holocene. That's been the consensus of scientists who have worked in the area. And while a photo caption like that may be a reliable source for the Wiki, we would never use that by itself as a basis for anything in our database. Your chain of logic in the last two sentences above relies on the lack of evidence, and with no positive evidence for anything other than Pleistocene activity, Cayley will not be listed as Holocene. In your other three examples the best professional opinion of volcanologists in the field, based on what evidence is available, is that there may have been early Holocene activity. You can make the arguments and speculate all you want, but we are in the business of presenting the best science. GVP is a truly reliable source because we hold to that goal. GVP Webmaster (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. What I want to know is how are you supposed to know it is not Holocene if the age is unknown. The Cayley area is covered in ice and tuyas are known to have formed in the early Holocene. Notice the University of British Columbia says it may have formed during the Fraser Glaciation 10,000-12,000 years ago. The Holocene period started about 11,700 years ago according to the Holocene article and has a reference for that date. And 10,000 years ago is still Holocene. Black Tusk (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, but why is the Explorer Ridge on coastal British Columbia not listed? There is a large active hydrothermal field called Magic Mountain. And according to NOAA, the Explorer Ridge has had considerable volcanic activity in the past 100,000 years.[8] Thus there is a possibility there has been lava eruptions along the Explorer Ridge in the past 11-10,000 years. The Explorer Ridge also appears to be seismically active.[9] Black Tusk (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why the GVP website only includes volcanoes that have erupted in the past 10,000 years, but if it covers global volcanism it would be more accurate to include all potentially active and dead volcanics, not just volcanoes that have erupted in the past 10,000 years. This may be hard on the database, but the more volcanoes the better. And describing the Holocene period extending back only 10,000 years is also misleading if other sources say the Holocene period extends back 11,700 years. This is because the age precision of the Holocene period is limited. Therefore it is probably appropiate to include volcanoes that have erupted in the past 11,700 years, which would also include Cayley. Black Tusk (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]I know oral history isn't dateable, but worth noting re Cayley that Skwxwu7mesh oral tradition does point to it having erupted during an era of local human occupation ("Landing Place of the Thunderbird", though, may have to do with the possible propensity of volcanic ores in attracting alpine thunder/lightning). Similarly the Lil'wat/In-SHUCK-ch story of the Great Flood is suggestive of a cataclysmic event, though it doesn't sound like Meager directly, it may be some kind of volcanic/tectonic-induced damming of the Lillooet River (before the Flood, the Lil'wat/In-SHUCK-ch had lived around Green Lake, i.e. at Whistler). To our friend from the GVP I'd suggest that a section on oral traditions possible relating to cataclysmic activity be asssmbled; the oral sources are there, whether among the Shishalh, Sto:lo, Owikeno/Heiltsuk, Tsimshian, Tahltan and others; in Barbeau's Totem Poles, which I read long ago, there's at least a dozen stories up and down the coast which have volcanic assocaitions; these may not be dateable, but surely they point to evidence that perhaps hasn't been found re precise "scientific" dating....Skookum1 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And about the Atlin-area eruption having been possibly a large forest fire, it's worth remembering that the population in the region at the time were all experienced miners, and many experienced in the goldfields of California and Idaho and BC and elsewhere where people knew what a forest fire was.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lake Superior geology

All areas are originally vulcanic. The Lake Superior area has not been active since the Jurassic, at the very latest. It's hardly "hot" now. BTW, whether I'm Canadian or American,a little civility would be in order. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so what? More than half of Canada is not volcanically active.....and volcanics older than those around Lake Superior are within in the category, including 2.5 billion years. I know what the category's propose is more than anyone else because I created it. Black Tusk (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you name one volcano in the Lake Superior area? Having studied the geology firsthand, I know of some very old intrusions, but the Canadian shore, except the Grenville and Huronian basement rocks of the east shore, are almost all sediments. This includes the gold-bearing Hemlo region. West of Schreiber, the landscape is pre-cambrian carbonates with some diabas sills. So, again, please explain why you talk of vulcanics in the Lake Superior region.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of any volcanoes in the Lake Superior region and none probably longer exist because of erosion and other natural processes. But I think diatremes exist in the area. If there are volcanoes in the Lake Superior area they would have Category:Volcanoes of Ontario. The massive Matachewan dike swarm is adjacent to Lake Superior and contains basalt dikes. Rift-related rocks of the Midcontinent Rift System still exist, including sills and other intrusions. Michipicoten Island in northeastern Lake Superior is volcanic in origin, the Osler Group along the Black Bay Peninsula consists of a volcanic deposit, and the Mamainse Point Formation consists of a six km thick sequence of flood basalt lava flows related to Midcontinent Rift volcanism. Nevertheless it seems appropiate to have the volcanic area category. Black Tusk (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW there is a also an intrusion in the Lake Superior area called the Coldwell Complex that is believed to be the magma chamber of an extinct volcano. Black Tusk (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject Seamounts Page?

Spent the last hour on this. I'm a firm believer in better looking = better to see and understand. User:Resident Mario/sandbox. Based loosly on Wikipedia:D&D. In v.8, right now. Still a couple of things to be added (like, a departments tab bar and a few more parts) . Cheers, ResMar 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Black Tusk (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Black Tusk (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a designer in principal, after all. Credit to WP:WikiProject Military History for the tabs and WP:D&D for the "Announcements" thing. Cheers, ResMar 18:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearing up some of those red links would make the page better as well. I just created Category:List-Class WikiProject Seamounts articles. Black Tusk (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now 100% standardized across Project. The "Big Red One" is /History. You came up with the idea, after all. ResMar 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No that is the "Red Giant" ;-). I will create some the other missing categories. Black Tusk (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. Mid, Low, NA, Cat importance filed. ResMar 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You should archive your talk page. ResMar 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You think so? It is not getting that super clogged up. Anyway I just created the A and FA rating categories. Black Tusk (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's your talk page. I perfer smaller archive sizes, though. Sorry if I'm not very active at the moment, studying for tests. ResMar 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Could you comment at the FAC? Ceranthor 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any comments at this time, sorry. Currently collecting infomation for an FA myself. Black Tusk (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bowie Seamount, eah? I'll help. ResMar 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Guessed wrong- what is it?

Nope it isn't Bowie Seamount. Volcanism in Canada is the article I am trying to get FA status. The infomation I have to post is currently 118 kilobytes long and probably needs to be split into separate articles (i.e. Volcanism in Eastern Canada, Volcanism in Northern Canada, Volcanism in Western Canada). I wouldn't mind bringing Bowie Seamount to FA status, but I have no success in finding its name origin, which would likely be needed. Black Tusk (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your specialty. ResMar 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL yea. Still needs work though, such as filling out the references. Should do some more work on Bowie Seamount. Black Tusk (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Tuyas

Category:Tuyas, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Chilcotin Group

Hi; just to let you know you "did that wrong". Manual redirects wind up losing all the edit history, or rather leaving it on the page that's now the redirect; so long as there's "no title in the way", the thing to do in future is to use the "move" tab at the top of the article (not the talkpage), and move it that way, the redirect will auto-create, adn it will automatically also move the talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did that on purpose because I wanted to create that article. And big deal, it is just an improper move.....Maybe if Bearcat can delete the article and let me recreate the article that would be fine. I don't know if that is against Wikipedia's "rules" but it was an article I just wanted to recreate. In fact, the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts article actually has lots of WP:OR in its history. Black Tusk (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Skookum1..... Black Tusk (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require article moves to be done in the proper way so that the edit history is preserved. An administrator cannot break GFDL just because an individual user wants to start everything anew and become presented as the article's original author. We can only delete an article and restart it from scratch if the edit history contains deeply egregious policy violations such as libel. Is there something so deeply, unfixably wrong with the article that Wikipedia actually needs to strike any record of it and start over from scratch, or do you just want your name to be first in the history? If the former, then you need to explain what's actually wrong with it; if the latter, then you need to understand that users simply don't have that right on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bearcat. Your are no longer a user I will trust. I haven't done anything that would entitle you to distrust me. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article but I'm not totally sure Chilcotin Plateau Basalts and Chilcotin Group are the same thing because the GSC website mentions the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts as a range of volcanoes while I have seen Chilcotin Group as a term for a lava plateau in the same area, which is why I created them separate and redirected Chilcotin Plateau Basalts to Chilcotin Group. The Chilcotin Group and Chilcotin Plateau in Chilcotin Plateau Basalts are made of basalt lava and the Chilcotin Plateau is part of the Chilcotin Group, giving me only a clue Chilcotin Group and Chilcotin Plateau Basalts are the same thing. As for the message and other crude messages I have made in the past I am sorry to say that to you but it is just because I have a bad temper about stuff sometimes and it is most likely involved with a complex disorder I have with unknown origins. And because of its unknown origins there is no cure for it. Black Tusk (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

explanation

Hi BT. I deleted the text from Helmcken Falls only because it doesn't make any sense. "As a result, if it had not been for the volcanic eruptions, it is unlikely the Wells Gray wilderness region would have been made." Either I'm missing something, or it's just bad English. Cheers. --Qyd (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. I will try and reword it then. Black Tusk (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just reworded that sentence. Does it look or read better? If so I will rewrite the same sentence on different pages. Black Tusk (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Tried to make it less contrived (the relation between an ancient geological process and wilderness preservation is a little forced in my opinion). Cheers. --Qyd (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't focused on the wilderness preservation - the landscape features is what it was focused on. The Wells Gray area lies in an ancient geology belt related to arc volcanism so if there is anything non-igneous in the Wells Gray area it is most likely formed by metamorphism of igneous rocks or some other geologic process. Black Tusk (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Qyd, somewhere and more than once in references it's stated that it's because of the volcanics that the region was set aside, i.e. the unusual landscape; there's some kind of connection between Arthur Wellesley Gray aka Wells Gray and that particular patch of land, too, it's not just because of was a cabinet minister (parks, I guess, maybe MoForests or MoAgriculture or MoLands was at the time - it was Lands, as I've just checked). The mountain areas of the Cariboo Mtns were incidental extensions to the lava formations; I think the Premiers Range was named at the same time, even as a result of the park's creation; but the park was primarily created to "enshrine" the volcanics.Skookum1 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, the park's impetus was as per this site, which seems a relatively valid source, was for Helmcken Falls, one of the volcanic formations, and also Mahood Falls etc; Canim Falls is in Canim Beach Provincial Park. The Cariboo Mtns were included as being the headwaters of the Clearwater River, which is how they got included.Skookum1 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The GCS website states Helmcken Falls owes the park's foundation.[10] But Helmcken Falls owes its foundation to the deposits of volcanic rock in the Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field so both statements can be correct. But the basaltic lava forming the park's landscape is not related to ancient arc volcanism as far as I'm aware of. It's relatively recent and the volcanism cause is not clear. Basalts of the Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field have been considered to be the easternmost expression of the Anahim Volcanic Belt, but its relationship is unknown because the age-location trend does not reach into the Wells Gray-Clearwater area, and the Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field is not along trend with the Anahim Volcanic Belt. Another suggestion for the volcanic activity is crustal thinning and the existance of crustal penetrating structures. But more recent studies have indicated that the subducted extension of the Nootka Fault may be the primary cause for Wells Gray basalt volcanism.....any future volcanism in Wells Gray Provincial Park is likely lava fountain eruptions similar to those associated with Hawaiian volcanoes. Black Tusk (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1 the Geological Survey of Canada is finally updating their website. There is volcano infomation in the Cayley area that was previously not posted, including Ring Mountain, Slag Hill, SlagHill tuya, Cauldron Dome, Mount Cayley, Little Ring Mountain, Pali Dome East, Pali Dome West, Ember Ridge Northeast, Ember Ridge North, Ember Ridge Northwest, Ember Ridge West, Ember Ridge Southwest, Ember Ridge Southeast, Mount Brew, Tricouni Southwest, Tricouni Southeast flows, Tricouni Southeast knob. Black Tusk (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Spam Attack!!! Give me something to hack away at! ResMar 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just bored. ResMar 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Spammer LOL. Black Tusk (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Ferdinandea has been promoted! ResMar 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ResMar 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

Keewaydin

It was originally about a Camp in Ontario? ok.... well it is also in vermont and is now united by the Keewaydin Foundation, which is based in Salisbury, Home of Keewaydin Dunmore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.127.65 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the two camps should be split into two articles. Having the two camps in one article makes it sound confusing. Black Tusk (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

range cats

It's a bit confusing I know; the articles carry both categories, their own and their own's parent cat, but not the grandparent. In the case of the cats I'm not really sure mabye someone at WP:Mountains can clarify it; I think teh "grandparent" or "granpappy" cat for any given jurisdiction (BC, AK, AB, WA etc.) means that in the main listing all ranges are shown, plus the group-subcats of course, so that you don't have to hunt through the subcats looking for the one you want....Skookum1 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen mountain range articles with both cats before. No mountain range articles relating to the Pacific Ranges don't have Category:Coast Mountains and no mountain range articles relating to the Selkirk, Purcell or Cariboo Mountains have Category:Columbia Mountains. Black Tusk (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Once I remake Hoodoo Mountain and Mount Meager for GA or FA status I am probably going to leave Wikipedia anyway so I do not give a fuck what is wrong and what is right period. They are just categories for christ sake and people undoing my edits comes out more like an attack rather than a friendy act and I am aware of you mystifyingly blamming eastern Canadians for shit like this, most likely part of so-called "Western independence". I am not trying to make this sound personal, but do you do this to people in Halifax as well? Because they can do the same thing to you as well. And User:Resident Mario, I am aware of you blamming me for no particular reason. Back in 2007, User:Seattle Skier called me a well-meaning "high school kid" based on my level of speech back then, which is NOT true and he probably still thinks I am a "high school kid". I repeat, I am NOT a "high school kid". The speech is/was rather due to a disorder. Do not play stupid with me Skookum1, Resident Mario and others because I will sure as hell find a way to get back at ya, most likely because I have a vengeful personality. There is tons of bullshit I do not like about Wikipedia and this is only part of it. If you two want to talk about it that is fine with me. Black Tusk (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent discussions at WikiProject Mining

Hi, there are some discussions you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining about:

• Naming conventions for multiple mines with the same name
• Using "Categorty:Metal mine in Country" in community/company articles
• Capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles

Cheers --kelapstick (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will probably not be involved with this discussion(s), but someone not capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles must have poor quality if they create or contribute to mine articles significantly. Black Tusk (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)