User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Volcanoguy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Volcanoguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Garrie 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi; for basic images it's simply [[Image:xbxbx.jpg|thumb|400px|right|{Caption)]] but for mountains there's an infobox which is laid out as per Mount Garibaldi: {{Infobox Mountain | Name=Mount Garibaldi | Photo=Mount_Garibaldi.JPG | Caption=Mount Garibaldi as seen from [[Squamish, British Columbia|Squamish]] | Elevation=2,678 metres (8,786 feet) | Location=[[British Columbia|British Columbia, Canada]] | Range=[[Garibaldi Ranges]] | Prominence = | Coordinates = {{coor dm|49|51|N|123|00|W|type:mountain_region:CA}} | Topographic map = [[National Topographic System|NTS]] 92G/14 | Type=[[Stratovolcano]] | Age=[[Pleistocene]] | Last eruption=[[Holocene]] (~10000 [[Before Present|BP]]) | First ascent=1907 A. Dalton; W. Dalton; A. King; T. Pattison | Easiest route=Technical [[scrambling|Scramble]] }}

copy-paste and remove the "nowiki" tags on either side of the box.Skookum1 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi; sorry about that; forgot to explain that after you put in the code and you see the redlink with the image-file name, use "upload file" in the little menu at left (toolbox below the search window) to put the file up. Saw your edits to Tuya Butte and others and figured that's what you tried; I guess I assumed the image-upload thing was obvious, but if that's why you took out the infobox you put in, that's why the image didn't work.Skookum1 07:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mount_Price.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi; just curious if The Chasm - which needs an article anyway - qualifies in your volcanic articles; (that currently goes to a Mexican death metal band...probably The Chasm (lava field) or The Chasm (volcano or whatever's appropriate would work, and there should be a disambig mention on the Mex-deathmetal page I'd think it does, being a lava formation and all; maybe it's already covered as part of the outflow from the Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field (??) but as a natural feature of note it needs an article...even if there's a provincial park article on it, and a town/locality article (each would have different content, and refer to each other....). Also, at Lillooet the big peak just south of town, Mount Brew, I've heard is a volcano but don't know the details; ever heard of this? Supposedly erupting in the same period as Devastator and the Bridge Cones or something to that effect; the mention I saw of it in the Sun once long ago (late '70s) said about 2000 years ago....Skookum1 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the lat-long you gave for the Bridge River Cones; it's in the Gunn Valley to the west of Lower Taseko Lake, near Yohetta Valley - north of the Tchaikazan. That location, if it's correct, is in the Chilcotin Ranges (which may or may not be a subset of the Pacific Ranges depending on who you're talking to). Can you located them more precisely; the boundary between the Pacific Ranges and Chilcotin Ranges isn't exact in Holland, and I'll have to refer to them somewhere; the crest of the Coast Mountains in that area is definitely Pacific Ranges; where the "fall-off" is I'll have to read Holland again to find out; if the Cones were in the upper Bridge River itself they might be considered Pacific Ranges; although the north bank of that river is part of the Chilcotin Ranges (because the Dickson Range is); I'd say the boundary - maybe - is the pass between the Lord and Bridge Rivers on the ENE side of the Lillooet Icecap - 50°56'11"-123°31'57" , although NW from there sort of NW across the Lord, Falls and Tchaikazan Rivers; Mount Monmouth is definitely in the Pacific Ranges, to the west of that line...; anything north of the Yohetta Valley, or the lower Tchaikazan, as your current Bridge River Cones location is, is in the Chilcotin Ranges for sure.Skookum1 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think Fire Mountain, NE of Port Douglas (head of Harrison Lake), may be a volcano; the creek to the south of it is also Fire Creek; there are hotsprings in Sloquet Creek, the next valley south from Fire Creek, and also at Tipella City (near Port Douglas; just townsite/real estate promo that never went anywhere); and some of the peaks south of it are named Ember, Ash, Flame, Spark, Flue etc - all on the massif south of Fire Creek, and north of Sloquet. There's another Fire Mountain, also, near Terrace (which must be related to the hotsprings at Lakelse Lake?).Skookum1 15:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk,

I appreciate all of your extensive efforts on volcano related pages, especially the under-appreciated volcanoes of BC. I've visited/climbed/skied several of the BC volcanoes (even in northwestern BC), along with many more down in the States, so it's nice to see that other people are interested in them too. I've posted a lengthy message on Talk:Cascade Volcanic Belt about the proper name for that article, and the Cascade volcanoes as a whole. I'd appreciate your comments.

On a second point, I noticed that you had added Cascade volcanoes categories to several volcanoes in the Fort Rock basin in Oregon (Fort Rock, Big Hole, Hole-in-the-Ground). However, these volcanoes are the result of Basin and Range crustal extension, not Cascadia subduction, so I hope you don't mind if I change the categories.

Thanks. --Seattle Skier 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi; thought you might like to know I found these in a BC Basemap search while looking for stuff to do with Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown, who has nothing to do with volcanoes (his nickname was because of his personality). They're off Rugged Point, the southern apex of Kyuquot Sound. I know there's a coastal cone in that area, around Nootka Sound, so thought maybe these are actually volcanic; whatever other reason for their name I don't know; perhaps it's in maritime history records?Skookum1 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk, I replied on my talk page. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Tusk, as you seem to be the local volcanics person, I was wondering if you might try writing an article on the Siletz River Volcanics. It appears it is one of the geologic events responible for the Oregon Coast Range and maybe more (like Willamette Falls). Thanks. Aboutmovies 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk, I'm thinking about merging the article Pyroclastic cone into Cinder cone, and also merging Category:Pyroclastic cones into Category:Cinder cones. The reason is that the terms really mean the same thing, as does "scoria cone". For example, see this page http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/tpgallery.cfm?category=Pyroclastic%20Cones, which says "Pyroclastic cones, also known as cinder cones or scoria cones, ..." I know that the GVP labels some volcanoes as "pyroclastic cone" and some as "cinder cone", but even they admit it is really the same thing. If anything, "pyroclastic cone" is a more general term which includes cinder cones, scoria cones, and tuff cones.

Cinder cone is by far the most common term in use, so the Wikipedia article and categories should use that term. "Pyroclastic cone" gets 10,600 Google hits, but "cinder cone" gets 214,000 hits. "Pyroclastic cone" is a specialist term used only by gologists. Many of the volcanoes which are labeled as "pyroclastic cones" now on Wikipedia are actually much more commonly referred to as cinder cones, e.g. Wizard Island which I am currently rewriting. Even Cinder Cone (British Columbia) is called a pyroclastic cone now, but would be better off labeled as a cinder cone. There is also no real way to distinguish between the articles labeled as pyroclastic cones and as cinder cones.

I do think that tuff cones and Category:Tuff cones should be kept separate, since they form during phreatic eruptions which involve groundwater.

Let me know what you think. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 04:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you're adding VEI categories to several of the volcano articles. This can be tricky; remember that the eruption data on www.volcano.si.edu usually only goes back 10,000 years, so it can be very misleading (e.g. Deception Island was out by three orders of magnitude). Mason et al (2004) (referenced at VEI) might be a useful source for the larger eruptions, which are probably the most important ones to cover. -- Avenue 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, with Deception Island I was pretty sure that a caldera that big would have needed a VEI-5 eruption at least. So I looked around until I found details of the caldera-forming eruption. I think attaching VEI values to a volcano really requires some understanding of its entire eruptive history. The Smithsonian's database would only provide this for quite recent volcanoes, so some other source will usually be needed.

I'm also uncomfortable with applying these categories to volcanoes that are primarily effusive, not explosive, like Mauna Loa or Medicine Lake Volcano. Surely whether they're VEI 1, 2, 3 or 4 isn't really one of their most defining characteristics. -- Avenue 00:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page, and also asked him directly at User talk:Edziza. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem that the link http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5600/abs/266344a0.html supported your edits to Bowie Seamount or John Tuzo Wilson. In particular, the Bowie Seamount was certainly not named *for* Wilson (you probably meant that it was named *by* him), and the link you provided appears to be referring to a volcano other than the Bowie Seamount. Perhaps you can provide an alternative source. Myasuda 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say that it is about the Bowie Seamount. The only reference to Bowie is the phrase "The volcano is capped by hawaiite, and has an angular separation from a proposed pole of rotation of the Pacific plate and the hotspot frame of reference close to separations for the Kodiak−Bowie seamount chain, suggesting that a hotspot which generated the seamount chain now lies beneath the young volcano." Anyhow, it's obvious that the Bowie Seamount is not named after John Tuzo Wilson -- there's no "Bowie" in his name. What this article is really referring to is the Tuzo Wilson Seamount: http://encarta.msn.com/map_701578402/Tuzo_Wilson_Seamounts.html. If you still disagree, let's move this conversation to the article talk page. Myasuda 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell (from http://encarta.msn.com/map_701578402/Tuzo_Wilson_Seamounts.html), the Tuzo Wilson Seamount is at approximately 51.4 N, 130.9 W. Myasuda 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked on Google Scholar (for Tuzo Wilson Seamount) and found some suggestive but inconclusive responses. However, I had better luck with Google Books (again, searching for Tuzo Wilson Seamount). In particular, it produced the following for "Origin of Igneous Rocks: The Isotopic Evidence" by Gunter Faure

http://books.google.com/books?id=9aVUTgKDNYEC&pg=PA67&ots=kk2edaOzIh&dq=Tuzo+Wilson+Seamount&ei=353ARvf5I5rOogLZn4zkBQ&sig=OlbD5z2oZjlNR9c76NwumzWZJW0

In particular, look at pages 66-67 (especially figure 2.40). It looks like the Pratt-Welker Seamount Chain is the mountain "range". I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it helps. Myasuda 18:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was able to scrounge up the following:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGR....9822367A

It gives a range of 500m - 700m if I read it correctly. Myasuda 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The specific information you requested doesn't appear to be readily available on the web at this time. In light of this, I suggest that you visit an academic library to retrieve the full text of the articles you listed as references. One of them is likely to contain this information. Myasuda 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You edited the articles on these to state that they are extinct volcanoes. However, several sources I have seen explicitly state these are not extinct volcanoes. Although the process did involve magma intrusions, the magma never burst through the surface, and it was only later erosion that removed the looser soil above and around the igneous rocks, creating the hills we know today. Follow below :

http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/montreal/hills_e.php (government of Canada) http://www.mcgill.ca/gault/sainthilaire/natural/geology/ (McGill university, which operates a research installation on one of the hills)

--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 08:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to your post on my talk page) While I certainly agree that they are (by most estimates) the oldest remnant of a volcanic hotspot, that does not make them volcanoes: most if not all geological accounts I have seen (from McGill university ; the Université Laval account already linked to in the article, the Natural Ressources Canada account) explicitly state that they are not extinct volcanoes, and that the magma never reached the surface. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that the Monteregian are the magma chambers of ancient volcanoes. However, that is not what the McGill site (and other) state : they state that the lava never reached the surface, and instead crystallized two kilometers below. I'm not contesting that the Monteregian have a volcanism-related history; but going from there to out and out state that they are the remnant of ancient volcanoes seems a leap most sources refuse to make.

I would be for changing the article to describe the actual formation process (ie, lava intrusion through fault line, igneous rock crystallizing about two KM below the surface, then erosion digging them out), at which point it can be added that the lava intrusions may have been the magma chambers of ancient volcanoes.

Either way, these definitely needs taken out of the "List of volcanoes in Canada" article ; whether or not they formed from the remnants of ancient volcanoes; the monteregians as they stand now are not active, dormant or extinct volcanoes by any definition whatsoever.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the present-day Monteregians volcanoes. They may (or may not) have been part of actual volcanoes once, but calling them even extinct volcanoes today is simply false.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Co-ords you have for Clinker Mount Price and Garibaldi Lake Volcanic field are wrong. Would you prefer to change them or should I do it. I changed the Co-ords for the Meager groups a few weeks back. TotallyAwesomeAdventures 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for reverting my edit? You are erronously using coordinates in decimal format within the coor dm template (degrees/minute format). Jespinos 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You put 20 degrees 85 minutes south latitude, the correct is 20.85 degrees or 20 degrees 51 minutes. The same error occurs with the longitude. Jespinos 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a version 1.0: {{Infobox Seamount}}. What need changing? (The color, I suppose.)
—wwoods 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like we go at it again...you've mentioned on the Mont Tremblant page that it is thought to have once been a volcano, giving this as your source : http://rednersville.blogspot.com/ . Now, I don't know Mt Tremblant very well, so it's entirely possible the claim is true - but I live in Québec, this is the first I hear of this, and, more importantly, I haven,t been able to find any sort of other evidence online. Given that your quoted source is a blogspot address, I'm not sure there's enough there to warrant inclusion in the article, let alone the header...--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The source, as I said, is...probably not too trustworthy. That said, various more serious-sounding site do mention LEGENDS regarding lake on the mountain being volcanic. I really wouldn't use that blog as a source, though. (IIRC, isn't there a policy against sourcing blogs?)--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I have. I know where Noranda is, the other two names don't even ring a bell. That said googling them up seems to bear serious scholarly support exist for these. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A blog entry is not a valid source for this piece of information. There is a policy that material added to WP is published in a reliable source (Wikipedia:Verifiability). We have already seen in this discussion that what is read in blogs cannot be taken as truth. (Incidentally, I am from Ottawa and I have never heard that Mont Tremblant was ever an active volcano either). Icemuon 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Eruption of Mount Meager, 2350 BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Tusk, it looks like you've been creating these categories. The problem is that you're implementing the category concept backwards. Specific instances of things are categorized by their general attributes; but general things are not categorized by specific examples. So for instance -- "Mt. St. Helens eruption" would be classed by its kind of eruption, its year of eruption, and so on -- all broader categories of which Mt. St. Helens is an example. But the broader examples should not get "Mt. St. Helens" as a category, because "Mt. St. Helens" is merely a specific example. Think of categories as names of folders into which you're filing the article -- don't think of them as tags. More info at Help:Categorization. Cheers, Laura --lquilter 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that the Atlas of Canada and peakbagger.com both list Mount Odin as being the highest, between 2,143 and 2,147. I noticed the reference, peakware.com, that you have at Baffin Mountains‎ gives Tete Blanche as 2,156 but the article had 2,146. I also noticed that peakbagger.com lists Tete Blanche at 2,104 and the Atlas of Canada has an Unnamed peak at 2,140. I checked through the Atlas of Canada site and couldn't find a Tete Blanche or a Mount Blanche. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to look back and see who added it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk; If you'd like to categorize Mount Rainier as an active volcano, please cite a reliable source for that information. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An active volcano is a volcano that has erupted in the past few hundred years. Black Tusk 00:23, October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and adding that source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Good work, and thanks for the contribution. I wonder if they traded the obsidian to peoples living on the coast... - TheMightyQuill 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have created this article and this important-looking subject and added links to it on other pages. However, an article on a scientific subject really needs a better reference source (printed or electronic) than someone's holiday website. The German wikipedia pages on the Faroe Islands (featured article status) talks about them being 60 million years old. Could you find a reference for your edit of 30-40million? --JBellis 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thulean" is usually reserved nowadays for the magmatic event, rather than a location. It was used by local geologists from 1918 until about 1960 as a geographical area but now is used only rarely, by a few non-local geologists (mostly French, as per your reference). The geographical area is almost always referred to nowadays as the "North Atlantic Igneous Province". GeoWriter 12:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Black Tusk,

I have not forgotten you, but as I said, I am slow... I finished the map of the Anahim Volcanic Belt, you can tell me if you want changes or other things on it. I promise, the next will be faster!

I am not absolutely sure about the age of the Pacific volcanoes. The data comes from this site. Tell me if it's good or not.

Sémhur 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have uploaded it on Commons : Image:Anahim Volcanic Belt-en.svg. Perhaps should I increase the size of the labels ? Tell me if all is good for you.
After this one, I will do the map of the Garibadi Volcanic Belt. Sémhur 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sémhur, just letting you know I found two more areas for the Anahim Volcanic Belt. 13 million and 12 million years ago, the Anahim hotspot created the Bella Bella and Gale Passage mafic dike swarms at the westernmost end of the belt. See http://books.google.com/books?id=X4W9aGXDa9cC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=anahim+volcanic+belt&source=web&ots=BPqssDdz2O&sig=Ta6jfa_4Ehq_13IhkXtY8JDCYo8#PPA261,M1 for the entire track and map.

Hi Sémhur, the dike swarms should probably be marked on the map, similar to the volcanoes. The "Gale Passage dike swarm" was formed 13 million years ago (located 52°13.0 N and 128°23.0 W), and the "Bella Bella dike swarm" formed 12 million years (located 52°09.0 N and 128°08.0 W).

I have modified the map, as you can see here for example. But it stays few problems : the Dufferin Island label is not well aligned, and, I don't know why, the map is good in the articles, but not in the image page : it is the old version !

I have wrote 13 Ma for both Bella Bella and Gale Passage dike swarms, because, imho, they were born during the same geological event. About the 12 Ma event, this map shows it, but is not precise enough. So I don't know were it is exactly.

I've wrote Gale Passage dikes swarms : is it the right orthograph ? Or Gale Passage dike swarm is better ? Sémhur 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the orthograph and the Dufferin Island's label. Sémhur 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sémhur (talk • contribs)

Hello Black Tusk,
I have not finished this map yet, but you can already see it on this page, and tell me your first impressions.
Sémhur 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version. There are too much labels now, I cannot show each with a line. So I show only isolated volcanoes, and majors areas.

In the website, I've not found significant volcanoes ages, except for Franklin Glacier. Have you more informations about ages ? Sémhur 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded it on Commons : Image:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg. Is it OK for you by now ? Sémhur 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have increase the size of the labels too, for a better readability. Sémhur 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the talk page guidelines, please do not remove the comments of others from talk pages, especially when they concern the rationale behind assessment. If you have a question about assessment, you may ask that it be reassessed, leave a message on the talk page or contact the assessor. Despite the manner in which you raised the issue, I will reassess the article as Mid importance. Cheers, CP 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I reassessed it to Mid importance, because it was an early review of mine and reconsideration makes me think that it's more important. Cheers, CP 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please add the class and importance ratings when you place the {{WikiProject Canada}} banner on talk pages. This way, it would not be necessary for other editors to comb the categories and do the assessment. Thank you. --Qyd 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I wasn't sure how to handle the previous redirect. Mikenorton 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk, thanks for the clarification and reference about this - I learned something interesting today! Sorry for my previous removal from the Rift page. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you know the geology of this area? I'm getting conflicting info from online sources - the portion from Ottawa up through Lake Nipissing seems pretty clear, but whether it includes Lake Timiskaming is less so. Some sources have the OBG branching in a Y to include it (like [1], others do not (like [2] and [3]) and describe a separate Timiskaming graben instead. Looking at the elevation data seems to support the latter view as there is no wide rift valley visible between Mattawa and Timiskaming. Kmusser (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As a P.S. can you confirm that the southern boundary is called the Petawawa fault, I can't find anything using that name other than the Wikipedia article. Kmusser (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That all said I went ahead and made a draft map at Image:Ottawabonnecheregrabenmap.png. Let me know what you think. Kmusser (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added the Timiskaming branch. Lake Temagami is part of the Grenville Front, since that crosses the just added branch I added that in as well. Take a look at the revised map and see if it needs any other changes. Kmusser (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment on Talk:Ellesmere Island about the Challenger Mountains. Based on the coordinates at the Atlas of Canada I've updated the article and the British Empire Range and United States Range. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just based it on the coordinates that were in the atlas. If you think it would be better to say that they are "one of" then that would work too. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this article. I have expanded it some; please review it and see if my edits of your work are correct. I think this would be a very good candidate for WP:DKY. It was created on 9 December, so it is now more than 5 days old, but it has been expanded more than 3x in the last 5 days, which should qualify it. Would you mind if I submitted it? It would have to be submitted in the next few days to qualify-- I may not be editing too actively so please let me know if you have any objection.

The piece could use a few more footnotes, especially if it is selected for DYK. If you used other sources than those listed, please feel free to add them.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I found sources for most of it, except the meteor crater. I will try to submit it tomorrow. Kablammo (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is nominated at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_12. Feel free to suggest a different hook. Question: it is not clear to me if the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben is the name for the whole feature, or if it is just part of something called the Ottawa Graben. If the latter, the article could easily be moved to that name, which would leave a redirect to it at the original name. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked this question of GeologyGuy: User_talk:Geologyguy#Ottawa-Bonnechere_Graben.

It was good to work with you and your article-- and informative. My regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Royalbroil 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence RE: ratings for mountains. I've posted something up on the wikiproject mountains discussion page with regard to this issue. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you rated this article as Good awhile ago, and looking at, it has a few big problems. Would you care to reassess it? I've listed a couple problems on the talk page. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely not an expert at ratings either, however, Mount Garibaldi looks like it could probably even get Good Article status IF it had more citations (a good rule of thumb is at least one cite per paragraph), and the history section were a little bit longer. The citations thing is really important though, even for going for B Class. Murderbike (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will happily do that. Give me the weekend. --Matt (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this accurate? --Matt (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am not actually a geologist, the way I make the map is by adding pinpoints and highlighted areas to a personalised google map which I know are part of the mountain range. I then look at the area in terrain mode, satellite mode, and in Google Earth checking which areas look to also be a part. I included the three small sections on southern Baffin Island as the seemed to fit, since it does, as you mentioned, go all the way to Labrador. If you ever need other maps, give me a buzz. --Matt (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all done now.

Matt (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really easy to upload files from Flickr. Just sign up for a commons account and use this page to upload. It takes only takes a couple seconds. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, finding images on flickr is easy, but finding copyright free ones are a little harder. Commons will only accept certain licenses, so do an [Advanced Search] and make sure to check "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos" AND "Find content to use commercially" AND "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid those are the breaks. Not many people upload their photos with a creative commons license. One thing you can do is look through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Canada and its subcategories, and just search for each thing. That's how I found the Nisga'a Lava Beds image... just searched Flickr for CC images of random articles in the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in British Columbia. Good luck, TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, you can write to the photographer on flickr and ask if they'll change the license so you can put it on wikipedia. You may have to sign up for a flickr account to do that, I'm not sure. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk - good to see a load of new articles on glaciers. one problem though - you've added {{glaciology-stub}} to them, which is specifically not for use on articles on specific glaciers! That stub type is only for use on articles relating to glacier science, glaciology terms and the like; the glacier articles should only have the relevant geo-stub attached. Please in future don't add the glaciology-stub template to these articles! Cheers, and keep up the good work! Grutness...wha? 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what mountains I can find history or pre-history as the anthropologists would like to call it. Try and add some more to the already wonderful articles you've been working on. I'm only knowledgable with area's around Squamish, Whister, and the North Shore Mountains, but I'll see what I can do about others. OldManRivers (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on this article and I noticed that it mentioned a mountain range. Do you have any idea as to the name of the range. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I't not a major thing. I did try to find it but no luck. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

thought you might want to add to it, I've been meaning to get around to Pemberton Icecap and Compton Neve; I just made Homathko Icefield; not sure if Ipsoot Icefield is worth it; not as notable as Powder Mtn because of the current developments adjacent there, and the one that got shot down, and also Mt Cayley et al. OMR might want to add here, too, we'll see; it's just a geogrpahic article so whatever peaks/volcanoes are in it, next to it, and if you happen to know its area and dimensions, or can find some data on that.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the web resources on them, been pondering trying to research a local area map/satellite image where each one of them could be labelled; there must be more precise latlongs than the ones I found on the NASA/JPL images off one of the sites...makes me wonder if White Cross Mountain and Mount Aethelstan are part of the complex, underneath all that ice; ditto with whatever lies under the Lillooet Icecap or the Homathko Icefield or, gasp, if Silverthrone erupts and melts the whole shebang of the Ha-Iltzuk....does the Monarch Icefield have an article yet? Should it, do you think? My idea is just the major-major ones, plus the well-known ones nearer highway 99, even the Place Glacier; the big coastal icefields have always fascinated me....Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Chasm (disambiguation); no rush to write the vulcanology article, just want your opinion on whether provincial park articles are where information on the feature enshrined by the park should be, or if the vulcanology and landform stuff should be in its own article, so it's listed as volcano or whatever it's classified as (it's just, as far as I know, the edge of a big flow, eroded away into a box canyon; there's other formations like it around BC, I'd say, it's just the Cariboo Road, still a local road today, passed right by its lip so it became famous, and also one of the first provincial parks, I think; it's the general issue of park/feature content that's got me; is there always a need for a separate article for the feature; if so then the park article, which must exist, has to carry any geology/vulcanology or other tags....so it seems ot make sense there has to be a separate article, no? Your thoughts, and if there's anyone who comes to mind re the provincial park articles you've run across let them know; it applies in other areas like the Joffre Lakes Provincial Park and Joffre Peak, which have to be separate articles, but the Joffre Lakes don't. Meager Creek Hot Springs probably redirects to Mount Meager, no? That'snot a good example, not a park...Skookumchuck Narrows Provincial Park vs Skookumchuck Narrows; the prov park articles, remember, should have info on campgrounds, access, facilities, etc, whereas the other is for the geographic/hydrologic/oceanographic feature....one last thing, knowing trachyte is volcanic/igneous, it's worth mentioning the Trachyte Hills are southwest of The Chasm, at the southeast end of the Marble Range and north of the Cornwall Hills. I don't know if they're related time-wise to the Chasm, they might be; or something much older; also I have a pick of a halfdome of tuff in the mid-Bridge River Valley, which I think is mayber to do with the Cones (a good 40 miles east) but maybe older I think than their most recent activity; anyway I know the Marble Range isn't volcanic; but by its name I'd say the Trachyte Hills are; they lie along the west side of Highway 97 from the Highway 99 junction at hat Creek/Cache Creek up to Clinton; I don't know about the Arrowstone Hille (and Arrowstone Hills Protected Area) on the east side of 97; I surveyed around Loon lake and I'd say that country's not, other than maybe having a lot of ash in the soils; the Cornwalls and Botanie Range to their southeast aren't volcanic, for sure...but the Trachytes may be....(Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded Chasm Provincial Park and included a link to an online aerial photo FYI.Skookum1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BT, it should be clear from teh other contents of List of dams and reservoirs in Canada that the list is of manmade, not natural dams. If natural dams were included there's more than you are aware of and the Barrier isn't particularly special, unless you're obsessed with volcanic landforms ;-| Please don't put it back on that page again; three reverses of an edit and (not that I'd ask it be invoked) you can get a brief suspension of editing privileges; if you want to argue in favour of including non-reservoir/manmade dams, do so on the list's talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It must have a name, hit me tonight while I was working out; they're most visible at the Northair quarry, where the Callaghan road cuts off, but also at randywind Falls; that whole rim along the side ot he Cheakaus is lava, and there's a bunch of lakes out there that have standing crystals in the middle of them (basalt, not quartz ;-) ). I guess it's one of the Powder Mountain/Cayley flows, maybe you know; maybe it has a name; it's arock formation and a volcanic one also, must be some literature on it. Likewise isn't Rubble Creek a volcanic feature, i.e. the detritus/debris field from the collapse of the Barrier? Also there's lava columns near Keremeos; they're called the Cathedral Columns but they're not in Cathedral Provincila Park, rather from from it in fact; I think they're protected but I don't know as what; saw them in Beautiful British Columbia magazine years ago. Anyway for now the lava field, which parallels highway 99 from McGuire's/Northair down to Brandywine, could maybe be written up on Cheakamus River for now.Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been poking around Metah and Meszah and such on google, and thought you might want to mind to Nazcha Hills and Atsutla Range, which from what I can see have volcanic features. Atsutla Range google search and Nazcha Hills google search mostly render geological stuff, looks like a lot of petro-exploration there also for Camelsfoot Range as part o the Nechako Basin (not the same as the Nechako Plateau). I know that area real well from charting its prominence relationships as well as updating summit heights and als ointputting Bivouac's datamap for the Tuya River, Tuya Lake and countless smaller streams; that whole area, from the Panhandle to the Fort Nelson-Fot St. John flatlands, I've explored on Basemap and transferred its data into Bivouac, working out the prominence map/hierarchy....actually most of BC, come to think of it. Point is that the Nazcha Hills are very conical, they may be tuyas I'm not sure; one of the links for Atsutla Range has a whole list of volcanic features in that area. Be cool if some photos of this area could turn up; there's an old photo in S. Holland of Meszah, black-and-white, tranvsrsefrom way high up so you can see all of it; I don't have a bivouac.com membership anymore but it might be worth your while for research purposes; I may have some of the BC Govt aerials I scanned for bivouac still on a hard rdrive here; if I can get used to my new laptop I'll make some cutout satellite images of the areas we'vediscussed. When I get the time; I'm moving (and also playing music full-time and coping with daily chores and training and such....lifebeyond wiki). Anyway, like Black Dome and maybe China Head and other obscurities I think you'd find them interesting; if I see or think of/remember anything I'll post what I can find out about it here; I'm going to try and get Randall & Kat to flyover the Bridge River Cones, maybe circum-shoot Meager, take Ring Pass and get a visual of the Homathko Icefield....which by the way has always looked to me suspiciously like a caldera filled with ice; and you have to wonder what's under the Lillooet and Pemberton Icecaps, maybe White Cross and Lillooet Mtn, considering Cayley, the Cones, Meager...and especially Silvethrone which sstrikes me as a really scary volcano, given that icefield and what would go down if it turned into a sea of fire...) I guess one day geologists will be able to look under the ice; AFAIK they can't do that yet. The lahar from Meager was brutal enough; can you imagine a whole icecap melting in one go; see Vatnajokull if you haven't yet. Point with volcanoes is a new one can start virtually anywhere in the Ring of Fire...just as an earthquake can. And recent ones like Meager and Cayley and Garibaldi aren't "dormant", in geological time they're active, they erupted just yesterday. Within historical memory (oral history being history in fact, especially in this case); and it's incredible to think that at some poitn in the past the Columbia Plateau and the Bonaparte and Chilcotin Plateaus were seas of laval, huh? And it wasn't a slow process. I think the St'at'imc and Tsilhqot'in have stories that might relate to the Bridge River Cones, adn the Tshilqot'in and Ulkatchos about Itcha Mtn, maybe Tsisutl, and again I feel guilty for not starting Dimlahamid, though the nature of that disaster appears to havebeen a freswatter tsunami, but firee's in the story somewhere; the lgend of Frog Woman and the Volcano is told a few times in Marius Barbeau's Totem Poles (there's some connection between frogs and volcanic fire in legend, same as with salamanders and fire in Europe. I think it was a Nisga'a story, maybe Gitxsan but maybe somewhere farther south too I think; the Bella Coola have such a story, must be Tsitsutl or another Rainbow/Itcha/Ilgachuz summit; maybe the Franklin Volcano if it's a Kwakwakawakwstory; ; maybe there's even one that could be Silverthrone, but you'd have to read both volumes cover-to-cover to find all of these....:-|. It would be a really inteersting project to try and collate all the native legends and chart them all out on a timeline, no? OK that's it for now; just food for thought, and bait for the Nazcha/Atsutla; stubs at last, just get 'e min the system; chances are all those geologists will turn up at least one who might add material once the stub exists. geonames and googlemap links turn up some cool images;pity about the balloons that obstruct thae landscape in them though...while I'm at it the shape of the Pattullo Range and its Mount Tsaydaychuz you have to wonder abut, also stuff in the Tahtsa Peak area...googling Camelsfoot Range and Nechako Basin will turn up some nice maps in various links; pdfs; showing the lava fields of the Chilcotin and Cariboo; I think I can do you better though, ; if you learn to use the Land and Data Resource Warehouse Catalogue on http://maps.gov.bc.ca there's a whole lot of geological maps you can toggle on and off; and generate, though I'm still unsure of their copyright status. There's another mapping system, too, can't remember its name, run by the gov; geological data mixed with mineral and water claims and stsuch. Layers and layers and layers, all switchable/toggleable. And free. Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Hey what about the Devil's Thumb in the Boundary Ranges. Could be just glacial I guess....Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stockton Hill, at the head of the Deadman River, just south of Bonaparte Lake; noticed it as a conical promontory on a topo map, looked it up; it's on bivouac but also part of Bonaparte Provincial Park:

Set on the Bonaparte Plateau, a large mid-elevation plateau lake setting has no roads. The area has wild fish stocks and high wilderness recreation values for hiking, canoeing, wildlife viewing, hunting, and adventure tourism. There are unique geological features including the volcanic plug of Skoatl Point and Stockton Hill south of Bare Lake. Only very rustic camping sites exist, so visitors must be self-sufficient and be prepared for wilderness camping. The park also contains many trails and four fly-in fishing resorts.

That's all I know for now; noticed it on Randall & kat'sphotos too.....ˈSkookum1 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the google search; I narrowed it down because there's a town in Arizona of the same name.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the range/region things on Spectrum Range and Mount Edziza to Tahltan Highland and Stikine Country respectively; could you please do the same for the associated series of volcano/mountain articles? I don't have time (though I do have a dog-slow keyboard/computer....)Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for the JPL images so I could make a better aerial/sat of Homathko Icefield and wound up at a spin-off gallery showing, among other things of interest, the Kondyor Massif, which FYI does not yet have an article, not in English wikipedia anyway (it may in the Russian one). Thought you might like it; interesting huh?Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought of that set of lava/basalt columns, found it and here's the stub. Have fun.Skookum1 (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Silverthrone Caldera, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Mount Silverthrone. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found this on the RBCM's Living Landscapes pages. Not public domain but linkable and might have additional info on specific Edziza-area features (most now only redlinks).Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sémhur. Could you change "Mount Silverthrone area" to "Silverthrone Caldera area" and "Silverthrone Caldera" to "Mount Silverthrone"? There seems to be a confusion between the two terms. Also, could you change "Castle Towers Mountain" to "The Castle"? Sorry for the renaming for The Castle since it was right before. Black Tusk

 Done. Sémhur 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you started any of the volcano maps I asked you to do a few months ago? Just wanted to know because I think some of the articles could use one. Black Tusk 14 avril 2008 à 21:28 (CEST)

Erf, not at all :o( I was in "Wikislow", and at this time it's the "Wikiconcours" in the french Wikipédia (the "Wikicontest", I don't know if the same thing exists on the WP-en). I am in the team "Volcanoes", and we work on the Mount Kenya, Mauna Loa, Mount Erebus, Krakatoa and Surtsey. This contest will finish at april, 30 ; so I'll be able to start to work on your demands after that. Sémhur 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you see to this, pronto? It's got a notability-towards-deletion tag on it, someone in the QCI must have created it; it's a volcanic feature which is why I'm throwing it here; try not to write it only as a volcanulogy article if you can; just enough to keep it from being deleted; it's the only thing about so many metres on the whole of the Naikoon Peninsula, which is one big flat marsh/forest....Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You heard about the unusual earthquake swarms on the Juan de Fuca Plate this last month or two, haven't you? Heardx about it on the radio, CBC, somewhere offshore from Oregon 150-200 miles; they think it might be a new volcano...subsea or otherwise....i've often speculated on a Hawaii/Iceland-type island-creation volcano rising out of the North Pacific. Maybe that was prescient....a sea eruption, prolonged enough for island-building, would play hell with the climate, currents, fisheries, air, over the whole of the eeastern Pacific and western North America.....they're happening mid-plate so maybe no risk of subsea slides causing tsunamis, this is wait and see i guess.....Skookum1 (talk)

the unusual thing about the swarms, apparenetly, is that they're not near the edge of the plate where swarms usually occur and are quite common; they're in the middle of the plate...it was an Oregon-based scientist who was talking from an institute in ...... Newport, Oregon now that I remember; not sure what it's called; try googling "earth sciences"+"Newport, Oregon"+"earthquake swarms" and see waht turns up; prob. there'll be something in recent editions of the Portland Oregonian.Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And when I say "Hawaii/Icelandstyle"? I don't mean the same geology, just that "new island(s) would be created; Hawaii is a hotspot, Iceland is a blob sitting on top of the MidAtlantic Ridge; hard to say what this thing offshore would turn out to be....Skookum1 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk. I'm afraid I don't understand your latest comment. To summarize, I am saying the following:

• The term PNW does include BC (most of it, anyway)
• The term PNW is correct and carries historical, cultural baggage
• PNW is a term with geographical meaning in its historical context- which (coincidently?) is today the geograhical NW of the contiguous US. My comment was simply that probably this is the main reason why so many people suppose that it doesn't or shouldn't include BC.
• That the intro to the article states its location as "the NW of North America" which I think is wrong. To most people that would be Alaska/ Yukon, not the region we call the Pacific Northwest.

Please explain to me what is false and why I am "the opposite"?? Dionix (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have been confused about what you were talking about then. Black Tusk 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "PNW is a term with geographical meaning in its historical context- which (coincidently?) is today the geograhical NW of the contiguous US." - but the term was coined before the current shape of the contiguous US; and if as in the definition used on History of the west coast of North America, Mexico is included (as it should be, as far south as the Istmo de Tehuantepec anyway (which in some reckonings is where the Central American "subcontinent starts), then it's still northwest; not as far northwest as Anchorage, but still northwest. "Most people" is a reference to moderns, who are a bunch of dodos anyway; when the term was coined there was no dispuae as to wether the region was northwest or not, and no semantic picking geogrpahers trying to pick apart about why it's wrong. What's wrong is the US-only meaning.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. I thought the talk was about the opposite; Canada is not part of the Pacific Northwest. Don't know how I got that in my mind. The Americans are selfish which is why the article is pretty much about the US. Black Tusk 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Skookum, thanks for your explanation (I really must bow to your knowledge) and I'm glad to see we're all in agreement after all. Let's really confuse those mostly- American morons and say it's in the "lower northwest" :) Dionix (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian chauvinism can be found all over Wikipedia, too, including in various articles about BC which are influenced by citations from other parts of Canada which don't quite get things right.....the Americans aren't alone in not being able to see past their borders....the previous times I've seen advocacy for "Candaian Southwest" were from Ontarians or others either there or newly-arrived inBC, that's why my testiness about it; being told you were never part of the Pacific Northwest comes off like an attack on the regional identity - my regional identity.Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your last post, Dionix: that's why the term "Southern Columbia" is around as the British-point-of-view equivalent to "Oregon Territory} (as it was in 1848, that is, before being cut up itself).Skookum1 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must be lucky then. As you probably noticed, I don't just make volcanological articles in British Columbia, I also make volcanological articles in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Black Tusk 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first read that line, I guess I parsed it wrong. I thought it was saying that it was the disaster that was worst known about (i.e., more people ought to know about it), but now I see it actually meant that it was the worst disaster that anybody knows about. I'm sorry about my mistake; I shouldn't have been so hasty. But if I made that mistake, there's bound to be a few others who make the same mistake, so I may try to tweak it a little bit to make it less ambiguous. Indefatigable (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied on my talk page. Avenue (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. This box: view • talk • edit

Regards, Mkdw^talk 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Back Seat Confidential, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

here is When the Mountain Dwarfs Danced on aboriginal legends vs paleoseismic activity in the region; see the PDF link at upper right for the whole shebang.Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't get into the PDF link; you need to sign in to see the full text. Black Tusk 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that article in such a good state. Much larger than my original version. However, with that version, I've already exhausted the sources I have for it. That said, I'll take another look online and my library to see what I can help with. But the article already looks close to being GA material. I would love to collaborate if additional sources can be found. --mav (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1. This page [4] does not appear to mention anything about Pre-Cambrian mountains.
2. Even if it did, it doesn't appear to meet standards of verifiability. Am I missing something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Maybe the page shows up differently on my computer, but all I get at the linked site is a page of questions. When I follow the links to get the answers none of the pages has anything about the Canadian Shield. I did a Google search on the text you quoted and it came to this page:[5]. Regardless, neither of those pages is a reliable source. Since this appears to be a non-controversial and straightforward matter we should be able to find a legitimate source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I searched all of the online sources I can find, includng the www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com, but can't find any mention of the heights of peaks on the Canadian Shield in that era. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in - answers.com is certainly not a reliable source; anyone can answer. As for the idea of 12,000 m mountains in the Canadian Shield in Precambrian time, it's a reasonable speculation but there is not really a reasonable way it can every be construed as fact. Using estimates of burial depth to attain certain metamorphic grades can suggest how far below the surface rocks were, but cannot really say how much of that burial depth was above sea level - except in very broad-brush generalities. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geologyguy. The idea of 12,000 m wasn't my speculation; it was from a real source. It was about 2 years ago when I added the content and it's possible people could have seen the infomation on Wikipedia and then added it on Answers.com. What about folding in rocks? Note: there have been mountains in the Canadian Shield that might have been the same or similar to the Himalayas (Trans-Hudson orogeny) which is probably what the 12,000 m was about, but I'll delete it anyway. Black Tusk 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy - I'm not saying there might not be a source - just that any source can't really be very definite about the heights of Precambrian mountains. 12,000 m is a reasonable guess, but it is just a guess, even if based on things like metamorphic grade and tectonic structures. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I would add a reference for the 12,000 m since I found the source I was taking earlier, but I don't know how you reference books on Wikipedia (or can you?). Sorry if I sound ignorant; I'm a little irritated. Black Tusk 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Books can certainly be cited - see here (and speaking as an old person, I'd consider most books to be generally more reliable than most online sources) -- but one sees all manner of citation formats for books -- if you list author, book title, publisher, date, and if possible page, that gives the important information. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about if the book can't be found? Black Tusk 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, if you can't find it, I guess it would be pretty hard for others to find, so I guess it would not be a good reference then. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found the book when I added the reference; it's in the Mississauga Library System catalogue. Black Tusk 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for persevering. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Geologyguy you just gave me a good idea. Since you told me how to use book references, I will might as well add book references to other Wikipedia articles I created/expanded that included book infomation. Some of the infomation does not appear to be on the internet. For example, the Milbanke Sound Group on the coast of British Columbia are near remnants of an older (14 to 12 Ma) peralkine complex, which is believed to define the western end of the Anahim hotspot track. Like anomalously young volcanoes on other hotspot tracks, the relationship of the Milbanke Sound Group to the Anahim hotspot is controversial because there are significant differences in age compared to the other nearby Anahim volcanoes, which are the oldest (Miocene). Therefore I would consider most books to be generally more reliable than most online sources as well. Black Tusk 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you added the Blue Mountains to Blues (disambiguation). Is this range referred to as "The Blues"? -Freekee (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but I added it because it's a proper shortening for the Blue Mountains (e.g. the Rocky Mountains are commonly referred to as "The Rockies"). See Talk:Blue (disambiguation) for the issue. Black Tusk 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a photo request to the talk page. I didn't add one but I did go over to the commons:Category:Ellesmere Island and populated it. I also created commons:Ellesmere Island and added a link to it from the Ellesmere Island article. You could probably find some pictures there to add to the article. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to add the mountain photos but I thought it would be too much geography. I guess it would make sense though because most of Ellesmere Island is mountainous...Black Tusk 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)