World's largest eruptions
World's largest eruptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it may be the most complete and usable list of its kind anywhere on the internet, and passes WP:Featured list criteria. I should not that the list did not go through a formal peer review (as it is not required to do so), but did go through an extensive informal peer review on my talk page, my sandbox talk page, and the WikiVolc talk page. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - What is the difference between this and List of large volcanic eruptions? It looks like an unnecessary content fork to me, which violates criterion 3b.—Chris!c/t 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this list is more comprehensive than List of large volcanic eruptions, as it covers non-explosive eruptions as well, and gives additional information and references than the other list. Also, it only covers the very largest eruptions, whereas the other list covers big and small(er) eruptions. At the very least, it could be OK under 2.2 article spinouts. Maybe the thing that needs to change is that line, which links to List of large volcanic eruptions... perhaps the link is not needed, or the phrase "more comprehensive list". QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly see your point about the link in the lead, so I took it out added it to a 'see also'. Is that better? In all honesty, it was debated if this list should overwrite that list, and in the end, I decided not to do that, even if the other list was poorly done/worded/incomplete, mainly because 1) there IS some info on it that would not go on this list no matter how it was done (i.e. the small-ish eruptions) and 2) to be nice to the guy that spent a lot of time making the list. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think "to be nice to the guy that spent a lot of time making the list" should be the reason not to overwrite the other list if that is better. After all, it is about producing a list that best serves our readers. Now, I can see the difference between this and List of large volcanic eruptions a bit better and that merging may not be desirable. I think List of large volcanic eruptions should be renamed to something else as it seems to cover all major eruptions regardless of size. Then this should be renamed to something like List of largest volcanic eruptions since it only covers the largest one. But even after this is sorted out, this is far from FL standard as of the current state. It needs to have a much longer lead. All items should have references. Since I do not know much about volcano, I can't say whether this list is accurate.—Chris!c/t 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I see your point on the name. As you can see from our previous discussions on the creation and establishment of this list, it was one of the major issues... hopefully that can be resolved soon, even if it means stepping on toes. I will also think of things to add to the lead. I specificlly tried to keep the lead short to get right to the meat and potatoes of the list; perhaps I need to rethink that. I can tell you that every item in the list is referenced. Instead of cluttering the list with ref numbers everywhere, most got moved to a column header or the ref column. That was an asthetic decision made by the group... if it is wrong, then we can change it back. As far as accuraccy, the fellow professional geologists (including myself) that worked on it can atest to the validity of it in general, along with the connections to trusted web resources and scientific journals. A specific size and/or date can be debated, but that's how science works. The shear fact that, almost exclusively, cubic km was used as a benchmark for size, precludes many non-scientific and fringe sources, since thinking of eruptions in cubic km is something only volcanologists do. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't claim to be a professional geologist, but I don't fully trust the main source used (and cited in the column header, as you say): the supplementary table to Ward's 2009 paper. I outlined one apparent major error in it at Talk:Timetable of major worldwide volcanic eruptions#List seems to never end. A more general concern I have with this source is that the "Volume km3" column (which this list relies on heavily) seems to flip between tephra volume and DRE volume without any warning. See the entries for Tambora (192 BP) and Taupo (26,500 BP), for instance. --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that there are some issues in the Ward table, and that is why I 1) excluded that questionable Kuril eruption because it could not be verified by a secondary source and 2) each eruption on the list was verified by a separate reference, most of them from scientific articles. And yes, the tephra/DRE issue is a problem, but it would not be possible to do one or the other exclusively... too many eruptions only have one. Any list of this kind would have that issue, unfortunately. If there is a way around this issue, please let me know, because no list of this type is readily available, besides lists like the Ward table, which has the exact same problem. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 03:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the point I was making about the tephra/DRE problem. Yes, some eruptions may only have sources giving one or the other - i.e. a tephra volume or the DRE volume, but not both. That could be dealt with in a reasonable way by having two volume columns, for example, and leaving one blank. It isn't at all helpful to do as Ward seems to have done, usually reporting the tephra volume but occasionally reporting the DRE volume without any indication that a different volume is meant. This is like sometimes giving distances in miles and sometimes in kilometres, without telling the reader which is meant. If we are relying on other sources throughout, then perhaps we'd be better off not referencing Ward's table at all; certainly I have trouble trusting a list that references it so prominently. --Avenue (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Totally see your point. Easiest way to fix this: I will add a small notation, maybe a superscript "t" for tephra, and a superscript "d" for DRE, or maybe normal text for tephra, italics for DRE, so it is clear which is which. I will get on that ASAP, hopefully tonight. As an aside, I see your issue, but I'm not sure exactly how important it is. Since all of these are very rough estimates, the difference might not matter, i.e, if you are not sure of how far away it is, and you are guestimating, then km vs. mi is not that vital. Regardless, you make a good point, and it will be fixed. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I am mainly using Ward as a starting point, everything pretty much has another ref.
- Certainly see your point about the link in the lead, so I took it out added it to a 'see also'. Is that better? In all honesty, it was debated if this list should overwrite that list, and in the end, I decided not to do that, even if the other list was poorly done/worded/incomplete, mainly because 1) there IS some info on it that would not go on this list no matter how it was done (i.e. the small-ish eruptions) and 2) to be nice to the guy that spent a lot of time making the list. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed List of largest volcanic eruptions to redirect to this list. Also, I noticed that some of the featured lists, like the Hawaiian chain, do have a long lead. But others, like List of extreme points of India, have a comparable lead, if not shorted (if you consider each sub-section's lead). Regardless, I will work on adding something meaningful to the lead. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
DRE/tephra problem fixed!!! the only number that was for sure DRE was the Wah Wah... all others are estimates based on pyroclastic/tephra eruptive material volumes. If the italics are an issue, then I can change the indicator, no prob. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 02:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, not really fixed. Yes, indicating DRE estimates in italics is an improvement. (Two columns would be clearer, but at least this avoids the treacherous ambiguity of Ward's table.) I'm not convinced the broader issues around the DRE/tephra volume distinction are really fixed, though. First, you say the Wah Wah eruption was the only DRE figure, but I found the first other one I looked into (Lake Toba/YTT) was also showing a DRE figure. I have no idea how many others are like this. Second, VEI-8 eruptions can easily have DRE volumes of under 1000 km³ (for instance the most recent VEI-8 eruption), but we show no DRE figures under 1000 km³. Are there really no eruptions with DRE figures over 500 km³ (say) for which the sources omit tephra volumes? Third, I think it is misleading to present the table sorted by "volume" when tephra volume figures would be probably roughly double the corresponding DRE volume figure. Doubling the Lake Toba/YTT DRE volume suggests it might well have been a larger eruption than the Fish Canyon tuff eruption from the La Garita Caldera (which currently tops our list). --Avenue (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't gone into detail yet, but on initial inspection I think the meat of this list does indeed live up to the claim you make in the first sentence of your nomination statement. The prose is a bit disappointing though. The purpose of the lead is to introduce and summarise the overall topic, while the section leads go into more specific detail relevant to that section, perhaps expanding on the technical side of it (admittedly, as the list stands it appears that you understand this balance). Typically, most 2010 leads are at least two paragraphs in length, and accompanied by a lead image. I'd be delighted to give this a full review once the lead has been worked on. I will watch this page, but drop me a message on my talk page if I take longer than a couple of days. Regards, --WFC-- 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I made that comment because I looked and looked to no avail, so I figured (while I had a week off work) I'd do it myself. OK, I finally go taround to beefing up the prose, though I am afraid that it is getting cheezy. I guess the scientist in me just wants cold, lifeless facts with no fluff. Oh well... QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Review from WFC
I'm decidedly out of my comfort zone on this one, but I committed to review, and will stick to that.
Prose: Notwithstanding a question over whether there is enough, the prose that's in the list is of a very good standard. Repetition of the word eruption is to be expected, and is not excessive. A couple of relatively small things:
- Given that CO2 is only used once, it probably makes more sense to spell out carbon dioxide.
- Overall you have done a very good job in striking the balance between accomodating for non-experts without dumbing-down on the content, but would it be possible to briefly expand on what pyroclastic material is?
- Similarly, it wasn't clear "that large outpourings of generally lower viscosity lava that cover large areas of ground (or ocean floor) over many years" was an explanation of a mafic eruption. I'm not a great writer, but I've attempted a fix. You may wish to rephrase it.
Lead: I need to do a bit of background reading to be able to give help here; I'll aim to give the lead a proper review by Monday morning at the latest. --WFC-- 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness and structure: I'm satisfied that it passes these points, per the discussion above. Very minor point though, the ref columns do not need to be sortable.
Visual appeal: The current image is a great diagram, but isn't directly relevant to this list. Perhaps this image of Fish Canyon tuff, with a caption relevant to the list would be a good way of illustrating?
Referencing: I'll check the reliability of refs when I review the lead, and will leave what I see as the irrelevancy of formatting to others. For the time being, refs 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 21–23, 35–36, 39 and 42 need some sort of publisher or author information; at the moment they are just urls with access dates, with no indication on who wrote them.
Regards, --WFC-- 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, kinda busy at the moment, but some quick answers:
- carbon dioxide is fine
- is the link pyroclastic enough? I am happy to expand if it is not.
- mafic explanation reword looks good, but I can expand. Again, I was hoping the links would help those that need more info, but I am happy to add more.
- Just an aside, I also have an education degree, so I am happy to explain of of this geology stuff to you as best I can. That might allow both of us to make the lead as laymen-friendly without sacrificing the science.
- I will try to figure out how to make the ref column unsortable... I knew how to do it once...
- the image issue is a real one; not sure what to use. The VEI image is OK, not great. Same with this image of Fish Canyon tuff. I used it in articles like the Fish Canyon tuff, but it's not great. There is always something like this or this... also not great, but we need something.
- I will look into those URLs... hopefully I can find author info, may not be possible for all of those websites.
- Thanks for all of your hard work! QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tisk, Qfl you should have contacted me. I've added myself as conom if you don't mind, and I'll help you with the review. In the future it's a good idea to contact ppl about nominations :) ResMar 03:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article move Instead of List of volcanic eruptions forking here, it should be the main, as it's a more appropriate title ("List of" is perfered). However, I'm not sure what the most appropriate title is. ResMar 03:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind List of largest volcanic eruptions, but List of large volcanic eruptions is not specific enough, in my mind. This is just not any list, it is specific to the top eruptions only. I think the title should reflect that. When people are doing a google search for the biggest eruptions ever, my hope is that this artcle and title will stand out, because, like I said at first, I looked for such a list, could not find it, and made it (with lots of help). P.S. Sorry ResMar, my bad. You have been a big part of this list, and deserve lots of credit, conom is quite justified. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 16:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's ok. You may want to check out the refs, I've been working on improving them :) I kind of mistyped, I did indeed mean List of largest volcanic eruptions. ResMar 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten to return to this. I've held fire as work seems to be ongoing, but let me know when you'd like me to take another look. Regards, --WFC-- 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- ResMar and Qfl247, would you like me to move the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the name, though somewhat silly, is not worth a change until there is a general consensus. I personally haven't heard a name that is that much better than this short, sweet, but admittedly somewhat cheesy choice that exists now. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I thought that "List of" was regulation standard...ResMar 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's ok. You may want to check out the refs, I've been working on improving them :) I kind of mistyped, I did indeed mean List of largest volcanic eruptions. ResMar 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm bumping it into shape right now. What it needs most right to pass is a good copyedit. ResMar 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I would like to see a featured list on this topic, but this nom seems premature to me. Perhaps the biggest issue is that this is not one list, but two. The one mistitled "Effusive eruptions" is not a list of eruptions, but a list of large igneous provinces. So not only is this section's title misleading, but the whole page has a misleading title. (Perhaps it should be titled "List of the world's largest eruptions and largest igneous provinces", but I think it would be cleaner to split it up into two separate lists.) Add this to my concerns about DRE vs tephra volumes (see above), and my belief that the lead section needs quite a lot of work, and I think this is not nearly ready to be featured. --Avenue (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- The DRE vs. Tephra problem has been fixed for some time now... what more do you want? The LIP issue is a valid one, but, that list is there with the caveat you bring up regarding LIPs explained in the lead. It is a completely different part of the list and should not be confused with the first section. I felt it was useful, but if there is a consensus to remove the second list and/or split this page into two, I am happy to do so. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- As large igneous provinces are probably the origin of hotspots, as voluminous volcanism and as orogenies are many times along the "coastline" of continents, the two lists should not be separated. In a way, the two lists are two sides of the Wilson Cycle, they should be on the same page. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong feeling about whether the two lists should be together on this page or separated, but if the second one remains here, its section heading and the page's title are misleading and should be changed, and so should much of the lead section. I do not feel that lead section addresses the point I make at all. If anything it seems to gloss over the difference between an LIP and a large effusive eruption; that is, it seems to conflate something like Laki (an eruption) with the surrounding igneous province (Faroes-Iceland-Eastern Greenland). For instance, it contains dubious unsourced statements like "the largest effusive eruptions have produced millions of cubic kilometers of lava". Contrast this with Steve Self and Mike Rampino here: "continental flood-basalt eruptions of the geological past are the largest eruptions of lava on Earth, with known volumes of individual lava flows exceeding 2000 cubic kilometres." That's two thousand, not two million. I know Wikipedia isn't flawless, but being out by three orders of magnitude does not seem like an example of our best work. And the lead sentence only mentions one list, not two.
- For my remaining concerns about the DRE/tephra issue, see the paragraph I recently added to the discussion of the issue above. --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a dubious statement, that's backed up by material in the list. I've no clue what you mean by DRE/tephra volume differences, that's Qfl's territory. I'm still strongly against a split. Speaking of Qfl, where is he anyway oO ResMar 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only material in the "Effusive eruptions" list that addresses any eruption size directly is the note about explosive eruptions associated with the 28.5 Ma Afro-Arabian flood volcanism, which aren't relevant because they're not effusive. We can also infer from the information given about Coppermine River Group that its 150-plus eruptions averaged around 4.4 km³ or less. Nothing in the list supports the dubious statement I quoted. Are you still mixing up the size of a province with the size of the eruptions that formed it? --Avenue (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh... day 21 of a 26-day stint at work... I am barely able to type this and/or think... anyways, Avenue, I understand your concerns, but I think the rigor you are trying for is impossible. I realize the next few words are quite conjecture-y, but almost no one talks about DRE in explosive eruptions or individual flows of the LIPs. I said the Wah Wah was the only one with a DRE number because all the refs I checked all implied that the number they stated were based on tephra volume, because 99% of the time (100% of the time with laymen), this is the only number that is used. I missed one with YTT, my bad. I can say fairly confidently that the others are OK, though some other ref may overrule that. That's why Wikipedia is great, right? You put down the best available data, and someone else comes along and fixes it. It's a fluid list now, and it will be as long as it exists. Remember, there are big issues with Ward, and that's why it was used as a guide, not a be-all end-all. Now, on to effusive: it is true, the explosive vs. effusive numbers on this list are somewhat apples and oranges, but this is all we have. I have not seen any compilation of effusive eruption volumes that concentrated on individual eruptions... if this exists, please let me know, but I am betting that it does not exist, as specific beds may be hard to tie into specific eruptions for these LIPs, and 99% of the work on them has been done considering the LIPs as whole events and/or sub-events at the most specific. This list will always be flawed, but it is still important and useful. The biggest problem this list has is it is tailored for laymen, which is why I started it and why I think it is important. Some work has to be done to make it understandable and usable, and that unfortunately sacrifices some of the details. If this list was published in GSA Today, it might be able to calculate a separate column for DREs and tephras, and split out each eruption in each LIP (which, as I've stated, is doubtful that these data even exist, even amongst the authors themselves), but for a Wiki list, I think it covers what it should cover, and does it fairly and accurately, with proper warning. Do its shortcomings mean it does not deserve to be a FLC? Maybe. I certainly think it would not be the most controversial or flawed list if it was approved as featured in its present form. OK, I am rambling, but I'll end on one thought: Take the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Certainly, the bulk of the material came out the morning of May 18th, 1980, but there were several ash/steam/tephra eruptions before and after the main eruption. If you were a geologist looking at the deposit a million years from now, would you know that? Can we say with absolute certainty that the Fish Canyon tuff was 1 eruption? We can assume this based on geochemistry and stratigraphy. We also assume every number on this list; even the 1980 MSH tephra number is an assumption, albeit a more educated one because we watched it happen. Why get bogged down in details that 99.99999% of the people that would look at this list would not consider, and even if considered, might make it impossible to change the present numbers from what they are now? QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 01:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- QFL, thanks for responding, at what I appreciate is a difficult time for you. I'm not trying to rush you, and I'm not concerned if it takes a week or two to reach a consensus on these issues. I fully agree that most people and sources generally consider each LIP as a whole, and don't try to resolve the minutiae of individual lava flows or eruptions. I also agree that individual eruptions are often not very precisely defined, especially when we lack reliable observational records, and that it is often impossible to say definitively which parts of a deposit were produced in a single eruption (when several eruptions may have occurred over a number of consecutive weeks, months or years). So the available data doesn't really allow us to produce a perfectly accurate list of largest eruptions - no argument there - and I agree that this needn't preclude such a list from becoming featured.
- However, there is a big difference to my mind between a single explosive eruption (or a closely spaced set of eruptions) and a huge igneous province that may have accumulated over a million years or more, requiring hundreds of eruptions. Our page does not currently acknowledge this distinction directly, and I think our readers deserve better. It is one thing to present apples and oranges together for comparison; it is another to pretend that apples are actually oranges. (In volume terms, we are probably conflating peas and oranges, or worse.) So I think our page should at least clearly acknowledge the distinction between provinces and eruptions, and preferably explain how the available data constrains what we can say about each.
- I also think that the page could be noticeably improved if we investigated bimodal igneous provinces more thoroughly. I have just added a large explosive eruption from the Paraná-Etendeka province, for instance, and I suspect there are others we are missing. These would provide useful examples to illustrate the distinction between provinces and individual eruptions.
- You've discussed the first of my three concerns about the DRE/tephra confusion (about whether all the DRE volumes have been identified), which doesn't seem to concern you too much. What do you think about the other two? --Avenue (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh... day 21 of a 26-day stint at work... I am barely able to type this and/or think... anyways, Avenue, I understand your concerns, but I think the rigor you are trying for is impossible. I realize the next few words are quite conjecture-y, but almost no one talks about DRE in explosive eruptions or individual flows of the LIPs. I said the Wah Wah was the only one with a DRE number because all the refs I checked all implied that the number they stated were based on tephra volume, because 99% of the time (100% of the time with laymen), this is the only number that is used. I missed one with YTT, my bad. I can say fairly confidently that the others are OK, though some other ref may overrule that. That's why Wikipedia is great, right? You put down the best available data, and someone else comes along and fixes it. It's a fluid list now, and it will be as long as it exists. Remember, there are big issues with Ward, and that's why it was used as a guide, not a be-all end-all. Now, on to effusive: it is true, the explosive vs. effusive numbers on this list are somewhat apples and oranges, but this is all we have. I have not seen any compilation of effusive eruption volumes that concentrated on individual eruptions... if this exists, please let me know, but I am betting that it does not exist, as specific beds may be hard to tie into specific eruptions for these LIPs, and 99% of the work on them has been done considering the LIPs as whole events and/or sub-events at the most specific. This list will always be flawed, but it is still important and useful. The biggest problem this list has is it is tailored for laymen, which is why I started it and why I think it is important. Some work has to be done to make it understandable and usable, and that unfortunately sacrifices some of the details. If this list was published in GSA Today, it might be able to calculate a separate column for DREs and tephras, and split out each eruption in each LIP (which, as I've stated, is doubtful that these data even exist, even amongst the authors themselves), but for a Wiki list, I think it covers what it should cover, and does it fairly and accurately, with proper warning. Do its shortcomings mean it does not deserve to be a FLC? Maybe. I certainly think it would not be the most controversial or flawed list if it was approved as featured in its present form. OK, I am rambling, but I'll end on one thought: Take the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Certainly, the bulk of the material came out the morning of May 18th, 1980, but there were several ash/steam/tephra eruptions before and after the main eruption. If you were a geologist looking at the deposit a million years from now, would you know that? Can we say with absolute certainty that the Fish Canyon tuff was 1 eruption? We can assume this based on geochemistry and stratigraphy. We also assume every number on this list; even the 1980 MSH tephra number is an assumption, albeit a more educated one because we watched it happen. Why get bogged down in details that 99.99999% of the people that would look at this list would not consider, and even if considered, might make it impossible to change the present numbers from what they are now? QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 01:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think we are getting closer. Real quick: there is some language in the effusive list talking about many eruptions and millions of years, but that is an easy fix to make that more obvious and clearer. To address 2 and 3, the easiest fix is to list both numbers, DRE and tephra, in the column, when available. Since tephra is a more common number, I'd list it first, and since the list of explosive eruptions is all VEI 8, all of the tephra numbers would be over 1000 by definition. For eruptions with only DRE, that's tricky... hopefully there are only a few (maybe only the Wah Wah), and even though it is apples and oranges, I'd say list them with the tephras and expand the DRE vs. tephra note, saying something like "eruptions only listing DRE could have tephra volumes much larger than their DRE equivalent." or "...as much as double their DRE equivalent." Would that work? QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 13:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is not so much with the contents of the effusive list, but with the preceding text - especially its heading and the lead section. If we retain this list here, the introductory text needs to make it very clear that the entries in this list are not eruptions. Of course the section heading needs to change; I'll do that now.
- Listing both tephra and DRE volumes would be useful, although I think it would be even clearer to give each a column of its own. Expanding the note can only help. We should also reconsider the ordering of the DRE-only eruptions; I think they should be higher up than at present. Finally, we should check we have not missed any large DRE-only eruptions, e.g. by looking through all the eruptions with volumes greater than 450 km³ in Ward's table. I've taken this cut-off figure (450 km³) from the first sentence of the Introduction in Wilson and Charlier (2009), doi:10.1093/petrology/egp023, where this is equated with a tephra volume of 1000 km³. --Avenue (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that the destinction between Explosive and Effusive needs to be made more clearly? ResMar 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am saying that the distinction between eruptions and igneous provinces needs to be made clearly, because we are presenting two different lists here, i.e. a list of eruptions, and a list of large igneous provinces. The text already seems clear enough about the difference between explosive and effusive eruptions. --Avenue (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that the destinction between Explosive and Effusive needs to be made more clearly? ResMar 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I am saying that they are both eruptions and 99% of people have no clue what the difference between the two is, so splitting it into two lists is illogical. Two sides of the same coin. ResMar 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, let's start at the beginning. I'm sure you recognise the difference between an eruption and the volcano it erupts from. Most volcanoes produce many eruptions, and the material erupted in these eruptions builds the landform we call a volcano. Now volcanoes are often found in groups, called by various names, such as volcanic fields, volcanic belts, arcs, and igneous provinces. These groups of volcanoes are not eruptions either. Okay, we can talk about the volume of material ever produced by a volcano, or by a group of volcanoes, just as we can for an eruption, but that is no reason to confuse them. --Avenue (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even so, I feel it should still be one list. ResMar 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is currently two separate lists, just on one page. And the main point is that they are lists of two very different things, eruptions and large igneous provinces, but the lead section implies they are the same, and doesn't explain why two different lists are needed. --Avenue (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify that further. The lead section does distinguish between explosive and effusive eruptions, which is well and good. However it implies that an LIP can be produced by a single large effusive eruption, which is very wrong. Perhaps I am reading into it an implication that was not intended; if so, our text should be clarified. Our statement that "the largest effusive eruptions have produced millions of cubic kilometers of lava" is extremely misleading. --Avenue (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I've said before, the big issue with a DRE list is so many would not have a DRE, so we'll have to keep that in mind. I am all in favor of adding to either list, and the 450 cutoff is a good place to start. I have to say I was shocked to see two new eruptions were added to the list ahead of the Fish Canyon, since I had seen many, many refs pointing to the Fish Canyon as the biggest. Well, on closer inspection, both should be removed. The SAM is part of a 5500km3 unit, but none is bigger than 850. The other is a lacolith for the ref, so not an eruption. So, you could argue that the SAM should be included based on the effusive list, but then, we need to completely change the first list, because the San Juan could be lumped (which includes the Fish Canyon), and it's like 5million km3. I still agree with the clear distinction we need to make btween the two sublists, but adding the two new would mean a total reformat. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. The changing of the second sublist to LIP is great, may need more to be added, but solves a lot of problems. Great! QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like the new section title. It would be even better to change the list to cover huge effusive eruptions, not LIPs, but I haven't found any sources that would support that yet. But if the list contains LIPs, the section title should reflect that.
- I'm not sure why you say that no part of the SAM/Green Tuff/etc unit is bigger than 850 km3. The source I cited says that the SAM Ignimbrite comprises two units, but interprets these and the Green Tuff as either resulting from a single eruption or a number of very closely spaced eruptions. They cite other authors in support of either interpretation; I have not read those yet. And a similar list to ours (Table 2 in Mason, Pyle, and Oppenheimer 2004, doi:10.1007/s00445-004-0355-9) includes the SAM Ignimbrite and Green Tuff as a single eruption (although admittedly with a lower tephra volume of 3000 km3). So I think there is strong support for including it here in our explosive eruption list.
- I don't understand your concern about the SAM eruption being part of an LIP listed in the second list. LIPs can produce large explosive eruptions, in which case the eruption would belong in our first list, and the LIP would belong in the second list. Do you see a problem with this?
- I believe the Springbok quartz latite unit is not a laccolith, but was erupted, based on the following parts of the source I cited (Ewart, Milner, Armstrong, and Duncan, 1998) and its companion paper (pp. 191–225 in the same volume). From p. 194: "... the Goboboseb and Springbok quartz latites ... are distributed over large parts of the southern Etendeka and southeastern Parana ́ (Milner et al., 1992, 1995b) and are the erupted products of a massive (>8000 km3) silicic magma system which we term the Awahab magma system." From p. 229: "The Goboboseb Units I and II together with PAV Unit A encompass an area >33 000 km2 and, with an estimated average thickness of 70 m, have an estimated volume of 2320 km3. The Springbok– PAV Unit B quartz latite encompasses an area of 25 360 km2 and, with an average thickness of 250 m, has an estimated volume of 6340 km3. The total estimated volume of the erupted Awahab silicic magmas is therefore inferred to be of the order of 8660 km3." Perhaps I am missing something, but this seems fairly clear to me. --Avenue (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. The changing of the second sublist to LIP is great, may need more to be added, but solves a lot of problems. Great! QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I've said before, the big issue with a DRE list is so many would not have a DRE, so we'll have to keep that in mind. I am all in favor of adding to either list, and the 450 cutoff is a good place to start. I have to say I was shocked to see two new eruptions were added to the list ahead of the Fish Canyon, since I had seen many, many refs pointing to the Fish Canyon as the biggest. Well, on closer inspection, both should be removed. The SAM is part of a 5500km3 unit, but none is bigger than 850. The other is a lacolith for the ref, so not an eruption. So, you could argue that the SAM should be included based on the effusive list, but then, we need to completely change the first list, because the San Juan could be lumped (which includes the Fish Canyon), and it's like 5million km3. I still agree with the clear distinction we need to make btween the two sublists, but adding the two new would mean a total reformat. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, well, that does seem to make it #1 on the list then. It just seems strange to me, being a latite flow, but, you can't argue with that. Does that mean we should change the title of the first part to just 'eruptions'? If it is a latite flow, it probably was not that explosive. At least the statement 'largest tuff on earth' holds for Fish Canyon. Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that the Sam couldn't be on the list, just that it was on the list, but in the LIP section. The work I have looked up on the Sam has also been kinda ambiguous... Anyways, good work on this! Regardless of what happens with this nomination, I think this list will become a very popular page for many people and will gain recognition eventually, and it couldn't happen without both of you, Avenue and ResMar. Ok, I must be too tired, getin' all sappy 'n stuff... only three more days... QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the Springbok quartz latite unit is not really a lava flow, but a rheoignimbrite (see e.g. doi:10.1007/BF00278389), so it would still belong in the explosive eruptions list.
- Here's some good news - I've discovered a very useful upcoming review article:
- Bryan, Scott E.; Ukstins Peate, Ingrid; Peate, David W.; Self, Stephen; Jerram, Dougal A.; Mawby, Michael R.; Marsh, J.S. (Goonie); Miller, Jodie A. (2010). "The largest volcanic eruptions on Earth". Earth-Science Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.07.001.
- But if you were shocked by the two eruptions I recently added, you might want to sit down before you read it. Not only does it provide a table of silicic eruptive units from LIPs that will extend our list of explosive eruptions upward substantially (with the largest explosive eruption weighing in at 8587 km³, DRE!), but it also includes a list of large mafic eruptive units from LIPs. Yes, that's essentially a list of effusive eruptions, not of LIPs, and they range from 1200 km³ up to 9300 km³.
- I'll go ahead and add the extra silicic units to the explosive eruptions list. We should also seriously consider replacing our LIP list with an effusive eruptions list, taking Bryan et al's table as a starting point. This would be a substantial change, but would be consistent with the scope implied by the page's title, and would make the page much more coherent. Perhaps we should wait a few days before deciding on this, until you have more time to absorb it properly. --Avenue (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added everything from Bryan et al's Table 3 to our first list, except for the Moonaree Dacite lava, which sounds like it might be from an effusive eruption. I have not changed the volume figures for the SAM Ignimbrite and Jabal Kura’a Ignimbrite entries to match this table, partly because it only gives DRE volumes, and partly because I want to look at the references they cite first. --Avenue (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! Everything looks so different now... and I say, great. I share your distrust of the Ward table (though it is useful), and a more up-to-date and complete ref is great. My only issue would be the notes column... we need to put SOMETHING in there for each one. It doesn't have to be important, just something. For the Panera/Etendeka traps, we can come up with a joint statement for all of them, for example. Oh, and if your list has an effusive list, how about we add a new table for that, leave the LIPs, and then, we have anything and everything people would look for under the umbrella of large eruptions. Good work! P.S. I don't have access to the Bryan full text... do you? I certainly don't wanna pay for it... ;) QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have to ask though, are the weight percentages really necessary? oO ResMar 22:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, what stands in the way of a Support !vote? I don't think the list should be split. ResMar 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the lists themselves are now close to the required standard, but the lead section is still a mess. See my comments above for pointers. The LIP list needs some preamble to make clear that it is not a list of eruptions, but of areas where large eruptions no doubt happened even if they haven't been identified yet. I won't have much time to contribute to this over the next few days, but will come back to it next week. --Avenue (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you should write it in then? All I can give you is a blank stare :) ResMar 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello? ResMar 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Two days ago I said I wouldn't have much time to work on this article for a few days, and that was before the second biggest city in my country was hit by a major earthquake, which has taken up most of my wikipedia time since then. What's the big rush anyway? --10:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello? ResMar 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which is the problem really; people are scared off by a long discourse with an oppose vote at the top :/ ResMar 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)