text:
Talk:Mayon

Untitled
Does the latest update on Aug 8th actually make sense? "The size of the rockfalls from the lava dome have grown considerably and are threatening to cause massive, if not lifelessly dangerous, damage across the Philippines." What is the "if not lifelessly dangerous" meant to mean? --Nunners 14:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formating bug
The insertion of the image of the major volcanos in the Philippines has led to the suppression of the bullet point markers in the main text. Anyone know a neat solution or workaround? DFH 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that this has since been fixed by rearranging the image position. Thanks.  DFH 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Kniaseff volcano
According to the most recent eruption of the 200m high Leonard Kniaseff was 1,800 years B.P. (Before Present). I fail to see how this paucity of data should lead to it being classified as an "active" volcano. DFH 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello this is maybe the solution. - Darwinek 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, which could even be used as the basis for a new article with the title Leonard Kniaseff volcano to distinguish it from any future article on Leonard Kniaseff himself. DFH 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mayon Volcano or Mayon volcano
Why does Volcano have a capital V in this page title? DFH 12:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the "river" in Amazon River is capitalized? -- Howard  the   Duck  03:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Current activity
Please date all new additions to the 2006 activity section, and if possible also cite the information source as a reference. DFH 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Danger Zones
Isn't it proper to include a discussion on the danger zones? Note that PhiVolcs discussed the idea of classifying the areas of and those surrounding the volcano. the first 6-kilometer radius is considered as the permanent danger zone, the 6-8 kilometer radius is a partially dangerous zone, etc. User: Tikboyblue 16:24, 15 August 2006

-- I heard it just erupted. Anyone have confirmation of this? ~ magbatz 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I just googled it and nothing came up. I tried everything.  I looked on USGS too and there was nothing.  I don't think so.   Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For a GA Push...

 * References

 * Copy-editing (I can do this)

Then:

 * Apply for GA

I have reviewed this article and this appears to be all it needs at the moment.  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Extra material from Stratovolcano
I moved specific material from that article to /Extra

Currently erupting
As of 17 December 2009 (today) Mayon is currently erupting. It is inaccurate to change the infobox today to read "currently erupting as of November 11th, 2009" Gubernatoria (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The article should reflect the info found in the cited supporting source and, where it matters, should give date and, possibly, time information. I've updated the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Eruption
An anonymous vandal keeps removing the following paragraph from the article saying that it is "not an eruption since it is not level 5". This is odd because Phivolcs considers it an eruption, plus the current eruption is not level 5 either. Perhaps the anonymous contributor might leave well alone in future, or risk being cited for edit-warring.

 * 2008 eruption
 * On August 10, 2008, a summit explosion ejected ash 200 metres above the summit, with the ash drifting ENE. In the weeks prior to the eruption, there was a visible glow within the crater, and increased seismicity.   Gubernatoria (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What vandalism? Nowhere in the source does it say that it was an eruption. To quote in detail from the 'read more' link-

 * Although no major eruption is indicated, steam and ash explosions may occur in the following days.

Add how not a single news agency brought up this very minor volcanic activity from 2008, it's very clear that it wasn't a noteworthy incident. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The cite has since been removed, but a recent version of this page cited this source (at the Smithsonian), which says, "Last Known Eruption: 2008". That seems to me to be a better fit for the "Last eruption" template parameter than what it has been replaced with. Say yes to WP:V and say no to WP:OR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent anonymous revandalisation again has been reverted. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks to Wtmitchell, his source is a good one, that's what I'm looking for. Although Gubernatoria, I would highly appreciate it if you could stop calling me a vandal; I've never removed material without justification. Practice good faith please. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You were not justified in removing that part of the article. Whether it was wanton anonymous vandalism or just ignorant anonymous vandalism on your part, it was unjustified removal of relevant factual material. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Back then, the provided source did not indicate that it was an eruption. Seeing how the upper level section says 'recorded eruptions', it was very well justified, and without that source the whole event does not have any reference. In fact as that section stands right now, '2008 activity' lacks the citations to show that it was an eruption.

 * And once again, I am not a vandal. I've been able to justify every removal I did, it just happens that my bold edits conflict with yours. Deal with it and learn to collaborate instead of resorting to calling names on your fellow contributors. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this earlier version of the article cited this supporting source at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History which characterizes the 2008 activity as an eruption (the "Last Known Eruption", in fact, which would make the current activity just "activity". That was removed in this edit, and "Last eruption" redone to refer to the current activity, supported by by Phivolcs sources which don't describe the current activity as an eruption. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you mentioned that source I added it to the article. But Guber reverted it again and called it 'apparent vandalism'. Now it needs to be reintegrated into the article to show that the last eruption was in 2008.
 * While we're at it, do we have another reliable source that says the volcano is currently erupting? Because as far as PHIVOLCS sources are concerned it's not until it reaches level 5. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "as far as PHIVOLCS sources are concerned it's not until it reaches level 5". Please give citation for this remark.Gubernatoria (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look up, it's my first reply to you. And don't edit my comments. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if you want to go more specific, here are the alert levels for Mayon Volcano. See how it's only in level 5 where it is considered an eruption. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You misquote Phivolcs. There is a difference between an "eruption" and a "hazardous eruption". Level 5 is hoisted for "hazardous eruption", not for "eruption".  Phivolcs has called the current type of event a "quiet eruption", or "quietly erupting". Gubernatoria (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Phivolcs has called the current type of event a "quiet eruption", or "quietly erupting".' Your turn for a citation. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the article if you'd bother to look. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be alone in seeing your source then. Even Wtmitchell didn't spot the citation you're speaking of. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article, I see that it does cite this source in support of describing the activity on July 14, 2006 as a "quiet" eruption. Looking at the cited source, I see that that Philippine Inquirer article did describe it that way. I do not see any indication that Phivolcs described it that way.
 * looking at the Phivolcs Alert levels for Mayon Volcano page, I don't see anything below a level 5 alert called an eruption.
 * If there is consensus that I should re-integrate the Last eruption info and cite from this earlier version of the article, I'll be happy to do so, but I don't want to get into the middle of an edit war over it. I won't object if someone else wants to re-integrate that. If the current activity quiets down without reaching the Alert Level 5 stage, I'll probably fact-tag Last eruption info in the infobox which is not supported by a citation of a source clearly supporting characterization of whatever event is named there as an eruption. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Already did, I fact-tagged it before your comment. Although your link on 'this earlier version of the article' isn't an earlier version, it's a citation. Which earlier version were you refering to? The one with this supporting source? --112.203.95.233 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I grabbed the wrong link. I meant this one, I think. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Section breaker
Nevermind, I found new refs that show both the 2008 and 2009 activities are considered as eruptions. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Guber, please stop removing the citations, they are needed to show the volcano is currently erupting. Going from the alert level chart of Mayon Volcano alone does not lead to a definite conclusion on whether the volcano's current activity can be considered an eruption, the citations include statements from PHIVOLCS representatives that show the present status of the volcano. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientists Say Magma Continues to Build Up Inside Mayon Volcano
This American site: [Fox] has an article about the fact that magma continues to build up inside this volcano.Agre22 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

 * "You might think it is taking a break but the volcano is still swelling," chief government volcanologist Renato Solidum said after the restive volcano emitted fewer ash emissions on Sunday 27 December than in previous days. Gubernatoria (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

New 7 Wonders
Does the following sentence need to remain in the introduction, or can it now be deleted as out-of-date?

''On October 13, 2008 it was included in New7Wonders of Nature Top 10 list. However, it did not make the cut to the Top 25 finalists, giving way to the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River, another site in the Philippines.''

Gubernatoria (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a citation for the first phrase, but an Inquirer news article did mention that Mayon Volcano was in the first round of voting for the New7Wonders of Nature. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Nomination
Would two (or more) uninvolved and well-experienced editors please assess this article to see if it meets A-Class Criteria, and if not, what improvements are needed. Thanks. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is currently B-Class, the next step up is GA-Class. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is now well-organised and essentially complete and worthy of consideration as A-Class. But like the previous commentator, I am not an uninvolved editor. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Quoting seav's comment in this section on Tambayan Philippines assessment -
 * If you think it meets the GA criteria, you should ask as WP:GAC. But personally, the article is in need of major re-organization. The laundry list of eruptive activity doesn't seem appropriate. --seav (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with him, the 2009 activity section needs a clean-up now, we don't need daily updates about the volcano especially since it's mostly the same this past week. How about we do it like in the 2006 activity section? It only lists events wherein PHIVOLCS increased or decreased the alert level. Other notable events may include evacuations, casualties, etc. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I completed writing the 2006 activity section, it was after activity ceased, and a lot of daily material was removed at that stage. The volcano is currently erupting (effusing lava, ejecting ash, releasing sulphur dioxide = erupting), and there is a daily interest in the eruption. When current activity ceases is the time we have reduced the amount of content from a daily listing to a more generalised description, with past eruptions. That should still seem to be a suitable timeframe. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can get behind this. Once its current activity reaches level 5 or it gradually dies down like last time, I expect the daily updates to be summarized like in 2006 activity. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Legazpi City
Because Philippine cities often include vast tracts of rural areas, they are not "cities" in the usual urban sense of the word. Legally, Mayon forms the northern apex of Legazpi City. Therefore the argument about whether it is 12, 15, or 16 kilomotres from "Legazpi City" misses the legality. It could be beneficial to mention distance from the Capitol, or perhaps the airport, since these are specific locations and not diverse spreads like the legal entity of Legazpi City. I changed the reference in the article to match the legal reality. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently erupting
Currently erupting references moved from info box:  Gubernatoria (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They deserve to be in the article, same with the source from the Smithsonian for the 2008 activity. Not every reader will look into the talk page to read these references. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mayon did not wait for Phivolcs to hoist Alert Level 3. It was erupting before then. I am (again) removing your misinformation from the info box. People can look at the 2009 activity section to find verification, and use their common sense plus an english language dictionary. Gubernatoria (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, have it your way. I just hope the GA committee doesn't hold the same standards as me and Wtmitchell do when it comes to affirming verifiability. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need two Lignon Hill photos?
Guber wanted to keep Runway.jpg in article mainspace since it shows the "relationship between Mayon and Lignon Hill"... but there's already a picture in the gallery which shows the same scenery in better focus and with less Philippine Airlines advertising. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

10 July 2009 reference
The reference for the 10 July 2009 eruption was provided by me in my edit of 13:36 30 October 2009 which originally read:

 * On 10 July 2009, PHIVOLCS issued the following bulletin:

 * This is a notice for the raising of Mayon Volcano’s status from Alert Level 1 (low level unrest) to Alert Level 2 (moderate unrest).

 * Beginning June 2009 monitored parameters indicated an increase in the current activity of Mayon Volcano. The number of recorded low frequency volcanic earthquakes rose to a higher level signifying possible movement of magma beneath the volcano edifice at shallow depth. The present seismic count is at the same level when a phreatic explosion occurred last August 2008. Ground uplift of about one centimeter was measured by Precise Leveling Survey conducted last June 15-22, 2009 and the uplift was sustained during a re-survey yesterday, July 9, 2009. Glow at the summit crater has intensified and could now be observed at Lignon Hill Observatory without the aid of telescopes.  Steam emission was at moderate level.

 * Aerial survey conducted last July 08, 2009, showed a cone-shaped pile of hot, steaming old rocks, possibly remnants from previous eruptions which could be the source of the glow at the crater. The low frequency volcanic earthquakes and ground uplift could indicate that fresh volcanic materials are moving upward at depth, causing the formation of the cone-shaped pile of materials at the crater.

 * Because of the above observations, PHIVOLCS is now raising the Alert status of Mayon Volcano from Alert Level 1 to Alert Level 2. This alert condition signifies, a state of unrest which could lead to ash explosions or eventually to hazardous magmatic eruption. Thus, at Alert Level 2, PHIVOLCS strongly recommends that the 6-km radius Permanent Danger Zone (PDZ) around the volcano and the 7-km Extended Danger Zone (EDZ) on the southeast flank of the volcano are off-limits due to the threat from sudden explosions and rockfalls from the upper slopes. Active river channels and those areas perennially identified as lahar prone in the southeast sector should also be avoided especially during bad weather conditions or when there is heavy and prolonged rainfall.

But some meddlesome interferor later removed the reference. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It looks to me as if you removed it yourself in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blockquote but I did NOT remove the reference. The citation is still there in my edit 332991306. Gubernatoria (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It seems it got replaced by a volcano advisory about raising the alert level from level 2 to level 3. Not your fault though, the link is correct but the content was later changed on the PHIVOLCS website. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Found a copy of the original July 10, 2009 volcano bulletin on Google cache. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Right, Gubernatoria. I was going by the removed material having included "<ref name=PhilvocsBulletin>Mayon Volcano Bulletin 7, Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, 20 December 2009. ", I didn't notice that the edit also showed this ref as having been reinserted. Perhaps something like http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/07/10/09/mayon-state-unrest-alert-level-raised would be a more stable supporting source for the raising of alert level 2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reinserted a link to the original reference and blockquote, plus your suggested ref Wtmitchell, plus the commercial ref provided by 112.203.95.233, which should cover all bases. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your talk page citation has to go since you cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia itself. You should review Wikipedia policy on verifiability and self-references. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alert level 4 daily log
Will summarize this over the next day or so. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

"On 21 December 2009, Phivolcs raised the status to Alert Level 4 meaning a hazardous explosive eruption is possible within days.

On 22 December 2009 at 7am, Phivolcs noted an intense level of activity with an increase in sulphur dioxide emission to 6529 tonnes per day, lava flow down three separate gullies to a distance of 5 kilometres from the summit, 1266 volcanic earthquakes many at maximum deflection in the past 24 hours, audible booming and rumbling sounds, and intensified crater glow.

On 23 December 2009 at 7am, Phivolcs noted 66 ash explosions had been observed in the previous 24 hours when visibility was good enough, producing grayish to light brown ash columns that reached heights of 100 to 1000 meters above the summit. Sulphur Dioxide emission increased slightly over the prior 24 hour period. 280 audible booming and rumbling sounds were intermittently heard in the previous 24 hours, while red hot lava continuously flowed down the Bonga-Buyuan, Miisi and Lidong gullies.

On 24 December 2009, Phivolcs noted in the past 24 hours 21 ash explosions were observed, with the ash columns reaching heights of up to 1500 metres above the summit. Lava fountaining, reaching a maximum height of 500 meters above the crater rim was observed at 11.12pm, 11.14pm, 11.20pm and 11.32pm December 23, 2009. Sulphur dioxide emission was slightly lower than for the previous 24 hour period. In the 24 hour seismological recording period to 4.14pm 23 December, 815 volcanic earthquakes tremors were recorded, many at maximum deflection.

On 25 December 2009, Phivolcs observed 96 ash explosions in the prior 24 hours reaching heights of up to 2000 metres. 125 rumbling and booming sounds were heard at the Lignon Hill Observatory. 871 volcanic earthquakes were recorded. 98 rock falls were noted related to detachment of lava fragments from the upper slopes. Three rockfalls generated pyroclastic flows which moved down about 2000 metres from the crater. Sulphur dioxide emission dropped to 2,738 tonnes for the previous day.

On 26 December 2009, Phivolcs reported observing 33 dirty white to brownish ash columns reaching up to 1,000 metres above the summit. 26 rumbling and 2 hissing sounds were heard at Phivolcs' Lignon Hill Observatory. 406 volcanic earthquakes were recorded. 142 lava fragment rock falls were detected. Flowing red hot lava and rolling incandescent lava fragments were continuously observed at Bonga, Padang and Miisi gullies. Sulphur dioxide emission jumped to 8,993 tonnes for 25 December.

On 27 December 2009, for the 24 hours to 7am, Phivolcs reported the eruption of 9 dirty white to brownish ash columns with lava fragments, which reached heights from 800 to 1000 metres above the summit. 7 of the ash eruptions occurred in less than 2 hours from 4.20am to 5.49am on 27 December. 44 volcanic earthquakes and 297 lava fragment rock falls were detected. Flowing red hot lava and rolling incandescent lava fragments temporarily slowed down after the 10.52am explosion earthquake on 26 December, with a concommitant decrease in sulphur dioxide emission rate from the previous 8,993 tonnes per day to 2,304 tonnes on 26 December. Lava flow resumed after the 4.20am 27 December ash ejection. Despite the high volume of lava extruded since the start of the eruption on 14 December, 2009, the magma chamber below the summit is still inflated, as indicated by electronic tilt meter measurements on the northwest slope at 800m ASL elevation.

On 28 December 2009, for the 24 hours to 7am, Phivolcs reported observing 7 dirty white to light grey ash explosions reaching about 2000 metres above the summit. 44 volcanic earthquakes and 137 lava fragment rock falls were detected. Red hot lava continuously flowed down along the usual 3 gullies. Intermittent rolling of incandescent lava fragments was also observed. Sulphur dioxide emission rate increased to 4,329 tonnes per day. The government's principal volcanologist, Renato Solidum, was reported to have said the previous afternoon on radio that the magma chamber is swelling. "You might think it is taking a break but the volcano is still swelling," If the magma chamber is increasing in size, as is suggested by the quotation, this could be ominous of an impending major eruption.

On 29 December 2009, Phivolcs reported no significant variation from the previous day's report, but included a civil aviation warning for the first time.

On 30 December 2009, Phivolcs reported a reduction in ash explosions to just one rising only 200 metres above the summit. Lava continued to flow down the usual three gullies, to about 5.9 kilometres from the summit down the Bonga-Buyuan gully. The number of volcanic earthquakes dropped to 16 from 38 for the previous 24 hour reporting period. Sulphur dioxide emission increased to 4397 tonnes from 3416 the previous day. The northeast electronic tilt meter shows the magma chamber remains inflated, although Phivolcs' bulletin has not reported any increase in the size of the inflation.

On 31 December 2009, Phivolcs reported a further reduction in eruptive activity. No ash ejections were observed and only very weak to moderate white steam emissions were observed. Volcanic earthquakes dropped to 60 and sulphur dioxide emission decreased to 1158 tonnes for the 24 hour reporting period. The northeast electronic tilt meter continues to show the volcano is inflated with magma below the summit. If Mayon follows its pattern of 2008, lava will continue to quietly erupt from the edifice until the magma chamber deflates, and activity will cease for this period. If Mayon follows its pattern of 1993, the current apparent quietening would be due to the vent becoming choked or plugged, and the vent would likely be unplugged by a spectacularly hazardous eruption. The key indicator is the tilt meter measurement of inflation on the northeast slope. While the volcano remains inflated, there is high risk of a hazardous eruption. If the current effusion of lava sufficiently deflates the magma chamber, it is most likely there will be no hazardous eruption in this eruptive cycle.

On 01 January 2010, Phivolcs reported a further reduction in eruptive activity. No ash ejection was observed and only weak to moderate emission of white steam at the summit crater was seen during cloudbreaks. Volcanic earthquakes dropped to 28. Lava continued to flow down the slopes from the summit but lava fragment rockfalls dropped to 91. Sulphur dioxide emission rate was about the same as the previous day at 1255 tonnes. Tilt meter readings were not mentioned in the Phivolcs bulletin.."

Summary
I have reduced the alert level 4 daily log from twelve paragraphs to two. For the first paragraph I used the one in the lead of the article which describes the start of alert level 4, while the second paragraph is a more detailed summary for the rest of alert level 4 from late December to the decrease to alert level 3 on January 2. I also included an estimate of the volcanic material erupted so far. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As follows:

"On December 20, 2009, PHIVOLCS raised Mayon's status level to alert level 4 because of an increasing lava flow in the southern portion of the volcano and an increase in sulphur dioxide emission to 750 tonnes per day. As well, almost 460 earthquakes in the volcano were monitored everyday. In the border of danger zone, rumbling sounds like thunder were also heard. Over 9,000 families (44,394 people) were evacuated by the Philippine government from the base of the volcano. No civilian was permitted within the 8 kilometre danger zone, which has been cordoned off by the Philippine military, who were actively patrolling within the danger zone to enforce the "no-go" rule and to ensure no damage or loss of property of those evacuated. ''

Alert level 4 was maintained as the volcano remained restive through the month of December, prompting affected residents to spend Christmas and the New Year in evacuation centers. On December 25, sulfur dioxide emissions peaked at 8,993 tons per day. On December 28, PHIVOLCS director Renato Solidum commented on the status of the volcano, "You might think it is taking a break but the volcano is still swelling." On the next day December 29, a civil aviation warning for the airspace near the summit was included in the volcano bulletins. The ejected volcanic material since the start of the eruption was estimated to have been between 20 million to 23 million cubic meters of rocks and volcanic debris, compared to 50 million to 60 million cubic meters in past eruptions. ''"

Last eruption
OK. The volcano seems to have quieted down for now. The last_eruption= parameter in the infobox says, "2010. Alert Level 1 (no hazardous eruption imminent) is in effect.", citing Mayon Volcano Bulletin March 2, 2010, 10:00 A.M., PHIVOLCS. However, AFAICS, that cited source does not support the characterization of the recent period of activity as an eruption.

This source, which has been cited in support of the content of this infobox field in versions of this article prior to the recent period of activity still says, "Last Known Eruption: 2009". So, the questions arise: (1) what date(s) should this article give for the last eruption, and (2) what supporting source(s) should be cited.

Editorial opinions? Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no comment, I've changed the last eruption date back to the cite-supported 2009 date. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2011_April_5
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cagsawa church
I saw this edit in passing. I don't have time to fiddle with this just now but it struck me that perhaps a citation or two might help. Sined themee the following, which I'll mention though I have not exam:, , , , , , ,. This tool (shown with example URL loaded) can be used to generate a fleshed-out cite from a Google Books URL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry I did that. It's more a common sense thing, the original caption credited it as a photo taken before the 1814 eruption, which is impossible, heh (the first photograph was taken in 1817). The main problem is that a lot of 'reliable' sources still claim that the rest of the Cagsawa church was completely "buried by lava", when it wasn't. Partially buried by ash or lahar maybe, but parts of the facade were still standing in at least 4 photographs I've seen, all of them pre-1950's and definitely post-1814. And I saw a claim that the rest of the ruins collapsed by earthquakes during the 1950's/subsequent eruptions and weren't buried à la Pompeii, as is supposed nowadays (unreliable though so I can't cite it *sigh*, but given the impossibility of the alternative theory, I think it should do for now). I've created an article on Cagsawa though. Needs a lot of work, and I've fact tagged the part on the purported time the rest of the structure of the ruins collapsed. But at least it isn't a copyvio like the last one, heh, maybe someone from Albay will see it and fix it. I've added it into the See also section here. If you'd like to add/improve the main article on it, see Cagsawa Ruins -- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  11:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but even given that please look at it in the light of the initial paragraph of WP:V and of WP:DUE. Where there's been a shift in the accepted analysis over time but the preponderance of sources out there still describe an older analysis now generally discredited, the (scant) more recent sources can be shielded from being overwhelmed by the (plentiful) older sources by structuring part of the article into separate subsections describing the separate views separately, and separately citing sources supporting the separate views. Apologies if these remarks aren't a 100% good fit here -- I still haven't taken time to look at this specific topic and the sources mentioned here (even by me) in any detail. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Yep, I've looked at all the sources I can get my hands on, actually. The links you gave also all say the same thing as the ones I've used. In the main article of the Cagsawa Ruins itself, I avoided mentioning exactly what happened to the church to keep within WP:NPOV, settling with weasel words instead. Bad, I know heh, but I have no objections to anyone correcting it with sourced info. I would welcome it in fact,

 * But... not really sure, what you mean there. If you mean my change of the previous caption of the pic. Let me explain again. The old caption before my change was this:

 * There is one thing immediately wrong about that, and it doesn't need a reliable source to tell you that it is wrong. A very simple thing: Photography (in the modern sense) wasn't invented until after 1814. You don't need a reliable source to tell you that a photo of the church before 1814 is impossible. The first ever photograph was made in 1817, three years after the Mayon eruption, the first ever permanent photograph was created in 1826, more than a decade later. And even then they were arcane instruments unlikely to ever fall into the hands of anyone visiting a Spanish colony halfway around the world.

 * The second thing is this: The Cagsawa ruins today consist only of the belfry. You don't need a reliable source again to tell you that. The photos of it currently are enough. You will then come to two conclusions:

 * The photo was taken after the 1814 eruption. Much much later in fact, to the time when cameras became more commonplace.
 * See Photography and History of the camera
 * The ruins consisted of more than just the belfry before, as the facade is clearly visible in not just one but several other photos.
 * Compare the two pictures:

 * So yeah, I had to change it. While I can not find the sources to fully cement the reasons behind my change, I simply can not leave the caption as is with a very obvious error on it. The Cagsawa ruins are quite iconic in the Philippines, it's immediately recognizable from textbook pictures and postcards of Mayon which almost always includes it in the foreground (though most Filipinos not from Albay don't know what it's actually called).-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * RE "[not sure] what you mean there", above. If you're referring to what I said about finessing WP:DUE in a special case, I was wikilawyering off the top of my head -- something said previously here made me think that special case (a clash between lots of sources supporting outdated expert opinion vs. few sources supporting a more current consensus of experts) might apply here. Again, I haven't looked closely at the specifics here (and I should have, before commenting, but I've just got too much else on my plate right now). How to fit that smoothly into a particular case can get complicated. From an image caption, I might footnote a clarifying note containing a brief explanation and referring/wikilinking/linking to article subsections, to other articles and/or or outside sources for more detail. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded this version:

SpeakFree (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That one looks a lot better.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Mayon Volcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131219210240/http://pawb.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:region-5&catid=69:regions to http://pawb.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:region-5&catid=69:regions
 * Added tag to http://modis.higp.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/modis/modisnew.cgi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125115718/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/01/philippines.typhoon/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/01/philippines.typhoon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Mayon Volcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202103819/http://volcano.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph:80/update_VMEPD/Volcano/VolcanoList/mayon.htm to http://volcano.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/update_VMEPD/Volcano/VolcanoList/mayon.htm
 * Added tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4hTacnvPhJ8J:www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D188%26Itemid%3D1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704135457/http://210.185.184.53/ndccWeb/images/ndccWeb/ndcc_update/Mt_Mayon/JANUARY_2010/ndcc%20update%20sitrep%20no.%2022%20re%20mayon%20volcano%20as%20of%2003%20jan%202010,%207am.pdf to http://210.185.184.53/ndccWeb/images/ndccWeb/ndcc_update/Mt_Mayon/JANUARY_2010/ndcc%20update%20sitrep%20no.%2022%20re%20mayon%20volcano%20as%20of%2003%20jan%202010%2C%207am.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/01/philippines.typhoon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as there is a clear consensus for a primary topic. (non-admin closure) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 23:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

– WP:Concise and WP:Commonname: The article uses both "Mount Mayon" and "Mayon Volcano", however, the only consistent name used throughout is the name without a modifier, simply Mayon. All three names are common but the single name may be the most common of the three. WP:Primary topic: The only other similarly named article is Mayon, Cornwall which is receiving significantly less views than this article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mayon Volcano → Mayon
 * Mayon → Mayon (disambiguation)
 * Support, for once there really is a primary topic that passes both parts of the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:Primary topic. - Darwinek (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mayon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120715153304/http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Mayon/-020_caption.html to http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Mayon/-020_caption.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807132405/http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091028-232734 to http://inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091028-232734
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807132423/http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091215-242177 to http://inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091215-242177
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807132441/http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091218-242651 to http://inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091218-242651
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807132457/http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091227-244179 to http://inquirer.net/specialreports/volcanomonitor/view.php?db=1&article=20091227-244179
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103112856/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100101-245096/Mayon-quieting-down to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100101-245096/Mayon-quieting-down
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607104054/http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/236658/worst-over-mayon to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/236658/worst-over-mayon
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227204452/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20091227-244111/Mayon-instruments-intact-despite-eruption to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20091227-244111/Mayon-instruments-intact-despite-eruption
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319105953/http://www.worldisround.com/articles/53247/photo49.html to http://www.worldisround.com/articles/53247/photo49.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mayon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618122201/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61447/bodies-of-4-mayon-volcano-hikers-arrive-in-manila to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61447/bodies-of-4-mayon-volcano-hikers-arrive-in-manila
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517001442/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61233/bodies-of-5-missing-hikers-spotted-in-mayon-volcano to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61233/bodies-of-5-missing-hikers-spotted-in-mayon-volcano
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609014429/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61316/rescuers-unable-to-bring-down-remains-of-5-mayon-mountaineers to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61316/rescuers-unable-to-bring-down-remains-of-5-mayon-mountaineers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511011019/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61288/last-thai-survivor-rescued-from-mayon to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/61288/last-thai-survivor-rescued-from-mayon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 activity or 2018 eruptions
I think that section should be eruptions since the activity of the volcano is just eruptions. Itsquietuptown (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

'no i think it should not because volcano doesn't erupt daily like for example: first was inflation, 2nd days was only smoke's' Yournewsboy (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018
Bitwitch08 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Please change, Mayon Volcano is always been and will always be in Legazpi Albay not in Naga City, it can be seen in Naga but it's far from Naga. Please correct. Here's the link to prove Mayon Volcano is in Legazpi Albay that includes google map. Please correct, Mayon Volcano is in Province of Legazpi Albay. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mayon+Volcano/@13.5484293,118.2409828,5.75z/data=!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sPhilippines+government+%2B+mayon+volcano!3m4!1s0x33a1a9954fa1731f:0xdff71d3eddd0ea0d!8m2!3d13.254832!4d123.6861124 https://www.britannica.com/place/Mayon-Volcano https://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-3362132&fid=5014&c=philippines

Full Name (see definition): Mayon Volcano

Primary Country Code (see definition): RP (Philippines)

First-order administrative division code (see definition): 05 (Albay )

Region Font Code (see definition): 5 (Asia/Pacific)

Unique Feature Identifier (see definition): -2439611

Unique Name Identifier (see definition): -3362132

Latitude in decimal degrees (see definition): 13.255278

Longitude in decimal degrees (see definition): 123.686389

Latitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds (see definition): 13° 15' 19" N

Longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds (see definition): 123° 41' 11" E

Military Grid Reference System coordinates (see definition): 51PWQ7435865468

Joint Operations Graphic reference (see definition): ND51-11
 * Yes check.svg Done, mostly. Someone went through and did subtle vandalism to this whole article so if I missed something please let me know. — KuyaBriBri Talk 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Activities
there's already alot of activities must be added because of recent Catastrophic

Please semi-protect this article
Due to the recent vandalism activities done by a presumably not yet autoconfirmed user, I believe we should semi-protect this page to prevent vandalism. Itsquietuptown (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Phil1904onecentobv.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mayon 1.jpg
 * Mt Mayon.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mayon Volcano ph.jpg

title: Talk:Mayon


text:
Talk:Mount Pinatubo

Role of Katia & Maurice Krafft in evacuations
I think these two ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article. The Wikipedia page on the Krafft's states that their footage helped convince authorities that eruption was imminent and evacuation necessary. Certainly they saved many lives and the same year sacrificed their own in that line of work. Would surely be disrespectful not to mention this somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

date in article on Mount Pinatubo
text says "after 500 years of dormancy", however i feel this should be "after 460 years of dormancy"

Novarupta vs. Mt. Pinatubo
The referenced Mount Pinatubo eruption was not the largest of the 20th century. Some references have it as the second largest or the third largest. Please see the discussion at Talk:Novarupta. --Burntnickel 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
In the infobox last eruption date field there is a link to the Smithsonian Global Volcanism site that is appearing as a reference (a number is brackets). This is confusing as this is not the same as the same numbered reference in the main body text and it does not appear in the list of references. I'm not sure what the prefered solution to this problem is. Should the link be removed, made and independant reference or what? --Burntnickel 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Made into its own reference --- it's pretty easy: I did it. hike395 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for fixing that. I wan't sure how to go about it. --Burntnickel 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First Magmatic Eruptions: Which is Correct?
In the last paragraph of the "1991 Awakening" section, it clearly states: "The first magmatic eruptions occurred on June 3". However, this is contradicted two sections later in the first paragraph of the "Eruptions Build to a Climax" section, where it states: "On June 7th, the first magmatic eruptions took place". I would correct this information myself, if I knew which one was true. Anyone have any ideas? Curlyiain 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Large amounts of new material redacted
The large amount of quoted PD material isn't appropriate to be simply stuck on the end of the article. I moved it to Talk:Mount Pinatubo/new material until we can integrate it back into the article. hike395 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Trekking history of Mount Pinatubo
I have added a valuable information on the volcano's trekking history after its eruption in 1994. This information was from the wiki page of Dale Abenojar--Afrescom (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Erupting?
The article says that Mount Pinatubo is an active stratovolcano. What is it doing now? Is it just smoking? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * active doesn't mean currently erupting. I've added a link to help clarify this. Its last eruption was in 1993; the bit of the infobox that said this was broken. -- Avenue (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * So does active mean that it has erupted recently and could erupt again? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Here are monthly summaries of its activity since 1991. Since 1995, the concerns have been over lahars more than eruptions, but yes, it could well erupt sometime in the future. -- Avenue (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Innaccurate
"Although the 1991 eruption was one of the largest and most violent of the 20th century, it was weaker than any of the historical eruptions uncovered by geologists. There is some evidence that eruptions at Pinatubo are getting weaker over time, but this is by no means conclusively established." The c. 1450 eruption was even weaker, with VEI of 5! See Global Volcanism Programme. Guanlongwucaii (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)GuanlongwucaiiHi!!

The appearance of lunar eclipses
According to the article, "in the year following the Pinatubo eruption, the moon was hardly visible at all during eclipses, due to much greater absorption of sunlight by dust in the atmosphere," however in a previous section it is mentioned that sunlight was attenuated by only 10 percent. Such a decrease can readily be identified by instrumentation, but is hard to notice otherwise. If the moon was indeed hardly visible, this is more likely due to aerosol scattering, not absorption. I also think this bit requires a source. Odedee (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it active or dormant?
According to the "Activity since 1991" section, "Since 1991, Pinatubo has remained active, with twenty activity events reported in 1992, three in 1993, four in 1994, two in 1995, and one each in 1996 and 2002." But, under "The area since 1991", "Since 1992, the volcano has been dormant." Maybe it's fine, I have no clue -- I only bring it up because those two statements together confused me while reading this article. 31stCenturyMatt (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Good call. Text adjusted to reflect scientific status of active. Gubernatoria (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References used in the article
Some of the information in this article came from the sources listed below. If anyone requests more citations...:

Cynthia Banzon Bautista, The Mount Pinatubo Disaster and the People of Central Luzon

J.W. Ewert, Andrew B. Lockhart, Sergio Marcial, and Gemme Ambubuyog, Ground Deformation Prior to the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

David H. Harlow, John A. Power, Eduardo P. Laguerta, Gemme Ambubuyog, Randall A. White, and Richard P. Hoblitt, Precursory Seismicity and Forecasting of the June 15, 1991, Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Richard P. Hoblitt, Edward W. Wolfe, William E. Scott, Marvin R. Couchman, John S. Pallister, and Dindo Javier, The Preclimactic Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo, June 1991

Remigio A. Mercado, Jay Bertram T. Lacsamana, and Greg L. Pineda, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Christopher G. Newhall, Arturo S. Daag, F.G. Delfin, Jr., Richard P. Hoblitt, John McGeehin, John S. Pallister, Ma. Theresa M. Regalado, Meyer Rubin, Bella S. Tubianosa, Rodolfo A. Tamayo, Jr., and Jesse V. Umbal, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/newhall/index.html Eruptive History of Mount Pinatubo]

Ma. Lynn O. Paladio-Melosantos, Renato U. Solidum, William E. Scott, Rowena B. Quiambao, Jesse V. Umbal, Kelvin S. Rodolfo, Bella S. Tubianosa, Perla J. Delos Reyes, Rosalito A. Alonso, and Hernulfo B. Ruelo, Tephra Falls of the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

William E. Scott, Richard P. Hoblitt, Ronnie C. Torres, Stephen Self, Ma. Mylene L. Martinez, and Timoteo Nillos, Jr., Pyroclastic Flows of the June 15, 1991, Climactic Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Stephen Self, Jing-Xia Zhao, Rick E. Holasek, Ronnie C. Torres, and Alan J. King, The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Robin J.S. Spence, Antonios Pomonis, Peter J. Baxter, Andrew W. Coburn, Mark White, Manuel Dayrit, and Field Epidemiology Training Program Team, Building Damage Caused by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption of June 15, 1991

Jean Tayag, Sheila Insauriga, Anne Ringor, and Mel Belo, People's Response to Eruption Warning: The Pinatubo Experience, 1991-92

Edward W. Wolfe and Richard P. Hoblitt, Overview of the Eruptions

Seperate eruption page
Would it be better to have a page about the volcano and a seperate page about the 1991 eruption event? TimKasoar (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that sounds reasonable, since the Armero tragedy and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens both have their own articles. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Most of the article is about the 1991 eruption.  Separating it would reduce the remnant to little more than start level. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Separating it would reduce the remnant to little more than start level." this is one of the reasons why the page is undergoing a FA Review. -- Guan long   wucaii  16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the article has grown since this discussion? I think the 1991 eruption should be moved to its own page, or at least let's revisit the issue Ninjalectual (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article?
This article is so good! Why is it no longer a featured article? Has anyone vandalised this page?--Small Boss (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It met featured article standards in 2005, but standards have increased. The main reason it failed its FA review was the lack of references. --Avenue (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Effect on global temperature
"This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F), and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F)."

I think it needs to be made clearer what measure of global temperature is being used here. A fall of this magnitude is not visible in either the CRU or GISS global temperature datasets:

CRU temperatures: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png - figure from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

GISS temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Pagw (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cabusilan Mountains
These group of mountains which is part of the Zambales Mountain Range is verified by my references as just Cabusilan Mountains not Tri-Cabusilan Mountains. I am following the rules of verifiability per WP:Verifiability and WP:Verifiability, not truth. I could present ten more references to support just Cabusilan. Here, try using Google Books search for Cabusilan. Try searching for 'Tri-Cabusilan' and it will only give you books sourced from Wikipedia! Please stop spreading misinformation by using Wikipedia. Please read why verifiability is important. If Cabusilan is again changed to Tri-Cabusilan, then that would be considered as vandalism and reverted right away. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

infrastructures
In the intro it says "destroying thousands of infrastructures".

Infrastructure is a collective noun so it is already plural and does not need to have an 's' on the end. Philip Sutton (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CO2 emission
What was CO2 emission during explosion and eruption ?

What was total gas emission in atmosphere SO2 NO H2O CO2 etc ?

Please add this data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.92.193.141 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good video at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNpdwd53qgM Merlin-UK (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Aetas
Regarding Aeta people some things seem to be wrong: The majority of the today Filipinos, unlike Mexicans or Argentinians, are not of spanish descent, they are Malayo-Polynesians. This seems to be an underlying misunderstanding in this article. -- Käptn Weltall (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Aeata live all over Luzon, not only around the Pinatubo, while other closely related tribes like the Ati live on other islands.
 * Aetas like other indigenous people in the Philippines have been driven from the lowlands to the mountainsides by the malayo-polynesian immigrants, thousands of years before the arrival of the spaniards.
 * The Aetas around Pinatubo have been living there since thousands of years as well, at least according to the already linked article. Which is interesting, as it means that Aetas have been living there during previous eruptions already.
 * Spanish conquestadores in the Philippines had near to no contact to the indigenous people they christened "Negritos". They fought or dealt with Malayo-Polynesian Datus who were in power of coasts and lowlands.

Requested move 13 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the title as it is currently is correct. --  Dane talk  20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mount Pinatubo → Pinatubo – Same with Talk:Mayon. WP:Concise and WP:Commonname: The modifier/title is not needed since there is only one WP:Primary topic for the word "Pinatubo" and it is this article. The volcano is known by its proper name without the word "Mountain" or "Volcano". Based MOS:PHIL Places, the modifier is optional for well-known places. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IMO, the class name, in this case "Mount", is a natural part of the name and is normally included as part of the name of the mountain per WP:NCGN. This is unlike Mayon where sources are torn between calling it Mount Mayon or Mayon Volcano. For Pinatubo, it's always Mount Pinatubo, never Pinatubo Volcano.--RioHondo (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:RioHondo. According to the Philippines Geographic Names Database, "Mount" is indeed part of its name.  Volcano guy  00:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a person following closely media and scientific reports at the time of the eruption in the Philippines and elsewhere, it's always been Mount Pinatubo. Innapoy (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928012059/http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/Population%20and%20Annual%20Growth%20Rates%20for%20The%20Philippines%20and%20Its%20Regions%2C%20Provinces%2C%20and%20Highly%20Urbanized%20Cities%20Based%20on%201990%2C%202000%2C%20and%202010%20Censuses.pdf to http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/Population%20and%20Annual%20Growth%20Rates%20for%20The%20Philippines%20and%20Its%20Regions%2C%20Provinces%2C%20and%20Highly%20Urbanized%20Cities%20Based%20on%201990%2C%202000%2C%20and%202010%20Censuses.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scs.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~hs1/anthro/shimizu_hp/introduction/essay/Ayta_Struggling.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Pinatubo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20071209100620/http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1990/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20091206120430/http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1990/ on http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1990/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504144754/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120022421/http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/SO2InitiatesClimateChange.pdf to http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/SO2InitiatesClimateChange.pdf
 * Added tag to http://web.mechse.illinois.edu/research/gioia/Art/nature07866.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204005825/http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112681/Eng/Normal/Volcanoes_World/southeast_asia/philippines/pinatubo.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112681/Eng/Normal/Volcanoes_World/southeast_asia/philippines/pinatubo.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415191840/http://www.preda.org/main/archives/2010/r10011401.html to http://www.preda.org/main/archives/2010/r10011401.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118144033/http://www.piplinks.org/it%E2%80%99s-official%3A-pinatubo-now-owned-aetas to http://www.piplinks.org/it%E2%80%99s-official%3A-pinatubo-now-owned-aetas
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114015117/http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/2bu/2bu/view/20100529-272636/Trekking-Mt-Pinatubo to http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/2bu/2bu/view/20100529-272636/Trekking-Mt-Pinatubo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

better img
Better than the gif image used in the eruption section. B137 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request split

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Because there are many suggestions about article Mount Taal and these eruptions to merged. This time I want to request to split that eruption section into separate article namely 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.168.126 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This event is a notable one and it deserves its own article. — Emperork (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support This eruption was happened almost 29 years ago but didn't have separate article until now. Because it was one of the deadliest eruption in the Philippine history and the second largest in 20th century, it has more notable to have own article than just a section of mount Pinatubo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the eruption is notable enough for an article of its own. The section is also way too long for it to be included in the article. ITSQUIETUPTOWN  .public  • talk 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Agreed on its notability. Granted, not every single volcanic eruption should have its own article. However, this one is worthy of note, and should be easier for readers to locate if searched for. The 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens has its own article, as does the 1883 Krakatoa event, and the 1815 Tambora event, and the 1886 Tarawera event, and the 1888 Mount Bandai event, and those were before Wikipedia existed. I have read that one of the reasons that this eruption does not have its own article, is because it was before Wikipedia's time. That doesnt seem to stand up well, logically speaking, due its obvious notability as a major volcanic event of the 20th century. The Pinatubo Eruption of 1991 wasnt in the 1800s, and was easily one of the largest events of the 20th century next to the Novarupta event of 1912, honestly another eruption I'd argue that should have it's own page, possibly, but that is for another discussion. Some volcanic events are notable enough to have their own articles, in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something? SageSolomon (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. It doesn't make sense not to have an article on the 1991 eruption, which is independently notable on many levels. In fact, I think someone should wp:be bold and just perform the split already.- Alternativity (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have performed the split, though there should be content in the newly created 1991 eruption section. Volcanoguy 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ozone confusion
At the end of the lede, what does "ozone depletion temporarily saw a substantial increase" mean? That ozone depletion increased ? Or that the level of ozone increased? The cited source doesn't even mention ozone. Bermicourt (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Science
What the history of mt Pinatubo 136.158.117.80 (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mount Pinatubo


text:
Talk:Anik Mountain

Untitled
The coordinates were obtained from RedWolf 22:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anik Mountain


text: Talk:Mount Karisimbi

title: Talk:Mount Karisimbi


text:
Talk:Ben Macdhui (Eastern Cape)

Highest in the Eastern Cape?
Is Ben Macdhui really the highest peak in the Eastern Cape? What about KwaDuma, located at approximately -20.46667°N, 28.15°W? The Trig Survey map (3028AC) has it at 3019m. Or is it disqualified because it's on the Lesotho border? (And it is exactly on the border.) - htonl (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ben Macdhui (Eastern Cape). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606230403/http://www.southafrica.net/sat/content/en/us/full-article?oid=12658&sn=Detail&pid=1 to http://www.southafrica.net/sat/content/en/us/full-article?oid=12658&sn=Detail&pid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ben Macdhui (Eastern Cape)


text:
Talk:Mount Meru (Tanzania)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Meru (Tanzania). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050123002518/http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/meru.html to http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/meru.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070801162339/http://www.trekkingvisions.com/content/view/13/30/ to http://www.trekkingvisions.com/content/view/13/30/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to the article: the etymology of the name "Meru." 173.88.241.33 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 * the Hare Krishnas have a "Mount Meru" according to the cosmology described in their sacred scripture, Srimad-Bhagavatam. On one of their sites when I pointed out there is a Mt Meru near Nairobi in Tanzania boy oh boy did the proverbial hit the fan! They have a general loathing of western acadamia and very little respect for universities, encyclopedias and other "official" sources of information. I found it quite amusing that they were so offended by the suggestion that their sacred mountain could be in Africa - but I think it is worth mentioning here as a possible etymological source for the name. Btw I have no idea what Meru means in Sanskrit or Swahili. Wokepedian (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Fwiw, goo translate doesn't give a result for Swahili Meru. Well... it does. "Meru". Great help, thanks for that, goo. Wokepedian (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Meru (Tanzania)


text:
Atmosfear (series)

Atmosfear (previously known as Nightmare in certain regions) is an Australian horror video board game series released in 1991 by Phillip Tanner and Brett Clements.

Two years after the game's launch in 1991, the two millionth Nightmare board game was sold. Since then, three game expansions have been released.

A major refresh to the series was released in 1995, titled The Harbingers, which sold above the industry's sales predictions in Australia and became one of the top-ten best-selling games in the United States and the United Kingdom within months of its release.

The series was revived in 2004 with the release of The Gatekeeper, which included a DVD to replace the video cassette which, with the addition of a programmed 'randomizer', allows the creators to give a whole new game every time the DVD is played. A second DVD board game was released in 2006 entitled Khufu the Mummy, acting as a direct sequel.

A new re-release of the 2004 game was released in 2019 with an app replacing the DVD.

On November 12, 2021, a successful 30th anniversary reboot was launched through Kickstarter.

Gameplay
The object of the game is to collect six different coloured "Keystones"   and thus beat the host. For most games in the series, the "Gatekeeper" is the host but in the 2006 game and three expansions for the original one other characters take the role of the host, introducing their own rules. To beat the host, the players must face their worst fear. If none of the players are able to win the game within the set time limit, the host is the winner.

A videotape, or in later games a DVD,  is included with the game and acts as a game clock. The video stars the host of the game, who appears throughout the tape giving instructions to players. When a player has collected the Keystones, they can win the game by facing their earlier expressed "greatest fear", which is actually just a random event; if they are successful they win the game.

Characters
Atmosfear feature various characters based on real-life people or myths.

The Harbingers

 * The Gatekeeper
 * Anne de Chantraine, the Witch
 * Baron Samedi, the Zombie
 * Countess Elizabeth Bathory, the Vampire
 * Gevaudan, the Werewolf
 * Hellin (Helin in DVD editions), the Poltergeist
 * Khufu, the Mummy
 * Medusa, the Gorgon

The Soul Rangers

 * Dr. Mastiff

Nightmare
Phillip Tanner and Brett Clements met in 1982 and a year later they both set up their own television production company, A Couple 'A Cowboys. They developed a pilot and took it to Village Roadshow, which within 24 hours signed a marketing and distribution agreement. Nightmare was released in September 1991. In Europe, the game was renamed to Atmosfear to avoid legal issues with the name Nightmare, which was already taken. On the game's release, a marketing campaign was launched with advertising appearing on television and in cinemas. The game was popular in Australia, leading to sold-out "dance parties" and a number of advertising deals, including one with Pepsi. A song and a music video were also created for the game. Clements and Tanner sold the two millionth board game during the 1993 Christmas period.

Expansions
Following the success of Nightmare, four game expansions were announced but only three were released. Each expansion came with a new tape and new time and fate cards, with a different character hosting each new tape. Nightmare II was hosted by Baron Samedi and released in 1992. Nightmare III was hosted by Anne de Chantraine and released in 1993. Nightmare IV was hosted by Elizabeth Bathory and released in 1994. The game's fourth expansion was to be hosted by Khufu and to be released in 1995, but faced with declining sales of the series, it was cancelled and replaced by The Harbingers.

The Harbingers
With the feedback received from players after the release of Nightmare, Clements and Tanner started work on a major update to the series. They struck a deal with J. W. Spear & Sons, to use publishing experience and market research with Nightmare to help create the new game. The deal allowed J. W. Spear & Sons to have input into how the game was developed, which had not been the case with Nightmare. Village Roadshow was also involved with the game's development and with its release in the United States. The development ended six years after it started, with about six million dollars invested in the development of the game.

The Harbingers sold above the industry's sales predictions in Australia and became one of the top-ten best-selling games in the United States and the United Kingdom within months of its release. On the game's release, Mattel launched a marketing campaign with a spot on MTV, cross-promotions with soft drinks and a website for the game.

Booster tapes
Two booster tapes were released following the success of The Harbingers. The tapes provide a challenging experience for experienced players. They run for forty-five minutes instead of the sixty minutes of the original, and come with a new rule to limit the number of Keystones added to each province based on the number of players. Other than this limit the normal rules apply.

The Soul Rangers
A year later, an add-on called The Soul Rangers was released. This allowed players to play only as The Soul Rangers. The add-on was released because the creators found that players enjoyed causing damage as The Soul Rangers.

Atmosfear: The Gatekeeper
After nine years of development, The Gatekeeper was released on 8 July 2004. Within six months of its release, 60,000 copies were sold, growing to 600,000 worldwide sales. The Gatekeeper came with a DVD instead of a videotape, with the help of random programming allowing the creators to give a whole new game every time the DVD is played.

Atmosfear: Khufu the Mummy
A second DVD board game was released in 2006 titled Khufu the Mummy.

Unreleased Video Game
A ROM image of an unreleased Atmosfear video game for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System was released on to the internet by Hidden-Palace. It was in development by Beam Software in 1994, but cancelled for unknown reasons. The current dump of the game is 90% complete, with a game crashing glitch that happens on the Egypt level.

ATMOSFEAR: The Gatekeeper
At the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con, A Couple 'A Cowboys and Hijynx Toys announced a forthcoming relaunch of the series for 2019.

In 2019, an app based version of the game, was licensed by Creata IP and released in Australia, Spain and Portugal, with additional territories following in 2020. The rules are very similar to the 2004 game with some modifications but the key change is The Gatekeeper, performed by Jacek Koman, who comes in the form of an app that works in conjunction with a smart device creating the perfect game of ATMOSFEAR. Multiple devices can be used during the game.

Atmosfear 30th Anniversary Edition
The Kickstarter for the Atmosfear 30th Anniversary Edition concluded on 13 December 2021. The Kickstarter had a total of 3,884 backers, and the game was backed for a total of AU $491,581 with a goal of AU $90,000.

Timeline
The Harbingers of Gévaudan the Werewolf and Hellin the Poltergeist were never made into board games.

title: Atmosfear (series)


text: File:KylieMinogueDidItAgain.ogg

title: File:KylieMinogueDidItAgain.ogg


text:
Talk:Taum Sauk Mountain

Elevation
I reverted a change to the elevation that was based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, though no citation was given. The E.B. is not known to be without error, but I'd be interested in what their source is. Until better data is cited, I'll take the USGS number of 1772 as shown on the 7.5-minute topographical map as well as referenced in this educational article. (I tried putting both these references into my edit summary with TinyURL, but the second one got truncated into an even tinier url that leads off into the wild blue.) Curiously, a Topozone.com search results page lists yet a third value that differs from both the 1772 figure and the 1769 attributed to E.B.  --Kbh3rd talk  22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I added an inline reference to the USGS booklet Elevations and Distances in the United States, which seems like a reasonable source to cite. --Kbh3rd talk 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I see the Missouri Association of Registered Surveyors agrees with 1772. A bit of OR that would be inappropriate in the article without verification: I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the plaque in the picture is made from Missouri Red granite quarried nearby. --Kbh3rd talk  06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious
I ponder within my plain plain-located shanty if the mountain's elevation would allow refuge from the immense tsunamis sure to arrive after an asteroid, meteor, whatever strike upon Earth, specifically if impacting an ocean.

As long as the atmosphere remains and the planet not torn to pieces would there be suitable shelter from tsunamis encroaching upon the land?

If sufficient warning was given driving north then west to seek refuge in the higher-altitude Rocky Mountains would be best but if some form of "nuclear winter" arrived the Rockies may not be a good place to hunker down.

Perhaps to escape inundation seek solace within the heights then head for lower elevations and seek a warm place.

Of course, the rampaging human herd may pose the greatest danger to survival.

Good luck to all of ye.

An eventual strike upon the planet is assured at some future point in time. Obbop (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Prominence
I cited a prominence of 522 ft for Taum Sauk and 693 ft for Mudlick Mountain, citing PeakBagger.com. I've seen Mudlick given as the most prominent other places, too, so I believe the comparison. (Could also offer some OR from having hiked up both.) However, the values given by PeakBagger.com seem low. The MDC gives Mudlick a prominence of over 880 ft, and I know my GPS said I hiked up somewhere around 700 ft from below Mina Sauk Falls to the top of Taum Sauk. PeakBagger, by the way, has a glossary with definitions of "clean" and "optimistic" prominence, which are also discussed in the 'pedia article.

Note that a careful reading of topographical prominence shows that it's not necessarily the same thing as height from base. Prominence is what mountain climbers seem to be interested in, though, and I've not seen references for base-to-top heights. From quick glance at a topo map for Black Mountain in Madison County (37.4691°N, -90.495°W), I'd sure believe it's in the running. Need a citation, though, and we could add that to the article. --Kbh3rd talk 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation is tagged with "citation needed". I believe the source given for the supposed origin of the name, in the one-sentence third paragraph, provides enough evidence: The source text in the cited work is
 * Taum Sauk is said to be named for a Piankeshaw chief named Sauk-Ton-Qua.
 * "Long before the white man came here," Uncle Jim relates, "this land of flowers, now called the Arcadia Valley, was the hunting grounds of the Piankashaw Indians.  The Piankashaws had a famous chieftain, Sauk-Ton-Qua.  Because the name was hard for the white man to pronounce, he was later called Taum Sauk."

The speaker here is
 * Uncle Jim, an ex-railroad worker, who for many years ran a service station and tourist court from his home near Ironton, knew a host of stories and Indian legends tied up with the mountain.

Since the normal English pronunciation of $\langleau\rangle$ in a stressed syllable, and certainly in a monosyllable in a name, is, the spelling of the name that white settlers used for chief Sauk-Ton-Qua is evidence enough, and I will remove the "citation needed" tag. --Thnidu (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Taum Sauk Mountain


text: Talk:Hawksbill Mountain

title: Talk:Hawksbill Mountain


text: Talk:Mount Curwood

title: Talk:Mount Curwood


text:
Myth of redemptive violence

The Myth of Redemptive Violence is an archetypal plot in literature, especially in imperial cultures. One of the oldest versions of this story is the creation myth of Babylon (the Enûma Elish) from around 1250 B.C. Walter Wink coined the term as part of an analysis of its impact on modern culture and its role in maintaining oppressive power structures in his book The Powers That Be.

title: Myth of redemptive violence


text:
Talk:Mount Greylock

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alysscarlso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

July 2023 edits etc
Having more-or-less completed extensive and very carefully sourced re-doing of the articles on the Taconic Mountains, and Mount Everett and Mount Equinox, I've just made some moderately extensive edits to first few segments of article. Because the Greylock article is more extensive & developed at present, I doubt I'll do as much work here as on the aforementioned articles. A number of source citations in the Greylock article are dead links. I've added (so far) only one source and what should be a stable (?) link. In edits, I'm following idea "remove needless words." For example, X "is located in Y," changes to "X is in" Y. One "needless word" eliminated. I will probably continue with similar work on this article & may add additional sources. (No luck with limited efforts to revive dead citations.) 32.221.207.102 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1980s BNR book, etc
As of this moment, I've only glanced through the book (in reference list currently). Probably a very extensive, useful and reliable source for this article. I've very heavily edited this article, especially up to but not really including segment headed "History," as of the moment. I've added about a dozen sources. Current count is 72 references. Am guessing 20 or more are dead links at present and mostly not otherwise informative.

32.221.207.102 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Hopper
It's possible to find semi-authoritave source describing it as a "cirque," that's not the consensus view, apparently. The Hopper was formed by non-glacial erosion, they do say! 32.221.207.102 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Greylock


text:
Talk:Guadalupe Peak

Untitled
Climbing Guadalupe Peak should only be done if you are in good physical condition. The Park Service considers this to be a strenuous hike and would only be considered easy by veteran mountain climbers. I've been up there twice myself. For an easy hike, try McKittrick Canyon instead. H2O 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of texasbob.com link
Texasbob---you should look at Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and policy on external links to see why your link is inappropriate and will continue to be deleted. -- Spireguy 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stinky trail?
The trail is stinky? I love Wikipedia! :-)--TDKehoe (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

External link to Austin360.com blog

 * No offense intended, but I'm not sure I see what that blog post adds to the article. I've reverted the change for now; I can see that you're a constructive editor, and I'm open to being convinced that that link has a place here, if you care to advance an argument, but right now I don't see what's particularly noteworthy about that post.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, it is the nature of a collaborative editing that our work is (thankfully) checked by others. Your opinion matters and thanks for the constructive feedback and explanation. I had never heard of this peak till that article, although it is humorous, I learned more in 60 seconds about this Texas peak then before. Fotaun (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guadalupe Peak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116113632/http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Guadalupe Peak