Talk:Mauna Loa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Mauna Loa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] older entries

Homework by the uninterested adolescent replaced.

In tracing the origin of the four paragraphs describing an old but historical eruption on Mauna Loa I see it was added anonymously underb "punctuation repair" I can find no reference in the text provided to what volcano is being described, and there was no eruption of Mauna Loa in 1840 (year that the Wilkes expedition climbed the mountain, I believe). So I'm deleting the text as probably plagerized or made up and not relevent to Mauna Loa.Marshman 00:15, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

There are no references. slambo 17:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now there are. -- hike395 13:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mauna Loa is an inactive volcano it can NEVER let me repeat NEVER erupt again some people say its still active but it is NOT because every 2 years it erupted and the last time it erupted was 1984 also people went down into the volcano ( this is called spalunking ) adn found NO magma there which means it can NEVER erupt again NEVER EVER NEVER FOR EVER NEVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER FOR EVER NEVER erupt again dont listen to anyone else because it is inactive i repeat inactive because i am a spalunker and that is what we found today so it is inactive i repeat inactive uf you say its active you are a LIAR =[[ so the correct info is it is inactive =]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] thank you for your time =]]]]]]]]]]]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.249.49 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Someone thinks they're more expert than...well, the actual experts. A note to "unsigned": If you took the time to do a little research, you'd find out that "inactive" does not equal "can never erupt again". And, quite frankly, that all caps and misspellings do little to enhance your message or credibility. Kindly cease wasting space with ranting. Farristry (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Wiki articles...

In the article about Mauna Kea "Mauna Kea is also the tallest mountain in the world when measured from base to peak" whereas in this article it is saying that Mauna Loa is... I have been told many times, including from my Geography Teacher who seems to have a very good knowlege of volcanic features says that Mouna Loa is the highest [although I haven't posed the question to her I just remember her telling the class that Mauna Loa was the higher than Everest and that from its base it was the highest land feature...]

El.numbre 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)el.numbreEl.numbre 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mauna Loa is the world's largest volcano in terms of volume and mass, but is, as the article says, slightly shorter than Manua Kea. 71.131.239.160 05:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading "13,796 feet" above sea level for Mauna Kea, and a slightly lower height for Mauna Loa. So both go over twice as high as Denver (if Denver is a "mile high" place at 5280 feet above sea level).

Agent X 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory sentence

The inflation has been intermittent, sometimes stopping for several weeks, and although its rate has slowed at times it has not stopped and is likely to indicate an increased probability of an eruption in the next few years.

Well? Has it stopped or hasn't it? —Keenan Pepper 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, a citation for that "next few years" claim would be nice. —Keenan Pepper 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep English spellings consistent

The article is correctly using English spellings of Hawaiian words. It should stay that way. There is no need to use Hawaiian spellings. So I edited the few inconsistent uses of 'a'a, etc., by removing the apostrophes and macrons, as they do not belong in English spelling. Since the article has nothing at all to do with Hawaiian language, there is no conceivable relevance for the use of any Hawaiian spellings. The sole exception is the explanation that mauna loa means "long mountain" in Hawaiian. And that was correctly done, italicizing the Hawaiian forms (which happen to have no glottal stops or long vowels in the Hawaiian spellings). Two-word place names, like Mauna Loa, use uppercase for both word-initial letters. So I edited "Ho'okena mauka" to "Hookena Mauka". In Hawaiian, Uka would be expected rather than Mauka, as in Ho`okena Uka (like in Kalihi Kai, Kalihi Waena, Kalihi Uka). The form Hoopuloa (or even Ho`opuloa) looks a bit odd as a Hawaiian place name. Perhaps someone can double check that name. Agent X 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The okina should not be typeset as an apostrophe in the first place, so it's a good thing you removed them. —Keenan Pepper 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea about the place names, but IME that sort of lava is usually called 'a'a, not aa;[1] in any event, 'a'a links somewhere sensible, unlike aa, which is a disambiguation page. Perhaps `a`a or ‘a‘a would be better? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I think we should purge all Hawaiian spellings. As ALoan says, some are more common than anglicised versions, and it makes sense to use whatever is most commonly used. I don't feel terribly strongly about it though. Worldtraveller 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1. In opposition, "to use whatever is most commonly used", rather than using proper, established, nativized (i.e., Anglicized) spellings of loanwords, does not make sense at all. Consider the English loanword sushi, from Japanese. The word is "most commonly used", in speaking, by native speakers of Japanese, and is "most commonly used", in writing, by native writers of Japanese. In the Japanese spoken form, the vowel "u" is normally devoiced (silent). In the Japanese written form, it's normally in kanji or hiragana, not in roman letters. So the most common use (the Japanese use) is different from the English use. But native speakers and native writers of English are not going to devoice the "u", nor write in kanji, simply because the English use of sushi is less frequent than the Japanese use of the word.

2. Consider the Hawaiian version of Wikipedia. According to the view that you expressed, Hawaiian-language articles should use English spellings whenever the English spelling is "more common than [hawaiianized] versions", right? So Hawaiian-language writers should write "Jesus Christ" instead of "Iesū Kristo", and "soap" instead of "kopa", and "dollar" instead of "kālā", etc., etc., right? Because English use of Jesus Christ, soap, dollar, is "more common" than Hawaiian use of Iesū Kristo, kopa, kālā, right?

3. I'm strongly advocating the position that the "default spelling" should be the native spelling, where native means the language in which the article is written. The native spelling for Hawaiian-language articles is Hawaiian (not English), and the native spelling for English-language articles is English (not Hawaiian). Therefore, this English Wikipedia article on Mauna Loa should use English spellings by default.

4. Returning to aa, ALoan is confusing the spoken form with the written form. Who does not understand that English spelling and English pronunciation most commonly do NOT match? It is inappropriate to expect writers of English, or any other language, to perform orthographic gymnastics to give birth to non-native, pseudo-IPA spellings inspired by an effort to imitate pronunciations. The English word through is pronounced [θɹu], but we do not spell it "θru", and we do not spell rough as "rəf". Likewise, aa is pronounced [ˡa.ʔa] or [ˡʔa.ʔa] in English, but it is spelled "aa" in English.

5. In Hawaiian, the word is pronounced [ʔa.ˡʔaː] and spelled "‘a‘ā". However, in the Hawaiian Dictionary (Pukui and Elbert 1986:389), on the very first page of the English-Hawaiian section, the second entry is "aa. ‘A‘ā. See saying, wāwae." The authors of the Hawaiian Dictionary correctly used the English spelling "aa" of the English word aa, in proper distinction from the Hawaiian spelling "‘a‘ā" of the Hawaiian word ‘a‘ā. (It's the same in the 1971 version of the dictionary. I don't have a copy of the 1957 version, but I bet it's the same there too. The established, correct English spelling has been "aa" for a long time already.)

Back to the "aa" issue. The ʻokina and kahakō are vital when the words are used. The words "aa", "aʻa", "ʻaʻā", "ʻaʻa", and "ʻāʻā" ALL have DIFFERENT meanings. The same is said of "kala" and "kālā". I'm curious as to what your dictionary says. Yours seems to be different from the rest of the Hawaiian dictionaries. --Kanaka maoli i puuwai 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

6. The point about links in Wikipedia for aa versus 'a'a only reflects lack of knowledge among the people who made the links.

7. Are you still against the well established English spelling "aa", even though it has been endorsed through usage by the authors of the Hawaiian Dictionary? Agent X 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... but "Hawaii" is not an English word. It's obviously borrowed straight out of a formerly foreign language. So if some people borrow it as "Hawaii" and others as "Hawai'i" (yes, with an apostrophe, because right or wrong that's how we borrowed it) both seem technically to be English words borrowed from another language. I am ambivalent because on one hand the apostrophes are a slight inconvenience and the okina template markup much more so, but on the other hand Hawaiian (Hmmm, "Hawai'ian"???) is a phonetic tool that tells you how to say a word and I'd hate to break it. The only solid opinion I have is that because this Wikipedia is written in English and any Hawaiian words we actually use in a sentence are technically borrowed into English, it almost never makes sense to use the okina template because it is not a part of the English typography. But perhaps there is a technical/searching motivation behind this? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I shifted the word Hawaii back to the english spelling. Hawaii is an english word with a Hawaiian derivation. This is English-Wikipedia. Mistermistertee (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style indicates otherwise. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect?

Can we semi-protect this article for a couple of weeks? I just fixed multiple vandalisations that weren't caught by other editors --- it's a shame for a featured article to be so vandalised that garbage can persist for weeks and no one notice. hike395 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Yikes. Anyone let me know if you want it unprotected (and please put it on your watchlist if you do). Antandrus (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric CO2

What exactly does this image have to do with the article? What does it mean that CO2 levels are rising? JHMM13(Disc) 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the graph is just to show the kind of data collected by the asmospheric observatory on the mountain. What it means that CO2 levels are rising? see Global Warming. --Rocksanddirt 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leftover ref

I noticed this in an HTML comment in the reference section:

  • Kaye, G. D., Using GIS to estimate the total volume of Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii, 98th Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America, (2002).

HTML comments are for wimps. Either it is in or out. You guys decide.--SallyForth123 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In. I put this in years ago: it meant to stick to the volume estimate in the lede. hike395 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1935 eruption

I added some info about this eruption, which actually saw the US Army Air Corps attempting to divert the flow of lava from Hilo with aerial bombs. Anynobody 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does magma go so far up?

As I understand it, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, and Loihi are related volcanoes, though with different magma reservoirs, and certainly fed by the same hotspot. But Mauna Loa is roughly 10,000 feet higher than Kilauea and 20,000 feet higher than Loihi, and even further above the ocean floor. Could someone explain for the article how it is that such a massively heavy column of molten stone in an earthquake-prone region can't find some way to deliver itself to a lower destination? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Often it does; see rift zone. -- Avenue (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] me

the mauna loa is the larg volcano ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.247.147 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)