Talk:Mota Lava

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melanesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Wikiproject Volcanoes?

I have a little problem with the tag on Volcanoes on this page. Mota Lava (where I lived for 2 years) has nothing that resembles a volcano, except that it is slightly mountainous, and these mountains geologically originate in metamorphic/volcanic activity. But I think this is in fact the case for just ALL (or most of) islands of the Pacific Ocean!!! (except atolls) So are we going to tag with "Wikiproject volcano" just all entries for Pacific islands??? Even the people of Mota Lava never mention a volcano in their own island -- contrary to the two big volcanoes in activity that can be found in the Banks group: Vanua Lava and Gaua. And there is no such thing as a volcanic crater on Mota Lava (just a couple of small mountains). So unless proper arguments are set out here, I think I will remove this tag soon, for I think it is irrelevant. Best, Womtelo 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I'll happily agree that the volcanic nature of the island is not one of its most important aspects (although the article's coverage of it could use some expansion). I also feel that other relevant wikiprojects (e.g. WP:MELANESIA) would deserve higher billing here than the volcanoes one. (I haven't added that tag since I'm not a member of that project.) However extinct volcanoes are within the scope of the volcanoes wikiproject, not just high-profile active volcanoes, so I think the volcanoes project tag should stay. -- Avenue 00:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Womtelo, it seems the island is entirely volcanic in origin, and the article even prominently mentions the term "stratovolcano". The goal of an encyclopedia is to present knowledge about all facets of a subject such as this island, not to ignore certain aspects just because the people who live there choose to do so. Most residents of most volcanic islands tend to either be unaware of, ignoring, or deliberately hiding the volcanic nature of their homes. The reasons vary: most people don't know much about geology, so they may not know it's a volcano. If they do know their island is a dormant (but potentially hazardous) volcano, then ignoring the volcanic nature gives residents peace of mind, and trying to hide it may increase needed tourist income. But those are not valid reasons to leave out information about the volcanic origins and any potential activity or hazards, just because "the people of Mota Lava never mention a volcano in their own island." The fact remains that the island itself is a volcano.
I think Wikipedia is best served if every relevant WikiProject tags a given article, and then each project proceeds to improve various aspects of the article. This gives the maximum synergy which is what makes Wikipedia successful. Removing relevant (even distantly relevant) WikiProject tags runs counter to that purpose and to Wikipedia's goals. It is not as if WikiProject Antarctica has come here and tagged this article, which would clearly be outside its scope. The island is a volcano, and there is no benefit to removing the tag from this article, and no harm if it stays. If we choose to include an article in our WikiProject, then we may eventually make constructive improvements to it, and that is exactly how the system should work.
By the way, you say "except atolls." But almost all atolls are volcanic in origin: they are huge volcanoes rising many kilometers from the seabed, with only a compartively small veneer of coral at the surface along the outer edges. All atolls of volcanic origin would be within the scope of the WikiProject, although only a fraction of them where the volcanic origin is important or interesting (see e.g. Kure Atoll) are likely to be tagged with the {{Volcano}} banner.
I hope this clarifies things. Please let us know if you have additional concerns. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You don't need to tell me what the goal of this encyclopedia is, in such a patronizing tone. I was asking politely about the best choice to make. My question was: Knowing (I think) that the Pacific Ocean has just hundreds of islands originating in volcanic activity, are we going to add just ALL these islands to the Volcano project?? (including every island of Vanuatu + of the Solomons + of Hawaii + Fiji...) If you think so, and nobody finds this cumbersome, then I have no objection. Alternatively, if you admit that this tag should be added only to those islands that have an "important or interesting" volcano, then I am challenging that statement for Mota Lava. While I admit perfectly the tag for the neighbouring islands of Ureparapara (extinct volcano but spectacular crater), Vanua Lava or Gaua (two active volcanoes), I can't see how Mota Lava qualifies. It has no trace of any crater; let alone any volcanic activity; if it was ever a volcano, it is not dormant but extinct (insofar as I can judge, but I'm not a specialist). How do you know this is a dormant stratovolcano? Note that I am not claiming anything, and I perfectly admit this is just ignorance on my side; I'm just asking, and I can trust you since it seems to be your specialty. But what is our criterion for adding or not the Volcano tag -- knowing that it could theoretically be added (I think) to almost every island of the Pacific (including atolls!)? Are stratovolcanoes particularly rare in the Pacific?? Best, Womtelo 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
I feel that if an article about an island of this size mentions that the island (or part of it) is a stratovolcano, that is a good enough reason for the volcanoes project to keep an eye on that part of the article. Tagging talk pages will hopefully help us do that. Maybe this is a quixotic quest, given the number of articles involved; I have wondered about that myself. But I think that it's too early to really tell (the project's less than two months old), and I think it's best to attempt to be comprehensive for now. However, if there is consensus that the island's volcanic origins are too insignificant to cover in this article, and that information is deleted, then I think that the project tag should also go. I have found a bit more information about the island's volcanoes (see the link I've just inserted), which I'll try to add to the article soon. -- Avenue 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Avenue, Thanks for this courteous reply. I agree with you, we can wait and see. Thanks also for the link, which is instructive. Being myself a specialist of this island's culture, I find these matters interesting. Best, Womtelo 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Womtelo, I apologize if you felt my comment had a patronizing tone. That was not my intention. It is difficult to convey tone properly while typing at a keyboard, so you should not assume intentional discourtesy. I have also been replying to several other people who have raised similar concerns about volcano tags on other islands, e.g. in the Canaries, Azores, etc. One of them even thanked me for my great reply, so I do not think my comments are generally found to be patronizing.

However, I do find other editors' resistance to the placement of volcano tags on volcanic island articles to be puzzling. I also thought that your statement that "unless proper arguments are set out here, I think I will remove this tag soon, for I think it is irrelevant" was not appropriate, and was counter to Wikipedia's goals, so I stand by my previous attempt to clarify those goals. I believe there is no reason to remove other Wikiprojects tags if they wish to include the articles and work to improve them.

I am open to considering that perhaps I am the one who is wrong here and is misunderstanding something. In that case, I would appreciate it if you could please tell me why it would be good to remove Wikiproject tags, and what the benefits of such removals might be. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, forget it. Womtelo 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC).