I tried uploading an EMS map file but found that we already have it and the good picture too. ''(right)''. Bravo! [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I tried uploading an EMS map file but found that we already have it and the good picture too. ''(right)''. Bravo! [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
== Human impact ==
Perhaps a paragraph about the economy, lost banana plantations & other agriculture (although it's mostly the bananas I guess) directly affected by lava flows and ash fall would be good to mention in that section? It's after all 1) direct human impact 2) mostly measurable 3) quite sourced (plenty of Spanish articles on it). Unfortunately, my Spanish is pretty bad and I'd rather leave that to a more local editor than just barging in as a foreigner... [[User:Technicality nitpicker|Technicality nitpicker]] ([[User talk:Technicality nitpicker|talk]]) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
I'd disagree. Would be too confusing at this early point. Given the information and the few and currently somewhat ambiguous English wiki articles on the whole island, I'd rather say stick with "2021 La Palma" eruption for now. Even more so as the 1971 eruption is titled Teneguía, but described there as a vent of Cumbre Vieja in the text, this one might possibly get its own name too. Even IGN (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) uses "eruption on the island of La Palma" for now. I'd wait until geologists and volcanologists agree on a proper name. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: "volcanic" is a defining characteristic. I'm surprised the other articles you mention don't include it! Note that it does seem to be used in the category names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: If Lincoln was President from birth to death, and was never anything else, then including that in the article name would make sense to me - but he wasn't. In this case, this is really known as a volcanic eruption, it's not just Cumbre Vieja being upset at a supermarket. The name 'Cumbre Vieja' also isn't too well known, unlike 'St. Helens', so it makes sense to point out that it is actually a volcano (although 'Salamas' sounds like a genus of a lizard, so I'd suggest 'volcano' would also make sense there!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: Yes, but everyone knows what FIFA is (I know, and I really don't like football!). Searching the archives, I can't see the consensus you're talking about with regards volcanic eruptions. Hopefully others will comment here on their perspectives. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: This is an ongoing event, so the article will naturally change over time. I nominated it for 'In The News' on 19 September, but it seems unlikely that it will appear there. Since that nomination, @Vacamiera: started a new article, so a DYK is now possible.
The article is now 'In the news' as an 'Ongoing' event. I think that makes this DYK nomination ineligible; if so, please could someone close it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK an article featured in ITN only becomes ineligible if it's a bolded link. If it's just mentioned in Ongoing events then it should still be eligible, similar to how articles featured on Recent deaths can still appear on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: QPQ done, I didn't do one earlier as I wasn't sure whether this would get anywhere. Also, that RfC should really be linked to from WP:QPQ, this is the first I've heard of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacamiera and Mike Peel: Starting afresh. This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I detected one copyright issue; the first paragraph in the "Previous eruptions" section is copied directly from this source. I have removed a sentence with two tags, but there remains a "citation needed" tag in another. A QPQ has been done. Things have moved on, so how about a new hook connected with the unfortunate village of Todoque?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for the review! The paragraph with the copyright issue has been reworded. I removed the other sentence with a citation needed tag. I've added ALT3 about Todoque. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lava covered area - map box or map frame with OSM or Copernicus GeoJSON data?
How about adding a map frame or map box with highlighted area of the area covered by lava flows?
I'd add it, but I am not sure if the Copernicus EMS license is good enough for Commons (while it seems so to me to be "public/attribution", I am no lawyer and one comment on OSM asked to not use the Copernicus data on OSM). But even if adding the Copernicus json data to Commons for direct showing in a map frame (which would be easier to update than the current composite picture from 20 September by @Corintyns) might be shunned, what about adding a Wiki ID to the OSM polygon? That way it could be linked and shown as a polygon overlay in a map frame and be more up to date. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just cited an El Pais article which has a wonderful satellite picture from Copernicus, showing the lava flow to the sea. Checking the licensing, this seems to be free for non-commercial use which is problematic due to Wikipedia's insane policy, forbidding the use of such. But perhaps there's a fair-use way round this. @Mike Peel: may know more...? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Technicality nitpicker and Andrew Davidson: This sounds like a good idea. It's the concept of 'non-commercial' that is insane, not Wikipedia's rules. If Copernicus is indeed providing freely licensed information (which it *should* as a public body, but [2] is ambiguous), then that's great. In general though, we should probably be working with our OSM colleagues on this to import data from their maps into the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson NC licence is quite a 'can of worms' as NC could be interpreted very differently as per any local legislature (on the internet where anything could be "commercial") - which I guess is why it's problematic and not allowed on WikiCommons & OSM.
It seems there are some sources that should have workable licenses - perhaps even the IGN data itself (not really sure about Copernicus, as it's somewhat ambiguous as @Mike Peel noted - interpreting the text might need a license lawyer). But the map and shape at lapalma.es seems to be specifically quoted as CC-BY-4.0? That should be compatible at least for the WikiCommons, as I understand it, unless it's mis-quoted... And I believe there was at least a few shape files or at least some photogrammetry produced by local government from drone imagery, which might have had its own license (possibly some OpenData one, as most of Spain is indeed pretty much open). Technicality nitpicker (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a paragraph about the economy, lost banana plantations & other agriculture (although it's mostly the bananas I guess) directly affected by lava flows and ash fall would be good to mention in that section? It's after all 1) direct human impact 2) mostly measurable 3) quite sourced (plenty of Spanish articles on it). Unfortunately, my Spanish is pretty bad and I'd rather leave that to a more local editor than just barging in as a foreigner... Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]