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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Following a suggestion on User talk:D6, I'd like to format the coordinates here with Template:Coor (or rather Template:Coor dm and Template:Coor dms) to provide links to maps. Where there are several formats offered, e.g. the entry for Cordon del Azufre, I'd use just the dms instead of the decimal format. -- User:Docu
Shouldn't this article be split into two because of size? I opened this article and it couldn't load at all on an old computer... Kookoo27516:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opened fine for me. However, the article is getting too long. I agree it should be split based on continent and this becomes a link to them. RedWolf15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smartest thing would be to have one site for the different continents, then from there you can click down to Europe volcanos, Spanish volcanos, Madrid area volcanos or something similar. This just looks messy and loads quite slow even on new computers.--NoNo22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would split the others based on continent. Eventually, more countries would require their own article once they are more populated. I thought about doing a continent article for Canada and the USA but both lists alone are large enough to warrant their own page already. RedWolf15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this when List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia was nominated for deletion. Take note, that using the current system of giving each region a separate article, there are currently 44 articles listing regions which have only 5 volcanoes or less.
Afghanistan (2)
Armenia (5)
Ascension Island (1)
Brazil (1)
Cambodia (1)
Cape Verde (3)
Comoros (2)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (5)
Djibouti (4)
Dominica (5)
Equatorial Guinea (3)
Fiji (4)
France (1)
Georgia (4)
Grenada (2)
Guadeloupe (1)
Honduras (4)
India (4)
Korea (5)
Libya (2)
Madagascar (5)
Malaysia (1)
Martinique (1)
Mongolia (5)
Montserrat (1)
Myanmar (3)
Netherlands Antilles (1)
Nigeria (1)
Norway (5)
Pacific Ocean (4)
Pakistan (5)
Panama (3)
Poland (3)
Macedonia (1)
Réunion (2)
Rwanda (3)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (2)
Saint Lucia (1)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1)
South Africa (2)
Sudan (5)
Tristan da Cunha (1)
Wallis Islands (3)
Western Samoa (2)
Still, that being said, I can understand a list, under certain circumstances, including only 5, or maybe even 4 items, but still, that leaves 29 articles that only list 3 volcanoes, and if that’s not enough there are 14 articles that only list 1. Surely, if this is the system of classification we’re using, it’s not a very good one.
What I propose is that rather than having all of these separate articles, all of which list a very small number of volcanoes, we simply merge all of the articles listing 3 (or possibly 5) volcanoes or less. This would be reasonable, in that while it makes sense to have separate articles for regions that have a significant number of volcanoes, having almost 30 separate articles that list only a couple of volcanoes is a ridiculous way of spreading out information over an unnecessarily large number of articles. A single article that lists such regions would not be unreasonably long, and all existing articles could be changed to redirects. All I haven’t been able to figure out is a name for the new article.
Well. List of volcanoes was extremely long, so it was split into separate lists for each country or territory. I got your point although I personally see no problem in having separate lists even for countries with a few volcanoes. It brings a consistency and a unified standard. However, I will drop a note to a WikiProject. Let's see what other users think. - Darwinek10:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about listing them by continent, except for countries with enough volcanoes, or countries with complex enough information to need separate lists? For islands, make a list for "Volcanoes by islands of ocean X"? (SEWilco02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That sounds good to me. It would also provide a natural place for Madeiran volcanoes. However, copying and pasting the Azores list (as you have done) is not the best way to move it, because it doesn't maintain the edit history. We'll need an admin to help fix this now. I'll request this at WP:SPLICE. -- Avenue (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be handy to have a total number of volcanoes as an intro to this list? I understand there might be constant discussion about numbers and types etc, but a statement about an approx no. for those who want a quick answer. Saves having to open the list for each country and count them all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.29.58 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they only talk about active volcanoes, it begins to show how incomplete some of our lists are. In particular, we show less than 40 volcanoes in our List of submarine volcanoes, but they say that there may be over a million. -- Avenue (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just happening upon this discussion: the singular or near-singular nature of many of these lists is inherently necessary to maintain the whole sets' parallelism, and it's a nagging issue from a set of lists constructed long ago. I prefer not to think about it too much; see for instance List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chainorList of volcanoes in Indonesia for examples of "well-constructed" lists (no comment on the former's choice of table design). ResMar21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]