Talk:Kunlun Volcanic Group

Location / Belts

Part of the disucssion was copied from User talk:Voidvector

Are you sure that this edit is correct? If it is, the reference needs to be changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Their satellite image is showing the correct location (you can compare the outline of the lakes with any mapping service), but the coordinates is wrong. I can try find something with correct coordinate. --Voidvector (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

After further reading on this topic -- there are two belts for this Volcanic group. Quote this blog in English:

Recent volcanism are distributed in two belts oriented generally E – W. The southern belt is controlled by the Kangxiwa fault. It has three volcanic districts – Kangziwa [sic], Dahongliutan, and Quanshuigou. The northern belt has four volcanic districts names North Pulu, East Pulu, Ashikule and Adamupaixia. The southern belt was generally active 4 – 8 Ma. The northern belt has been active 3 Ma – present.

The coordinates provided by Smithsonian here are around Quanshuigou (of the less active southern belt). The most recent active volcano is at Ashikule. I have yet to find a source that explicitly mention the coordinates, but most of those locations (Ashikule being the 1951 eruption) can be found on maps. I saw some maps that seems to be from academic paper I might see if I can cite that. --Voidvector (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Voidvector:There are some coordinates here but they might be unduly specific. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking Subgroups

@Voidvector: Regarding this edit, it does not seem intuitive for me that the name of a volcanic field should link to the name of a town, especially as the town looks like it's a fair bit away from the field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was uncertain when I first made the edit. Having looked up the actual paper and the geographic location of the subgroups, I am going say, out of the 9 locations, it is fine for 7 of them. The reasons are as follows:

• Most of the locations are middle of nowhere -- highway rest stops, uninhabited places with barely any traffic
• All the volcanic subgroups are geographically confined without 30km radius
• Unlike strata, these volcanic subgroup can easily be described in text in the article in question
• Allow visitors of those places/readers of those articles to learn about volcanoes
• if a geologists drives to the locality ("town"), they would be within 20km of the actual volcanic subgroup

Here's a run down of those geographic locations:

Name	Type of Place	Has English article	Acceptable to link	Remark
Tianshuihai	Military outpost in desolate area	Yes	Yes
Quanshuigou	Highway waypoint	No	Maybe	Quite far away from highway waypoint
Keliya	River / Town	Multiple	No	Likely named based on the river. Town is far away. already separate articles for various Keriya
Heishibei	Lake in desolate area	No	Yes
Ashikule	Valley/lake in desolate area	No	Yes	This place is only notable because of volcanoes
Qitai Daban	Mountain pass along highway in desolate area	No	Yes
Dahongliutan	highway rest stop	Yes	Yes
Kangxiwar	dead town	Yes	Yes
Pulu	town/valley	No	Yes	There is a village with the same name, but the volcano (as a tourist site) is more notable than the village

--Voidvector (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

To me this sounds like original research, which we don't allow, unless the towns are exactly coincident with the volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It is OR because it is a talk page comment responding to your concern. The citation can be obtained from the map in the paper.

Also there is no rule requiring "towns are exactly coincident with the volcanoes" to be mentioned or link, because that would require the town to be inside the volcano. --Voidvector (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)