This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile
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
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 6 February 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Imho, and that is done in Wikipedia too, every article that takes itself seriously, and especially GAs, should have an infobox, if possible. There are exceptions like bigger themes or more unique items, but other volcanic fields have an infobox too. I searched the archives for a proper infobox and did the comparison with the other articles that have this infobox in their articles. The Mountain Infobox is used for volcanoes, and that is the defining factor here. In reality there should be a "volcanic field" infobox with parameters specific for those articles, but in absence of that, the volcano (= mountain) infobox comes closest. The Mountain Infobox is also used for mountain belts, hills, chains of hills, etc; i.e. geographic features that do not have a specific mountain top/highest point/multiple highest points/multiple coordinates. A volcanic field is a geographical feature, usually elevated with geological properties. As of today, those are only covered in the mountain infobox, hence my choice to use that. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox shows nicely and summarised the most important features of the article. It gives a comfortable feel to articles because it makes comparison easier. Fueguino is a volcanic field that is spread out over an area, so the choice of coordinates could be made in different parts. But the exact where is for the purpose of the infobox irrelevant; the map of Chile is so large, that Fueguino is plotted always in the right place, with the marker covering the whole field (and more). The geologic history with activity is shown, the last eruption, and the administrative and geomorphological (mountain range) features this field is located in too. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your point about the lack of a volcano infobox or volcanic field infobox but I am not yet convinced that this lack means that a mountain infobox should be used instead. I agree that other volcano articles use the mountain infobox but is this only because the examples you have browsed are volcanoes that are also actually mountains? The reason why I raised my concern is because I want to find the best possible way of presenting the articles information. If the consensus turns out to be that using the mountain infox is better than using a location map then that would be fine with me. I think the issue is: "is Fueguino a mountain"? The only mention of mountain in the Fueguino article is of the Andes mountains, specifically noting that the volcanic activity of the area does not occur in the nearby Andes mountains. Also the height of (only) 150 m is mentioned. —GeoWriter (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a "mountain" and a "hill" is arbitrary. Yet, hills also use the mountain infobox. To be more correct the template would be called Template:Infobox topographically elevated area which is not a speed bump ;) ... The location map doesn't include the summarised info about the geology, for a volcanic (field) article crucial. If there's enough leverage for a volcanic field, or rather a volcanic feature infobox, I think it's useful to start such a discussion, using a set of examples. Especially with the production of @Jo-Jo Eumerus: in volcanic articles, it may be worth it. I have one volcanic field article in prep too, I use the mountain infobox, but would rather use a more specific one.
On the article itself; the main interesting feature of Fueguino is that it is "the southernmost volcanic feature in the Andes". It can be disputed that the Tierra del Fuego area is Andean, as the plate tectonic movements are different from let's say Ecuador. Either way, it should be consistent, and if the research says it's "the southernmost Andean volcanic complex", then it should be listed as Andean and Andes as mountain range. If the Andean orogeny is definitive, based on the easternward movement of the Pacific Plate and not the southern movements of the Antarctic Plate, to call it Andean, then the statement of "Andean" should be removed. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
