Talk:List of peaks named Cinder Cone

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mountains

This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain

Merger

@GeoWriter: I'm interested as to why you think a list about place names should be merged with list of cinder cones. I personally believe this list should be moved to Cinder Cone (which is currently a redirect to Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds) then made into a disambiguation page. Volcanoguy 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I currently oppose such a merger:

I believe that Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds would be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for any sort of disambiguation, so the redirect from Cinder Cone seems correct to me.
List of peaks named Cinder Cone is a standard mountain set index article --- why merge it with a different list article?

—hike395 (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy, the entries in this list are places in the sense that they are examples of landforms (peaks) that have a fixed location on the Earth's surface but they are also examples of a volcanic landform (cinder cones). They are not places in the sense of towns or cities, which would have neccessarily excluded them from the groups of "peaks" and "cinder cones" landforms. This leads me to interpret your question as "why suggest merging a list of several cinder cones into a list of many cinder cones?". I don't think it is unreasonable or illogical for me to have taken the view that this is a small list of cinder cones and therefore not an unreasonable list of items to suggest merging into a bigger list of cinder cones. It is not as if I have suggested something as unreasonble and nonsensical as e.g. merging a list of places in the world that happen to have the name "York" into a "list of places in Yorkshire".

I also have some doubts about the notability of this list. — GeoWriter (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I think about the list notability guideline with respect to set index articles:

WP:LISTN says a list should either be notable as a group or serve one of the standard purposes of a list
WP:LISTPURPS says the purpose of a list in mainspace should either be navigational, informational, or both.
By definition, a WP:SIA serves a navigational purpose if it has at least 2 blue links.

Therefore, notability cannot be used as an argument to delete or merge a valid set index article.

Conversely, if we merge these peaks into List of cinder cones, I believe that we'll be violating the list selection criterion for that other page. I think every cinder cone in the List of cinder cones is notable (e.g., they virtually all have blue links). I don't believe that Cindercone Peak or Cinder Cone (Little Glass Mountain, California) are notable. If we merge, we'll "muck up" the list of cinder cones with non-notable peaks. I still think it's best to keep the lists separate. —hike395 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Later --- I think I see what Volcanoguy is saying about a dab page. Readers may not distinguish between cinder cone (the generic term) and Cinder Cone (the capitalized term that refers to a specific place. One way forward is to create Cinder cone (disambiguation) which lists the generic term, the list of cinder cones and existing articles about places starting with "Cinder Cone". That would remove the navigational purpose of this SIA and we could probably then delete it. @GeoWriter: does this satisfy you? —hike395 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395, taking your point that this set index article (SIA) is notable enough because it has at least two blue wiki links, I accept that this SIA should continue to exist. By the way, all the cinder cones in this SIA are as notable as cinder cones already listed in list of cinder cones, so adding them to that list (while keeping this SIA) would not adversely affect the quality of the list of cinder cones (which is a list that does not currently enforce any notability criteria, but that is an issue for its talk page, not here).

I now see no reason to move, merge or delete this SIA even if a disambiguation page is created to distinguish between "Cinder cone" (generic landform) and "Cinder Cone" (a place at Lassen Peak). A disambiguation page does not make this SIA redundant or less notable, because this SIA does not exist to distinguish between places of the same name, it exists on its own merits to list places of the same name that are also peaks. There is currently a hat note "For peaks named "Cinder Cone", see List of peaks named Cinder Cone" at the top of the list of cinder cones, and a hat note "For the type of volcano, see cinder cone." at the top of the Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds article, which seem to me to make a new disambiguation page unnecessary. I suggest that the only action needed is that my suggestion of merging this SIA list into "List of cinder cones" should be withdrawn. — GeoWriter (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there seems to be an issue with the CGNDB and USGS links. I assume it has something to do with the {{Mountain index row}} template because the CGNDB and USGS databases are working perfectly. Volcanoguy 22:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The first USGS link didn't work because it is about a region, not a single GNIS entry. The CGNDB links were out-of-date, so I fixed those. Thanks for letting me know! —hike395 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWriter, it is my understanding that Cindercone Peak is not a true cinder cone; it's an eroded volcanic outcrop. Volcanoguy 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my suggestion to merge this list with List of cinder cones. — GeoWriter (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy, about Cindercone Peak not being a cinder cone, could you please review your edit of 22 April 2007 in which you added "Cindercone Peak" to List of volcanoes in Canada to assess if it still qualifies for that list as a volcano. — GeoWriter (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWriter I could very well be wrong as I do not have a source that backs my claim. BC Geographical Names describes Cindercone Peak as "an excellent example of a volcanic cinder cone" but according to another source titled The Ilgachuz Range and Adjacent Parts of the Interior Plateau, British Columbia, the peak consists of crudely stratified epiclastic beds of an intracaldera assemblage. Volcanoguy 06:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the BC Geographical Names website, a member of staff of the University of British Columbia's botanical garden claims that Cinderone Peak is "an excellent example of a volcanic cinder cone". Assuming the latitude and longitude given in this SIA list for Cindercone Peak is correct, it is obvious to me (from looking at that landform on Google Earth) that it is not an "excellent example" of a cinder cone. I'm not saying it cannot be a cinder cone but I think that the claim of excellence is absurd and therefore must cast enormous doubt on the reliability of this source. — GeoWriter (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is another place named Cinder Cone in McMurdo Sound in the Ross Sea, Antartica : "Active leak of sea-bed methane discovered in Antarctica" Zigomar7 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]