Talk:Rangitoto Island

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shield volcano

Rangitoto looks like a shield volcano - should this article include a link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shield_volcano ?

It's in Category:Shield volcanoes already. I see no problem if you work in a link to Shield volcano somewhere in the text.-gadfium 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geolinks

Does anybody know how this template works? MadMaxDog 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Sky Tower for an example of its use. For any template that doesn't have documentation on its talk page, use "What links here" to get examples.-gadfium 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monogenetic?

Rangitoto Island does not strike me as a monogenetic volcano, given that such volcanoes only have one period of activity. The article clearly states that Rangitoto was formed by a series of eruptions commencing at least 6000 years ago, with the latest activity having taken place between 550 and 600 years ago. This is not characteristic of monogenetic volcanoes. Volcanoguy 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The research which proved the multiple episodes spanning a large period of time is quite new. It certainly makes Rangitoto very unusual and I'm sure the researchers are thinking about revising their understanding of the history and type of this volcano. However, at this time, I do not believe there have been any new papers published which suggest any change in the type of the volcano. It will be interesting to see what is published next. Dinobass (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple episodes of volcanic activity did in fact occur at Rangitoto Island that would indicate the volcano is polygenetic rather than monogenetic. I found a source from 2009 titled "Polygenetic magmatism in a monogenetic field: an isotopic investigation from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand" that describes two discrete stages of activity at Rangitoto. The source can be found here. Volcanoguy 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty strong, and now they have evidence of an even longer period of activity, even stronger. I can't seen any reason why you shouldn't change the article to reflect this. Dinobass (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say they have evidence of an even longer period of activity? The 250,000 year period refers to the entire Auckland field. Volcanoguy 06:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this issue of monogenitic eruption or not immediately struck me when I looked at article today and suspected it to be inaccurately written as I had been reading the recent Auckland volcanic field peer reviewed literature. The corrections `I have done today required reading several peer reviewed papers and understanding which if any inferences had stood the test of time since 2013 odd. I think I have found my way around the confusion as it turned out many references were news articles that referred to peer reviewed work and almost all the news articles were dead links, but much of the literature is now available. I also noted an inference from a 2018 annual DEVORA conference (annual University of Auckland conference on Auckland's volcanic fields at https://auckland.figshare.com/DEVORA which went to a dead link and was unlikely. The conferences from 2020 to the last one in Jan 2022 confirmed that my interpretation from the peer reviewed literature was now mainstream but work continues on sorting out if Rangitoto is a sequence of monogenetic events with the big one of ~600 years ago or might be a bit different and evolve into something like the extinct Karioi shield volcano which apparently a researcher in Germany is currently trying to find evidence for. -claim no expertise on Rangitoto but at least I have walked it several times and once long ago listened to an academic lecture on it at the Auckland War Memorial Museum which was interesting as some radiocarbon data had just been obtained that probably created what Nichol later called popular folklaw. Reg Nichol 1992 The eruption history of Rangitoto: reappraisal of a small New Zealand myth.ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While ensuring age consistency, given peer reviewed article published this year^[1], I noted the modelling of high resolution gravity and magnetism data in this article as well as its treatment of the two different composition magmas from two separate dikes that might have separation down to more than a km, but possibly only 250m, at two separate times. So thought the two different compositions deserved a mention. I have removed the three cone reference as irrelevant geologically and thus structurally given the peer review but not committed fully to north cone rather than first eruptive centre being northern given the magnetism data in Fig 10 and gravity data in Fig7 B models. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Luthfian, Alutsyah; Eccles, Jennifer D.; Miller, Craig A. (2023). "Gravity and magnetic models at Rangitoto Volcano, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand: Implications for basement control on magma ascent". Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 439 (107824). doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2023.107824. ISSN 0377-0273.

Rangitoto (disambiguation)

Can I suggest moving all the recent hats to a disambiguation page except for the islands, as it is getting out of control. Other items for such a page could include Rangitoto Channel, Rangitoto College, Rangitoto Lighthouse , Little Rangitoto , Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay, Mangōnui, D'Urville Island, the term Rangitoto Yanks, Rangitoto Colliery and a few ships with the name. Will do it myself if there is a weeks consensus. Of course any one else is welcome to get such an needed new page to their name but perhaps a weeks wait will add a few more suggestions as to Rangitoto's with articles or are significant landform features with this name. Cheers ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea - I'd suggest keeping Rangitoto Island as the primary topic for 'Rangitoto', and everything else goes to a new disambig page, Rangitoto (disambiguation). Prosperosity (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Luthfian, Alutsyah; Eccles, Jennifer D.; Miller, Craig A. (2023). "Gravity and magnetic models at Rangitoto Volcano, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand: Implications for basement control on magma ascent". Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 439 (107824). doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2023.107824. ISSN 0377-0273.

[1]