User talk:Marshallsumter/Original research/Volcanoes

Volcano maps
Since I was asked to participate in this project, I assume due to my experience with making over 150 Google maps of history and science for MyReadingMapped.com, and as a retired marketing communications manager for complex technical products, can someone please explain the size and scope of the project, because my initial research on volcanoes this afternoon indicates the project could be huge involving many maps.

For example:
 * what is the goal?
 * who is the intended audience (professionals and/or general public)?
 * how technical is the data involved, and how many participants are involved?
 * what organization do you desire, links to maps, or a simplistic embedded worldwide map that is a directory to other detailed country or regional maps?

While I have worked in teams and with committees before, I am somewhat concerned that the volume of decision makers on a public forum like this may get in the way of getting a consensus that does not end up having me revise the maps over and over on a project of the scale I imagined.

Also, has anyone created a Google Map using a spreadsheet because I have not? All my maps were created manually. What I need to investigate are what fields MyMap requires. Below is a template of what I assume it needs based on what a Good Earth article suggested, but I have never tried using it.


 * Spreadsheet template I made for MyMaps

Also, how many collaborators would be working on the map or spreadsheet at the same time?

Also, I have to find a way to keep my Google Account and web site map activities separate form this project without Google limiting my access and progress on either. I suspect we need an account set up for this project and I may need someone to set it up for me and give me access to it.

--Pragmaticstatistic (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Volcano Project
First, I'd like to thank everyone who has responded so far on the colloquium page, user pages, and here.

My specific interest in volcanoes comes from the use of what are called tephra layers. Each is usually chemically unique to a specific volcano because the rocks beneath that volcano have been melted and are usually unique to its specific location. Each tephra layer can in turn be dated by various isotope techniques. The number of tephra layers at any location depends on the nearness of a volcanic source and/or the ash carrying conditions of the atmosphere.

Consider Mount St. Helens:
 * 1) last eruption producing at least one tephra layer was in 20 b2k (May 18, 1980).
 * 2) Tephra set W, late in the 15th century, probably in 520 b2k, has at least two separate layers We and Wn. Wn occurs in the Greenland ice cores at 520-521 b2k.
 * 3) Tephra set Y occurred shortly after 4,000 b2k and continued at least to about 3,300 b2k. Does not seem to appear in the Greenland ice cores.
 * 4) Tephra set J, occurred between about 10,500 and 12,000 b2k.
 * 5) Tephra set S, occurred about 13,000 b2k.
 * 6) Tephra set C, occurred about 36,000 - 50,000 b2k. Mount St. Helens originated during this period.

Mount St. Helens is an excellent example of a volcano that produces tephra. The Hawaiian volcanoes usually do not produce it.

The other contributors to the overall volcano project have apparently been listing and including volcanoes of all types from near each contributor's locale. So the scope and grandeur of the project appears to begin world-wide and extends to those on other astronomical bodies (also an interest of mine). --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Map questions
From reading the various comments on maps my first thought was that Pragmaticstatistic may want to think about a smaller number of volcanoes, and at most one map with each additional volcano entered into it over time.

Each volcano is assigned a volcanic explosivity index (VEI) using an exponential scale. Those with a VEI ≥ 4 are likely to be the ones producing significant tephra for dating purposes.

What is the goal? The entries on Volcanoes, list come originally from an apparent classroom group describing specific volcanoes of interest to each class member. Since then about a dozen others have contributed to these resources over the past year. A popular resource may receive about 100-1,000 views a month. So the main goal is education through reading and participation.

Who is the intended audience? Mostly students and teachers at levels from primary through college or university constitute the intended audience. Researchers view these resources as well.

How technical is the data? Good coordinates are important so that each volcano can be viewed using these maps. Some volcanoes are large enough that even somewhat inaccurate Wikipedia coordinates work. Others seem to be off the mark. I prefer to get coordinates from a geologic source.

Organization? Should you decide to participate, perhaps a simplistic world-wide embedded map would be best that uses the volcano name to take the viewer right down on the volcano independent of the political region.

Contributors? At first glance I believe you would be the contributor to whatever extent you feel comfortable. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Volcano, Volcanos, and Volcanoes
A lecture/article or class, with quiz, entitled: Volcano is a good idea, especially about the phenomenon. Additional resources are a good idea because the amount of information even on one volcano would likely be at least 100 kB. I believe we probably cannot have too many resources on such a popular topic.
 * 1) Volcano/List and Volcano/List/Mount Vesuvius can be for example a list of eruptions, or a description.
 * 2) Volcano/List/Ring of fire can be a list of volcanoes that are considered in the ring of fire, for example.
 * 3) Volcanoes/Mount Vesuvius can be overall description with images.
 * 4) Volcanoes/Tephra layers and Volcano/Tephra layers/Mount St. Helens would both be useful.
 * 5) Volcano/Volcanoes could be used to keep all resources under one title.
 * 6) A redirect for Volcanos to Volcanoes is appropriate as the latter seems preferred at least at USGS.
 * 7) My only concern about Volcano versus Volcanoes is that the former may seem too close to Volcano from Wikipedia. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some interesting observations:
 * 1) Resource title - Wikiversity: Astronomy, hits per month 368,  Wikipedia: Astronomy, 58120.
 * 2) Radiation astronomy, 2123, Wikipedia Radiation astronomy, zero, no such title.
 * 3) Dominant group and subpages, for 2014: 93361, Wikipedia Dominant group, zero, no such title.
 * 4) Motivation and emotion and subpages, for 2014: 416127, Wikipedia Motivation and emotion, zero, no such title.

It may be the case that the more unique a resource title is to Wikiversity, the higher the hits per month. Readers looking for information may search Google and other web browsers for it. Sometimes a Wikipedia entry shows up. Sometimes a wikiversity resource shows up. I don't have enough data to confirm this effect, but if it has merit we should use that to increase the impact of Wikiversity. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)