This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve
Viedma (volcano), or
sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our
to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
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
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 articles
¿Argentina? ¿Chile? - The international territory is not delimited yet on the South Ice Fields. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
200.126.86.219 (
talk) 21:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Cambio en la página
He corregido, pués el volcán aparecia asociado a Argentina, sin embargo, está en una zona no demarcada por lo tanto ninguno de los dos países puede adjudicarselo. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
201.223.36.177 (
talk)
04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Can you please revert to my original edit? I have re-read the source papers which are cited on this page, and it is clear that Viedma is not a volcano. The GVP catalogue owners tweeted that they had removed the volcano from the catalogue in January; it is no longer listed by GVP as it is not a volcano.
Chaiten100 (
talk)
16:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Um, link to the Tweet? While it's clear that Viedma nunatak is not a volcano - something reflected in the article - it's not so clear that there isn't a volcano at Viedma (glacier) and a number of sources call a volcano there "Viedma", so one has to be clear whether we are talking about the nunatak or the volcano.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
What you are discussing is remarkably similar to the case of El Arenal, a mountain in the Northern Patagonian Ice Field once believed to be a volcano. Was there not remote sensing study that looked into the lavas of Viedma? Or was that Lautaro perhaps?
Mamayuco (
talk)
20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus:I have now found the GVP tweet and updated the links to clarify the status of Viedma, and the fact that it is no longer recognised as a volcano, thanks. I hope this looks OK now.
Chaiten1 (
talk)
16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks, but that tweet only says that the Viedma Nunatak is not a volcano. Which the article already says. I don't think that's enough to discredit the entire volcano and the GVP is not quite the last word on such matters. I've done a somewhat smaller edit.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no published peer-reviewed evidence that Viedma *ever* was a volcano. It is all speculation or inference - which has been superceded by more recent field investigations in the area. This is why it is not in the GVP database anymore - so I just don't understand why you would not wish the wikipedia page to adequately evidence the past history (that it was thought to be a volcano), and the continued uncertainty over its status.
Chaiten1 (
talk)
09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Except for all these sources that discuss a "Viedma" volcano, you mean? Not all of them did refer to the nunatak as the volcano. Just because the nunatak isn't a volcano does not mean that all mentions of a "Viedma" volcano are false - there is an entire section discussing subglacial vents, fissure vents etc. I think you are inferring too much from the GVP's actions.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply