Talk:Cinder cone

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The terms pyroclastic cone and cinder cone seem to be exactly the same thing [1]. --Hardscarf (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pyroclastic cone can be either a tuff cone or a cinder cone. I think there's a useful distinction there, enough to be worth keeping the three separate categories (Category:Pyroclastic cones, Category:Cinder cones, and Category:Tuff cones). I don't see as much need for a separate article on pyroclastic cones, since there's not much to say beyond my first sentence above. -- Avenue (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a more general article at volcanic cone. hike395 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material written by anonymous editor 72.152.140.49 moved to /Extra

This edit was made by hike395 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC). Just tidying, as I have nominated the /Extra page for deletion. DBaK (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years is more than enough time to wait for cleanup. Delete —hike395 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the caption to the picture of Koko Crater in the article as of April 1, 2015, Koko Crater is not a cinder cone. It is a tuff cone as discussed by:

Jessica Keri Bluth (2001) Syn-eruptive incision of Koko Crater, Oahu, Hawaii by condensed steam and hot cohesive debris flows: a re-interpretation of the type locality of “surge-eroded U-shaped channels”. Master Thesis. University of Pittsburgh. 127 pp. Paul H. (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English 210.1.119.88 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]