Talk:Cinder cone

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