Jump to content

Talk:Krakatoa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Seinfeld quote

I added a Seinfeld quote from the top of my head. I'm not sure what episode it's from though. [unsigned]

"Year Without A Summer?"

Is it true that the 1883 eruption caused the "year without a summer"? Are there any articles in the Wikipedia about it? -- Zoe

According to Year Without A Summer, the eruption you are referring to was a different one. Nyh 13:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For a minute then, I'd thought that Zoe'd made a comeback. The repunctuation should prevent a repeat of this mistake. Arno 07:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Second loudest noise?

Every source I have ever read about Krakatoa states that its cataclysmic eruption was the loudest noise ever recorded. Tambora was a larger eruption in terms of volume of material ejected, but I have never heard it claimed that it was louder. Is there an authoritative source for this claim?

My understanding is that it is generally believed that Tambora's most recent eruption produced a louder noise than Krakatoa, but at the time there was no real way of measuring it, so it is correct to say Krakatoa's is "the loudest recorded". The sound wave produced by Krakatoa was, if I recall correctly, measured by barometric gauges around the world. --Gene_poole 21:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? All my volcano references say that Krakatoa was loudest; none even speculate on how loud the Tambora eruption was. What grounds are there to believe Tambora was louder? Worldtraveller 21:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in Simon Winchester's book, although without climbing a ladder to retreive it from my top shelf I can't confirm that. Tambora was the biggest eruption in modern times, so it follows that it was also the loudest.--Gene_poole 22:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's an interesting reference at this BBC Doco site to the eruption of Mt Toba in Sumatra 74,000 years ago, which states that it would have been the loudest noise ever heard by human beings. --Gene_poole 22:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't necessarily follow that biggest=loudest - would depend whether one cataclysmic eruption was responsible for ejecting most of the material or if things happened a bit less frantically over hours or days. In any case, it's got to be totally speculative if nothing was recorded (similarly for Toba). Krakatoa was recorded, and also heard by non-scientific ears thousands of miles away. My suggestion is that the article be amended to remove the speculation about how loud Tambora was and just say Krakatoa is the loudest noise ever recorded. Worldtraveller 22:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re Toba, a volcanic crater 100km in diameter can only be produced via a single explosive event. Re Tambora, its early 19th century eruption is on record as a massive explosive event, similar to Krakatoa's, and all sources state that it was a bigger eruption than the latter. Having said that I agree with your suggested alteration. The effects of Krakatoa were measured using scientific instruments (albieit not overly sophisticated ones). Those of Tambora were not.--Gene_poole 23:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Krakatoa is loudest sound in recorded history. Other explosions may have been louder, but there's no direct evidence of that (there is direct evidence for the loudness of the Krakatoa explosion). Dan100 14:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Six Cubic Miles?

I read the line that says that it ejected six cubic miles into the air. However, this PBS special (which I'm afraid I can't find a summary of) said eleven. Any idea which is correct? →mathx314(talk)(email) 00:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up vandalism

Cleaned up some vandalism. "and my underpants went to france. ha ha u suck" Do people really think they're funny? [unsigned]

Do you really need to repeat it and keep it alive? Unfortunately, some people have such small egos that they think stuff like this justifies their lives. CFLeon 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Size of 1883 Explosion

The page mentions the explosive power of the Krakatoa eruption as 200 megatons. However, another source mentioned "26 times the power of the largest H-bomb explosion", which would make it 1,300 megatons. Which is the correct figure? [unsigned]

The latter I believe. My interest is in nuclear weapons and even if 200 mt is an extremely big explosion it would not compare to Krakatoa. Even the latter number might be an understatement. Pietas 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Pietas

In the article "orders of magnitude" the Krakatoa e[x]plosion is smaller than Tsar Bomba(50 mt) "1.5 × 1017 J estimated energy released by Krakatoa eruption 2.5 × 1017 J energy release of the largest nuclear weapon ever tested." I sincerely believe it is a gross understatement. 85.218.135.110 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Date/time

What are the correct dates and times of explosion? At http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/asia/question879.html the 27 August is mentioned and also here in Wikipedia it is listed on [August 27] page, but the very first sentence sais: "Krakatoa (Indonesian name: Krakatau) is a volcano on the Indonesian island of Rakata in the Sunda Strait. It has erupted repeatedly, massively and with disastrous consequences throughout recorded history, but the most well known of these events occurred on August 26, 1883." I am confused. Experts please help. --Gorn 11:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Haven't got any print references to consult at the moment, but have found a couple of online refs ([1], [2]) which say the major phase of the eruption began on 26th, with the most devastating explosions on 27th. [3] also gives 27th as the main date. Perhaps, given that the eruption was intense through most of August, albeit peaking on 27th August, we should just say "...the most well known of these events occurred in August 1883". I've just altered it to say that, and added some extra info as well. Worldtraveller 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm reading Simon Winchester's book on the event. The largest explosion that destroyed the island occured on the 27th at 10:02 AM. The events leading up to this had been occuring for about 4 weeks prior, though the worst of the eruption began on the 26th and lasted for about 22 hours before the 10:02 AM explosion. ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 02:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't gotten around to Winchester's book, but Furneaux gives this rough timeline:
  • 1877-80 series of strong earthquakes in Sunda Strait area; one 1880 Sep 1 damages lighthouse at Java's 1st Point
  • 1883 May 20 1st sign of eruption from Perbowatan
  • 1883 May 27 GMS Loudon takes sight-seeing group to Krakatoa, several climb to Perbowatan's crater, photos made
  • 1883 Jun 16-21 black cloud covers islands for 5 days; when it lifts, Danan is seen to be in eruption
  • 1883 Aug 10 last recorded visit to Krakatoa before Big Blast, by H. J. G. Ferenzaar. Danan seems to be main source of activity, but steam seen to be coming from summit of Rakata, "as well as eleven other focii of eruption"
  • 1883 Aug 26, 1 PM after apparently several days of quiet, loud explosion heard and a tall pine tree-shaped cloud forms over islands, this spreads rapidly over the strait- Anjer is blacked out by 2 PM. By about 4 PM, the entire area is dark and remains so for 3 days. Occasional flashes of light and explosions are seen from Krakatoa the afternoon and evening of the 26th.
  • 1883 Aug 27, approx 1 AM 1st great wave destroys Simik, near Anjer
  • " " , 4:40 AM 1st collapse- Perbowatan and the northern section of the island destroyed
  • " " , about 6:30 AM 2nd collapse- submarine vent near Perbowatan
  • " " , 10:02 AM Great Collapse- much of seabed to west, Central area and Northern half of Rakata collapse
  • " " , 10:52 AM 4th Collapse- Danan collapses
  • " " , about 4 PM- end of engulfment phase
  • Minor signs of eruption from Rakata continued through mid-Oct, some of this was due to landslides from Rakata's cliff face or mudflows due to monsoon rains.
  • 1884 May 27 1st recorded visit to islands after eruption, Cotteau sees spider in cleft on southern slope of Rakata
  • 1927 Jun 29 1st notice of submarine eruption; several islands formed and were washed away, the current one is Anak Krakatoa 4- which broke water Aug 12, 1930.

Ok, now some comments. A lot of times given are confusing, different waves destroyed some areas and left others alone. Although many Europeans had pocket watches (which needed to be wound every day to keep time), people in the area had more important things to do than check watches every time something happened. The centennial book has the same basic sequence but gives somewhat different times for several events; some of the disparencies in times may be due to not allowing for air travel time (many times are from sources in Batavia (modern Djarkarta), which is about 8 minutes away at the speed of sound) or the travel time of the waves CFLeon 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Audio recordings of Volcanic Eruptions

On May 18, 1980 I made an audio recording of the Mt. St. Helens eruption as heard in Newport, Oregon. Newport is 140 miles (225 km) from Mt. St. Helens. Here is an excerpt of the recording: BBC On This Day 19 May Scroll down to "Dave Miller's recording". The quality is poor, but I think this may be the only audio recording of the 1980 eruption that was made. It may even be the only audio recording of an explosive volcanic eruption? Or at least as heard from so far away. Daveincamas 23:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 1980, I lived in east Portland in an area that was almost as close to Mt St Helens as you can get on the Oregon side of the (Columbia) river. We lived near the top of a hill that slopes towards the north down to the Columbia and had a great view of Mt StH, at least until a neighbor let a tree grow too big and blocked it from the living room window. The main explosion occured about 8:30 AM on a Sunday morning and I had been out the previous night seeing a movie with some friends. Slept through it and woke about an hour later. No one I talked to said they had heard any sound from StH, and the local university (Portland State) put up a display next to the seismometer about 'acoustic shadows'. Last time I was at PSU (several months ago), they still had the seismograph record of May 18 displayed with the earthquake indicated. CFLeon 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Some sources cite...

I just removed the phrase (some sources say 36,417) from the section about deaths in the 1883 eruption - I think if we want to quote such an exact figure we should clearly cite the source. If anyone knows which sources quote that figure it would be good to include it. Worldtraveller 19:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furneaux's Krakatoa (1964) gives good numbers, citing Verbeek (probably Krakatau Atlas). Page 182 has a table giving casualities by district. A simplified version:
   Sumatra     12,500 casualities  (5 European)      104 villages entirely destroyed, 36 partially destroyed
   Java        23,917   "         (32   "     )       61   "            "             96    "              
   Total       36,417   "         (37   "     )      165   "            "            132    "

Only the European figures were considered reasonably accurate, It is not mentioned how Verbeek arrived at these figures- probably a combination of body counts and village censuses. In all liklihood, the death toll was much higher- ships reported seeing bodies at sea or on pumice rafts for weeks. CFLeon 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand how such accurate figures could have been calculated. Surely the Dutch couldn't have kept census data on every native inhabitant living in the wide area affected and with the resultant tsunamis, costal villages could have lost inhabitants many hundreds of kilometres away (the article states ships in Souith Africa felt the tsunami). Also, the article currently says 36,419 people died near the start and 36,417. Is the 1st figure an error/vandalism? Canderra 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How loud was it?

Just HOW loud was this sound?

So loud, that people around the world rethought that third bowel of chili. :P --Kross 08:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's the East Indies, not the West. More likely to be curry than chili. CFLeon 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It says in the article that it was heard all the way in Austrailia Shameen 18:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
If you're trying for an idea of how it would compare to, say, being at a concert or next to a jet engine, it's not really comparable. Ignoring all other effects (heat, ash in the air, etc.), the blast of air would probably blow out your eardrums if you were say, within a couple of kilometers. There is a theorectical maximum of decibels that can be carried in air, and Krakatoa probably far surpassed it. CFLeon 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Distance of Perth from volcano?

In the article it states "the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius." Does anyone know just how far this is? It would be helpful to the general public to have this fact. maltmomma 19:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It says in the article its about 4,800km, but im not sure if it's correct Shameen 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
By my calculations, it is approximately 3070km from Krakatoa to Perth, I have added this in. I also confirmed that it is approximately 4800km to Rodrigues, and added this as well LuNatic 06:19, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

cut from article

I just removed the following unencyclopedic-styled text from the article. But it may be correct - can someone please research it and return a modified version to the article?

The explosion also caused the earth to wobble and thus made days shorter (according to a Nova episode I just saw).

Nyh 11:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of encyclopedic style, that statement seems to me (a layman) extremely unlikely to be true. An explosion large enough to cause the Earth to "wobble" would surely have been immense, with catastrophic results far beyond the actual effect of the eruption. In addition, for days to become shorter the Earth would have to speed up, and I think it would take a far larger explosion to do that, if it's possible at all. --Urbane legend 12:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Loudness

I keep seeing dubious SPL levels posted, so I'm going to try to find some reliable sources. See also Talk:Decibel#Krakatoa_dB_level.

Original reference from "KRAKATOA ERUPTION BOOK":

  • 310 dB, unknown distance
  • 170–190 dB at 100 miles

Other references:

— Omegatron 18:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How does this work?

"Pyroclastic flows killed around 1000 people at Ketimbang, located on the coast of Sumatra some 40 km north from Krakatoa." DId the pyroclastic flows cross the ocean? Rich Farmbrough. 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes; they are composed of a cloud of superheated gas with suspended red-hot dust. They can easily cross over water. - MPF 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I've edited the geographical section a bit- explained the reference to 'Polish Hat' made later, put translations for Lang and Verlaten from Dutch that I've seen (if anyone actually KNOWS Dutch, please confirm!), and put the cones in a better order. If anyone knows the source for Perbowatan or Danan's names, please let me know! (I've heard that Perbowatan is a Malay word, and there is another volcano named Danan on Java.) I think, rather than the woodcut, a copy of the May 1883 photo should be posted, along with a shot of the current islands. A good map would be useful, also- perhaps one from the Krakatau Atlas, which should be long out of copyright. CFLeon 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Deserted is probably the better translation from the Dutch Verlaten--KJTD 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the visit by the crew of Discovery in 1780 should be mentioned; and that may lead to a small bit about the history of habitation. Discovery found natives living on the island in 2 or 3 small settlements, and in 1809 the Dutch established a penal colony there. (This is according to Furneaux, but he doesn't say where- although by context, the main island of Krakatoa rather than Lang or Verlaten, is meant.) By 1883, the islands were deserted, although fishermen and woodcutters regularly visited. The islands had a bad reputation because at some point, pirates had had a base there (again, according to Furneaux, who does not give a date for this). I'd also like to know when the park/nature conservatory area was established; c 1915, a exploitation permit was given to a fellow who lived on apparently Lang for a couple of years and different parties spent time camped out, usually on Lang but sometimes on Verlaten, during the '20s and '30s. CFLeon 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the introductory sentences a bit. I think this form works a bit better, the original author apparently thought Krakatoa and Rakata were 2 separate islands (to be precise: Krakatoa is the island and Rakata is the volcanic cone, but the names are used interchangably) and I've located the Sunda Strait better. (I still think a map is needed!) CFLeon 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up some minor vandalism that I caught and also rephrased an edit about the previous eruption that formed the present islands. There is no information about the older configuration- whether it consisted of a single cone or several (although Verbeek certainly talked as if he thought it was a single cone and drew an outline in an illustration as if it was). CFLeon 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Later Eruptions

Thought I should at least mention this. There were reports of eruptions from Rakata until February 1884, but Verbeek discounted any later than Mid-October as 'hallucinations' (his term). No further eruptions are known until June 1927, when a submarine eruption was seen in the area that had been between Danan and Perboewatan. This became Anak Krakatoa, which is the source of all subsequent eruptions. (Although I have found a single puzzling reference that mentions an eruption of Krakatoa in 1969 separately from Anak K. I'm inclined to put this as a error at some point in the reporting or listing.) CFLeon 03:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Anyone have any maps showing the layout of the islands ? -- Beardo 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The best source easily found is probably the centennial book. Finding online stuff that meets Wikipedia rules is rather difficult, but I have found a USGS map that seems to meet the rules. I haven't posted images before, so this is going to take some trial and error. If someone in London or New York that has access to a copy of Verbeek's Krakatau Atlas, it should be long out of copyright, so please post some of those illustrations!!! CFLeon 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1883 section... should it be separated?

The 1883 section has too much information to be part of an article. I propose that we write a shorter summary under that section and have a "main article" link to a separate article, which has the current text.

Krakatoa is primarily known because of the 1883 catastrophe. The length of the 1883-related material may justify separate placement, but then you'd have a very weakened main article left. It would be like having 'Victoria as Queen' separate from HER biographical page, or 'Louis the 14th as King' separate. Or 'Sinking of the Titanic' separated from 'Titanic'. CFLeon 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd, seemingly misplaced line:

Under the 'Worldwide Effects' subsection, there's a line that reads: "The area around Java is now known as Lady Bull because of its fiery nature." This seems to be rather on the incongruous side - there's no explanation for the statement that I can make out. Is this something that was slipped in, or something that should be fleshed out? Tony Fox 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I definetley think there should be more pictures here.

Untitled

200 MT is a giant understatement of the true energy released in the eruptions. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-mole-missile-nukes-science-debunked-2017-5?r=US&IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.253 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

in line 416 AD event: "greatly shaken and violent thundering, accompanied by heavy rain and storms took place, but not only did not this heavy rain extinguish the eruption of the fire of the mountain Kapi, but augmented the fire; the noise was" change this 60.225.3.230 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

Also, mentioned by the "tacky little dance band from Athens, Georgia", the B-52's, in their song "Hot Lava", which begins with this lyric:

"My body's burnin' like a lava from a Mauna Loa My heart's crackin' like a Krakatoa Krakatoa, east of Java, molten bodies, fiery lava" Clicker33 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please present your proposed change in an "change X to Y" format for clarity. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Split suggestion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a n

Article Split Proposal. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the splitting of the Krakatoa article, thereby creating Anak Krakatoa as a separate article, was:

Consensus Reached–Split Article.-->
— — — — —

I would like to suggest splitting the section about Anak Krakatoa into it's own article. It's a different mountain with different height, size and other parameters. Sure it's located on the same place and was given birth by the same hotspot, but due to the amount of information about the two and the popular interest I feel like we can easily write a great separate article about it. Additionally, the current situation results in a clusterfuck. For example, the height mentioned in the infobox is the height of the current mountain, yet the picture used is of the original mountain's erruption, which destroyed it. There are numerous similar situations across the article. P.S. It exists as a separate article on 10 other language versions (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2205302) Openlydialectic (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support as they are distinct concepts. I think the increasing use of Wikidata makes it harder to hold closely-related concepts in one Wikipedia article if they have distinct Wikidata IDs. I've encountered that issue in a number of quite different articles. It seems that the historic and current mountains are going to have increasingly separate identities, so they will likely need to be split eventually. To counter my own argument, fr:Krakatoa includes Anak Krakatoa and is the equivalent of a Featured Article. --Scott Davis Talk 04:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong Support many years ago there was one large article to accomodate everything to do with krakatoa and all the derivative subjects - then (as I was also editing a lot of Volcanoes in Indonesia artiles at the time) there was a separation.

I believe that further separations are essential - as the krakatoa that did the big bang in the 1880s - is in no way the krakatoa of popular culture - or the current effusion known as anak/child... Careful editing now also could reduce the material into the separate articles to reduce duplication of material inside atricles. JarrahTree 06:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Strongly Support the motion, not only given recent events, but also the fact that the eruption of Krakatoa in the 1880s leveled the original volcano, giving rise to Anak Krakatau. In my opinion they're two separate beasts. They're even separate articles already in various other languages (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak_Krakatau).
-Chevy111 (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Strongly Support per Chevy111's arguments just above, based on the events of the last few days. Those like me with some casual knowledge of Krakatoa are aware of Anak is, at root, the same volcanic feature, but the 20th/21st Century island is distinct from the one destroyed in 1883, and comparable users will come looking first for Anak Krakatoa. BSVulturis (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Weak Support they are the same volcano. Just like the article about the Yellowstone Caldera covers the past locations of the caldera, the island pre-1883 was just a past form of the volcano. Just like the article about Yellowstone, the article focuses on the current situation. However, there's enough material about the past volcano to write a separate article, which can be split off. The lede image should be changed to Anak Krakatau, and essentially the article should be about Anak Krakatau, with eruptive history as a section (and of course, main articles on both 1883 and the former volcano). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Strongly Support They are two different things, both physically, and historically. The Yellowstone example mentioned above would likely be handled differently if there had been more than one major eruption from that volcano in historic times (luckily, there was none). The Anak Krakatau section as it is now deserves expansion that is difficult to do within this article.Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support agree they are the same volcano but there is sufficient good material for the two eruptions. Looking on the dark side (sorry) we may not need to worry too much about its Wiki entry if either Yellowstone or Anak Krakatau kick off big time. JRPG (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Weak Support The volcano erupting in the Krakatoa/Krakatau island group in 2018 is the same volcano that erupted at the same location in 1883. Volcanoes are inherently dynamic and can change radically over time. Examples include Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia. Mt. Tambora lost over 1400 km of height in a caldera-forming eruption in 1815. Mount Saint Helens in the United States lost about 400 m of height in 1980. Anak Krakatoa is the rebuilt subaerial portion of the volcanic edifice. It is a new island, but it is not a new volcano, nor even a new mountain, since the base of the volcano survived underwater. If there is a split, it should be clear that the new article is about the island, not the volcano, with a link back to Krakatoa as the main article. GeoGreg (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not large, so this is not necessary. As GeoGreg says, volcanoes are inherently dynamic. Srnec (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the feature is called Anak Krakatoa, its origins maybe from the what was left after Krakatoa eruption, unlike the other examples offered by GeoGreg reliable sources make the distinction between the two. According to this article Anak Krakatoa started in 1927 it has been subject to continuous study, given that there is also significant amounts of information that would overwhelm this article and distract from the significance of the 1888 event Gnangarra 16:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support I believe a lot could be said about Anak Krakatoa so the "short article" argument would not apply. But regarding the Wikidata ID's, Wikidata's data has been largely disorganized and any help to establish a precedent for whether an edifice of a volcano should be considered a distinct entity there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Relevant wikidata or wikipedia items I found:
Krakatoa and Anak Krakatau have different Geonames IDs. Many of the other properties seem to be mixed or ambiguous, and neither of them have any time qualifiers about destruction or creation. --Scott Davis Talk 23:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anak Krakatau is now a different volcano/island than Krakatau, with its own characteristics and other phenomena such as eruptions. This year, Krakatau did not erupt, but Anak Krakatau did. So why not give Anak Krakatau its own article?Methychroma (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds to me like there is consensus for splitting the article, and the discussion has died down. What comes next? Renerpho (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:Split discussion.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A modified copy of this template can be found here.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

The 2018 collapse eruption is estimated to be a 4 on the VEI, which would make it the largest eruption from Krakatoa since the 1883 eruption. I think it would be appropriate to have something along those lines as its quite a significant event. https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/krakatau/news/72509/Krakatau-volcano-Sunda-Strait-Indonesia-activity-update-Large-portion-of-Anak-Krakatau-appears-to-ha.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBoldStep (talk • contribs)

@LBoldStep:  Not done per WP:CRYSTAL: "Could reach" is not "reached".--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced eruption claim

The article currently claims that an eruption of Anak Krakatau occured on 19 Feb 2017. The eruption is mentioned in [8], but that source is potentially unreliable as per revision [9]. Previously, a "Citation Needed" tag asked for a source, but I believe the "dubious" tag is more appropriate, because the claim in the article is likely based on the unreliable source directly. Either a reliable source should be added, or the claim should be removed.Renerpho (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The height is completely unreferenced

Just wanted to give everyone a headsup. Idk where that measurement comes from, or whether it's the height of the mountain before 1883, before 2018 or after the most recent eruption

The volcano is growing with each year, by 5m in height. So any data referencing 813m height must be scientifically referenced with ideally Harvard style reference. If 813m height refers to 2015 data, than the mountain by this point would be 20m taller.

It is unlikely the volcano will experience super eruption any time soon, but we should have documented history of the volcano, for when it does experience super eruption which could happen within several centuries from now, would be nice to have detailed reference in place for future generations. 2.30.129.90 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Michael2.30.129.90 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The 813 m altitude is referring to Rakata Peak on the main island, which is NOT the current eruptive vent. (Rakata itself is probably extinct, since its conduit was virtually destroyed in the 1883 collapse. In any event, it's been shown to be lying on a secondary fissure from the magma chamber.) The rate of growth is referring to the current eruptive vent, Anak Krakatau, which is still a separate island. CFLeon (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Verbeek's 1885 monograph states (translated from the original Dutch; I have the (1983) English reprint in front of me as I'm typing this):
pg 190: (referring to the pre-1883 state) "It can be concluded from our maps ... (that) the height of the peak was 822 m, according to the chart [apparently talking about the 1854 English chart, mentioned previously, although the 1874 Dutch chart is also mentioned]."
pg 262: "It seems that the highest top of Krakatau has remained intact and that the collapsed area exactly over this point. According to our measurements the top is 832 m high. The old sea chart shows only 822 m, which cannot be correct, because the top certainly has not increased in height, for the thickness of the eruptive products is very minimal near the top."
[He's basically saying that the 1883 cleavage was at the summit. Elsewhere, he attributes the discrepancy to inaccuracies of the older surveys.]
[A note to this adds: "In 1929, [Charles E.] Stehn measured a pumice thickness of 5 m at the top."] ["Top" is referring to the summit of Rakata Peak.]
The 813 m is given (with no direct reference) in Catalogue of the Active Volcanoes of the World, Volume 6: Indonesia (1951), pg 51. CFLeon (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

813m is given in the Britannica on-line, presumably the 1911 edition. I'd say a much bigger problem is the preceding line, giving a height of more than 88km, which would make it about 10x the height of Mt. Everest. Not sure if that line should just be deleted, or corrected somehow. Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

yo it erupted just now today 2020

somebody get on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.16.53 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it was Anak Krakatau that erupted, although some news sources do not make the distinction. Ashmoo (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Pralape" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pralape. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Pralape until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add : And in 2021 Los Angeles rock group Hard Toffee released a song Krakatoa delineating the history of the volcano. Relfot (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See Krakatoa#In popular culture GenQuest "scribble" 04:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Geology of Krakatoa?

We have almost no information re this in our article! By personal recollection, most of the volcanoes in this part of Indonesia are basaltic andesite? --or something similar. Need to have enough silica to make a BIG bang, and a steep(ish) mountain. Ill try to remember to do a bit of research. But maybe someone who knows the area can step in? My sole "boots on the ground" visit was to climb Mt Merapi outside Jogja, ca. 1979. It rained a Lot! --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Krakatoa erupted 439-40

Krakatoa darkened the Earth 439-40 according to the tree rings. Mass casualties 2600:1700:21F8:DDF:5880:FF25:BED9:141A (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krakatoa/Archive_1&oldid=1133899011"