Talk:Katla (volcano): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:09, 13 September 2016

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers 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.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Volcanoes Start‑class High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mountains Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iceland Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland 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.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Height

There are three different figures used in the report. Obviously it is covered by varying levels of snow, but does anyone know the official figure?--JBellis 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. —wwoods 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the dome going up and down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.184.113 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs More Details on Previous Eruptions (Duration & Intensity of Each One

The 1755 eruption is covered in detail but what about the others? Seems especially relevant since a Eyjafjallajökull eruption has always triggered Katla to erupt soon after. --75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know how long the period has been between the two eruptions at each time? --77.109.215.4 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?

The article does not cite the monstrous claim of the discharge of the 1755 eruption. Where is this factoid from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.187.114 (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total discharge validation

Quick check of river discharges:

219,000 m3/s Amazon River
12,743 m3/s Mississippi River
31,900 m³/s Yangtze River
2,830 m3/s Nile River

equals 266,473 m³/s total which is a little less that the external personal link suggested. I have updated the article to remove the external ref but I don't see any purpose in trying to point more directly to the information on the linked pages. I did leave a comment though so others considering adding a cite tag can see what is happening. Efficacious (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name meaning

What is the meaning of "Katla"?156.34.190.118 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means "dragon" apparently. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katla_(dragon) 217.83.200.243 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Astrid Lindgren took the name Katla from the vulkano. Katla comes from the norse word ketill, which also exists in english; kettle. Tthorb (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katla means the same as Latvian katls 'pot, saucepan, boiler', the name is such 'cause volcano is like a big pot. Roberts7 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)

Removing redundancy of Jökull and Glacier

This article has several references to Mýrdalsjökull glacier. But in Icelandic jökull means glacier, so this is saying Mýrdals glacier glacier. The article on Mýrdalsjökull is clear, but this article would benefit from changing references that say "Mýrdalsjökull glacier" to "Mýrdals glacier" (which is the phrasing in the 1911 Britannica as well) or just dropping the word glacier. I would like to balance the caution of dealing with a topical subject (Katla may errupt this year) with the Be Bold principle, so I'll leave this comment up for a few days before making the changes so check for reactions. Grhabyt (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but for the benefit of those who don't know what the Icelandic word means, I'd suggest writing "the Mýrdalsjökull glacier" in the first instance, then just "Mýrdalsjökull" thereafter. Just a thought...Moonraker12 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a usual problem. Actually, a name is not a noun anymore. You see this kind of thing on american maps using spanish names, english maps using german names, and if I remember it right, on maps of Indonesia and New Guinea as well. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this kind of redundancy happens a lot. But it's generally the exception, not the rule. In this case, I'm looking at clarity and at common usage. Clarity calls for removing the jökull once (as Moonraker12 suggests) its meaning is spelled out. Usage at this stage is mixed. Consistency with the article on Mýrdalsjökull is also important. 94.253.221.163 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify this; "removing the jökull once its meaning is spelled out" is the complete opposite of what I suggested, and I'm not best pleased to have my comments taken as corroboration in that way. What I suggested was to write "the Mýrdalsjökull glacier" in the first instance, then just "Mýrdalsjökull" thereafter. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Isn't Mýrdalsjökull the proper name of the glacier? If someone wrote "the town of Strasbourg" it wouldn't be redundant simply on the basis of its name in German containing "bourg" which means "town." It would make no sense to say "the town of Stras" in an english article - I don't think it makes sense to say Mýrdals glacier here. de Bivort 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there are many examples of both in English: we say "the city of Strasbourg" or "the city of Birmingham" but we also say "Ho Chi Minh City" not "Thànhphố Hồ Chí Minh City" and "Yellow River" not "Huang He River". I've been looking at lots of examples of common usage in English for this. Prior to 2010, "Mýrdals glacier" was common, especially in academic circles (Britannica uses it, for example) and "Mýrdalsjökull glacier" was also common, mostly in the popular press. But since March, "Mýrdalsjökull glacier" has become much more common in the popular press (though academic reports still dislike it). Wikipedia shouldn't be making its own decisions here, but how much should we be following popular practice versus academic practice and how much use over the last month versus use over the last decade? Grhabyt (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People must be able to find the article. Common usage rules. Intros with both names versions and redirects should be able to tackle that. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: The OP states "This article has several references to Mýrdalsjökull glacier", but on looking, I can only see one; so I'm not sure if I see the merit of this discussion any more. Where exactly is the problem? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes collection: "The majority of the Sierra Blanca range"; "Piz da las Trais Linguas (German: Dreisprachenspitze) meaning Peak of the Three Languages, or Cima Garibaldi, is a mountain"; "Lake Constance (German: Bodensee) is a lake"; "Villeneuve is a village" (Villeneuve is French for "new town"); "The Rhône Glacier (German: Rhonegletscher) is a glacier"; "Mount Agung or Gunung Agung is a mountain"; Mount Taranaki/Egmont (Tara, Maori for Mount); this is not what I wanted to show, but it gives an idea ;) (Tautology (rhetoric)#Repetitions of meaning in mixed-language phrases) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 July minor earthquake swarm

Apparently there was a minor earthquake swarm.

more info here EdwardLane (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest rumblings (13 Oct. 2011)

This news item [1] is of interest, and documents an uptick in earthquake activity. Not quite ready to add this to the article though, lest we start over-reacting, but it seems prudent to watch this for further action. Jus da fax 03:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke emplacement question (Nov 2011)

I have removed the claim that there was a dyke emplacement during November as it only had a single source. I would prefer to see a second source confirming that claim before it is added to the page. It would be appropriate to add information about the earthquakes that have happened, but I feel we should stick to the evidence and not provide unconfirmed analysis. If anyone does have a second source, preferably official, to provide confirmation of dyke emplacement, please do undo my edit and add that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minxette (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011 confirmed subglacial eruption

In 9 July 2011 the possible subglacial eruption of Katla waa confirmed by the Icelandic Meteo Office. It was however a very small eruption, not the one everyone expected. As I live in Iceland, this was widely spoken here, but not in international media. Do you think this should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent item to add if you can find a reliable source discussing it! de Bivort 22:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, English-language RSs in the 2011 section seem to say talk of 2011 "very small" subglacial eruption is speculative & other processes could account for the surface observations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]