Talk:Krakatoa/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Krakatoa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I'm not an editor, but would you say this counts as vandalism?

"Its best-known poo culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent and bad smelling piece of poo in modern times."

Hesitant to change --illyria20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.107.253 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2Al + 3H2O = Al2O3 + 3H2
Mg + H2O = MgO + H2
2K + H2O = K2O + H2
2H2 + O2=2H2O  

This is real largest thermit explosion. Zgrad (talk)

Anyone have a recent picture? The engraving currently illustrating the article is from before the 1883 eruption, which was massive and explosive enough that the volcano really looks nothing like that anymore. --Delirium 00:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

You're right - but the article is about the volcano that was called Krakatoa - and strictly speaking it no longer exists. The current 19th century illustration is an accurate depiction of that volcano before it was blown to smithereens. The new volcano is named Anak Krakatoa - same place, different mountain.--Gene_poole 05:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about that picture- I know that Winchester uses it, but I first saw it used for Krakatoa in the juvenille version of Rachel Carson's The Sea Around Us (dating from the early '60s). It doesn't seem to have used for any of the 1880s publications (if I'm wrong, please let me know!), and bears no resemblance to any of the sketchs before or after the eruption or the May 1883 photographs. Granted, the photos are of Perboewatan with probably Danan in the background, and the woodcut is of Rakata to the south, but it doesn't seem to have room for two more cones even on the other side. And, the island DOES still exist. The northern 2/3 disappeared with Perbowatan, Danan and the northern half of Rakata (along with a good chunk of seabed to the NW), but the southern half of Rakata still remains and actually grew in area to the west due to pumicefall. The island went from approxiamately 18 square miles to 6 square miles. Photos of Rakata's cliff are quite striking, in part due to an exposed dike in the middle. Recent pics may be found online at Volcano World. CFLeon 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know anything about the origin of the woodcut, but the more I look at it, the more I can see some similarity to pictures of Rakata seen from the south- in particular, Verbeek's Oct 1883 woodcut reproduced in Furneaux. If you remove the uppermost white area at the summit, it's quite similar. Some of the 1883 accounts seem to indicate that Rakata's summit collapsed before August 26. But the altitude measurements of Rakata's peak before and after the catastrophe indicate no change, and there doesn't seem to be much similarity to other pre-1883 drawings from the west or east. Plus, when I tried as a control, I was also able to see a resemblance to Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens pre-1980. CFLeon 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture in question was first used in The Royal Society's 1888 report [The Eruption of Krakatoa and Subsequent Phenomena]--Toddcarnes (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have lots of photos of Krakatoa that I took recently but dont know how to upload them. If someone wants to email me at edwin_phillips@hotmail.com i can send them through. [unsigned]

I've added a Landsat picture of the area from 1992. Anynobody 07:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Krakatau was not pretty much below sea level. Most of it went into the atmosphere during the blast. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Krakatoa doesn't exist anymore. It was obliderated in the 1883 eruption. There is a new volcano in its place however, its name is "Anak Krakatau"--~PogoNoodle~ (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article. The original island does still exist, the remmant is the southerly island in the group- the cliff face seen in pictures looking south. about 1/3rd remains- roughly 6 square miles.CFLeon (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the old volcano is "Krakatau." Shouldn't we use that one in the article, and flip around the way things are set up right now (Krakatau redirecting to Krakatoa)? Of course, the section explaining the roots of the name should stay, to explain the common misspelling. I checked on Google, and the score is about 197,000 to 84,000 in favor of Krakatoa. Google shouldn't be the final arbiter, but it does show that a sufficient proportion (about 30%) are using the correct spelling. On Wikipedia, though, it's overwhelmingly in favor of (the incorect) Krakatoa). The US Geographical Survey (a far superior authority to google) prefers Krakatau.

I personally think that as much as possible, Wikipedia should use local geographic forms. (Is there a wikipolicy on this? I looked in the style guide but couldn't find it.) However, I checked another one (Turin/Torino), and it goes in favor of the English spelling (Turin). However, for Livorno, it avoids the English spelling (Leghorn). So it's pretty inconsistent throughout. I guess putting the local name in parenthesis after the English name is ok, but in this case, where the common English spelling is ?based on a typo? [suggested in the article], I think we should go with the correct (Bahasa Indonesia) spelling. (Ironically, "Bahasa Indonesia) redirects to "Indonesian" grrrrrr) Binkymagnus 18:38, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

You're right that there's no consistency - I think these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, someone suggested moving Victoria Falls to Mosi-oa-Tunya, but that was not done because Victoria Falls is by far the most familiar name to most people. Ayer's Rock, on the other hand, redirects to Uluru - not the most common name for it but probably as well known as the old colonial name and increasingly commonly heard these days. In this case, I would personally think we should stick with Krakatoa, because it's the name most people are familiar with and would be searching for information on. But to be honest I don't feel too strongly about keeping it there, I'm happy with either way.Worldtraveller 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should use the terminology that most people are familiar with, as that is what we can reasonbably expect them to be searching for. Our job is not to correct historic "errors", but simply to report them, along with an explanation of how they came to be. --Gene_poole 23:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been poking around on the internet, and noticed something interesting. A lot of geological sites tend to use Krakatau [USGS, U. of South Dakota] whereas lay sites use Krakatoa [Simon Winchester's popular book]. On the issue of putting in what people are searching for, that's what the redirect is for, and anyway, I personally think the point of Wikipedia should be to inform people of things they didn't know. And really, if we really wanted to cater to what people are searching for, Wikipedia would become a porn site ;) Anyway, ref worldtraveller's comment, I did the same google test I did for Krakatoa/Krakatau on Uluru/Ayers rock, and came up with almost the same results. 650000 Ayers Rock, 320000 Uluru (33% Uluru), and Uluru is the name of the article. On the Victoria Falls one, it's not even close to that (2.6 million Victoria Falls, 23,000 Mosi-oa-Tunya). I say we take a stand for historical accuracy, and against typos, and rename the article Krakatau. For Mt. McKinley/Denali, the Google test is overwhelmingly in favor of Denali (although that one is skewed by the fact that there's an SUV called Denali). In this case, it's so minor that I don't think any damage would be done by switching to Krakatau. Anyway, I'm going to start this same debate on the McKinley (should be Denali) page. But I also think it should not be a case-by-case decision, but I think there should be a wiki-wide decision to create consistency. I'm kind of new to wiki, is there a community-wide page to dicuss policy issues like that? Binkymagnus 01:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Don't forget that Wikipedia is designed for a general readership, most of whom are familiar with "Krakatoa" and have never heard of "Krakatau". As long as we explain the difference within the article we are being sufficiently informative. Concerning the google test, it is not a valid benchmark in this case; most of the scientific references it pulls up are related to the new island of Anak Krakatau, which did not exist before the 1920s - although it is sited at the same location as Krakatoa. --Gene_poole 02:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the inconsistency thing is bugging me. I wonder if there's an external authority that could be agreed upon for place names. But anyway, I don't think Anak Krakatau had that great of an effect on the googling, since there are only 840 hits on it. Not surprisingly, the proportion of Anak Krakatau to Anak Krakatoa is similar to the Krakatau/Krakatoa. Although to me (I speak Indonesian) Anak Krakatoa is really weird, since anak is Indonesian, and Krakatoa is not. Oh well, I guess I should be "shocked, really shocked" that there are inconsistencies out there. But I do think there should be some normative educational value to Wikipedia, since, for example, I did not know that Ayers Rock was called Uluru until I saw it on Wikipedia. So I guess you learn something every day.

But either way it's spelled, I don't much like sentence 2 of para 1 of the origin of the name section. Because either way you like to spell it, the statement "nearly all mentions used the spelling Krakatau," is simply not true. And I think "probably" is too strong for the theory that Krakatoa was a typo. I'll freely admit that Krakatoa appears to be preferred (even if it bugs me). I've made a couple of changes to that (I've also italicized Krakatau, since it's in Bahasa Indonesia). I left it as is (Krakatau) in the reference to onomatopoeia, though, because the original namers who were allegedly inspired by the parrots, called it "Krakatau." As for the thing about "Kaga tau," should it stay? It says that explanation has been discounted (it is silly), but it's a good story, even if it is apocryphal. Feel free to make changes if you think my anti-Krakat"oa" ism has crept in. Binkymagnus 03:31, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this issue. On one hand, the English language version of Wikipedia should use the most common English name, as the Bahasa Indonesian Wikipedia (for example) should use the most common Bahasa Indonesian name. On the other hand, moving the page to Krakatau, with Krakatoa redirecting to it, wouldn't do any harm as readers would still be able to type in Krakatoa to get the article they want. How is this rectifiable? --Urbane legend 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To complicate matters, some older sources (pre-World War 2) spell it 'Krakatao'. I'm ignoring all the other variants which never caught on (I've found about two dozen) - just the ones used after 1883. The Dutch always used 'Krakatau' in every source I've ever seen; and that does seem to be the preferred spelling in the non-English world, as well as academically. English references are stil influenced by popular treatments (21 Balloons, The Time Tunnel, the movie and all those children's volcano books) which use the '-toa'. It seems that since the 1983 centennial, the push has been to use the '-tau'. CFLeon 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All the variant spellings before 1883 that I've ever seen make it clear that 'Krakatau' was the form actually heard. Another point: 'Krakatau' and 'Rakata' obviously have a common origin; this is more apparent if you hear how 'Krakatau' is actually pronounced by a native speaker. CFLeon 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've collected about 2 dozen spellings variants and not one is 'Krakatowa'. In all literature I've seen, the Dutch used 'Krakatau'. However, I'll freely admit I have no access to any original forms except the 1883 Nature report. CFLeon 07:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I was just wondering about this article title being misspelled (even if it's become colloquially correct due to constant misuse), and saw this discussion. I agree with Urbane legend that the public would be better served by having the correct spelling (as shown by the results from the various academic/scientific sources mentioned by Binkymagnus) and having the popular misspelling redirect to it. I trust the results of querying academic/scientific sources much more than Google. So, shall we settle this issue? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've found the origin of the spelling 'Krakatoa'. Just the other day, I was going through some hand-written notes I had made and found an instance where I had written 'Krakatau', but I had been a bit rushed and the last 'a' had not looped as much as it should and looked more like an 'o'. Someone else reading a hand-written note or journal entry could easily mistake the 'au' for 'oa', and the South Pacific-type ending actually sounds reasonable. It's quite common to find this sort of confusion (another example is 'gavial' for 'gharial').CFLeon 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What's probably more likely is that 'Krakatau' was spelled the Portugese way, 'Krakatao', and then someone switched the 'o' and the 'a'. Whatever the reason, the fact that 'Krakatoa' is the most common spelling in English is not a very good argument to keep doing it wrong. Compare, for instance, the country of the Netherlands. Every man and his dog calls it 'Holland', yet Holland was a state that ceased to exist towards the end of the 18th century. Personally, I do not understand why an incorrect name should be carried on, just because it's common. An encyclopaedia is all about correctness, and so 'Krakatoa' should redirect to 'Krakatau', rather than the other way around. SeverityOne 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it became the common name, the fact is it is the common name. that it might have been an error all that time ago is irrelevant. Merbabu 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Krakatau is the name of the volcanoe that Krakatoa made when it erupted, so considering that this website is talking about Krakatoa and its eruptions over the years they should not change the name because Krakatau has not erupted yet.

The spelling of the volcano's name is shown on early British and Dutch Admiralty charts as KRAKATAU. It is known that the telegraph sent advising the news agency in London started off spelling the name of the volcano as "Krakatau," but evidently somewhere along the route the name was changed by an operator to Krakatoa. So that by the time it reached the Times in London it was being spelt as Krakatoa. In actual fact most volcanologists these days use the original name Krakatau.The Geologist (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Krakatoa, while being popularized by an error, is its real name now since it is the most popular form of the name. If this article is to be changed to Krakatau, you must also change every other article to an imitation of grunting sounds, and that's how they would have been pronounced before languages developed. Errors happen and words change over time, deal with it, Old English is dead.

I second the opinion that the article should have the correct name "Krakatau". Krakatoa is the wrong spelling and the fact that it's a common typo doesn't mean it's the correct one. Encyclopedia is all about accuracy so I think the "Krakatoa" should redirect to "Krakatau". Also, on Google these days, Krakatau generates more hits than Krakatoa. About 8,550,000 results for Krakatau and 2,920,000 for Krakatoa. And there should be an explanation about the common misspelling and mispronunciation like on this yahoo page http://news.yahoo.com/facts-indonesias-krakatau-volcano-164300604.html 118.137.166.89 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone tagged Atmospheric shock waves reverberated around the world seven times and were felt for five days with "citation needed". The same statement is found verbatim in [1] and probably other places as well. I've no idea where it originated, so I wouldn't want to simply drop that URL in as the source. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First time editing an article so forgive any mistakes, I'm removing "Atmospheric shock waves reverberated around the world seven times and were felt for five days" from the lead as this is a very dubious statement. In lay terms a shock wave is a huge sound wave, i.e. if you can't hear it then it's not a shockwave. The article states later on that the explosion could only be heard a few thousand miles away and so did not traverse the globe 7 times. Secondly while I appreciate that it is sourced, the source is not primary, who measured the shockwave? Where was it measured? With no quick long distance communication possible how did people know to measure it anyway? Newspapers are notorious for repeating rubbish when it comes to science and a proper source is needed, the article isn't even clear what type of shockwave this was, seismic maybe?Andrew.Ainsworth 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "dubious" about that statement at all. The shockwave was recorded (and reported by scientists) on scientific instruments of the day. See The Royal Society (1888) The Eruption of Krakatoa and Subsequent Phenomena. --Toddcarnes (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Winchester or simkins books - os some online material about this would better explain than I could - others might revert your edit and argue on other issues - I would suggest a better understanding of the subject - simkin and winchester are the best books that I know - cheers SatuSuro

Haven't read those books (nor have a copy) so if someone could find some original data from there I would be happy to accept. I don't know much about Krakatoa but have studied compressible flow and shockwaves and still seriously doubt the claim. Should have put explanation on edit, still learning the ropesAndrew.Ainsworth 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you be happier with "pressure waves" than "shock waves"? I don't have the books handy either, but from online book reviews (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) it seems pretty clear they've reported something of this kind. Apparently these atmospheric pressure waves were the cause of some of the smaller, more distant "tsunamis" reported (see page 208 of [5]; would anyone have access to this paper: Harkrider, D. and F. Press, The Krakatoa air-sea waves: an example of pulse propagation in coupled systems, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 13, 149-159, 1967.) This 1961 TIME article provides some further independent support. -- Avenue 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On reading the links you provided it seems there is some good data to back up the claim, as you suggest the correct term would definitely be pressure waves rather then shockwaves, the word shockwave indicates a large pressure difference across the wave (ie audible). I think one of the links you've provided would be a more suitable link then the original as well, also seems to me like this should have a small section under effects. The part about constructive superposition of waves was interesting. Andrew.Ainsworth 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who suggest that the pressure wave could not have traveled the world seven times are ignoring the scientific information. The barographs which were in many locations around the world indicate that there was an increase of atmospheric pressure which when analysed proved to have arrived at precisely the correct time for a pressure wave emanating from Krakatau. It is possible that not only did the wave traverse the wave from the volcano the 7 recorded times but their was a 4th reflection at the antipode which due to the dissipation of energy was undetectable by the instruments of the day. More sensitive equipment may possibly have detected an 8th reflection. The disturbance of the atmosphere caused by the over pressure dissipated according to the inverse square root rule. This states simply that as a distance doubles the energy halves. SO to travers the world seven times indicates a collosal amount of energy.The Geologist (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, inverse square isn't TOTALLY appropriate for this type of event, as one has constructive and destructive interference of the wave once it circumnavigated. But, until that occurs and no obstructions occur, even pressure gradients, inverse square IS accurate. But, that is largely nit picking. The SHOCKWAVE degraded over distance, largely due to inverse square law, partially due to land, atmospheric conditions and even weather fronts. As a practical example, the largest thermonuclear device detonated was Tsar Bomba. Its shockwave was DETECTED globally, but was NOT HEARD outside of Russia. The lay person tends to consider a shockwave derived pressure wave as audible, while scientific communities consider DETECTIBLE BY INSTRUMENT as valid for the term, by scientific definition. A shock wave is simply a pressure gradient that is relatively steep. Part of the definition includes, "Unlike solitons (another kind of nonlinear wave), the energy of a shock wave dissipates relatively quickly with distance." Hence, by the definition and physics, it was NOT audible globally, only detectable.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Krakatau is the name of the volcanoe that krakatoa has made so considering this website is talking about krakatoa and its eruption they should not change the name because krakatau has not erupted yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.174.148 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In Indonesian, anak is 'child' and does not have any gender attributed to it - Son is not implied or literal - please desist from changing that SatuSuro 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this. I hope this ends the silly sexist edits. Since it might be asked, How WOULD the male form be expressed? CFLeon 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We have made a certain typo since when in the picture we have posted up on the right, panjang means long, not lang - unsigned (22:04, 26 September 2006 210.213.158.163 (Talk) (→Anak Krakatau)) pasted here by SatuSuro 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But Lang is Dutch for 'long' and was the Dutch name for the island. It may be a mistake, but is not an error. CFLeon 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"The area around Java is now known as Lady Bull because of its fiery nature." What does this sentence mean? Adam 12:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence was added here in May 2006 by a user with a solitary edit, and I can find no reference to this, so I think its safe to say it was undetected vandalism. Funny and sad that all the Wikipedia mirrors have the same sentence when you do a google search. -- I@n 14:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am now in the process of moving the media section (which, let's face, is just another name for "popular culture") to a new separate article: Krakatoa in media and popular culture. This section simply informs us of these things. That is very different to information that actually informs us about the subject - ie, the volcano. Ie, does mention Yngwie J. Malmsteen's musical actually help us understand the volcano? Or video games? I think not. I will now put a link to the new article in the See Also section. Merbabu 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that the section on Munch's painting and the atmospheric events in Norway are misplaced in this article. It's good information, but deserves a better placement. Jajafe 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajafe (talk • contribs)

This article has got to be the most vandalized out of the > 1000 articles we have on the Indonesia wikiproject. Has anyone considered asking for semi-protection? Reverting the frequent contributions of mindless anonymous vandals becomes tiring for those involved after a while. (Caniago 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Sounds like a job for...duh-duh duh-duuh! Caniago! I agree, it is odd how much this is vandalized. I suspect it is probably specifically linked from one or more popular sites. Any of the tech. articles have this problem when an outlet such as slashdot.org links to them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its just because little boys (and girls) have a fascination with volcanoes, and Krakatoa is one of the most famous. Not to mention its significance to the wacko-scientologists. Instead of me asking an admin for protection and being rejected (as per SatuSuro), we have a better chance if there is a consensus among the editors here for protection. (Caniago 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

I have an idea. How about making this article into FA? We wouldn't worry after that for vandals. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

i had asked on admin about it few weeks ago - he said one vndl a day was not enough for protection.... I think he was hinting there are some with such incessantt vndlsm that they get protection prefrence.... sigh SatuSuro 13:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That explains what I just found. I was looking at this for info for something I may add to a novel I've been working on, and found some extremely childish vandalism, which I've removed.Tham153 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i'm from indonesia and the statement : "There is a popular story that Krakatau was the result of a linguistic error. According to legend, "Krakatau" was adopted when a visiting ship's captain asked a local inhabitant the island's name, and the latter replied "Ka ga tau" (Aku nggak tau) — a Jakartan/Betawinese slang phrase meaning "I don't know"." is totally a joke, the sentence "ka ga tau" is slang language which doesn't exist at the past, even logically, karakatu lies near jakarta, impossible for the local inhabitant to not knowing this volcano island. please some one delete the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.62.80 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

German university test as televised on United States' Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/krakatoa, showing results of superheated steam and tsunami creation due to interaction of flow with water. [edit]Kiel University, Germany, shown as (televised) source of experiment. Dinosnake 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been several proofs of the fact that pyroclastic flows can travel over water: Pliny the younger describes one travelling across the Bay of Naples and engulfing the area around Cape Miseno during the AD79 eruption of Vesuvius. In 1902 at Martinique when Mont Pelee exploded the pyroclastic flow was seen to engulf ships in the harbour off St Pierre setting then on fire. On Monserrat pyroclastic flows have been filmed travelling over water and building a pyroclastic delta.

What the researchers were trying to do was discover how a pyroclastic flow could travel considerable distances over water. It transpires that the flows generate a cushion of steam between the flow proper and the water and the flows travel on this.The Geologist (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does it say it has no SI units? Isn't "cubic kilometres" an SI unit? Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that, though the page lacks the base SI unit of volume (cubic meters), it is far more fluid to speak of cubic km than billion cubic meters. I think that cubic km is perfectly acceptable.

What bothers me is the way how metric and imperial units are in brackets completely randomly. For example:

"A small tsunami hit the shores of Java and Sumatra some 40 km (28 miles) away between 6pm and 7pm."

"Ash was propelled to a height of 50 miles (80 km)." 192.102.44.227 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point - Be bold --Merbabu 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No the kilometre is NOT an SI unit the unit is the metre. Other sizes are derived from the metre The Geologist (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Geologist, that is a bit of picking the nit, as the metric system exponents are not derived randomly, but empirically. Hence, SI accepts kilometers or exponential notation. Otherwise, ALL of astronomy isn't in SI terms, but some other, non-empirical system! Wikipedia is largely for the masses, who are lay persons.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Watching an (rerun) episode of Futureweapons on Discovery Channel. There's an ordnance device named after the volcano. It's a handheld munition which can penetrate one inch of steel at 50 meters, or do the same magnetically attached to a steel hull with an underwater package. Can anyone find more info? — Nahum Reduta 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

what is its relevance to this article? It has nothing to do with the volcano. Rather, the volocano is relevant to it, but not the other way around. Merbabu 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds...impossible without causing huge amounts of damage between Indonesia and the U.K. The entire continents of Asia, Africa, and parts of Southern Europe are in the way. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I seriously think land stops tsunamis which is why Australia and the Persian Gulf didn't get hit hard by the 2004 tsunami, Indonesia and India were each in the way. Anynobody 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your action of removing the fact is justifiable because there no citation to this fact, but I think the recorded wave does not necessarily a tsunami wave, but some minuscule irregular wave recorded by some devices to monitor the ocean wave. — Indon (reply) — 07:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, deleting info always makes me feel weird. I agree with you though, I wouldn't dispute the fact that as a coincidence they had irregular waves in the English Channel around that time. I would need to see a pretty solid source saying they were related. I also have doubts about the concussion bouncing around the atmosphere seven times. 200 megatons is a big bang, to say the least, but the Soviet Union once tested a 50 megaton device, the Tsar bomba. If 200 Mt would go around seven times then 50 Mt should go around almost twice (meaning some parts felt it twice). I figured I'd leave it while I look for a citation. Anynobody 08:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The citations for both of these facts can be found in Simon Winchester's book on the subject. I don't have my copy to hand or I'd add them myself. --Gene_poole 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I double checked, and the rebounding atmospheric shock waves are accurate. I'm not familiar with Mr. Winchester's book though, I know you said you don't have a copy handy but do you remember how he explained the connection between the eruption and the English Channel? If there is a rational explanation I can accept it. (There are many natural events that are unbelievable yet true, ie the rogue wave.) Anynobody 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Significant waves from the 2004 tsunami traveled as far as Nova Scotia (apparently redirected by mid-ocean ridges - [6][7]), and smaller waves made it to Britain, so I find it quite believable that the 1883 waves could have reached the English Channel. I've found a source for this fact online (which incidentally presents a quite different theory of how the waves could make it so far), so I'll restore it to the article. -- Avenue 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things about the sea wave - it was recorded on several tide gauges and the records do exist - contact for instance the UKHO at Taunton who will assist you. The atmospheric pressure wave was recorded on barographs and these were passed to the Royal Society and formed part of the evidence that the 1883 explosion was the most powerful to occur in recorded history. They included ALL evidence that was passed to them. Tambora in 1815 was probably louder but no reliable accounts exist. Anyone who heard it would have probably put the sound down to distant thunder. Toba about 75000 years ago would have been considerably louder but no-one except those close to the explosion would have known anything about it.The Geologist (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Geologist, do you have a link and data on measured UK sea measurements from the event? If so, it would be highly noteworthy in the article!Wzrd1 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Has there been anything done to minimize the destruction that was caused in 1883? Ed Vice 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean, to minimize comparable destruction in case of a future similar eruption? If so, there is not a lot that can be done short of moving many millions of inhabitants. However, another gargantuan explosive eruption is moderately unlikely for a while - you need to build up the big cone such as was there in 1883, or was at Mt St Helens in 1980, to constrain things and allow for the violent explosion. This is not to say there may not be small ones, even killer ones. But you need a big pile of rock constraining the underlying pressure to have a big one. Cheers Geologyguy 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article says Turner's "Fighting Temeraire" has a sky resulting from Krakatoa. But Turner died before the Krakatoa explosion - Ivor Catt (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Ivor Catt, 26 July 2008.

Quite correct. The sky was the result of the 1815 eruption of Tambora.The Geologist (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops - sorry, I got a bit dyslexic with the dates 1838/1883 --Toh-maag (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the USGS and the Smithsonian Institution refer to the volcano by it's Indonesian name. Krakatoa is more of an onomatopoeia than a name as I understand it. Would anyone oppose changing the name to Krakatau and adding a redirect to it from Krakatoa? Anynobody 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The volcano is primarily known as Krakatoa - not Krakatau. If there are any redirects the less popular form should redirect to the most popular. --Gene_poole 09:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Primarily according to what source though? To see which one the USGS uses, I performed two searches on google, the first with the Indonesian spelling: krakatau site:.gov got 916 hits most of which discuss the volcano. krakatoa site:.gov returned 545 hits many about the volcano, but several about the movie, a coffee house, and a brand of cigarette among other things. Most of the USGS hits were under the Krakatau spelling, whereas other agencies such the as the NOAA or the treasury dept which had the coffee house hit tend to refer to it as Krakatoa. Does anyone know how they refer to the volcano in other prominent geology agencies? Anynobody 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the mountain is Krakatau. The Krakatoa name is truely a spelling mistake by a British journalist when he reported the event. I don't know why Wikipedia adopts the wrong one, maybe because it was more popular in media or in pop culture. However, I will support the move proposal. — Indon (reply) — 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I always understood 'Krakatoa' to be the English name, 'Krakatau' the Indonesian. Merbabu 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over a million google results for "Kratakatoa" and only about half that for "Krakatau". We should use the most common spelling as the default option, and have the less common usage redirect to that - not vice-versa. --Gene_poole 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a basic problem with citing the shear number of hits on Google, you've got to look at the actual results themselves. When I did this above I pointed out that both searches led to unrelated sites that happen to use the name. There are a lot more unrelated links under a search using Krakatoa, in your example the fifth hit was for The Krakatoa Java Program Tool and the sixth a band called Krakatoa.

Merbabu you are correct in saying Krakatoa is an English name for the Indonesian Krakatau. I believe we should use the native name, but if people want to use a colonial name then Krakatoa is still incorrect. The Dutch essentially took the area away from the Portuguese, which explains the Krakatao name. Until WW2 the whole area was called the Dutch East Indies, so an English name shouldn't really apply.Anynobody 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not the only editor who feels a name change is warranted, I'm going to add a proposal for namechange tag. Anynobody 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

KRAKATAU is the only official name. Due to a typographical error by a British journalist (who swapped the 'a' and 'o' of the Portuguese spelling) who reported on the 1883 eruption, nowadays the English speakers in the world use the wrong name. Google hits don't mean anything as most of the internet is in English language which explains why you will find more Krakatoa than Krakatau or even Krakatao. Fact is the English spelling remains WRONG and can ONLY be read as a synonym for Krakatau. Also Krakatao is regarded ONLY as a synonym for Krakatau. Belanda Gila 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you about the British Journalist but the original Morse telegraph papers show it happened long before it was received in Britain. By the time the message reached Rome it had most certainly been written as Krakatoa, the original records indicate that the misspelling may have occurred in India by an India Telegraphist, but it cannot be confirmed. The Geologist (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In the section on "Handl's occupancy" it stated that his lease was for "870 hecacres". I think this must be a typo, but it's not obvious whether it was supposed to be hectares or mumble-acres. I have changed it to hectares, but if anyone knows for sure what it's supposed to be, please update. The entire section is uncited, which is unfortunate. Rocinante9x 15:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd never heard of hecacres either, nor has the default spelling dictionary of my browser. I support Rocinante9x's change unless a citation to the contrary can be found. Anynobody 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the mispelling. Thanks for catching it. CFLeon 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The volcano today is called Krakatau, the eruption in 1883 was a an event in it's history. To illustrate what I was talking about a couple of months ago this is what I'm suggesting, two articles: 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and Krakatau. The point being that if the volcano were to erupt tomorrow, it would be known as a 2007 eruption of Krakatau. In 1883 the volcano was known as Krakatoa, so a lot of literature was written discussing the eruption with that name. That is why I think it should be Krakatoa when discussing the 1883 eruption, but not the current caldera. Anynobody 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot this just be left alone - is there really any need - the large greened in section above is sufficient surely. Playing with the name to make a point seems a very dubious reason to start all that over again. To really create something like this suggestion really smells of WP:POINT and a total misunderstanding of the relevance of english and Indonesian transliteration of names of places and nothing to do with the subject of the volcano or the caldera. Please reconsider SatuSuro 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) After reading the green item above again very carefully - and reading a recent comment at the Indonesian project noticeboard - where this project belongs - I have no further comment SatuSuro 05:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that you headed this section "Name revisited" as I think its more of a split that your proposing rather than a name change. But, I am inclined to agree with the idea of splitting into two articles, but keeping both as "Krakatoa" per the closed discussion above. The 1883 event deserves separate focus from the current day as well as general history of the island. —Moondyne 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this idea was being proposed to make a point per above discussion. Support for split is withdrawn based on proposers comments below. —Moondyne 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot this just be left alone If the volcano erupts, and the reports all list the name as Krakatau are you seriously saying you'd add that info to an article called Krakatoa?  United States [8] - [9] - [10] -  Australia - [11] - [12] - [13] -  United Kingdom - [14] - [15] - [16] *this one corrects itself - [17] - [18] The volcano IS now called Krakatau. Anynobody 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you do not like an argument Moondyne, is not a reason to cite it as a a disruption made to prove a point. Since you won't explain why we shouldn't call the caldera by it's current name I'm guessing you think it shouldn't be changed because you learned it as Krakatoa so that's what it is.

SatuSuro this is related to BOTH the "volcano" and caldera. I'm saying the giant hole where the stratovolcano used to be is now called Krakatau, the caldera. The stratovolcano that exploded in 1883 was known as Krakatoa, so thats what the 1883 eruption should refer to it as.

Event

1883 eruption of Krakatoa

Caldera (today)

Krakatau

Anynobody 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we are discussing this - what a waste of good editors' time. As if the previous suggestion (by the same editor) to change the whole article from the most common English name wasn't enough (and blatantly against all wikipedia policy), the suggestion to split the two is just too stupid. Snore. Merbabu 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote "Wikipedia is a community, and makes decisions as a group not individually." source Anynobody user page. Since the group consensus is "Krakatoa" thats where it should be. Secondly the titling of this section is very pointy and has apparant disruptive over tones given that the editor was aware of the previous consensus which resulted from the editor raising this question before. Also User:Anynobody/Krakatau is a violation of GNU/GFDL documentation as its a copy/paste from this article without the attribution history and should be deleted immediately. Gnangarra 10:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When the nominator manages to convince Britannica to rename their article [19] from Krakatoa to Krakatau I may take them and their repetitive arguments more seriously. (Caniago 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Caniago since Britannica is supposed to get their information from primary/secondary sources, and modern sources refer to it as Krakatau, why do we have to wait for them to update?

Gnangarra I strongly believe that which is why I'm discussing the proposed change rather than edit warring with you. You should understand that consensus can change.

Merbabu if you feel it's stupid then of course you don't need to participate. I see plenty of "stupid" arguments made all the time on various talk pages, and when I do I simply ignore them if I find them uninteresting as well. Anynobody 07:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I will participate when I think a proposal (ie your 'split' articles) is 'stupid' because I think we should all do our best to make sure that such proposals don't happen. ignoring such proposals is thus not in wikipedia's best interest. They are, however, time wasting and wikipedia suffers as good editors wiki time is not spent on more constructive activities. Merbabu 07:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your comment to Caniago and Britannica, it gets back to the reason we are using 'Krakatoa' - it remains the most common and readily identifiable English name. You can't get around this. As for your reply to Gangarra, you are correct that consensus can change, but in this case it does not yet appear to have shifted in the slightest. Merbabu 07:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test consensus it's better to be honest about your intentions in the first instance, you named this section name revisited but the proceed to talk about creating two seperate articles. Now you saying that you were testing consensus ie making a WP:POINT this is considered disruptive Gnangarra 08:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I said in the first place. Consensus does not come about by one editor returning to an article on a regular basis - it actually involves others - and as we can see most responses to the returnee have not been in the affirmative. sigh SatuSuro 11:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra the discussion in the previous section was ALSO about which name to use. By calling this section "Name revisted" I wanted to point out that the current name of the caldera could be used to describe it and the old name could be used in a sub-article about the big eruption. I'm sorry you didn't understand the title, but calling it dishonest because it doesn't make sense to you is both hasty and lacks the assumption of good faith.

Merbabu I'd believe your argument about ensuring ideas you do not agree with are not implemented if anyone else had supported my proposal. However since you mentioned in your previous post how stupid and boring you find the discussion, and nobody else was supporting it, commenting on it seems contradictory. If you just want to call my proposal dumb and pointless at least be upfront about it, but pretending an idea with no support "could" be implemented seems like an excuse to skirt WP:CIVIL in order to vocalize your dislike of it. (I'm not going to turn you in for WP:CIVIL or anything.)

SatuSuro How would you suggest going about changing consensus besides discussing the situation? Once again, if I intended to force the issue I would be making edits to the article page itself. Consensus does not come about by one editor returning to an article on a regular basis - it actually involves others - and as we can see most responses to the returnee have not been in the affirmative. You seem to imply that consensus eaither doesn't change or it does so without discussion.

If any of you think I'm being disruptive, by all means report my behaviour to the WP:ANI board. If you're unwilling to do that then again, don't continue to comment here if you feel it's a waste of time. (Disruption occurs when an editor makes constant changes to an article page requiring others to fix it again and again. I'm interested in discussing why I think we should change the name of the current volcanic feature on the articles talk page. Since nobody has had to "fix" the talk page consider that my proposal is not disruptive so much as it is unpopular.) Anynobody 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The normal procedure for when a person appears to be disruptive or making a point is to try to talk with them and advise them that their actions are being seen as disruptive before seeking other methods of resolution. If you want I'll take the dispute to WP:AN/I but that would be counter productive as it wouldnt get a resolution to the issue on create further animosity.

moving on Naming convention recommends that where

To get out of this, consider the following:

• In those unsolved cases a vote, for example via Wikipedia:Requested moves, can be conducted.
• Such vote is on a *case by case* basis: it is better to avoid dogmatics in the discussion of such votes: whether in the end this will result in change of the naming conventions guidelines is of no importance as long as the vote is going on. Instead of dogmatics, the vote is rather about recognisability, as in: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize [...]" - so, in the vote every wikipedian just decides for himself/herself which of the choices he/she most easily recognises.
• Before starting such voting procedure, consider that very often (but not always!) the most predictable end result of the vote is the one that results from the Google test conducted with these parameters:

taking the google test produces the following

for "Krakatau" -"wikipedia" - 505,000 hits

for "Krakatoa" -"wikipedia" - 975,000 hits

for "Krakatao" -"wikipedia" - 9,920 hits (intentional misspelling)

for "Krakatua" -"wikipedia" - 3,680 hits (intentional misspelling)

Above is the vote which was 1 for "au" vs 8 for "oa" spellings, what this all shows is that the current article spelling is the most common and that the spelling "Krakatau" is significantly common that it should be at redirect pages. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone put up citations for Winchester's book after almost every sentence in this article, I removed most. Whoever did this needs to recheck the proper use of cites- for instance, only one use of the same citation each paragraph. This whole article was not lifted bodily from Winchester's book; in fact, many of the points with Winchester cites are actually from Furneaux's book. CFLeon 03:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is nothing more annoying than looking at a list of references and no in-line cites telling us where the information came from. Please strike a useful compromise. I will look now. --Merbabu 03:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - you say it is OK to have it every paragraph. But, you have seemed to remove more than that.

The problem is, info can get challenged (or indeed I might want to challenge it). Not everyone (including) me has these text. It appears that you do, but are you going to thus maintain the article indefinitely with the refs nearby? That is the advantage of cites. --Merbabu 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not saying don't have any cites, but rather the number of the same one or two every sentence is unnecessary and cluttering. one per paragraph should be enough.CFLeon (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When I enter the coordinates that the article gives for Krakatoa, Google Earth returns a result that is in the ocean, near an island. If the island is Krakatoa and Google Earth is correct, the geographic center of the island appears to be around 6°06'02" S, 105°25'28" E (6.100556 S, 105.424444 E) rather than the 6°06'27" S 105°25'03" E (6.107500 S, 105.417500) that the article gives. Here are some coordinates that I found searching on the web.

• 6.10S 105.20E
• 6.102S, 105.423E
• 6.102°S, 105.423°E (6°06'06"S, 105°25'22"E)

These are just random sites that I found and may not be reliable. 6.102°S (the last two) is closer to the article's figure. 105.423°E is closer to the Google Earth figure. 6.10S (the first one) is a bit closer to Google Earth's figure, but 105.20E is pretty far off. I tried to find out the margin of error for Google Earth's coordinates, but I could not find anything useful. Before making any change, I think that it would be nice to find out the margin of error and the source of the coordinates that the article gives. -- Kjkolb 19:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institution's volcano database (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0602-00=) agrees with your third set of coordinates (6.102°S, 105.423°E). We use their data for many other volcanoes. -- Avenue 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the coordinates. I forgot about this article for a couple of years. I converted the Smithsonian's coordinates to degrees because that was how the infobox was set up. If someone wants to use the original figures, I am fine with it. Also, if anyone feels that the Smithsonian's coordinates, please let us know. -- Kjkolb (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual geographical co-ordinates are 6° 6' 1.06"S 105° 25' 26.37"E, which converts to 6.100294°S 105.423992° E. Someone doesn't know how to convert degrees, minutes and seconds to decimal degrees. This is how you do it: Take the minutes and divide by 60, then take the seconds and decimal parts of the second and divide by 3600 - there are 3600 seconds in 1 degree! Now ADD the decimal minutes and seconds together to arrive at a final value and then ADD the degrees to the whole to get the correct value.The Geologist (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Geologist, perhaps you should also explain WHICH is the current global standard. Minutes, degrees, seconds or degrees, minutes, seconds with decimal degrees. I know which is which, but most unacquainted with global terminology would not. (Small hint, if The Geologist misses my query, DECIMAL is of interest globally. Few nations go for the older system. Those that reject the metric system.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the year of Last eruption in the table has been changed a few times. Should this be the last eruption of the 'original' island of Krakatoa (1927), or do we count the last eruption of Anak Krakatau (most recent to date is 2007)? What is the policy here? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems to get changed about once a week, I will chime in with a !vote for 2007. If we can get a consensus maybe we could put a hidden note on it about this. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. An anon just changed it to 1883, with no discussion. Should that be reverted until we get a good consensus? What should it say right now, before the consensus is reached? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what it should say now - I don't know if more changes have been made to 1883 or 2007 ... Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the VOLCANO, not the 1883 eruption. Despite any naming issues, it is still the same volcano. Since those facts are not in dispute, the last eruption is 2007. This is just not that hard to figure out folks. Don't let ignorant anon editors cause so much angst. GVP Webmaster (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get our terms straight here, Folks. We are dealing with a single magma chamber with several outlets; in other words, one volcano with several cones (Perbowatan, Danan, Rakata, Anak K.), two of which were destroyed and one sliced in half. Only one cone is currently active- Anak K., which was the result of the 1927 submarine eruptions. The last eruption of Rakata (the remmant of the island active in 1883) that I have ever heard of from ANY reliable source is the 1883 one, when some sources state that it had joined Danan and Perbowatan by the beginning of August. (Capt. Ferzenaar's map shows over a dozen "foci of eruption", but none in the southern end of the island; whether this lack was due to visibility or not is not clear from the accounts that I've checked.) We're arguing 'grapes and raisins' here. CFLeon (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The volcano Anak Krakatau is active in a state of ongoing eruptive activity which varies between strong strombolian to vulcanian. This fact may stop the IQ0's from their ongoing vandalism.The Geologist (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Geologist, can you kindly provide chemistry readings from the eruptions? I'd go for it, but lack the time to research that which is outside of my own field.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence was found in the first paragraph under "1883 Eruption": "Also, to help the eruption along, water seeped into the magma chamber and created vast amounts of super-pressured steam." Later in the article, under "Causes" this is repudiated: "...the evidence does not support that conclusion and the pumice and ignimbrite deposits are not of a kind consistent with a magma-seawater interaction." Can someone please reconcile these statements? Thanks you :) -Laikalynx (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The first statement makes no geological sense anyway. Somebody summarized or edited material they did not understand. GVP Webmaster (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources that indicate that far from water being involved in the eruption, the actual cause was two fold:

First the magma had been emplaced over many years and was subsequently cooling. This was re-heated when a fresh influx of magma was emplaced. This caused magma mixing - as can be seen in many geological specimens taken from the island. This also increased the volume of the gases present in the magma reservoir (we now refer to a magma reservoir rather than chamber because a reservoir has an inlet and an outlet whilst a chamber is enclosed with no inlet or exit).

This increase in gaseous volume caused the over lying rocks to fracture and resulted in the May eruption, which did not rekease the increasing over-pressure. As a result the over-pressure exceeded the limits of the overlying rock and volcano and the explosive eruption occurred.

You might like to consult a paper by Rampino and Sigurdsson which contains a lot of information.The Geologist (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, at the beginning of the Article it says that the size of the Krakatoa explosion was 200 megatons, is this accurate? I would like to know the source please. I am asking because researching this five or six years ago I came across wildly different figures including one as high as a billion megatons! (which I am guessing was a misquote of a billion tons - or 1000 megatons). It should be possible to work it out from the 'billions of tons' of rock thrown '10s of kilometers' into the atmosphere but even that seems to be somewhat variable. (A National Geographic article puts it at 17.7 cubic Km of rock and ash, I am sure there are many other figures) This explosion has always fascinated me and I have never found what seemed to be truly definitive numbers. At the least if the numbers are very rough estimates please give a warning of such. In arguments about explosions Krakatoa and Tunguska and these figures are often quoted. Please help.
Thanks - Rob Lucien86 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I read in an article on the Discovery Channel website that the krakatoa explosion was actually 5.6 gigatons. If anyone can confirm this...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.144.182 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The kiloton/megaton "measurement" isn't anywhere near precise or even scientific, as the value depends upon, literally, thousands of factors. Is the blast a ground burst? Is the blast below ground burst? Is the blast above ground burst? Is the burst stratospheric? Is the blast above the stratosphere? Is the blast at the Earth's core, hence, gone unnoticed? It's all relative to proximity and medium and things classified by all who have nuclear weapons, hence, worthless. VOLUME of MASS over TIME accelerated by a measurement is of value. Or, in other terms, consider two dinosaur "yield" measurements: global 500 degree heat over a year in a decade or global 50 degree increase over a decade. Each are equal in SOME measurements, but are different in survival for many life forms, which IS the actual measurement that all consider first. I'd go with both immediate release over minutes AND TOTAL release over explained time in standard measurements. If finer are available, THOSE would be released as well into a curve.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no time to investigate this, but is some of this article copied from [20] ? Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having worked on this page myself, it's more likely that it was the other way 'round. CFLeon (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the page and they definitely used an earlier version of this article. I've caught some of the passages that I wrote. CFLeon (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Article should be expanded a little with respect to Anak Krakatau. The Oct.2007-current eruption with the first lava flow for many years is not noted. Further, the scientific referencing of the whole article could be improved. I would draw attention to following extensively scientifically researched and illustrated text that i have prepared (i am not modifying the Krakatau section myself due to conflict of interest issues) which also illlustrates Anak Krakatau erupting at end of May 2008. Images are available under GFDL but only in 200x300 resolution. A number of references within the text may be of interest to page editors.

• http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Krakatau/Krakatau.html

RRvolcanica (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the issue Anak Krakatoa perhaps could have a separate article SatuSuro 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, an article that is separate is appropriate, but a redirect and/or further reference would be correct. TO reflect the past AND current events.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi; due to my keyboard having caps lock issues I've noticed that whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa leads to here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRAKATOA goes to the page of a weapon named after the eruption instead - yet the weapon's article seems pretty explicit that the weapon's name isn't an anacronym. Should the all-caps url redirect here then? Cheers, Chris. 86.147.99.94 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but you're right and I've fixed it. Good catch. — Satori Son 12:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A new category Krakatoa has been created - and the article is on the way to be split into 3 - one main article - second the 1883 volcanism - and the third - subsequent volcanism. Also the article regarding the popular culture has been split into two to make the documentary and historic documentation. Please note material found with inadequate WP:RS during the resultant cleanup will be noted as such - please help create a better 3 articles with proper use of citations and references - thanks SatuSuro 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With whole sections with no cites/WP:RS mentioned this article needs a very careful cleanup - 'Verbeek said this, verbeek said that' and not a citation or quoted source anywhere SatuSuro 05:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reason? If the article needed splitting due to length issues, then there should at least be a self-contained summary of the 1883 eruption. Not a blank section. --Merbabu (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - point taken r.e. the summary - it is in effct in the 'significance' section at the moment. The article was getting long and no extra care being put into the article -

• conflation of unreferenced/uncited mix of 1883 material
• pre 1883 long uncited quotes

In general an article begging for a proper cleanup --SatuSuro 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd mention it rather than changing it and having someone annoyedly change it back. This is redundant- "(Indonesian: Krakatau), also spelled Krakatau" -Winter123 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)