Talk:1815 eruption of Mount Tambora

Volcanoes Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia High‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:1815 eruption of Mount Tambora is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Adding Material from Mount Tambora page[edit]

This article is for the most powerful volcanic event in recorded history and it's just one measly paragraph? There's a lot more information on the event at the Mount Tambora page itself that could potentially be copied here. The2crowrox (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the climate change and volcano 101 nonsense[edit]

Non-scientific, non-historical and pushing an agenda. Have cleaned it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.22.9.252 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More about "parabolic orbit"[edit]

The version I worked from talked about a parabolic orbit. There's something wrong here, so I simply deleted a few words. The Dalton Minimum isn't about orbits, it's about solar activity (sunspots etc.) Also, Earth's orbit around the sun isn't parabolic, it's elliptical. I see a rating of "stub class"; I agree that this article needs a lot more work, but at least I could fix one error right away. Another error, not yet fixed: "The ejection of these gasses, especially HCl, caused the precipitation that followed in the region to be extremely alkaline" - this can't be right - HCl and SO2 are acid gases! - but I don't have access to the source, so I haven't edited it. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical referencing[edit]

Added an edit notice for parenthetical referencing. The article is however missing full citations in the references section, can someone help find and add them based on the inline citations? --Jopo (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the edit notice from the article, as they're not supposed to go on articles themselves - see WP:EDITNOTICE for more details. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thrid Largest in recored history[edit]

The eruption of Protokrakatau was recorded by the Chinese, and the eruption of Thera was recorded by the Hebrews, so the eruption of Tambora was the third largest in recorded history, not the largest. 108.210.238.69 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merged[edit]

I have merged 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora back into Mount Tambora#1815 eruption, as the information about this eruption was split between those 2 pages ([{WP:Content forking]]). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo[edit]

An unsourced article I read stated that some link the heavy June rain on the field before the battle of Waterloo to the eruption of Tambora. --Error (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

Please can somebody rewrite this article to get rid of the duplications of information. It reads like a collection of totally independent notes rather than a coherent article

Egoli (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CE or AD[edit]

I have reverted the edit of 1 Jan 2019. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Manual_of_Style#Dates_and_numbers

"Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change."

Mike Spathaky (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other VEI-7 eruptions[edit]

Are the statuses of the 1257 Samalas eruption and the 946 eruption of Paektu Mountain in dispute? If either is considered reasonably confirmed, then we can no longer say that it is the "the only unambiguously confirmed VEI-7 eruption since the Lake Taupo eruption in about 180 AD". The research supporting VEI 7 for the other two eruptions is much more recent than the source cited for this claim.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate volume of Tambora was much more intense than we thought[edit]

The volume might have been more intense than the original estimate volume that I made was 160-180 km³ (38-43 cu mi) but I changed it to 160-213 km³ (38-51 cu mi) of bulk volume if so the eruption was at Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7 ranking it one of the largest holocene explosive eruption comparable to large holocene explosive eruptions. This is source that I've found http://www.kscnet.ru/ivs/bibl/vulk/kuozero/Pon-KurileLake.pdf KMTRAGER (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table One?[edit]

"as shown in Table 1 below." What Table 1? 2601:980:C004:5410:553C:88C4:9E41:84AC (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the table deletion. Tarantulas (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Americacentrism[edit]

The description of the effects on the Northern hemisphere is ridiculously Americacentered. It would actually be becoming to (mostly US) American writers if they, at least once in a while, made reference to the fact that the US is, indeed, not the entire world. Not even the entire Northern hemisphere. I understand that one contributes with what one knows, but filling almost the entire section on "Global effects" with a list of regional effects is not useful to the readers. Adding another section, say, "Effects in Northern America", would be more helpful. 31.211.201.66 (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Space enthusiast[edit]

Why are his references within the article, and not in the references section? This is incredibly distracting, and incredibly un-needed Dontwannamakeone (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]