Talk:Taal Volcano

Island in the lake in the island in the lake
The statement "Vulcan Point is the world's largest island within a lake on an island with a lake on an island" is contradicting this. There seem to be a twice as large such island in Canada. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ONE MORE THING the prominent appendage of Volcano Island that we first saw was Binintiang Malaki which is commonly mistaken for as the volcano itself. However, it is just one of the 47 craters of the volcano. The face of Binintiang Malaki offers good photo op, but the other side of it is a reminder that it’s not just a pretty face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetrueasiatic (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Craters
Are there two craters in Taal Lake? Kampfgruppe (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple craters in Lake Taal Gubernatoria (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taal Volcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809192745/http://www.batangas.gov.ph/index.php?p=15 to http://www.batangas.gov.ph/index.php?p=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612222914/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20100609-274790/6000-Taal-villagers-told-to-move-out to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20100609-274790/6000-Taal-villagers-told-to-move-out

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020
Hello! I work at the Washington Volcanic Ash Advisory Center and would like to request, due to being incorrect information, that the following sentence fragment be removed from the 2020 Eruption section:

" that spew an ash column measuring 100 meters"

The information vastly underestimates the height of the volcanic ash plume associated with the eruption. I would also like to request that a new line be added at the end of the 2020 eruption section with the most recent information from the Tokyo Volcanic Ash Advisory Center with the most accurate information, stating:

"The Volcanic Ash Advisory Center in Tokyo has estimated that the volcanic ash column from the Taal Volcano eruption had reached 55,000 feet above sea level (FL550) by 0900 UTC (5:00pm PHT).

Source: https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/svd/vaac/data/TextData/2020/20200112_27307000_0003_Text.html 140.90.104.153 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 21:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The 1754 eruption
This section contains perhaps the longest quote I've ever seen in Wikipedia. I don't think it really belongs here, not in such a form. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. Quite excessive. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression it was taken from a journal of some kind. It is extremely long, true, but if its a word for word transcript of that event, it is invaluable in the amount of detail it is conveying as an eye witness account. Furthermore, if that is the case that it is a journal transcript, would it than qualify instead as plagerism? ...And I guess Ive defeated my own argument, as if it IS taken from a journal, that is what Id argue the problem being is plagerism. I for one, being a long time reader of Wiki, prefer articiles with as much viable detail as possible, and dont mind the length, whatsoever. I prefer as much verified detail as possible and reasonable. But if it counts as plagerism, than yeah, it needs editing or removal. :( SageSolomon (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Today is the 3rd time I've come to this article, having waded through the revision history to find that long quote. It's a fascinating story, and I have trouble finding it anywhere else on the public web.
 * I've yet again archived it, but need to make myself a permanent archive of this particular story, as wading through the edit history of the volcano to find it just makes me a bit sad. 195.1.186.62 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Spreading innacurate information in newspapers/online that Taal is the "smallest volcano in the world"
Hello to everyone looking closely the Taal eruption. As you know, Taal volcano has gain a lot of attention in the past days. I've seen many articles online related to the Taal 2020 eruption stating that Taal is "one of the smallest volcano" in the world. I am a geophysicist specialist on volcanoes, and I was surprised to hear that statement. I guess the source comes from one sentence in the Wiki article: "With its highest elevation at only 311 m (1,020 ft), Taal is one of the lowest volcanoes in the world.[1]"

Taal is a complex caldera and as many calderas around the world, the elevation is low as there is no large volcanic edifice. I will suggest to remove this sentence as it does not provide any additional information about Taal volcano. Many volcanoes have low elevation, and "Lowest" does not mean that a volcano will be less active or less dangerous. Unfortuntely, I guess this statement has been misunderstood and used in a wrong way in many articles online and even reliable national newspapers.

I am not a user on wikipedia and can not make these changes myself, but I hope someone will agree with me and remove this sentence.

Fabien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:825E:EE00:F15D:5EA5:54A1:BF44 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
2020 Taal Volcano eruption &rarr; Taal Volcano – Given the article's content is sufficiently small enough to fit comfortably in Taal Volcano, and its subject relatively less notable than other major eruptions in the history of the Philippines, it seems to be a consistency issue that an eruption that doesn't seem to have done more than blow ash about and cause very localised interruptions of air traffic has its own article – meanwhile some of the largest and deadliest volcanic eruptions in history do not have articles. If the largest and deadliest eruption in the history of the Philippines is seemingly not notable enough to have its own article, how come this eruption is? –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 20:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article has been expanded a lot very recently and both are actively being edited, so I'd prefer to see kept separate for now. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just because the 1991 eruption didn't have an article of its own doesn't mean this shouldn't have any. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No, if anyone wants to make an article for the other eruptions they are welcome; the fact they don't exist isn't a reason not to have this one. Ultimograph5 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Honestly, I don't see a reason why making another article of a current eruption. Mt. Pinatubo's eruption doesn't have any, Mayon's eruption of last year doesn't as well and all other major eruptions. We are only making an article of a disaster if it is massive and if it is very significant and if it has a huge impact on deaths and widespread displacement of populations. Haveyouseenthisboy (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support don't need a page for every eruption of every volcano. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blake Gripling and Ultimograph5. Just because the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo does not have an article does not mean the 2020 Taal eruption cannot have one either. In fact there are many articles about smaller eruptions that do not seem to have done more than "blow ash about and cause very localized interruptions of air traffic". Per WP:N: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Your assumption that Pinatubo's 1991 eruption is seemingly not notable enough to have its own article is not true; many volcanologists have studied and written about this eruption over the years. Volcanoguy 10:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per the reasons stated by Another Believer, Blake Gripling, Ultimograph5 and Volcanoguy. But as much as I personally believe that this eruption is already significant enough to have its own article, if less activity would be observed in the coming days, weeks and possibly months, and if there would be no more further damages, I think this event should be merged into the main Taal article. Otherwise, this separate article should stay. Vida0007 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above. Movies Time (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, the eruption is big enough to have its own article. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for many reasons above. In addition because this eruption have notable to have this own article. Arguments about 1991 eruption of mount pinatubo didn't have separate article despite deadliest volcanic eruption in history isn't relevant today. Information can be spread worldwide and anyone have a choice to make about a article that are did. It is 2020 not 1990s prior to Wikipedia born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.11 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons stated above and besides, the event is significant that it even made it's way to the main page. — Emperork (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this article is growing and should remain separate but linked. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above. Also, it seems we need to separate the 1991 Eruption in to a new page article as well.  9:21, 15 January 2020 (PST)
 * Oppose per reasons above. As this is an ongoing disaster, having a separate page on the matter makes it easier for users to find. It has also been noted in this discussion that many eruptions of greater significance in fact do not have their own pages, not just of the Taal volcano. I would argue that should be rectified, per as long as their is enough information about any said eruption. As for this eruption specifically, I say it is more helpful to have its own page altogether, instead of having to scour for information. Make it easy for people to look up. SageSolomon 02:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageSolomon (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose. The event is certainly notable being an eruption of one of the Decade Volcanoes after more than 40 years of relative inactivity. The fact that other more deadly eruptions do not have separate articles yet is a case of WP:OTHERS, and for the 1991 Pinatubo eruption in particular, it is because that is the only contemporaneously documented eruption of the then dormant volcano. I would support splitting the 1991 eruption off from the Mount Pinatubo article. seav (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose like stated in other posts, this eruption is notable for being the first major eruption of the volcano after decades of inactivity, and the page is also rapidly expanding due to the amount of new incidents, as well as the potential hazardous eruption within hours to days. Taal is also one of the Decade Volcanoes. It is also notable for causing enough economic damage already and ashfalls in major population centers including Manila, which hasn't seen such since the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. I also support having a standalone page for the Pinatubo Eruption, but like mentioned again in other posts, there is more information accessible in this incident than back in the 1990s. Danevanderbilt (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above. Neararena (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like there's at least a fair likelihood of a VEI 5-6 eruption, and one with significantly more impacts than the previous eruptions (due to more population). Thus, the OP's argument to merge does not hold water, at least for now; if the eruption completely peters out, then maybe we can reconsider.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. -- hueman1 (talk)  02:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose upon seeing the similar article of similar(approximate) article size like Mount Agung in Bali, Indonesia. It has a sub-article of 2017–2019 eruptions of Mount Agung, yet in that article, the merge proposal of that sub-article into Mt. Agung hasn't yet been initiated. -ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. In fact, as mentioned above, even though some small eruptions have their own pages, the massive Mount Pinatubo eruption of '91 doesn't - thus, it ought to have one. RBolton123 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @RBolton123 I'd love to start the article on the 1991 Pinatubo Eruption, Im still not auto-confirmed yet though. If anyone wants to begin that article, I would be more than willing to help out. :) SageSolomon (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo is a redirect. Volcanoguy 00:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I rather want to request these section about 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to split to separate article. I will begin to request that split in that talk page because it is important eruption that caused many dies
 * I noticed, which coming from a long time reader, is more of an irritant than helpful. :( Also, Im not sure why that means we cant start a new article on the 19991 Pinatubo eruption. Is it locked off from being made? Against policy? Im a newbie to editing, so please bare with me, Id just like to know why does it being a redirect discount it from having its own article? Major volcanic events should have their own article due to their notability, imho as a long time Wiki reader. It seems logical. Not EVERY eruption should, granted, that would be far too much. As for Taal, leave the two separate for the time being, especially as an ongoing disaster, is still my vote. Make it easier for readers to search for and find. If Im out of bounds or am missing anything policy wise, by all means throw a message on my talk page. :) I need to learn somehow! Cheers, SageSolomon (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying there shouldn't be an article for the 1991 eruption. It's just that if there were to be an article, the current redirect would be the title to use. Volcanoguy 07:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oooooh! Mkay. And agreed! :D SageSolomon (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In a span of 7 calendar days, the article 2020 Taal Volcano eruption had greatly expanded and several references had been placed which make sense it must be separated from the main article Taal Volcano. --Exec8 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment They are many events that notable to have own articles in Wikipedia long before it existed in 2001, such as Sinking of Titanic, which happened in 1912 but have articles in Wikipedia in 2000s or eruption of Tambora and Kakatoa, happened in 1812 and 1883 also have own articles in Wikipedia since 2000s and they are many events that are not have own article such as Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (which now under ongoing split discussion) and eruption of novarupta in 1912 (which need to separate from main Novarupta article but was difficult to find information about that however this is largest eruption) that are two largest eruption in 20th century. Now, information can be changed every time anyway. It is not 19th or 20th century, it is 21st century which any events can be accessed via online and social media. Wikipedia has existed in 2001, but there are lot of many articles that created about events before 21st century such as World War II which long happened before Wikipedia existed. IMO it is reasonable to have two articles separated as long as many information about the event can be accessible around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Significantly covered. The low number of casualties (3 deaths as of Sunday PHL time?, maybe I'm not updated) shouldn't be the basis for its untoward merger. With both China and South Korea contributing relief aid be it monetary or material things, as well as its coverage by Channel NewsAsia, Agence France Presse, and news agencies in the States, it's unreasonable to not let it deserving its own standalone article. Also, I endorse the opinions of, , , , et. al.. As for the case of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, I will strongly support its re-creation as an article (if the redirect was an article before), or its conversion into a standalone article (if it is a true redirect).JWilz12345 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Pinatubo's significance in (modern) Philippine history isn't just some footnote or a brief aside -- it was covered in detail by National Geographic Magazine if I may recall so it definitely passes WP:GNG. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Any discussion regarding split of Pinatubo main article and eruption section will significantly effect Novarupta article, which contains the largest volcanic eruption in 20th Century despite It was difficult to find information about Novarupta 1912 eruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The lack of information is what will effect the Novarupta eruption in having its own article, not to mention it seems that was the only eruption to have occurred from that volcano. There's no need to split the Novarupta article. Volcanoguy 12:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Live-Stream: Taal Volcano
for the External links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xWJ8SEmGI Live-Stream: Taal Volcano - 2A01:C22:763C:5400:1C54:A2E0:1159:C31E (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Layout
Should "Eruption history" actually be a subsection of "Geological history"? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Update talk (March 26)
That's a fast upload.

NOTICE: Philippine language is unavailable. JaFryingPan (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @JaFryingPan Will try to add. I just need more sources. Where to get em? --Likhasik (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)