![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why are there no dates in the dates?
What use is a list that just gives a year and a VEI number?
Weatherlawyer ( talk) 08:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why the Holuhraun eruption is not listed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.96.57 ( talk) 09:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone has removed all the content. 2A00:23C6:9205:A201:90E9:7194:BF68:A490 ( talk) 12:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok we are gonna stop this at once. The size is not confirmed but it is likely VEI 4-5 and hence its best we either put that in the chart or a question mark until Tongas agency says something which will be in awhile given communication issues in the country. I also think we should had protection to the page for time being HavocPlayz ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
We can't really use Geologyhub as a source as much i want to since hes not considered a fully realible source but yes this was a VEI4+ thats for sure HavocPlayz ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have found proof of it being VEI6 + a couple other papers have done so. So maybe change the VEI to 5-6 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL098123 GlendermanGamingYT ( talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Some estimates of the eruption have it as much as 4 km³ in erupted tephra, which is why I put it as a VEI-5. Two VEI-5 level tephra values are on the VOGRIPA website. Faren29 ( talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "GVP":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This list, as stated in the introduction, includes also "smaller eruptions that resulted in fatalities, significant damage or disruptions". Moreover, an eruption can be still large (not regarding damage on humans) with a low VEI, since VEI is a measure only of the explosivity, not considering effusive activity (see for example 1669 eruption of Mount Etna). -- Floydpig ( talk) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This was an issue initially raised in 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami but appears in nearly every volcano article. There is an obvious bias towards the GVP's VEI estimate that some editors are clutching to dear life. The recent removal of Maple Doctor's edit by Edgar because "it's not official" is an example of the peremptory decision and policy that needs to be discussed. The GVP does not officially decide what VEI is assigned to an eruption. It does not comply with the neutral policy Wikipedia intends. Surely the editors can discuss this instead of arbitrarily deciding to follow the GVP. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 23:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Many people are destroying this page, might recommend semi-protecting the page to block this? TheEasternEditer ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
If this is a list of eruptions in the 21st century, why are three from 2000 included in the list? 104.153.40.58 ( talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)