Jump to content

Talk:Katla (volcano)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.253.221.163 (talk) at 08:40, 22 April 2010 (more on Removing redundancy of Jökull and Glacier). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Height

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

I was wondering the same thing. —wwoods 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the dome going up and down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.184.113 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 1755 eruption is covered in detail but what about the others? Seems especially relevant since a Eyjafjallajökull eruption has always triggered Katla to erupt soon after.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total discharge validation

Quick check of river discharges:

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

Name meaning

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

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

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


Removing redundancy of Jökull and Glacier

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

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

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

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