Talk:List of volcanoes in Indonesia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comments by Michaelas10
Some comments are left in the edit mode here: [1]. I'll try to answer below.
- <!-- Is that its child? Is that a nickname? --> → No, it is not a nickname. Anak Krakatau is the official name of the parasitic cone that rises from the Krakatau caldera. A parasitic cone is not a new volcano.
- <!-- I didn't find these in the list below, but you should link them --> → It's about the four islets, created after the 1883 Krakatau eruption. The four islands are part of Krakatau; they are not separated volcanoes. The eruption has created a large caldera, filled with sea water and some caldera rims are above the surface that look like separate islands. Therefore, only Krakatau is listed in the table.
- <!-- I suggest removing this sentence as it's short and that is already proven at the next few sentence. --> → I've removed it. Thanks.
— Indon (reply) — 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answers. By "Is that its child? Is that a nickname?" I meant that you should point that out in the text, if it's a nickname, give it an italic font. Notice I've left you some comments at the first copyedit too. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Before Present
You are right that if we remove the Before Present date format, we need to change the actual date in the article. I should have done that. However, I do feel that we should maybe do this (remove BP and change the date) in this first paragraph, simply because it doesn't make for very good reading - no-one refers to dates like this in practice, and none of the other dates in the article are given in this format, apart from the later reference to Toba. Maybe we should let the second instance stand as this is a more detailed section about the volcanoes, but I think it should be removed from the first paragraph. What do you think? --Bwmodular 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it seems a bit strange with BP (I was when I found the source it at the first time), but it is a common practice among geologists, anthropologists and celestial mechanics people to date an uncalibrated raw data from radiocarbon dating. 1000 years ago is not equal with 1000 BP. So if we remove BP, then I don't know how to convert 76,000 BP into "years ago". I think we should let it be like that, because it is absolutely correct per source that we use. — Indon (reply) — 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)