Talk:Mount Pinatubo

date in article on Mount Pinatubo

text says "after 500 years of dormancy", however i feel this should be "after 460 years of dormancy"

References used in the article

Some of the information in this article came from the sources listed below. If anyone requests more citations...:

Cynthia Banzon Bautista, The Mount Pinatubo Disaster and the People of Central Luzon

J.W. Ewert, Andrew B. Lockhart, Sergio Marcial, and Gemme Ambubuyog, Ground Deformation Prior to the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

David H. Harlow, John A. Power, Eduardo P. Laguerta, Gemme Ambubuyog, Randall A. White, and Richard P. Hoblitt, Precursory Seismicity and Forecasting of the June 15, 1991, Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Richard P. Hoblitt, Edward W. Wolfe, William E. Scott, Marvin R. Couchman, John S. Pallister, and Dindo Javier, The Preclimactic Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo, June 1991

Remigio A. Mercado, Jay Bertram T. Lacsamana, and Greg L. Pineda, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Christopher G. Newhall, Arturo S. Daag, F.G. Delfin, Jr., Richard P. Hoblitt, John McGeehin, John S. Pallister, Ma. Theresa M. Regalado, Meyer Rubin, Bella S. Tubianosa, Rodolfo A. Tamayo, Jr., and Jesse V. Umbal, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/newhall/index.html Eruptive History of Mount Pinatubo]

Ma. Lynn O. Paladio-Melosantos, Renato U. Solidum, William E. Scott, Rowena B. Quiambao, Jesse V. Umbal, Kelvin S. Rodolfo, Bella S. Tubianosa, Perla J. Delos Reyes, Rosalito A. Alonso, and Hernulfo B. Ruelo, Tephra Falls of the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

William E. Scott, Richard P. Hoblitt, Ronnie C. Torres, Stephen Self, Ma. Mylene L. Martinez, and Timoteo Nillos, Jr., Pyroclastic Flows of the June 15, 1991, Climactic Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Stephen Self, Jing-Xia Zhao, Rick E. Holasek, Ronnie C. Torres, and Alan J. King, The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Robin J.S. Spence, Antonios Pomonis, Peter J. Baxter, Andrew W. Coburn, Mark White, Manuel Dayrit, and Field Epidemiology Training Program Team, Building Damage Caused by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption of June 15, 1991

Jean Tayag, Sheila Insauriga, Anne Ringor, and Mel Belo, People's Response to Eruption Warning: The Pinatubo Experience, 1991-92

Edward W. Wolfe and Richard P. Hoblitt, Overview of the Eruptions

Request split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Because there are many suggestions about article Mount Taal and these eruptions to merged. This time I want to request to split that eruption section into separate article namely 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.168.126 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This event is a notable one and it deserves its own article. — Emperork (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support This eruption was happened almost 29 years ago but didn't have separate article until now. Because it was one of the deadliest eruption in the Philippine history and the second largest in 20th century, it has more notable to have own article than just a section of mount Pinatubo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support the eruption is notable enough for an article of its own. The section is also way too long for it to be included in the article. ITSQUIETUPTOWN.public • talk 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Agreed on its notability. Granted, not every single volcanic eruption should have its own article. However, this one is worthy of note, and should be easier for readers to locate if searched for. The 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens has its own article, as does the 1883 Krakatoa event, and the 1815 Tambora event, and the 1886 Tarawera event, and the 1888 Mount Bandai event, and those were before Wikipedia existed. I have read that one of the reasons that this eruption does not have its own article, is because it was before Wikipedia's time. That doesnt seem to stand up well, logically speaking, due its obvious notability as a major volcanic event of the 20th century. The Pinatubo Eruption of 1991 wasnt in the 1800s, and was easily one of the largest events of the 20th century next to the Novarupta event of 1912, honestly another eruption I'd argue that should have it's own page, possibly, but that is for another discussion. Some volcanic events are notable enough to have their own articles, in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something? SageSolomon (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. It doesn't make sense not to have an article on the 1991 eruption, which is independently notable on many levels. In fact, I think someone should wp:be bold and just perform the split already.- Alternativity (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have performed the split, though there should be content in the newly created 1991 eruption section. Volcanoguy 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ozone confusion

At the end of the lede, what does "ozone depletion temporarily saw a substantial increase" mean? That ozone depletion increased ? Or that the level of ozone increased? The cited source doesn't even mention ozone. Bermicourt (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)