Talk:Sakurajima

Untitled

From Japanese Wikipedia

GA Review

I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Good article review beacuse I feel it no longer meets Good article criteria. The article has no inline citations, and has only one reference. This is a serious problem, as GAs need to be well-referenced. If you support this delistment, or think the article should remaoin as a GA, feel free to add comments on the GA Review page. The article is fairly well-written, it just needs a lot of referencing work. Raime 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe all issues have been adressed.--SidiLemine 13:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The article looks great. It is defitely up to GA-standards, and I have removed it from the GA Review list, with the result being Keep. Archive of review can be found here. Great job with referencing. Raime 05:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mount Sakurajima vs. the town of Sakurajima

This AP article and several other articles refer to the volcano as Mount Sakurajima, while also using the term Sakurajima alone to refer to the volcano. I wonder if "Mount" is part of its proper English-language name, and it's commonly omitted, the way Kilimanjaro is commonly used for Mount Kilimanjaro, and Everest for [[Mount Everest].

This wikipedia article mentions that the island is also called Sakurajima, but I think the town on the island is called Sakurajima as well. You can see a town in the aerial photo in this wikipedia article. Google news archives returns two results for "town of Sakurajima." I was working on an article on radishes, and there's a variety of daikon (Japanese radish) called Sakurajima, which can grow to 70 pounds, and the town of Sakurajima apparently holds an annual Sakurajima daikon contest.

This guide, while not a reliable source, contains information on both the town and the volcano. It repeats a claim I've seen elsewhere that Sakurajima daikon is the world's largest radish variety, while Sakurajima mandarin orange is the world's smallest mandarin orange variety. This wikipedia article mentions their export of daikon (a subspecies of radish with several varieties, or cultivars), without mentioning the specific Sakurajima variety. I assume what they're exporting is that specific variety, although I don't have a reliable source for that, so I'm not editing the article.

-Agyle 07:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should say the "former island." The sentence "The island is part of the city of Kagoshima" confused me on cursory reading; I changed it to "former island" there. At any rate, if that unsourced sentence is true, as seems likely, I wonder how that relates to the town. If there was a recent annexation of some sort, perhaps the town is no longer officially distinguished from the city, or perhaps towns can be parts of cities in Japanese geographic naming. Oh well, I'm heading back to the radish article. :-) -Agyle 08:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-positioning images

The most recent addition to this article was an image of Sakurajima as seen from the city of Kagoshima. For me, this seemed like a useful enhancement; but I thought that the placement needed re-thinking.

Before my edit, the satellite view was in the infobox; but when a view of the peninsula from the city was added, it made more sense to me to re-order or re-position the pair as I have done.

I think this now "reads" in a more suggestive manner. If there is disagreement, fine. I would have no objection if someone were to revert what I've done ... but I'd appreciate an explanation. If another relationship between these photos would be significantly better, I wonder why?

There is another pair of images further down on the page. To me, the corollary relationship between these two images is less helpful because of the ones in the upper right corner. I would have wanted to delete one or both of these ... or perhaps this article would be improved by a gallery at the bottom of the page? This begs a question: If not, why not? yay I love chocolate

Instead of deleting the two images which seem redundant, I decided to post this request for comment. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the things which make these two images "paired" is (a) the volcanic smoke plume seems to be blown in the same direction in both images; and (b) the Volcanic craters seem to be almost aligned (as they appear on my monitor). --Tenmei (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sakurajima. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vw_hyperexchange/sakura-jima.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214155658/http://hakone.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/unzen/sakura/geol.html to http://hakone.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/unzen/sakura/geol.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020202847/http://www.iavcei2013.com/iavcei_hp/PDF/0A2_Key-02.pdf to http://www.iavcei2013.com/iavcei_hp/PDF/0A2_Key-02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819071712/http://jove.geol.niu.edu/students/mdare/VirtualFieldTrip/Mt_Fuji/volcanoinfo.htm to http://jove.geol.niu.edu/students/mdare/VirtualFieldTrip/Mt_Fuji/volcanoinfo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928043002/http://standeyo.com/NEWS/06_Earth_Changes/060605.Sakurajima.html to http://standeyo.com/NEWS/06_Earth_Changes/060605.Sakurajima.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819124809/http://hakone.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/unzen/sakura/sakura.html to http://hakone.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/unzen/sakura/sakura.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040531/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201308180030 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201308180030

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sakurajima Japan Animation Video.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Sakurajima, Kagoshima into Sakurajima. I think the small amount of content in the town of Sakurajima can easily be explained in the context of Sakurajima island, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Sakurajima. The way both articles are currently written neglects the fact that Sakurajima is currently a well populated town with an interesting local culture right next to a very large city. You wouldn't know this from the island page, and the historical Sakurajima town page reads like the town disappeared when the municipality was merged (it didn't). ~~~~ Poketama (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Poketama (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Sakurajima

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Uncited material removed from article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In April 2023, an article of the town of Sakurajima was merged into this article. This caused a new, uncited section to be added to the article. This merger should be resolved if this article is to remain a GA. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't recall the format for posting replies to one of these off the top of my head. However, I think the merge itself should be undone. The scope of the article (the geographic feature) was clear before, and if it seemed like the settlement disappeared when it was merged with the other municipalities, then the best solution would seem to be to revise the contents of Sakurajima, Kagoshima or the article on the city of Kagoshima instead. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinged the merging editor, but they have been inactive since November. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Gallery

@ChaseKiwi What images in the article "[contribute] for some a greater understanding of history" and should not be removed? Why was that enough to assume the rest of my edits were unproductive and had to be reverted? Kowloon Wonton (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Article Improvement to maintain GA standard

This was rated a GA article in 2007 but has deteriorated since in my view. Major deletion and reorganisation of a GA rated article should not be done lightly in response to comment under Gallery above. I have started a new topic as its not just Gallery issues that need addressing after your first attempt to improve article. I reverted your work as it lost important information and it was too complex to sort out without an agreed work plan hence the need for talk discussion. Your new position for the heading History was acceptable to me. The combined heading Geology and geography was problematical as these are usually separate headings with sourced 'meat' in order Geography , Geology , History. The present geology information may be quite weak compared to a fairly massive literature for what is a quite significant volcano in terms of its human impact and 19 years of volcanology studies. I suggest retaining images of individual eruptions and that show changing land areas, the others could be pruned but that only eliminates a few images. The gallery (galleries) should be mainly confined to overflow of right adjusted thumbs in standard browser sections, as Wikimeadia commons is the place for images of the volcano that do not add to article.

The thumbnails and map in infobox eruption and box itself can easily be changed to same width as all those different thumbnail sizes are aesthetically unsatisfying.

We should give it a week for others to contribute and if no one else comments on the current mess and makes suggestions which reach consensus the two of us will be left with a tidy up that is consistent with current GA standards that have moved on since 2007. Frankly I am likely to invite some others who know these standards even better than me to help, if they do not detect this discussion. My only other issue that has prevented a tidy up by me up to now is that I have not reviewed recently the geological literature in English specific for Sakurajima since 2007 as opposed to the caldera it sits in but I now likely have time to do so over next week. It should be noted that I usually only mainly contribute to geology sections and image/map formatting or NPOV issues in bringing articles to current standards. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have already identified the following secondary reviews from last few years that have information that will improve article

1. A Review https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2025.p0186 Integrated Research on Large-Scale Eruption at Sakurajima Volcano
2. Effectively a Review and to support new Potential Impact section https://doi.org/10.1007/s44367-025-00023-1 Multiscale impact assessment of massive ash fallout from a large eruption: What may happen if Sakurajima Taisho eruption occurs in contemporary Japan?
3. worth mentioning successful forecasting capacity ashfall as at https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2025.p0259
4. worth while mentioning magma migration new understanding as at Oláh et al. Earth, Planets and Space (2025) 77:196 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-025-02325-3

ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article based on your feedback because it would be simpler to make the proposed changes and discuss them here. Although I'm no volcano expert, I believe I know enough information to help with reorganization and image selection. I kept two maps, each before and after the 1914 event, and two photographs of the volcano erupting. I gave Geology and Geography separate sections and created an empty section for prehistoric eruptions (although much of the content in Geology could be moved into Prehistoric eruptions). Kowloon Wonton (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

When you have an active talk discussion you should wait a week. There is no hurry to make wikipedia perfect. Please read the advice to new editors already posted by another on your talk page. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Will you discuss about maintaining the article's assessment or will you waste my time? I've already proposed my changes and I'm awaiting for your feedback. I'm not commenting on this section for your "advice" to editors. Kowloon Wonton (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, will start work on shifting info without losing it, as no one else is monitoring our debate closely ChaseKiwi (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed split for 1914 eruption

I think the section "1914_eruption" should be split into a new article called Taishō eruption(1914 eruption of Sakurajima). The eruption killed 58 people, and it is a notable event and the section gives enough detail for it to be a separate article.--ばちかん (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Agree - I agree with the proposer.--~2026-52925-18 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree as article is not that long and a redirect will do. The content existed at the time of articles last GA reassessment in 2024. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)