Talk:2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull/Archive 2

Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 7d)
(Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 7d)gon:(----pl.note:i&#39;v&#91;&#91;RSI&#93;&#93;&gt;typin=v.v.hard4me!&gt;contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear&#91;sven70=alias (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 7 days seems a reasonable amount to keep the page under control, the bot does it automatically. I'm not quite sure which translations you mean, though there is an explanation of the volcano's name at Talk:Eyjafjallajökull/Archive 1 Ged  UK  07:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

split April 2010 eruption
The April 2010 eruption should be split into its own article. The event is notable, especially considering the air travel disruptions, and it is taking more space that the entire rest of the article, so should be split off for balance reasons.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested titles include: 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption | 2010 Fimmvörðuháls eruption

✅ article name can still be discussed on Talk:2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull. --Kslotte (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming
Is the naming "2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull" OK? or "2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption"? or should "Fimmvörðuháls" be used instead? --Kslotte (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this very topic on the talk page before it was moved and the information lost. Please restore it. 81.157.194.152 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do that please. A glacier can't erupt. For those who are wondering, "jökull" = "glacier". 80.202.210.59 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, Eyjafjallajökull is the name of the glacier, while the volcano is called Eyjafjöll. The name of this article should be changed accordingly, and likewise the same information in other, related articles. --91.152.143.144 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Exactly! "Jökull" means "glacier", so it is nonsense to say that a Glacier erupted! The volcano erupted, not the glacier! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.77.152 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just realized the same. Fjöll means mountain, so it would make perfect sense to move the article to 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjöll. An alternative would be 2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull. __meco (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see two different principles we could follow. Either we can name the article from where the eruptions have taken place. The problem with that is that only the second eruption took place underneath Eyjafjallajökull. The first one took place in the nearby mountain pass Fimmvörðuháls. In fact, the Icelandic Wikipedia has separate articles for these two eruptions, Eldgosið á Fimmvörðuhálsi 2010 and Eldgosið í Eyjafjallajökli 2010. The other road we can take is to name the article after the erupting mountain, which is Eyjafjöll, as mentioned above. __meco (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved, no concensus after a month. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull → ? — Relist. A lot of discussion, but I don't really see any consensus here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I cannot come up with more options off the top of my head, however, we need to find something that isn't contributing to the existing misapprehension about place and meaning of the names. __meco (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale As the two discussions above would document the current name of this article is a misnomer. It is not the glacier which is erupting, it is the mountain beneath it, and that mountain is called Eyjafjöll. So we have basically two main alternatives:
 * 1) Refer to the volcano, not its location. This would give the name: 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjöll.
 * 2) Refer to the surface location of the eruption, not the volcano itself. This would give the name: 2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull if we name the article after the second and biggest of the two eruptions of April 14, taking place beneath the glacier, or
 * 3) 2010 eruptions at Fimmvörðuháls, if we name the entire incident after the the location of the initial eruption, taking place at the nearby mountain pass.
 * 4) Both 2 and 3, however in singular, if we decide to do what they did at the Icelandic Wikipedia, i.e. split the current article into one for each of the two eruptions: 2010 eruption at Eyjafjallajökull and 2010 eruption at Fimmvörðuháls.
 * Support move and suggest it is "2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull" since that tallies with most reporting of the eventChrisUK (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, much of that reporting leans in turn on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.6 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eyjafjöll (literall: "The island mountains") isn't the name of a mountain. It's the name of a mountain range as indicated by the plural "fjöll" suffix. If it was a singular mountain it would be called "Eyjafjall".
 * Icelandic place names aren't always very consistent in this regard. There are several mountain names in Iceland who ambiguously refer to both an ice cap and a mountain. One example of this is Tindfjallajökull which is a 19km^2 glacier on the Tindfjöll mountain range (which is probably >100km^2, I don't have the exact number). If an eruption started under Tindfjallajökull we'd call it "The eruption under Tindfjallajökull" or something like that (there's no "Tindfjall" mountain, the eponymous mountain is simply called "Tindur"). --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And being Norwegian myself (the Norwegian and Icelandic languages are relationally close) I expect that tindur equates with Norwegian tind, meaning simply mountain top or peak or summit. I.e. the Icelandic names are almost all descriptors containing attribute of their eponymic object. __meco (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, "Tindur" just means "Peak" and "Tindfjöll" are the "Peak Mountains".
 * Anyway, as for the rename proposal moving it to something with "Eyjafjöll" in the name is out due to the ambiguity concerns I mentioned.
 * Right now it discusses two eruptions one of which wasn't under Eyjafjallajökull. It's probably best split into two as "2010 eruption at Fimmvörðuháls / 2010 eruption under Eyjafjallajökull" if ambiguity is a concern. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue here. The volcano only has one name and it is Eyjafjallajökull. Icelandic volcanos usually don't have names separate from the most prominent geographical feature of the area, be it a glacier, a mountain, an island or something else. --Bjarki (talk)
 * There's still the issue of calling it "eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull" when there's only been one eruption under Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, the other was at Fimmvörðuháls which isn't part of the glacier. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with calling it '2010 eruption at Fimmvörðuháls' to disambiguate it from the current one under the ice cap but both are technically eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull völcano. --Bjarki (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I will move the article to 2010 eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 12 hours unless someone protests. That may not be the final move, but I think we need an impetus to move away from the current name. The discussion of whether or not to separate the two eruptions into their own articles can also continue. __meco (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "YEAR eruption of NAME volcano" is redundant. As far as I can tell no other eruption article uses that format. Most use "YEAR eruption of NAME". Moving it to 2010 eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano would just make the title more verbose without adding any information. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can drop the year, which means this will be the one article for all eruptions of this volcano. There is only the problem of some sources (including Icelandic) that assert that the eruption under the glacier isn't technically of Eyjafjallajökull volcano, but as I have mentioned before of a new, as of yet unnamed volcano. But I'm not opposed to ignoring that for the time being. __meco (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A Volcano is "is an opening, or rupture, in a planet's surface or crust, which allows hot magma, ash and gases to escape from below the surface". In this case there's no single volcano but two that share a single magma chamber or conduit. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I have made a procedural error, so the move will not take place. I'm not sure what happens now. According to the admin I contacted there isn't consensus for a move. __meco (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Move requests generally take 7 days, but that's flexible. The issue here is that there isn't consensus to move, nor where it should move to. Once there's general agreement to move it, and where it needs to move to, I'll happily move ti if it's still move protected. Ged  UK  12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we settled on Eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano. __meco (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that:
 * User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason pointed out that it should have the year in it.
 * User:Bjarki S wanted "at" rather than "of"
 * User:Meco suggested Eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which has neither "at" nor the year in, and added the possibly unnecessary "volcano" on the end, thus meeting neither of the other two users' comments.
 * I would suggest just letting the discussion run for another day or so. I'm sure you can reach agreement, but there's no rush. Ged  UK  13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A more thorough reading of the discussion should resolve all of those issues which you mention. __meco (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it was agreed that tacking "volcano" onto the end was necessary. Indeed, to me this seems either superluous or ridiculous if taken to the general case of how to name similar articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you care to dig a bit into the preceding discussion you'd see the rationale for this. __meco (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to humour me by linking to this? Rather a few people seem to disagree for this to have been so well agreed upon previously. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the present discussion taking place in this and the preceding two sections. Other than that I won't spend time and energy arguing a point which isn't important to me. If this process is going to take a little longer, that is fine by me. __meco (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm sorry to say that I can't see any evidence for your assertion. I'm thus obliged not to consider it a valid one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, from what I've read, User:ChrisUK's suggestion of 2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull would seem to hit everyone's points, but I would still rather they can confirm that here. Ged UK  14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose See no reason to move the page.  As has already been explained, Icelandic volcanoes are usually named after the most prominent geographic feature: in this case, the volcano, illogical though it may seem to some of us, is known as Eyjafjallajökull, the same name as the icecap.  Whilst the move proposal is well intentioned, it is based on a false understanding.  I suppose that, before the volcanology and geology were fully understood, it would have appeared to early Icelanders that it was, indeed, the icecap that was erupting.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know, but do you have a (proper of course) source for the volcano's name being simply Eyjafjallajökull, and that this name is used as any other proper name? There doesn't seem to be consensus for that here, which is why this is being discussed. I suspect it isn't that simple. There has been given more than one explanation of how Icelanders would handle this; ""If an eruption started under Tindfjallajökull we'd call it "The eruption under Tindfjallajökull" or something like that"". The Icelandic wikipedia says ""Eldgosið í Eyjafjallajökull"", where "í" directly translated means "in". There is a reason for why this is being discussed, so discuss, don't trump. What early Icelanders would do doesn't seem relevant at all. I think the money question is; Would they say for instance "Eyjafjallajökull erupted" in Iceland (in correct Icelandic of course)? --213.167.97.194 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Two questions here are:-
 * If two volcanic vents run off the same magma chamber, how far apart must they be to be two volcanoes, not one?
 * Do we go along with the apparent Icelandic habit of calling a volcano '-jökull' if it has an icecap over it? See the introduction of page Snæfellsjökull.
 * The only name that I have seen or heard in news reports here in England is 'Eyjafjallajökull'. I have seen a misspelling Eyjafyoll in reader's letters to the Daily Telegraph.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: whatever the decision, it would be a good a idea to take a look at Category:Volcanic events and update those articles and similar events as well. --emerson7 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

New proposal, tiered approach
How about 2010 volcanic eruptions in Iceland? Simple, common, accurate and we can discuss the relatedness or otherwise of the two major events and the joint effects of both. These can then prominently link to two separate focus articles, 2010 eruption at Eyjafjallajökull and 2010 eruption at Fimmvörðuháls, which can discuss them in more local detail. Knepflerle (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

uncited claims need cites
''While it is suspected that major volcanic eruptions that coincide with cyclic solar minimum activity could produce temporary global cooling or reduction in global temperature, it is noted that coincidentally the earth-facing side of the Sun is mostly blank with no sun spots since the day of 2nd eruption on 14 April 2010 and during the week since. Although the current unusually long solar minimum came to a close earlier this year, the current cycle may witness unusual weak solar maximum. Most consider the climate anomaly of the Year Without A Summer 1816 to have been caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event; the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped off by the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest known eruption in over 1,600 years  ''

My addition of the above who tags to the section 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull was reverted with the comment "Please refer to citations. Numerous articles mainly published by NASA and no original research.".

The citations are as follows: That paragraph still requires a reliable source that explicitly discusses the connection between the eruption and long term weather, specifically for the clauses "major volcanic eruptions that coincide with cyclic solar minimum activity could produce temporary global cooling" and "that coincidentally the earth-facing side of the Sun is mostly blank". Otherwise they are indeed original research. -84user (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ^69. "News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids". SpaceWeather.com. http://www.spaceweather.com/. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
 * This links to http://www.spaceweather.com/ which today only mentions "ASH AND AURORAS" and while April 21 talks about Volcanic lightning, there nothing specific to weather that I can see.
 * ^70. "Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction". Swpc.noaa.gov. 2009-05-08. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
 * This links to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ which does not mention volcanoes.
 * ^71. "Year Without a Summer — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
 * This links to is a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and external cites are needed.

Update. Since the above reversion, new cites have been added that are interesting. The first kind of supports the "it is noted" clause with rewording:
 * Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate - "sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences"
 * David Rind — January 2009. NASA GISS: Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System? - this discusses a way to satisfy "claims that the sunspot cycle is associated with changes in storm tracks and rainfall." Interesting but not directly relevant.
 * Drew Shindell — July 2009. NASA GISS: Super-Eruptions, Climate and Human Survival - this shows how much and for how long the Earth cooled after the Toba eruption

One way to reword the sentence to match the earthobservatory.nasa.gov source might be:

''University at Buffalo scientists showed how volcanic eruptions can reverse the influence of sunspots on climate. (here cite )''

Someone more familiar with this area could improve on this and better paraphrase the following from that NASA source:

"Whenever scientists thought they had discovered something, say, they were seeing a positive correlation between temperature and sunspots, it would continue like that for several years and, all of a sudden, there would be a reversal and, instead, they would start to see a negative correlation,"

and that from 1930 to 1962 there was a positive sunspot/dust correlation, followed by its reverse. They noted volcanic activity was low during the first 30 years, and by "carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate".

So, the source does not really support "major volcanic eruptions that coincide with cyclic solar minimum activity could produce temporary global cooling". I hope this clarifies the reason I add the various tags.

This still leaves the "it is noted" clause, which remains unsupported. The whole clause could be removed without loss I feel. -84user (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ( fix typo and layout84user (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC) )

It seems to me that the link between solar activity, volcanic activity and global cooling still not fully researched and understood. The logic about it is simple, less solar activity results in less temperature, when coincide with volcanic ash results in more dust in the atmosphere, increase in atmosphere reflectivity, less solar rays reaching the atmosphere and thus cooling effect and extreme weather. Other research is linking increase in solar activity with earthquake and volcanic activity. The speaceweather.com site for today 24 April 2010 is noting that the sun is blank with no sunspots for 9 consecutive days which could mean that the solar minimum did not end yet or weak solar cycle. While I disagree with that the subject paragraph is not relevant, I didn't include original research in here, and I agree with you that someone more familiar or an expert advise could improve the article with better rephrase. After all, thank you for your remarks, it helped both of us read and understand more about the subject. Nasser z (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Expert request. I have added Expert-subject request tag to the Short- and long-term weather and environmental effects section, to hopefully attract an expert from WikiProject Meteorology. -84user (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

VEI 1
The only mention of a VEI grading occurs in the introduction and relates to the eruption on March 20. There should be more related to the second eruption. __meco (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Preliminary estimate of VEI4 for 2nd eruption published by Smithsonian magazine on 22 April 2010 now added. Nasser z (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unit conversions
I went a bit 'crazy' last night on unit conversions and anywhere I found Kilometres I added Miles, Metres-Feet, etc.(22-23 places) Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic,? but not everyone uses metres/feet, kilometres/miles and vice versa, so we need to try to cater, don't we? There are inconsistencies, depending on the original figures quoted, Vertical heights are normally(?) in metres and I converted as feet, but heights are sometimes given originally in miles or kilometres/thousands of metres. We may need to see if we need to be totally consistent, or probably stick to exactly what units the references give originally. ie If a reference says 4,000 metres, not call it 4 kilometres? Any views on this? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for your information, altitude in air travel is always measured in feet, even in metric-centric western europe. So in the context of ash cloud altitude and air travel, 35000 ft makes more sense than the respective amounts of meters. (Some countries, such China, measures altitude in meters though) Boaworm (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your feedback. I actually have a bit of an aviation background (though ground based), so I was pretty sure altitude in feet was correct, but basically I converted as above, using the existing quantity in the text. So mostly it has ended up km and miles, with a few km and thous. ft) My thought is that many people understand one system better than the other, so we likely need both (metric/'imperial'). Flyers will understand thousands of feet, but myself and a lot of others likely understand km/miles better. May also have to check editors have not used their preferred system, rather than what the sources said, which I feel we should stick with --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikipedia policy somewhere that says that we always give dimensions both ways. See template:convert for the easy way to do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I haven't been manually typing the conversions in! I have been using this type of syntax 600 to 1700 m
 * Which defaults to meters to feet conversion,ie. 600 to 1700 m or.
 * meters to mile conversion,ie. 600 to 1700 m.
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, here is the relevant Manual Of Style section, "Manual of Style:Units of measurement" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably best to be explicit when using the convert template – it makes it easier for subsequent editors to see what is where. So write 50000 ft if you want 50000 ft [for flight paths] or 5000 m for 5000 m for mountains. [Standard scientific notation for volcanoes is to use SI, and in any case use SI for Iceland]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful time lapse video of the eruption
Not sure if this could be linked - time lapse video of the volcano (with music by Icelandic musician Jónsi). It's gorgeous. 81.129.135.62 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Need a native Icelandic speaker?
If you're improving this article and don't speak Icelandic, but need something translated and Google Translate doesn't work: E-mail me at avarab@gmail.com or reply here. I'm sure others would be willing to help as well. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please add audio files for all Icelandic words in the article. Also, if possible, insert English- style phonetic notation approximations of Icelandic words, as, at least in the US, use of International phonetic symbols is not widespread. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the reason it erupted is that no one could pronounce its name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture
We have at least three pictures of the ash plume taken on the same day from a similar location. Which one should be used in the article? --Bjarki (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Image A did not not meet resolution and quality criteria of Wikimedia when I replaced it. I see there is now a higher-resolution version available. Are you sure it is correctly white-balanced, it looks very bright and yellow, if you compare it to the other two taken under very similar conditions? I also think the framing contains too much ground.


 * Image C is of very poor quality, with major jpeg artifacts and complete lack of sharpness.


 * Bottom line IMO is that we should have a newer picture there though, maybe someone has a picture from middle of May? I haven't been down there in good enough weather for a while myself. Boaworm (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on pic C. I did adjust the contrast and saturation of picture A somewhat to get rid of the gray/blueish haze in the air and hopefully better represent the scene as it would be seen through human eyes. I also worked on the plume specifically to get better definition of the details in the smoke. I put the original master version straight from the camera on my user page along with the adjusted one for comparison. There's no shortage of good pictures out there, we could maybe find something with the appropriate CC-licence on flickr. --Bjarki (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both photos are brigher / more yellow than I remembered it from that day. It looks artificial somehow. Of the two, I prefer the master. A friend of mine took this picture on the same day, it also has this darker color that I remembered. Boaworm (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Webcam locations
Could an experienced wiki editor please wikify the locations here 2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallajökull thanks.--Lidos (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like that? —WWoods (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks, Wwoods.--Lidos (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Amount of water evaporated and discharged?
The chapter Volume of erupted material and magma discharge should include some links to estimates on the amount of water (H2O), SO2 and other gasses, evaporated during the eruption... There is some hint here Gas composition and flux report, linked from Chemical composition linked from Eruption in Eyjafjallajökull on the page of Institute of Earth Sciences, Iceland..., but is not sufficiently quantitative...

(Semi,P.A. 83.208.147.243 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Interwiki fix
At this edit:, the unicode characters of the interwikis were changed to question marks & now the English article does not link to the article in other languages. Could someone please use a bot a something to help fix that? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

✅: I have fixed it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency
Why does this article refer to Eyjafjallajökull rather than Guðnasteinn - i.e. to the icecap rather than to the volcano, whereas the Article on Katla refers to the volcano, rather than to the icecap Mýrdalsjökull? Theeurocrat (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.evropusamvinna.is/page/ies_Eyjafjallajokull_eruption
 * In Eyjafjallajökull on 2011-03-18 12:35:34, 404 Not Found
 * In 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull on 2011-06-19 00:38:35, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8621581.stm
 * In Disaster tourism on 2011-03-17 11:26:35, 404 Not Found
 * In 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull on 2011-06-19 00:38:46, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment downgrade
I have downgraded the articlew due to the machine-gun sentence style used.Petebutt (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Still semi-locked?
Surely too much editing in too short a timespan is no longer a problem! However, I also am writing here to propose adding a section -- "Fictional depictions of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption". It was a key plot point in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film). - Tenebris 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Article locked? Want to add section on health effects
Hi

I would like to add a section about health effects of the eruption, by now several research papers have been published,

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001851.short

citing them would increase the quality of the article.

Best

09:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanneKCarlsen (talk • contribs)


 * I have lifted the indefinite protection of this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That said, however, one should exercise restraint in citing one's own work on Wikipedia. (See, for instance, WP:SELFCITE.) It can be very helpful if there are good secondary sources – review articles and the like – that help to place a particular work in context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324210550/http://www.visir.is:80/article/20100320/FRETTIR01/946441584 to http://www.visir.is/article/20100320/FRETTIR01/946441584
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100424035616/http://eldgos.mila.is:80/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/ to http://eldgos.mila.is/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420162516/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)