Talk:Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland Mid‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption was copied or moved into Aftermath of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption with this edit on 07:55 17 April 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Air travel and other travel

Recently a detailed list of UK ferries with increased passenger figures was added to this article. Shouldn't that rather go to the air travel disruptions article (if anywhere)? I would think that the focus on this article would be concrete disrupted events, not the transportation infrastructure itself. __meco (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and removed the list of ferry lines. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing event, aftermath is not an appropriate term

I think we ought to change the name of this article for the reason given in the headline. __meco (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you're right, but soon it will be an aftermath and such a move now would likely create a lot of pointless debate for a couple of days. I would personally justify the word aftermath though as follows: The second eruption was on 14 April which made the original plume. This caused an aftermath of events that are documented here. The fact that the eruptiom is continuing is kind of irrelevant because plumes generated today will cause an aftermath in a day or two.ChrisUK (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find your argument the least bit convincing, so seeing that there has been little attention given to this proposal I am formally proposing a move. This article will need an appropriate name long after this incident is over, and postponing that process just makes no sense to me. __meco (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Meco. Airspace has again been closed in Ireland and Scotland in the last few days, and there is no indication that this will not occur again in the coming days and weeks. --Lidos (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal and Renaming

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: moved (to include the month - discussion can continue as to whether it should be plural) Kotniski (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption → Consequences of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption — Relisted 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Using the term aftermath is a misnomer. These are all consequences of an ongoing event. My suggestion is "Consequences on of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption". If others can think of better names still I have no objection to that. __meco (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name. If the proposed alternative name is to be a grammatically correct english title then it should be "Consequences of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption" not "Consequences on ...." If you look up aftermath in the dictionary you will find that it means "consequence of an event, especially a disaster". Therefore the current title of aftermath means exactly the same as the proposed move except it is much shorter and concise. So I can't see any difference between the current name and the proposed one. Hence my view is keep.ChrisUK (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the on was a mere typing error. As for your take on the definition of aftermath I don't quite trust it without any reference to which dictionary you are using. At Wiktionary aftermath clearly denotes something following after an event (usually one of a disastrous nature). __meco (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current title is too long-winded and has a deprecated editorial style. I would support any change that gets rid of "aftermath". Also 2010 is not required. Are we expecting this to be an annual event? Leaky Caldron 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that 2010 should be dropped - I originally created the related air disruption article without the 2010 for that very reason but someone moved it.ChrisUK (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oxford university press has a dictionary that is pretty good. Their definition of aftermath is "the situation that exists as a result of an important (and usually unpleasant) event, especially a war, an accident, etc". This event is both important and unpleasant for those caught by it and the article describes the situation that existed as a result of the eruption. So we have a single word that describes perfectly the article contents and I haven't yet seen any argument that says why Aftermath is the wrong word to use. Perhaps someone could explain why Aftermath is the wrong word since it seems to be used in dozens of article titles.ChrisUK (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you say that 6 million jews were exterminated in the aftermath of WWII? __meco (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would not that be "during" the WWII? You could argue that Israel was created in the WWII aftermath, though. Ok, I think I see your point. Consequences does not have the "afterwards" implications aftermath does. However, I do not know if the difference is enough to make the change. Leirus (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)LeirusLeirus (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Effects and fallout from the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, since this deals with the April and not the March eruption. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like change for change's sake. It's much longer than the current title and i'm not even sure it is grammatically correct to say Effects on its own (you could say After effects I suppose). Fallout is confusing also in this context since it means either the bad result of an event or the radioactive dust after a nuclear explosion. There may be a need in the future to describe what happens when the dust eventually falls to earth so we don't want this article to be confused with that possibiity.ChrisUK (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is about *two* eruptions *in 2010* so there definitely needs to be a rename, since this only deals with the second eruption. As for fallout "fallout" is not a term that is restricted to nuclear dust. If I said that one of the fallouts from the US subprime mortgage market collapse is a worldwide recession, that would be correct, and have nothing to do with nuclear radiation. As for "effect" "The effects of hair loss include loss of a good self-image" is also grammatically correct. If a study on the effects of hair loss were titled that way, I don't see what that would be a problem, since it would be a study on the effects of hair loss. I could say "after effects" but this is shorter, and effects result from a cause, hence a causal relationship and the term "cause and effect". And the eruption is still going on, so it's not like "the after effect of getting drunk is a hangover", since in this case, Europe is still drinking (it's still erupting), so "an effect of drinking is a loss of rational thinking" is more accurate. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly even worse than existing if that is possible - being longer and now with a month inserted! Why not put the full date in? Consequences of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption - with or without 2010. Leaky Caldron 09:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences sounds good. But the month is still needed, Consequences of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. As to why just the month, it's the way that earthquake articles are disambiguated. (see 2010 Indonesia earthquake dab page) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then, if there are some changes in the policies about flying in this kind of conditions, we can make an "aftermath" section :) Leirus (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)LeirusLeirus (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments about hair loss and jews are rather lost on me I'm afraid. Returning to the debate about the name, the main candidates are "Aftermath of...", "Consequences of...." and "Effects of .....". If you type each of these terms into the search box on wikipedia to see the first few articles with these titles, you will notice that "consequences of" and "effects of" are mostly about things rather than events (e.g. "Consequences of special relativity"). The only one I could see that relates to a specific event was "effects of hurricane katrina". On the other hand, if you type in "aftermath of" they are all related to specific events. So based on the english definition and the way the phrase aftermath has been used before on wikipedia, the current title is more than adequate to describe the contents. There was an eruption on 14 April which resulted in a series of impacts in the aftermath of that event. There is a "current" tag on it to warn the reader that the events and consequences are ongoing so the reader cannot get confused and somehow believe that this is all in the dim and distant past. There are two objections above to the word aftermath and the reason given seems to be "I don't like the title". I think that a move proposal has to have a more concrete reason than just personal preference to change it. So again, I re-iterate my position as keep but welcome any further insight as to why Aftermath is a bad choice of word for the title of this article.ChrisUK (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to aftermath is based on 2 concerns. First, it is a word I would associate with a major disaster with significant loss of life. Therefore the use of aftermath relating to a war or 9/11 would be appropriate. This appears to be a supported view, [1], [2]. Second, I think it is an old-fashioned word with contemporary and more suitable alternatives. Leaky Caldron 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change name I've changed my opinion after the merger discussion on the air travel disruption page. This article name needs to be in tune with that article as containing the indirect effects of the travel disruption. But I don't have a proposal though I'm afraid (and no, I don't think it should be "Indirect effects of the air travel disruption from ....."ChrisUK (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change name i believe that the the name needs changing but do not know what it should be changed to. NOTE: I added Cleanup-articletitle to the article and believe the merge tag should now be removed (but should possibly be added again in a month or so after the full extent of this event has finished). I have also stated this on the other article. L blue l (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a change. (Why has this discussion gone on longer than 7 days?) Airspace has again been closed in Ireland and Scotland in the last few days, and there is no indication that this will not occur again in the coming days and weeks. It's hard to think of an alternative title for this useful article, I think the best so far is Consequences of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruptions - note plural--Lidos (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment how did this end up being relisted 5 months after the last comment?? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Effects on the UK

There should be more putang in the world he economic impact section. According to the news, the UK's groceries have been affected. Says that all groceries are flown into the UK... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I look forward to your contributionChrisUK (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impacts section

I recently placed a template on the cultural impacts section questioning whether all of the items listed there are important or relevant enough to be mention. This keeps being removed but I've replaced it because I fail to see how facts such as "Fark's Drew Curtis has been stranded in Armenia following a joint Fark/Reddit meetup" are important enough to be mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's rather irrelevant to see these "facts" in the context of the bigger picture. However, the article is slowly reshaping around the wider impacts as these become clear so I suppose that one day the current listy nature will get forked into another sub article called something like List of people affected by the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption and then those guys can argue the toss in that page and this page can contain the serious impact analysis. However, trying to impose some sort of rule now will be like pushing water uphill on wikipedia - come back in a month or two and there'll be more thoughtful editing going on.ChrisUK (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses

It's not generally good to have an encyclopaedia with present tense statements like "is affecting". The accuracy of the article should be timeliness, and not dependent on re-editing in future to maintain its accuracy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits

Every cloud has a silver lining. There doesn't seem to be much on benefits. Hotels with people staying longer, video conferencing companies, freelance volcanologists. I'll have a look round this evening, but it's worth a section I think. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is now in the article, though it didn't make sense when originally added!. (Revision as of 18:53, 20 April 2010 )

Oceanian economies ~~New Zealand~~

The New Zealand fisheries economy has been helped by the eruptions. Difficulties in bringing fresh salmon to international markets normally supplied by Norway and other northern European nations have substantially boosted orders for New Zealand salmon.

Similarly Holland is unable to supply orchids for the start of the May wedding market in North America. This shortfall has also been a boost to New Zealand exporters

This is only quotes from individual businesses, not official sources so maybe not wp:RS?. The business boost should apply to Australia (apparently we grow orchids too) so maybe an "Aust/NZ" or even "Australasian" section may be needed longer term?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Silver Lining"
"Departures of P&O Cruises, which has seven ships that all operate out of Southampton until late in the autumn, have virtually been sold out for the rest of the year."

Kari Reinikainen (22 April 2010) "Air traffic chaos triggers ex UK port cruise boom " Retrieved 24 April 2010

Places Evacuated

Is there a list, or a need for a list of places evacuated in any Eyjafjallajökull eruption related articles? Apparently the village of Fljótshlíð (new article) was evacuated. Is this more suited for the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull article? Ideas? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it's already there at 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull#Evacuations. ;-)) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation from Reuters about economic and business impacts in the future

Not sure if this is worth adding or not, but Reuters published Scenarios: What if volcano disruption lasts weeks, months? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual notability

I believe that there is a strong case for trimming and removing a considerable amount of the content relating to the impact on individuals, in line with WP:NOTNEWS#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.

For example this, Aftermath_of_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption#Comedy B6kull_eruption#Comedy. Can anyone justify per specific policy or guideline the inclusion of this and many of the other impacts on individuals? Just because they are notable individuals surely does not require the detailed recording of impacts on them in otherwise unrelated notable articles. Leaky Caldron 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's also be savage on other similarly trivial content that has crept in to many other sections also over the last few days. ChrisUK (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the information about John Cleese and his taxi ride. Remember notability is for articles, noteworthiness (a lesser standard) is for content. See WP:NNC. --JD554 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Grand Prix versus UEFA Champions League

I've put the UEFA Champions League back in front of the Japanese Grand Prix as I think it is a more notable event. Google hits for "Japanese Grand Prix" only returns about 136,000 hits[3], whereas "UEFA Champions League" returns about 11,700,000[4]. --JD554 (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a major international sporting event being cancelled, scheduled to be televised around the world, is indisputably far more notable than 4 European based teams having to rearrange their travel plans. Leaky Caldron 10:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have provided my evidence. What evidence do you have for your stance? --JD554 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I've just realised the UEFA matches weren't rescheduled. I'm not sure the teams making alternative travel plans is particularly noteworthy, this must be something that happens reasonably regularly for all sorts of reasons. --JD554 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of a reponse also when I saw your reply. I think the key point is that the football was not canceled so probably shouldn't even be here. However deleting it now will probably cause a pointless revert war - I'd leave it for a month or so and then edit down the whole thing more concisely then.ChrisUK (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Not exactly consensus above. Many seem to think some type of change is needed due to the ongoing nature of the event, but this is moot without a viable alternative which shows a cause-effect relationship without requiring the event to be complete, even implicitly.

How about "Consequences of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.225 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Weather Change

There is a very noticeable change in central-European weather ongoing, that is attributed by many (mostly lay) people to this eruption.

In the land (Czech Republic, Central Europe, "downwind" from Iceland), where the "normal" weather pattern could be described as: "two of nine days raining, with 100 completelly Sunny days per year", there is now (whole May 2010, still continuing and predicted at least until middle of June) more than a month of almost continuous rainy and cloudy weather, repeated floods (a "hundred year water" coming twice in a month in some places). The "wet" clouds came from west-African tropics earlier in May and circled arround for some time (as can be seen on EumetSat images), but the "bad" weather normally dissipates much more quickly... Now the tropical "swirl" has gone, but the "bad" weather still continues...Will Forshaw is sexy.

(Semi, 83.208.147.243 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Jökulhlaup weather is now occuring over Europe and partly also over US (Kansas floods)... Jökulhlaup (or glacier burst) is, when a flood pours from the glacier. When such an amount of water is evaporated, it will not escape into outer space, but it will drop down somewhere... The evaporated water seems to flood on other parts, including Central Europe [5] , Kansas and possibly other... Is there some link for this? (Semi, 83.208.147.243 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright problem removed

putang Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100418-703103.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesEurope

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. 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:

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) 06:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide numbers.

I just saw something on tv about co2 released vs co2 saved by fewer air flights. It seems to me that by now we could estimate both figures in a way that makes sense as a comparison. As in "the volcano released n tonnes of co2 during its eruption and fewer flights saved n tonnes of co2 over n days." Eruption days should include the complete eruption event. Kauaidan (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]