Talk:Eyjafjallajökull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Glaciers (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iceland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Earthquake activity at Eyjafjallajökull[edit]

There continue to be earthquake activity auhht Eyjafjallajökull since 5th of March 2010. The swarm there do not show any sign of stopping at this time. This page needs to be updated with those facts in mind, also the Icelandic article about Eyjafjallajökull. Jonfr (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article says "Around December 2009, seismic activity was detected in the volcano area, with thousands of small earthquakes (mostly magnitude 1–2 on the Richter magnitude scale, with only a couple greater than 3 magnitude) 7–10 kilometres (4.3–6.2 mi) beneath the volcano." But this is shown to be completely false by observing the actual seismograms for the weeks of December: http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2009/vika_48/myr.gif http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2009/vika_49/myr.gif http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2009/vika_50/myr.gif http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2009/vika_51/myr.gif http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2009/vika_52/myr.gif ... by continuing to look at charts in January, that is when seismic activity is shown to markedly increase: http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2010/vika_01/myr.gif http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/viku/2010/vika_02/myr.gif ... and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.88.186 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Right sound bite? / New pronunciation, please[edit]

The sound bite for pronunciation (About this sound listen ) seems not to be the one for this article. Please check and confirm.--Wetman (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, he's saying "Eyjafjallajökull" alright, but quite casually. He pronounces it the way you would pronounce it in the middle of a sentence spoken at normal to high speed. I would guess it's rather hard for a non-native speaker to get a good sense of how to pronounce it from that. 213.167.158.254 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It doesn't seem to agree with the IPA given right before. With the currently increasing volcanic activity, it would be nice to have a more definitive pronunciation to use e.g., for reporting. Cstaffa (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
AP is using "(AYA-feeyapla-yurkul)", which again differs from the IPA. Cstaffa (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be helpful to reporters, some of whom I've heard struggle badly with the name in broadcasts. I will see what I can do tomorrow, having a fairly busy day atm. I'm a native speaker and use my voice for a living so I should be able to say it relatively clearly, if I don't forget. 213.167.158.254 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AP has now issued "(ay-yah-FYAH'-plah-yer-kuh-duhl)" Cstaffa (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But why does the audio file download as Eyjafjallajökull.ogx? It works when I change the extension. --Ampwright (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BBC have provided a clear audio pronunciation: [1] Can we use this? Cimbalom (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My rough transcription of the BBC audio pronunciation for English speakers is ay·ah-fyut·la-yökut·tlh. The current article's About this sound audio clip  contracts this to ay·ah-vah-lövut·tlh. "ö" is the German ö or the vowel in the French word oeuf, "tlh" is an aspirated, unvoiced "tl", similar to the sound in "subtle".

The audio file of someone pronouncing the title of this article has been giving people problems. It does not agree with the IPA pronunciation given. A native speaker has said that it is a quick or somehow sloppy pronunciation. It would be nice to have a definitive pronunciation. Cstaffa (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Linguistics weblog Language Log post Eyjafjallajökull fail features this and another native pronunciation, and this version (in semi-IPA, "eya-vət-layə-gəts") does appear to be authentic. But they also have a slower "hyper-articulated" version that's closer to the IPA in this article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The following video also has a different pronunciation, from a native Icelander living in New York:[2]. (By the way, the reference to the number of people who speak Icelandic refers to Americans, and it's an old figure.) I would seriously encourage removing the current audio until new audio can be posted, because it's causing real problems on a very large scale. International news broadcasts are currently being botched because of this bad reference material. 72.244.207.30 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who can actually speak Icelandic without swallowing half the word clearly pronounce and enunciate the name of this volcano? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.53.135 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the current ogg file is dreadful. It's little more than a mumble. There is a much better example at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pronounce-eyjafjallajokull-10392613. So if an Icelandic person could please record a clean file and upload it to replace the current one, it would be appreciated! Thanks. EuroSong talk 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is really unfortunate that people do not check if there is a section present before adding their comments — there are now three sections on this topic. I was checking out Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, but I am uncertain if it is acceptable to merge them, and if so into which section. That said, I have checked out the various pronunciations, and the best rapid pronunciation is the first sample on http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/iceland_volcano_eyjafjallajoku.html , while the clearest careful pronunciation is in http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/iceland-volcano-spews-consonants-and-vowels/ . These are both also extracted in the previously cited and very helpful Language Log article. Either of these samples would do fine, if their owners would release them. PJTraill (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I have recorded a new audio clip following the BBC pronunciation: About this sound listen . To my ear it is a close match to the pronunciations by native Icelandic speakers at [3] and [4]. If a native speaker can confirm that About this sound my recording  sounds correct, I propose to replace the existing file with this new one. Thanks! Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your new recording is the unnatural intonation where each of the threewords that make up the name carry word stress. In that respect the original clip is much better. The word stress is on the first part of the name – Eyja. The other two parts should not carry stress. ØysteinVangsnes (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean; yes, I really exaggerated it heavily — too heavily. Thank you for the feedback. I have made another attempt and uploaded a new version of the same file: About this sound listen . I'm trying to keep it slow enough that you can hear how it is pronounced without over-exaggerating; what do you think? If you would like to make a better recording, please feel free. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There is still word stress on fjalla and jökull. Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not going to make a recording myself. (I don't know how to upload either...) Are you a native speaker? ØysteinVangsnes (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It's subtly non-native, especially the double-l at the end. I made a few recordings myself (freely licensed, feel free to put 'em on commons, I just couldn't be bothered to upload them). I have no idea if they're better (understandable to non-native speakers) or not. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the recordings! There is a bit of background noise but the pronunciation is audible, and much clearer than the article's current audio clip in my opinion. If you could reply to my e-mail to confirm the license, I'll upload it to the Commons and add it to this article. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Good to know that they're useful. the noise sucks, I just have my crappy laptop microphone unfortunately. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The article now links to your recording. Thanks! —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

All this is ridiculous. Just call it EYE-JAFFA-JALLA-JOKUL. It sounds quite catchy, a series of whatnots, trochees. That's the Anglo way with foreign words. Just approximate it to something sayable. You're never going ton pronounce it like a native speaker 93.36.193.217 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Campolongo


I have a problem with the soundbite. It's obviously not a native speaker pronouncing the word (I am a native speaker studying Icelandic at a university level so I should know). I'm not sure if this is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's soundbite (his link doesn't work anymore) or what but anyways it's not the correct pronounciation. I could easily record a new one but wouldn't have the faintest how to put on the page! :Þ --Langbrok (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone decided to upload his own (non-native) take on the pronunciation without informing anyone on the talk page. I'm reverting it back to Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's recording. Tony Kao (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of the name?[edit]

Eyja fjalla jökull = Eyjafjöll Ice-cap, where 'Eyjafjöll' = 'Isles Mountains' (because the surrounding region is known as the Landeyjar--the Land Isles--referring to a broad flatland punctuated by a number of large upstanding hills and glaciated massifs) Could someone add a derivation to the intro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, if you have a reliable source that gives this definition...Moonraker12 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Jökull means ‘glacier/icecap’ and this is the glacier on Eyjafjöll (eyja = genitive plural of ey ‘island’, fjalla = genitive plural of fjall, ‘mountain’). This is uncontroversial. Icelandic wikipedia explains the name Eyjafjöll as the mountains that face the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago. The two conflicting explanations should either be discussed, or the matter should be resolved by reference to some authoritative external source. (And strictly speaking the issue pertains to the name of the mountain rather than the glacier (and the volcano), but at this point there is no separate article about the mountain...) ØysteinVangsnes (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually Jökull is just Glacier, Ice cap would be Hveljökull. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I respect your native Icelandic take on this, this simply *can't* be right. Not one of the numerous ice caps in Iceland is called X-hveljökull by name. The form jökull can clearly mean a) glacier, in the conventional sense understood by most people not living in Iceland, Greenland, or the Antarctic, or b) ice cap. Eyjafjallajökull is very clearly an ice-cap. We can distinguish between the main body of ice, which bears that name, and the conventional valley or outlet glaciers that flow down from it, such as Gígjökull and Steinholtsjökull, which are the sort of more limited features that people in other lands usually have in mind when talking about a glacier--i.e. a lobe or tongue of ice contained by the surrounding geomorphology (e.g. a valley) rather than covering it. See further [[5]]. Dala-Freyr (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker. Jökull is very often used as an ice cap, however if we want to be very strict than technically hveljökull is the correct word. No one in Iceland would however argue with you if you said "jökull" and meant "hveljökull". Nobody cares but in an encyclopedia it should be "hveljökull".

i dont see why it even needs to say "iclandic for eyja-fjalla glacier" since eyja-fjalla is icelandic, surely all it needs to say is "icelandic for island mountain glacier" (or whatever it is decided it means) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.237.110 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Split article or retitle or something?[edit]

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.

This was a series of proposals to Merge, Split, or Re-name this article. It has been closed as there was no consensus for any of these suggestions. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article name and intro suggests it is about the glacier; the bulk of this article is about the volcano near the glacier. Surely they should have separate articles? Some reports say the volcano is under the glacier while others say it is near (see The Times article "The original fear was that the volcano had erupted directly underneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, which could have caused glacial melt, flooding and mudslides. Instead, the volcano blew inbetween Eyjafjallajokull and the larger Myrdalsjoekull glacier.". Even if the volcano is under the glacier, surely it should have its own article? 86.138.46.95 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be incorrect as Eyjafjallajokull refers to an ice cap with outlet glaciers in various directions, eg Gigjökull to the North which is currently being eroded by lava streams. I oppose splitting the article.--Lidos (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The name Eyjafjallajökull is commonly used for the entire mountain area on which the ice sits -- the Eyjafjöll which forms the first part of the compound. The volcano is not 'near' the glacier (which is in fact an ice cap): it underlies it. The entire mountain is a stratovolcano, which is in turn topped by the ice-cap that lends the mountain its name. Given all this it would seem pretty pointless to attempt to distinguish between the three related things (mountain, volcano, ice) to which the name refers.Dala-Freyr (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal?[edit]

This article [6] suggests the name of the volcano is Fimmvörðuháls. 81.156.125.126 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems even the Icelandic sources are using the name "Eyjafjallajökull volcano", however, I have added {{move portions}} tags to both articles so that we can discuss the issue of the name of the volcano itself. __meco (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Eyjafjallajökull (both the glacier and the volcano) and Fimmvörðuháls are completely different entities, thus the articles should not be merged. However the eruptions are linked and discussion on both belong in both articles. Bwibbwz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
I can't believe someone is taking an article in the Daily Mail as an authoritative source! Fimmvörðuháls, as the name suggests, is a neck of land, a mountain pass, between glaciers. Howard Alexander (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Howard is exactly right, just as the first sentence at the Icelandic article says: is:Fimmvörðuháls is the area between Eyjafjallajökull and Mýrdalsjökull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.143.66 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Fimmvörðuháls is not part of Eyjafjallajökull and the eruption in March was in Fimmvörðuháls. Fimmvörðuháls is between two glaciers and on it lies a popular hiking path. The eruption that started on April 14th was under Eyjafjallajökull (under the top of the glacier). Most of the world media is not accurate about this but I think wikipedia should be as accurate as possible and therefore have two articles. It is very likely that this volcanic activity now will trigger Katla and is also a another nearby volcano.--Salvor (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The first eruption may have been in Fimmvörðuháls, but it was an eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, as this makes clear. The new site (which seems to be a Fissure vent rather than a Parasitic cone) doesn’t itself have a name yet. If the issue is what name to use, then WP:RS (in this case the Iceland weather bureau, somewhat better than the Daily Mail!) dictates we use Eyjafjallajökull.
And the second eruption definitely occurred on Eyjafjallajökull. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In any event, why are we discussing a merger? There's no justification at all for merging Eyjafjallajökull and Fimmvörðuháls; they are different locations (though part of the same massif, along with Katla) and have their own separate notablity.
But the original poster asked whether the the article should be split, in the manner of Myrdalsjokull and Katla, as Eyjafjallajökull is the name of the glacier, the mountain (presumably) being Eyjafjöll. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now added the {{Move portions}} template so that information about the glacier and the mountain are kept separate. I have also refactored (i.e. moved) this section to the bottom of the talk page to highlight the discussion. __meco (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the volcano is now quite notable and should have its own independent article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to point out that if the Global Volcanism Program can be considered as a guide, Eyjafjallajökull is the name. --Guanlong wucaii 09:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm now again confused. If the volcano which erupted at Fimmvörðuháls is called Eyjafjallajökull, then the second volcano erupting underneath the Eyjafjallajökull glacier is not the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, but a new, as yet unnamed, volcano. And are Eyjafjall, the mountain, and Eyjafjöll, the mountain range, entities that nobody cares about so that these do not need any Wikipedia articles? As I can enumerate the entities we are dealing with currently, there is one mountain, one mountain range, one glacier, two volcanoes and one mountain pass. __meco (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The first [March] eruption was at Fimmvörðuháls. The second [April 14] eruption was at a vent under Eyjafjallajökull glacier. --Guanlong wucaii 11:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That may be so, but it is highly confusing that it was apparently the Eyjafjallajökull volcano that erupted at Fimmvörðuháls, whereas the vent erupting underneath the Eyjafjallajökull glacier is being described as a new as of yet still unnamed volcano. __meco (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

<exdent>At the moment the hatnote at this article suggests to {{move portions}} to the non-existent article Eyjafjöll, which presumably means: split off a new article entitled "Eyjafjöll". (For future reference, the most appropriate template for cases like this is {{Split2}}.) But, confusingly, Fimmvörðuháls has a {{Move portions from}} hatnote indicating the desire that (presumably the same) portions of this article be moved instead there. If the Global Volcanism Program can be considered as a guide, "Eyjafjalla" and "Eyjafjallajökull" can be considered synonyms of "Eyjafjoll",[7] where, however, the last links to a page entitled "Eyjafjallajökull", which states: "also known as Eyjafjöll".[8] Note that this naming is in the context of volcanos. Major news sources appear to use "the Eyjafjallajökull volcano" or "the volcano under the Eyjafjallajökull". This was already used for the March 20 eruption (see e.g. here); although not quite under the glacier, this is the same Eyjafjallajökull volcano system that is active now. If a separate article is split off, it should be named Eyjafjallajökull volcano per WP:COMMONNAME.  --Lambiam 09:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to clarify this
As far as the eruption goes, the name should stay as Eyjafjallajökull as per WP COMMON, as it’s the name most sources are using.
As for the location ( and one picture is worth 1000 words) the satellite picture here (at the 20 mile scale) shows a massif of two ice-capped mountains joined by a neck/ mountain pass.
The icecap to the east/right is Mýrdalsjökull ; the mountain/volcano underneath is Katla
The neck between the two is Fimmvörðuháls
The icecap to the west/left is Eyjafjallajökull
The mountain/volcano seems to be labelled Eyjafjöll (at scale of 1mile or less) but the text here (and, up until 16 April [9] was in a section entitled “Eyjafjöll”) says that’s the name of the foothills (also the word seems to be plural). Also in Iceland the names of mountains and their glaciers seem synonymous at times. It’d be useful if someone from Iceland could shed some light on this bit.
And this shows the site of the first eruption, and this the second; both are from the same volcano/magma chamber, under Eyjafjallajökull. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Using Google news search I find 125 hits for "eruption(s) of (the) Eyjafjallajökull", and 78 for "eruption(s) of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano", which should mean there are only 47 or so sources with "eruption(s) of the Eyjafjallajökull" not followed by "volcano". Conclusion: "2010 eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano" might be the better article name – with appropriate redirects from other variations, of course.  --Lambiam 10:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
PS As far as splitting, moving, merging or re-naming goes, I would suggest No to all of them until we know more about it. Any additions about the eruption should be going into the main article anyway; it would make more sense to have a moratorium on editing here, and the other location pages, and refer people to the main article. And I'd suggest taking out all the hatnotes and closing the discussion, as it seems to be generating more confusion than anything. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the suggestion of removing the hatnotes. I agree that additions about the eruption should mainly be going into the main eruption article. Attempts to close the discussion over the names of Wikipedia articles are historically known to have been spectacularly unsuccessful.  --Lambiam 10:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we at least close the discussion until it erupts again? :) Moonraker12 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see how this proposal should be terribly confusing. This article isn't about the eruptions mainly, although they would of course have to be mentioned, just as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami would be mentioned in the article on the Indian Ocean. You write "I would suggest No to all of them until we know more about it." What do we need to know more about? Nothing in the proposal to split this article to keep the volcano and glacier separate would suggest that we should emphasize more in this article on the ongoing eruption. __meco (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(reply to meco)
Well, one of the things we need to know is the name of the mountain; I’ve asked the question, but not seen an answer yet.
And what I was mainly saying "no" to was the idea of merging this page with Fimmvörðuháls;
But as far as my opinion on splitting the page goes, I’ve posted it below. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Institute of Earth Sciences at the University of Iceland seems to mainly call it Eyjafjallajökull[10], although on the same page it does mention that it is also known as Eyjafjöll. The Smithsonian Institute also mainly calls it Eyjafjallajökull while acknowledging it is also known as Eyjafjöll[11]. Although on this page they seem to describe Eyjafjallajökull as a synonym of Eyjafjöll. Whereas the British Geological Survey seem to just call it Eyjafjallajökull[12]. --JD554 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-name[edit]

I suggest retitling it as Eyjafjalla glacier or Eyja-fjalla glacier, which is more in standing with English naming conventions. I am not typically one to endorse an exonym, and in fact I'd like to see how much we can promote endonyms for place names here on en.wiki. But the issue here is that "jokull" has a direct translation as "glacier," which is clarifying if we just translate its meaning in Icelandic. To an Icelandic person, the name simply means "island-fells glacier" or "eyja-fjalla glacier." The rest of the name Eyjafjalla, or Eyja-fjalla (preferable) can remain of Icelandic origin and satisfy Icelandic nomenclature. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For Icelandic glaciers, it seems the convention is to use the full Icelandic name (see Glaciers of Iceland). The same goes for Glaciers in Norway, though not for Glaciers in Greenland. In the end, it comes down to convention/conesnsus and WP:COMMONNAME. ~Asarlaí 04:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I would also say No to a re-name; the name that is in use on English language maps is "Eyjafjallajökull" (with or without the umlaut); and the article text explains the meaning of the word. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think its appropriate to have one article which is about both a glacier and a voclano, just because they (may or may not) share the same name? __meco (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think "Eyjafjalla glacier" is an unsuitable name for this article, which is why I said “No”; Are you arguing for it, here? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Split[edit]

The article isn't too large as it is, it would just confuse matters to split it up. It would be nice if it looked more like this except with more than a paragraph about eruptions of course. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In my experience that goes completely counter to Wikipedia practice. We don't commingle items in an article that way. I agree with that practice, and I'm sure this will be the end result despite the wishes of several inexperienced editors here now (I'm not putting anyone down, just pointing out that we do have precedence for splitting in such cases). __meco (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What practice are you referring to? My experience is there's usually a headlong rush to merge pages, not split them.
We have guidelines for splitting pages; do you think your proposal meets any of them?
As far as separate pages for mountains and their ice-caps is concerned, the precedent, I’d say, is the opposite. Eyjafjallajökull’s neighbours, Tindfjallajökull and Torfajökull have single pages; a review of the Glaciers of Iceland page, would probably show a similar pattern. And I suspect it isn’t even an issue outside Iceland, where (for all I know), the word “Jokull” refers to any ice-capped mountain ( I’m not Icelandic, and I would like to hear some clarification on this from anyone who is)
And I take exception to your labelling as “inexperienced editors” anyone who disagrees with you. That is not appropriate, as someone of your experience would know. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
In which article would you put information about the melting of the glacier caused by this and other eruptions? Or about the glacial runs? How about past and current changes to the glacier due to eruptions (e.g. Skerin).
The two are completely intertwined, until someone starts writing so much about the glacier (or the eruption) that the two warrant splitting I see no reason to do so. It's just premature. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Very true. One cannot logically split the glacier from the mountain on which it sits. They are one entity. It would be like having separate articles for a lake and its lakebed. An eruption of the mountain melts much of the glacier; the fire and ice are interdependent. The Icelandic Wikipedia makes no attempt at a split nor suggests / invents a separate name for the volcano. I think the Icelanders know best. Howard Alexander (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I can agree that the volcano is part of the mountain structure, but to assert that it should in any way be hard to separate the mountain/volcano from the glacier I find simply nonsensical. __meco (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It should not be hard to write a stub on the glacier with the information we already have, not hard at all. __meco (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I suggested (below) that this discussion might be clarified if the article had separate "Icecap" and "Mountain" sections, but didn’t get a reply.
I still think it’s a good idea; the article would benefit from some more information on them (size, height, layout etc). Does anyone want to do that? or object if I do it? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done (finally!) In the absence of a demur, I went ahead and dun it.Moonraker12 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done, Moonraker12. Great improvement.--Lidos (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-name and split[edit]

It would be useful to rename and split to Eyjafjallajökull (glacier) and Eyjafjallajökull (volcano) and then the undabbed name could be a dab page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article just needs more discussion of the glacier. We already have 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull for any eruption-related details that would be excessive in this articles. We don't need three articles about one glacier/volcano. Hans Adler 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think what you write makes so much sense. For one, do you think that a volcano and a glacier should be commingled in one article? And second, the article which you are referring to is about an event. It could hardly replace an article on the entity causing the event or the place of the event. That would be like arguing that because we have the article on 9/11 we don't need and article on the Twin Towers. __meco (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's clear, even from Jules Verne's Journey to the center of the earth that the suffix -jökull means glacier. I think the volcano should have a page and the glacier another. I support 70.29.208.247 in the splitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisdanielmesa (talkcontribs) 01:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree on suggesded split. The volcano (mountain) is the underlying geoloical phenomenon. Because it is high enougth (given its latitude and historical climate), this volccano supports and maintains a glacier at/near its summit, traditionally bearing the same Icelandic name, a t least during millenia-sca le tim44444444444. nwhen the ice (\ nnae me.montain/volcamo was in the Icelandic name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.198 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(reply to meco)
To comment on your proposal to have a separate glacier article, what would you put in it? Reading what we have now, an article on the glacier would have barely two sentences in it, if that. Is that what you want to split off?
What would be a better idea, I suggest, is to create a “glacier” section and a “volcano”/”mountain” section in this article first, and see what we can make of it. That way you won't end up with a 60-word stub that would be a candidate for a speedy deletion.
Also, at present, the purpose of this article is serving is to inform people who come here from the eruption page, giving them information about the location; this proposal would have them jumping through hoops to get that.
And I’ve no particular objection in principle to having separate pages, if there is something worthwhile to put in them; its why I reiterated the proposal last time. But I am averse to knee-jerk reactions to current events, resulting in a lot of messing around with previously stable articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section comments[edit]

I’ve reinstated the "Rename" section; there was no particular reason to merge it, and no discussion. Opening it was not a breach of guidelines, though moving it probably was: It certainly made things more confusing.
It was boldly merged, so I’ve reverted it; any discussion would be here. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PS:This section is far too confusing now. There are at least three different proposals here, and about half-a-dozen different conversations going on at once. Talk page guidelines are to “keep the layout clear” and “keep the discussions focused”, so I’ve created separate sub-sections to try and clarify this.
If anyone does want to post all their replies together, I suggest doing it at the “Split..or something" level, but the edit history would be clearer if they are posted separately. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PPS:There's been little or no comment here for about a month, and there's no consensus to merge, or split, or re-name this article (or any combination of the three) so I'm being bold and closing the discussion, otherwise it'll drift on forever... Moonraker12 (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (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.


whiplash[edit]

Whatever you do, rewrite that introduction. I got whiplash with the dates not being in chronological order. 4.249.15.254 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More Details about Previous Eyjafjallajökull Earthquakes Should Be Added[edit]

This would be especially relevant to understanding the current eruption. The previous triggering's of the secondary Katla eruptions are mentioned, but what about the intensity and duration of these, and also the previous Eyjafjallajökull eruptions.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Prediction of the future[edit]

In the article it says "led to travel disruptions in northwest Europe on April 15-19, 2010." How can we predict the future? How would you even cite something that's in the future? --96.244.255.151 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The national air traffic authorities - many of them - have already confirmed the airspace won't be opened to normal traffic again until Tuesday, or possibly later. If you have a ship that's sunk in a storm in full view of others and nobody is rescued,. there's no problem saying as a certainty that everyone on board died, even though most of the bodies haven't been retrieved yet. Same here. Strausszek (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed text which would not age well[edit]

Changed "Most recently it erupted in 2010..." in the introduction to "It erupted in 2010...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.206.206 (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Following the standard approach to prose that doesn't keep well: "As of 2010, most recently it erupted in 2010...". :)  --Lambiam 10:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Volcano[edit]

Can someone add an infobox volcano to the article? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the Template:Infobox glacier? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The article covers both, should have both infoboxes, especially since the volcano infobox would provide more information. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there even an Template:Infobox volcano somewhere? All I could find for volcanos was Template:Infobox mountain. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes use Template:Infobox mountain, infobox mountain has following entries as well: | volcanic_arc/belt = | age = | last_eruption = --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

hekla eruption[edit]

http://www.ruv.is/hekla

second volcano eruption —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

no. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, ya fergot La Yogurt[edit]

According to the NY Times editorial[13], and several other places [14] (like the Aussie "The Punch"[15]) , it is pronounced "Hey ya fergot La Yogurt". This should be in the article somewhere... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't. That rendition is way off, no native speaker would know what you were talking about. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it really shouldn't. Pronunciation advice from New Yorkers? (wadda diseahstuh!) Moonraker12 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken. But have you ever seen Icelandic women? They are very beautiful. We should add a video of one pronouncing 'Eyjafjallajökull' just as an excuse to add some spice to the article.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not bad, it's closer to the sound clip; but if your going to knock it, can you come up with a better one? Eyjafjallajökull may as well be written in hiragana or katakana or Sanskrit... it's pointless to use roman alphabet for english speakers without some basic rules to say something in iceland's ancient tongues. --66.91.84.33 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NPR provides two good attempts: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/iceland_volcano_eyjafjallajoku.html --66.91.84.33 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you speak Icelandic, then? Perhaps you can answer the question, above, about the meaning of the word. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What question is that? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Junk Content[edit]

The south park picture and tv screenshot with french flag will be removed.hameed (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Need more info on the glacier/mountain/icecap itself[edit]

The article is short of info on the glacier itself. Here are a few notes I didn't turn into prose (unused to article editing by now):

  • The highest point is called Hámundur, here's a picture. If we could get a free image of it that would make a much better into image than what we have now.
  • There are two main outlet glaciers. Gígjökull (in the intro image) flowing into Lónið and Steinholtsjökull flowing into Steinholtslón
  • Along with Hámundur Goðasteinn [16][17] is the most notable feature on the ice sheet. It's rock permanently covered by ice.
  • Skerin (the skerries) are a snow-free area (shown as such on maps) to the very north-west of the glacier. These were the site of a previous eruption (date uncertain). See this image.

--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a ref source for the highest peak http://www.boncherry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/eyjafjallajokull_map.jpg but then commented it out because the website is suspect. Can anyone find a better source for this map.--Lidos (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription of Eyjafjallajökull[edit]

Here's the phonetic transcription of Eyjafjallajökull (IPA) from The Icelandic Language Institute. It's funny that despite all the hoopla regarding the pronunciation, The Icelandic Language Institute hasn't received a single request on how to pronounce Eyjafjallajökull from foreign journalists or foreign media :-). Here's a link to their website in case of another pronunciation crisis of global proportions. --Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A PDF for a single word, that must be some sort of record. Can someone copy/paste the string here (or to the article). It doesn't work on my system. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the IPA in the article to match the transcription supplied by the Icelandic Language Institute. — Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is great. Shouldn't it be added into the References? I have never seen a referenced pronunciation at Wikipedia, but if we have such a good source, why not to add it? Several months later a person reading the article will think: "How can I be sure this pronunciation is correct?" (This talk page will have been deep in the archive by then.) Mountleek (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the pronunciation provided, like all the previous pronunciation, seems to make the last syllable entirely unvoiced, not just the /l/. To the point where, instead of /kʏtl̥/, it sounds like /kʰ͡tl̥/. — trlkly 09:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Was wondering if a link to the Year Without a Summer would be appropriate. 72.35.208.4 (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Webcam link[edit]

Is broken. This one [18] works. 81.156.124.135 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Added wlink to 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull#Webcams which lists all five webcams and a thermal imaging camera.--Lidos (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

link FLIR Thermal Camera and normal Camera (side by side) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin72 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tintin72, very nice. Added (without the advert for FLIR).--Lidos (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In short[edit]

Eyjafjallajökull is too long. So one uses the short Eyja.--Nopetro (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nopetro is too long. So one uses the short No. --Stalfur (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Malinozzz, 18 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

I was wondering if it would not be alot more simple for people that arent Icelandic if the word would be prounonced (Ey-ya-fella-you-cool!) its alot more simple and relatable. Just think about it, thank you.

That's maybe too simple. Scroll up the page. :)  f o x  13:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Malinozzz (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

wikinote about ö[edit]

I propose to remove {{foreignchar|Eyjafjallajoekull|ö}} from this article and 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull. None of the other Glaciers of Iceland have this template.

In Iceland one never sees the name written with oe - it's just written Eyjafjallajokull - this template may be more appropriate for German words. Any comments?--Lidos (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Rothorpe (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Done.--Lidos (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA[edit]

From the audio, the word would appear to be

  • [ˈɛɪjaˌfjafl̥aˌjœkʏtl̥], rather than
  • [ˈɛɪjaˌfjatl̥aˌjœkʏtl̥]

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't discern any friction (hissing) after the [fja]; it's clearly a stop consonant (acoustically, a very short break in the signal). However, the first lateral consonant sounds voiced to me, like a normal English [l]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

920 erruption[edit]

It would be interesting to know more about the AD 920 erruption. How much do we know about it and how do we know it? Historical records? How accurate are the geological measures of the date of this erruption? Rwflammang (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of E15[edit]

While some people refer to the volcano as "E15", I've only really come across this in the US media - it is quite ignorant. I think this reference should be removed - with a few minutes invested even a non-Icelander can learn to say the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.116.31 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Big E[edit]

Julia Bradbury on her Icelandic Walk's programme (BBC (2011) Julia Bradbury's Icelandic Walk - First broadcast - BBC Four, 9:00PM Wed, 11 May 2011)refers to Eyjafjallajökull often as the Big E. How widespread is this? Is it worth mentioning? (Msrasnw (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

I think nobody in Iceland calls it "the Big E". That's just a made up name to help the foreigners along. Perhaps volcanologists use that amongst themselves but the rest of us just call it "Eyjafjallajökull". --Langbrok (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thickness[edit]

Anyone know the correct "Thickness" value? (Infobox) there are no units and the value is set to 28018 which does not make any sense to me. 28018 has been there for months. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong infobox maybe[edit]

I have noticed the page currently has a glacier infobox. I'm aware that the name translates to "Islands' Mountains' ice cap" according to the naming section, but very little of the article talks about the glacier. It instead tends to focus on the volcano. Volcanoes get a mountain infobox.

If we replace with infobox mountain, the information we would loose would be minimal. The area - is already mentioned in the body. The thickness - we don't know what the heck that figure is supposed to mean anyway (see post immediately above). The status - is worded awkwardly but is again talking about the volcano, which would be covered by the last_eruption parameter of infobox mountain. The lead may need to rewritten slightly for consistency.

The benefits of switching to the mountain infobox are the template has parameters to include the prominence and its ref, which is 1051 m and currently not anywhere in the article. We would have a place to neatly add the alternate names of the summit. That same source gives Guðnasteinn and Hámundur btw. The potential for other things to be added of course.

I have noticed that a similar suggestion has been raised before about having both infoboxes in the article. I suppose that's an option as well, but I would prefer infobox mountain only. I will gladly make all the changes if no one objects. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support conversion to {{Infobox mountain}} --- it will be much more informative —hike395 (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In addition to last_eruption, some of the useful volcano friendly parameters are: type, volcanic_arc/belt and age. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there is one editor in support and no one opposing as of yet, I will be making the conversion soon. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Feel free to make tweaks, additions and corrections. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Audio file not working[edit]

I tried listening to the pronunciation of the name with Windows Media Player and Real Player, the two players indicated on the drop down list. No luck. I have Windows 8. I was invited by Windows 8 to purchase an "ogg player" for 3 euros. Not very user friendly. I think a file in another audio format should be added. Schildewaert (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Video here if anyone wants to add it[edit]

[19] Video of the eruption here. I suggest converting with firefogg. Victor Grigas (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

[20] another one hereVictor Grigas (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)