Talk:Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Move proposal

Nominator's rationale 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.172.180 (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And then, if there are some changes in the policies about flying in this kind of condictions, we can make an "aftermath" section :)

Effects on the UK

There should be more in the 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)

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

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)

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)