Talk:Jökulsárlón

message: Hello, I noticed a recent "cloud clearing" in GE Icelad coverage, resulting in the violet sphere (wikipedia layer) for this article being positioned really over a lake. But as far as I can tell the position is definitely wrong - the shape is far different from what I remember from my visit of Jokulsarlon an it is way too far inland (the real Jokulsarlon is 100 m from the ocean), the visitor center also should be at least noticeable. Also there is another violet point, pointing to Breidarlon in the same lake. Many people are confused in this area - see the panoramio layer with the anybody wildly guessing around, maybe wiki could help point this down, but i have no idea how is this technically done (how is the GE position assigned to a wiki article), but I am sure sombody alse has.
greetings, Jan Verfl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.80.143 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support the opinion that the geotags are wrongly choosen because the real location is covered in clouds.  I tried to geotag one of my images and I would like you to have a look at this Google-Maps Link.  Its far from an accurate location but I asked the teacher of my photographers cource I took in Winter 2003 and he definitely has GPS coordinates - If he finds the time to sort this out we might become even better. Andreas Tille (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong position in Google Earth 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Jokulsarlon Panorama.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 19:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Jokulsarlon Panorama.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jökulsárlón. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222043554/http://www.hornafjordur.is/ferdathjonusta/english/pearls/jokulsarlon/ to http://www2.hornafjordur.is/ferdathjonusta/english/pearls/jokulsarlon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Jökulsárlón and Fell changed ownership (in 2017, the Icelandic government purchased the land) and are now under the administration of the Vatnajökull National Park. Can't find good English sources though so I figured I'd mention this here for anybody who can dig up good references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan mantler~dewiki (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Jökulsárlón is gorgeous, but loading up this article with repetitive photos of ice and water, no matter how pretty they are, does nothing to inform the reader and can be a problem reading the article on mobile devices or in places with slow internet. I have removed three of them; frankly, I think we could get rid of one or two more, but that might be excessive. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive photos 

message: There are many sources that the lake's correct depth, that was found by Ein­ar B. Ein­ars­son in 2009, is in fact 284m. visir.is (which is used here as the only source for "248m") cites the Icelandic paper Morgunblaðið (morning news), that gives 284m though. Obviously, somebody just mixed up the 8 and the 4. Which is right? --Kuhni74 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: and  I have the impression that you were involved in the editing regarding the depth on Feb 4, 2012, and on April 18, 2018, respectively, what do you think? --Kuhni74 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi , sorry for the late reply, after some months I just now logged in. As for the lake, I only see an edit I made which indeed comes just before the depth data, however in regards to pointing the year its status was declared which I saw in the source, instead of "recently"; that 248m data was already at the article. If that helps to search in the history and see further when the depth was added, this was my edit: . So unfortunately I can't remember if I had info in regards to the depth itself. In the future, I can try to help find more sources for clarification, unless you already solved this data confusion by now. אומנות (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Since Vísir gets its number from Morgunblaðið we can be sure that Vísir was yet again being sloppy. However, it would be much better to cite a geological survey but I can't find one currently. "Some guy who owns a tourist operation measured the depth at 284m" but then there's no more coverage to be found regarding the depth of this supposed deepest lagoon in Iceland. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct depth