Talk:List of earthquakes in 2014

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, 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.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section infoboxes[edit]

I have no idea why, but User:Kristijh is continuously replacing {{Infobox earthquakes in month}} with {{infobox}}. I plan to revert this change again in a moment, since no explanation has been given, and several editors appear to disagree with the change. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

listgap[edit]

per WP:LISTGAP there should be no newlines between list items. I will go ahead and correct this for a third time. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for making the date format inconsistent without reasoning or justification provided[edit]

Kristijh changed the date format from MDY to DMY back in March without providing an explanation, but apparently, nobody noticed. I thought that the first non-stub revision was what the format was to be based on, and I don't think I would consider it to have been a stub anymore by that time (at least, compared to most earthquake articles). Also, this format is inconsistent with every other earthquake in year article, and it does not comply with the formats used by the sources either. Another thing to note, more importantly in my opinion, is that it actually makes sense with these articles to support a "month day" format over a "day month" format, the main reason being that these list articles are already divided by months. Regardless, why the change from the format used in the other forty-seven articles? Dustin (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really nobody with anything to say about this? Dustin (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be nice to have these formatted the same. It is slightly bothersome, but the lists are not where I'm going to fight my fights. I doubt we'll ever know why Kristijh made the change.Dawnseeker2000 02:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a good time for Kristijh's reasoning for the undiscussed change to the date format on this article. All the rest of the list articles, like Dustin V. S. explained, are uniform with the MDY format. Dawnseeker2000 00:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you just have to revert any problematic edits by Kristijh. The editor won't engage on the talk page, as evidenced by the lack of response in the prior two threads. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2014 6,8 earthquake California[edit]

Largest in California in 22-25 years and there is not even an article about it!?--193.163.223.192 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]