Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

Hope this gets sophisticated like the hurricanes WP --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking! The 1992 Nicaragua earthquake is a start toward that. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes[edit]

This list is substantantially broken: I propose we separate it by decade, such as List of earthquakes in the 1990s and eventually, when there isn't enough information on quakes, by century. Any thoughts? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a good thought. will take some time though. How about every century?~Meldshal42 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Souds good, for dates back in, say, the 1700s. We should also define what major is. How about 5.0 or so? Giving the fact that there are many in the 1990-present range (as showed by the USGS) we could also split it into years. I wonder if there is such thing as a "earthquake season" in the idea that the tropical cyclone project has a bunch of huricane seasons - and well developed ones at that. But first, we need to recruit more members, as the tropical cyclone project (and, athough this is not related) The Simpsons project has much more of a taskforce. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separating by decade will result in too many splits, but it can be separated by century. For example List of earthquakes in the 18th century, List of earthquakes in the 19th century etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,like I said. ~Meldshal42 11:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of earthquakes by century would be better than by decade. Black Tusk (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer volume of such a list would be amazing. Therefore, only centuries when there isn't that much data. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I am not well-versed with images. The articles February 4, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake, May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake, 1999 Chamoli earthquake and 1997 Jabalpur earthquake need maps. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A map is needed for the 1946 Vancouver Island earthquake. --Black Tusk (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anything at a .gov site is in the public domain. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you know if the map here is in the public doman? I noticed this is the same site where you found a map for the 1949 Queen Charlotte Islands earthquake. Black Tusk (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I prefer to use usgs.gov. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knew who the bot was that updated the assessment page? Because the page is not being updated nearly as often as necessary. Thanks. ~~Meldshal42 (talk)'(contribs') 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Izmit earthquake[edit]

Does anyone have any good sources confirming a Pakistani contribution to the aid effort after the 1999 İzmit earthquake? It has been added to the article a couple of times and I've reverted because it was unsourced and I mistook it for a random IP making a random nationality change, but the IP has now made an effort to add a source. Sadly it's a forum post in Turkish, so probably not reliable and I can't read it, and I've reverted for now. But since the IP has made an effort, it would be good if we could confirm whether there was a Pakistani contribution and help find a source to cite. Any ideas? Eve Hall (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'll see what I can do. However, this article reminds me of what Editorofthewiki keeps stating, these articles could be short and comprehensive, and still be FAs. Well, I'll get to work. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, I've added 2 citations, You should really use the first one, its really interesting and reliable. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature[edit]

I propose we have an official nomenclature concensus. I've noticed many articles follow this format, but not all:

  • (year) (country/nearest town if extra dabbing is needed) earthquake

Any thoughts? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's a good idea, but that's already how most articles are. I'll move the few of the others. --Meldshal42 (talk to me, please) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather like to have all something like: (country/nearest town if extra dabbing is needed) earthquake of (year) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm simply trying document what seems to be the concensus. I have noticed several changes from this format, so that is why I bring this here. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(year) (geographical region) earthquake seems to generally be the accepted naming convention after looking at WP:FA and WP:GA. Gary King (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to make this simpler to the reader. Do we have any specific boundaries for the geographical region? If it forms in the ocean, we call it (year) (ocean) earthquake. We really do need set guidelines for this issue. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a guide, I use the USGS naming convention: (year) (geographical region). This is in conformity with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), see the example used of the 2003 Bam earthquake (under "Examples of "when""). Occasionally, however, the USGS name for the geographical region (esp. for oceanic earthquakes) is not a specific as one might want. I believe that the USGS have the oceans divided up into a number of quadrants, but I have lost the reference. --Bejnar (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll be using that category. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, it will be implemented. Its now official, and will begin appearing. You can't prevent users from rating a specific earthquake article "C-class". You can not use it yourself - that's your choice. But I think its inevitable that every Wikiproject will begin using it. --haha169 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification issue on List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks[edit]

An editor has questioned the accuracy of the content of List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks, noting on the talk page that while "the USGS sources for this article show data on the quakes which occurred afterward[,] there is no verification that those were scientifically identified as the aftershocks of the 2008 Iwate earthquake." Could someone more knowledgeable than I please about earthquakes take a look at the article and take appropriate action (i.e. remove the {{Failed verification}} tag if the concern is not justified or propose that the article be deleted if the concern is justified). Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the USGS link is broken. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from the banner[edit]

I don't like the photo of San Francisco burning - it doesn't reflect an earthquake to well. Maybe the photos of crumbled buildings or cracks in the road from recent earthquakes Kashmir-Peru-China would be better. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this seems perfect see --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1906 San Francisco earthquake is historic earthquake. However since the image does not reflect effect of earthquake too well and in general, another image will be good, i.e. Image:Sfearthquake2.jpg. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's much better, however I don't like America-centrism on wikipedia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I also share your view, I also don't like US-centrism. I have no objection to your suggestion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't Us-centrism, come on guys, I just picked a dramatic image. Go ahead and change it if you like, i encourage you to, that is a better representative of the project. --Meldshal42? 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or use something like a bulls-eye to simulate the expanding seismic waves. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Forgot to notify. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible coordinator election[edit]

I think we should have an election to see who should take up coordination of this project. I should think a lead coordinator and 2 assistants would be good for now. --Meldshal42? 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? And what would they do? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get what it is, but it doesn't make much sence what they do. Anyway, it seems like too much buerocracy. Oppose. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, its not bureaucracy. It is a fair election, and I stand by that. There's no guarantee that I'll be lead coordinator, let alone even one. It's practically a primary. --Meldshal42? 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't thaat distract us from the goal of the WP? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Milhist Project is doing just fine. Anyway, it won't make a huge dent, but I say we forget it, our project is not big enough yet. --Meldshal42? 12:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake is up for FAC again. Please review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category - Earthquake articles needing a picture[edit]

In looking at the Category:Earthquake articles needing a picture, I see that many of the articles have maps, but have no other pictures. How is this list generated? How is it maintained/updated? I don't see a "needs picture" entry in the edit text on either the article page or talk page of these articles. Does "needing a picture" refer to other than a location or location/intensity map? --70.57.246.220 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I looked at the 2002 Denali earthquake page that I created and see that it is shown as being in the category of "Earthquake articles needing a picture". This category appears even when I look at the first edit when the page was created, and it isn't there to delete when I try to edit the page. If someone could explain I'd be grateful. The article in question has two maps and two pictures, so it doesn't fit the category anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These pages seem to be automattically placed in the cat if its {{Earthquake}} template is missing the "image=" parameter. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Earthquake template does not seem to have an "image=" parameter. It does, however, have a "map =" parameter. How can pages be removed from the Category:Earthquake articles needing a picture? --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does have an image= parameter. As to how pages can be removed - be bold and edit the template yourself! Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley National Park FAR[edit]

Death Valley National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for WikiProject Earthquakes[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the month[edit]

Has anyone thought about having a collaboration of the month? I suggest that the first should be 2003 Bam earthquake - it's a horrbly written article on a very important subject, and User:LordSunday (the founder), myself, and User:Blofeld of SPECTRE (and he's not even a member of the WikiProject!) have all volunteered to help with it. Any thoughts? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. I started the COTM on WP:VOLC, and I'll be glad to do it here. —§unday {Q} 19:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have a vote, as on the Chicago WikiProject? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tagging for earthquakes[edit]

Hi I've created the following templates for earthquakes. Please help administer them to stub class articles on earthquakes:

Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Canyon National Park[edit]

Bryce Canyon National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microformat & bot request[edit]

I have added the hCalendar microformat to {{Earthquake}} and submitted this bot request:

For pages using {{Earthquake}}, convert dates (if after 1750AD) to use {{Start date}}, and change coordinates display parameters to |display=inline,title as in this edit. The former will make the date appear in the template's hCalendar microformat; the latter will make the articles appear in Google Earth/ Maps mashups.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Zion National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cleanup at Earthquake engineering[edit]

Earthquake engineering needs some urgent cleanup on a number of fronts. There are a number of plagiarized passsages, taken from both public domain and non-public sources. The article's major author also very heavily quotes, cites, and promotes his own work.

A number of related articles also need to be pulled together, as content is duplicated several times across a group of articles. Please see Talk:Earthquake engineering#Article problems for a summary, and Talk:Earthquake engineering/problems for a highlighted copy of the article where I've identified the most problematic sections.

Finally, our existing articles on the earthquake engineering experts George W. Housner and John Blume had to be gutted, as they were also largely plagiarized material. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New category[edit]

Just created Category:Earthquakes articles needing attention for those needing expansion etc. Black Tusk (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 Java earthquake under GA review[edit]

Hello there, the article July 2006 Java earthquake which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone Announcements[edit]

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Structural Dammages Pictures[edit]

I just uploaded numerous images of structural dammage from the 2007 Peruvian Earthquake. I'm sure it can be usefull to illustrate some of your articles. Link to the images. --S23678 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes (2)[edit]

This is to alert people to the major change to List of earthquakes that has just been done. This was an attempt by Michael93555 (talk) to address the problems of length, I'm just not sure this was the best solution. Mikenorton (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have set myself the task of merging the two main earthquake lists, List of earthquakes and Historical earthquakes, and would like to point anyone who is interested to the shiny new list of twentieth century earthquakes. I am also part way through merging all the pre-1901 USGS list earthquakes into the Historical earthquakes list. Finally I intend merging earthquakes that were in both the other lists for the period 2001-2003 into the list of recent earthquakes. The original 'list of earthquakes' would then be deleted. Anybody have any views on this? Mikenorton (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next stage complete, Historical earthquakes page revised. Still no comments, ah well, at least I'm happy with the results so far. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final stage of merger complete. List of 2004-2009 earthquakes merged with others from 2001-2003. I will redirect the 2004-2009 page to the new List of recent earthquakes after a few days to allow for comments here and on the page. Finally I intend to redirect the current 'List of earthquakes' to 'Lists of earthquakes' which can act as a 'list of lists' explaining what is where. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City earthquake[edit]

I'm not going to start an article on it as news is incredibly sketchy but there's reports coming in of a powerful earthquake in Mexico City. Last thing they need right now! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USGS have it as a magnitude 6.0 about 230 km from Mexico City, hopefully not too damaging. Mikenorton (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh wave[edit]

Can somebody with knowledge of Rayleigh waves take a look at that article? Due to this edit they are now qualified as surface acoustic waves, which may be too restrictive – but I am not an expert on this, although it sounds odd to me since I associate acoustic with sound and longitudinal waves. -- Crowsnest (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation[edit]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from a related project[edit]

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming hurricane season. Simply click here to accept!

–Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Yunnan earthquake[edit]

I can't find much about this one, but I've started the article. Over to you to expand. Sky News reporting 10,000 homeless but nowt on their website atm. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake weather[edit]

I've just completed a long-proposed merge of earthquake cloud, earthquake light, and earthquake weather. This was by no means elegant, but more the work of a rather thoughtful bull in a china shop. I've removed plenty of Youtube refs, and basically shuffled the text into somewhat-congruent sections, but I'm starting to lose focus. Would anyone care to help edit? It's almost impossible to make an edit that does not improve the article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My above merger has led to a Request for Comment. If you are so inclined, I request your comments. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps[edit]

Hi all,

I've been adding infoboxes and location maps for a lot of the earthquakes in the main earthquake lists. After a bit of experimenting, I've worked out how best to use a Location map inside the earthquake infobox; thanks go to User:Gobeirne for making this possible in the first place. All you have to do is choose 'map2' rather than just 'map' as a parameter in the infobox. I've also uploaded a simple bull's eye graphic, File:Bullseye1.png, for use as the marker (see 1868 Hayward earthquake as an example). Mikenorton (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake categories[edit]

In reading the article 2008 Illinois earthquake, I noticed that it is assigned not only to the category Earthquakes in Illinois, but also to the categories for earthquakes in Michigan, Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kentucky. I am not a member of Wikiproject Earthquakes, but it seems to me that to assign an earthquake to categories in every place it is felt leads to excessive clutter in the category listings. What do the Project members think? Plazak (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that putting EQ articles into multiple state (or country) categories is generally a bad idea. Mikenorton (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, and have removed the non-Illinois categories. Awickert (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake[edit]

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24.

76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake infobox[edit]

A section is needed for when the earthquake ended. Not all earthquakes last one day, especially earthquake swarms which can last at least a year. BT (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions[edit]

In the Haiti earthquake article, an editor has correctly shown earthquake predictions by non-notable, but credible geologists. Since few places on the planet are immune to earthquake, and therefore, there will be no earthquake that hasn't been predicted by somebody, is this really encyclopedic? Our current level of earthquake prediction is pretty much like alchemy was in the Middle Ages, sometimes right, but usually unhelpful. Without a time indication, these predictions seem useless to inhabitants, but great publicity for the geologists when one actually occurs where they had predicted.

My thought is that predictions in the aftermath of an earthquake should be omitted. Pretty much Jeane Dixon stuff: Sometimes right, but usually wrong.

Or if not, maybe they should go into infobox under "Predicted by"  :) Student7 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions are usually not encyclopedic, and are usually avoided unless they become extremely well-known (and usually with that, controversial). Unless that gets significant press coverage, I don't think it should be included. Predicting an earthquake with scientific data backing it up is also very different from a prediction out of the blue (for example, a psychic prediction). Hope that clears it up, ceranthor 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquake predictions in general are based on probability, recurrence intervals, and strain measurements. The main idea is that if you know that lots of areas around you, on the same tectonic plate, have moved, and you haven't, you're due for something. The historical record can be used to supplement this. Because seismologists who work on natural hazards know the expected offset of the earthquake, and know generally how much strain has to accumulate around a fault before it fails, scientists can generally say, "a magnitude 7.5-ish in the next few decades". So better than alchemy, certainly, but it has to be qualified with the state of the science. Awickert (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've replied on the article talk page. This was not a 'prediction' and I've changed the article to match the language used in the De Mets and Wiggins-Grandison paper, which used 'forecast'. Earthquake forecasting is part of seismic hazard assessment, suggesting areas that are due for an earthquake in the next few decades. Japan is already preparing for a major (or possibly great) earthquake on the Nankai megathrust by preparing their citizens in areas likely to be affected [1]. Again this is not about prediction but preparedness. Mikenorton (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that these forecasts, available for nearly all of a thousand faults on earth, in huge quantities, should be listed, not with an actual occurence of an event, but with the fault itself. Then it might be possible to restrict forecasts to WP:N geologists/seismologists instead of some nn one who just "got lucky" as it were and the event occurred within a mere several years of prediction. (As if anyone could have done anything about it!). Student7 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Disasters[edit]

Would anyone here be interested in helping to maintain Portal:Disasters? If you would like to help out, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters. There are other WikiProjects who could be asked as well, but I won't be able to leave more notes until later on today. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner's relation[edit]

Gardner's relation is an orphan. Please try to figure out which other articles should link to it and add the links.

(And also, it doesn't say who Gardner is. I'd expect it to start by saying Gardner's relation, named after ?????? Gardner, is etc. etc. etc.....".) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to it on the Petrophysics page and a reference to the original gardner et al. paper. Mikenorton (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to save current Articles for deletion[edit]

On Feb. 27th, there was one anonymous IP who nominated 4 articles for deletion. Any help or input into the deletion discussions, hopefully helping to keep the articles for their scientific value would be appreciated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Earthquakes in 2010[edit]

This template's accessibility is in question. Please see Template talk:Earthquakes in 2010#Accessibility. Rettetast (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake notability[edit]

Hello. I see recently that there have been lots of earthquake articles (mainly for 2010 events) sent to WP:AfD for deletion. Is there a general notability policy for earthquakes agreed by this project? Compare with WP:AIRCRASH that setup guidelines on what is/isn't notable for plane crashes. Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a tendency for editors to start articles on every earthquake that makes the news, however small and however little damage is caused. In the lists of earthquakes there has been a recent attempt to define notability for the global lists such as List of 21st century earthquakes in an attempt to avoid overlong articles including very minor events. However, criteria for notability as far as earthquake articles on Wikipedia generally is concerned has not been attempted to my knowledge. However, as it seems like a reasonable idea, I'll start by proposing the following as criteria for notability.
  • Deaths attributable directly to the earthquake - not one heart attack that might have been caused by the 'quake
  • Magnitude (on whatever scale is available) greater than 5.0 or intensity greater than VI on the Mercalli intensity scale or European Macroseismic Scale, or 5.0 on the Shindo scale
  • Largest earthquake within a country/state for a long time (more than 100 years?)
  • Of scientific interest - several papers published after the event
This was pretty much off the top of my head, I'll spend some time looking through some of the articles that we do have to see how well that matches - I'll also keep an eye on AfD. Anyone have other ideas, things I've missed out etc.? Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks decent for a start. We should definitely note that there are exceptions, take for example the 2007 Nazko earthquakes. ceranthor 11:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the 2007 Nazco 'quakes matched my fourth suggested criterion, of scientific interest, but you're right such criteria can only be a guideline. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Having looked at the AfD discussion for 2010 Arica earthquake I might have to rethink the magnitude/intensity perhaps increase minimum magnitude to 7.0 as destructive quakes will always have intensities greater than VI but mag 7+ events are sufficiently rare to make an earthquake notable IMO, even if the felt intensity in populated areas is less than VI. Mikenorton (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with what has been said above. Generally magnitude 7.0+ for earthquakes in the 'usual places' like Tonga, Indonesia, Japan that cause no lasting effects. Magnitude 5+ for the rarer earthquakes that are widely felt, eg. earthquakes in UK, eastern US etc. Quakes that cause multiple deaths are automatically notable, injuries or damage alone are not necessarily a reason for inclusion. Some different criteria may need to be drawn up for US earthquakes, as a widely felt 6.0+ in such a place as California would get a lot of coverage in english sources and may be expected to be covered here. RapidR (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draw some boundaries (a) There are 18 quakes annually in the 7.0-7.9 range, vs. 120 in the 6.0-6.9, and hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of lesser magnitude. For the sake of notability, let's have a "Wikter scale" of sorts. I think that any quake of 7.0 or above would be inherently notable, with the understanding that early and aftershocks would be combined into the main article. I also think that any quake that causes a fatality, regardless of magnitude, should be presumed notable. (b) There is a good deal of interest in where the earthquakes happen, rather than when they happen, and that the creation of "Earthquakes in _______" pages should be strongly encouraged, with each page identifying the known faults and giving room for a table (preferably a sortable table) that has room to list date, local time, magnitude and epicenter GPS information that is currently in the infoboxes). In the long run, some local pages could be merged into larger ones; others could be split if needed. Mandsford 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not all earthquakes over 7.0 are notable. There are some that happen at a depth of 100+ km and on the surface feel like a mag. 3.0 ...--DAI (Δ) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree that not every earthquake over 7 is inherently or even remotely notable. I think that Mikenorton's criteria above are sufficient. ceranthor 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of my criteria was mag >7 :), however it should be possible to write them so that common sense is involved e.g. 'Earthquakes of magnitude > 7.0, excluding deep focus events', although note that the first of the 2002 Hindu Kush earthquakes had a focal depth of 256 km (although that would be included anyway because of the 166 death toll). Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this morning, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The May 2010 Puerto Rico Earthquake and it seems clear to me that other similar pages (say 2010 Istok earthquake or 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake) really fall under WP:NOTNEWS and should be either deleted or redirected to the relevant article on the seismic region. It makes sense to set some threshold of either magnitude or resulting damage to avoid this. Merging some content into articles on, say, a precise fault line is also a good way to avoid complaints from editors who start these articles. Pichpich (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for, say 2010 earthquake reveals a whole lot of completely unnotable, WP:NOTNEWS earthquakes. 2010 Indonesia earthquake is a disambiguation page to three of them, then there's 2010 Calama earthquake, the 2010 Ryukyu Islands earthquake where "the only damage was a few pipes", the expansive 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake article which is about a 4.4 earthquake (in California? that's like Tuesday) with minor damage to some gas station and other unrelated highway damage, there's 2010 China-Russia-North Korea earthquake which has speculation about nuclear tests, the April 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake with no casualties or major damage, the 2010 Mindoro earthquake with no damage or casualties, the 2010 New Mexico earthquake of magnitude 4.3 (I've slept through worse than that)... There really needs to be some emphasis lasting impact or scientific notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More articles that should be put to AfD (collectively) 2010 Salta earthquake, 2010 Bering Sea earthquakes, 2010 Huasco earthquake, 2010 Cuba earthquake, 2010 Spain earthquake, 2010 Drake Passage earthquake, 2010 Southeast Taiwan earthquake, the list goes on and on...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a member of Wikiproject Earthquake but I thought I'd comment here anyway. I don't think magnitude by itself should justify notability. An earthquake of magnitude 7.0+ might possibly be notable but generally that would be due to the deaths and structural damage it would cause. I don't know if Mikenorton's magnitude criterion is individually applicable (i.e., if an earthquake satisfies that particular criterion then it is notable), but if it is, I disagree with that. The scientific interest and deaths attributable should be applied individually, though perhaps the death part should be refined more. Some minor earthquakes cause 1 or 2 deaths, I would not consider them notable.
And finally, the "largest earthquake for a long time" criterion should be done away with IMO, as that is not an enduring claim to notability. Aditya Ex Machina 11:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. What do we do when the "record" is surpassed by a larger, though similarly non-notable quake? Or when it turns out that it really wasn't a benchmark of any sort? Better that we encourage an alternative to "fill out the form and cross your fingers" approach. One of the arguments in favor of keeping the 2009 Germany earthquake had been that at 3.3 it had been "the biggest since 1955", although it turned out that there have been larger ones as high as a 5.9; Again, I'm hoping that the trend will be to set sensible standards for notability and that persons will channel the information about lesser events to an article about the location, where they can be viewed in perspective. As an example of an article that minor events can be mentioned at, I created Earthquakes in Germany (for some reason, I'm thinking of a tune from The Producers) as an example of how there are better alternatives to the practice of calling each news item a special event. That's one that needs some work, but it's a start. Mandsford 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See a few sections down for an updated version of my suggestion for notability guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud you folks for trying to set some standards. This has gotten completely out of hand, especially since the Haiti earthquake produced a flood of me-too-ism. Believe it or not, a 2.7-magnitude quake was recently retained after this AfD discussion. One problem is that people perceive a need to document any tremor they feel. Maybe we could put a notice at the earthquake template, suggesting that instead of Wikipedia they could record their experience here: Did you feel it?
I also applaud you for trying to set objective criteria, based on magnitude and extent of damage and such, but I think the criteria can be much simpler, less technical, and more closely related to WP:GNG. I propose: in order to qualify for an article, a quake must receive 1) coverage other than mere listing on seismic reporting websites, 2) coverage outside of its immediate geographic area, maybe specifying that there has to be international coverage, and 3) continued coverage beyond the initial, same-day reporting that it occurred. Qualifying coverage could be either in reliable media sources or scientific papers. If the quake fails those criteria, delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where most articles would be kept under those criteria. The big problem that I see is trying to minimize the number of articles that would have to be deleted in the first place. I'd rather people consider, based on some guidelines that spell out what's notable and what's not, whether an event needs its own page in the first place. At the moment, someone hears about a non-damage event and it is mentioned in the course of the international news (Reuters, AP, CNN, Fox, BBC, etc), which would satisfy criteria #1 and #2. Many (if not most) of these are cranked out almost as soon as the event is reported, and one could rationalize it with "it just might get continued coverage", after which we go through the deletion process as we do now. I recognize that we're all brainstorming here, but ultimately, I think that the reason we need minimum objective standards is to give people an idea about what should justify its own page, and what should be mentioned elsewhere. Mandsford 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It would be better to head off the articles before they are written, rather than have to go through the AfD process. Could I suggest that while you are at it, you also establish some criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion? For example, that any earthquake of less than a specified magnitude can be presumed non-notable and can be speedied? --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the criteria we've established are a great start. Mikenorton and I have a lot of experience with creating, improving, and maintaining earthquake articles. Maybe we could try to weigh in a bit more in these discussions to give other editors an idea of what's notable and what's not - if it's not immediately obvious from the criteria. Sound good? I'd appreciate others' thoughts. ceranthor 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to look for EQ notability criteria. There's obviously some interest in earthquakes and Christchurch these days, especially after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In writing an article about the one church in central Christchurch that survived the 2011 event, I uncovered an interesting reason for this and it's documented in the article. By what I read above, it would appear that the 5 June 1869 would probably not meet notability criteria, but if anybody thought that it would stack up, let me know and I might start an article. Schwede66 20:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slightly newer version of the proposed criteria a few sections down. In fact I think that the 1869 Christchurch earthquake does meet them because it reached an intensity of VIII on the Mercalli intensity scale and it is referred to in several scientific papers (from googlescholar search). Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. The cited reference cites an intensity of 7, but you refer to 8. Can you please elaborate? Schwede66 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the 8 up from my GS search, but from a paper that I don't have full access to. I'm just heading off for a field-trip for a few days, if I don't get back to you after that, feel free to give me a nudge. Mikenorton (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participants list[edit]

Perhaps you should add more details about joining. Trying to get to the separate participants page could be very confusing for a new user. Also, the main project page says "for instructions on joining, click the edit tab for this section". There is no edit tab for any of the sections. Thank you, PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: there is no [edit] link for any of the sections. As far as I can tell, there has never been an edit section link. Also, why do you need __TOC__? The ToC should be generated automatically given the number of sections you have. This must be related somehow --Jubilee♫clipman 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the WikiProject Earthquakes/Participants page below the table. The instruction to click the edit tag come from that page but it's not active here - I don't known how to change it so that there's less confusion. Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have figured it out: User:Jubileeclipman/WP Earthquakes copy. Check the history to see what I did. {{Box-header}} causes the edit section links to vanish for some reason. It is also messed up in other ways, IMO: e.g. why ask for the "template:" bit? I'd just remove the two templates (i.e. {{Box-header}} and {{Box-footer}}) and reorganise your page a bit. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earthquake AfDs[edit]

Here's a list of Earthquake AfDs (currently active). A lot of them have misguided !votes IMO.

Aditya Ex Machina 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them don't meet Mikenorton's criteria for earthquake notability specified above. Aditya Ex Machina 10:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria[edit]

I've created a user page at User:Mikenorton/Earthquake_notability_guidelines taking into account the responses above, although it remains my take on it for now. Feel free to edit it, if you have any changes you want to make, although a comment here would be good. It currently states:

Notability guidelines for earthquake articles on Wikipedia

The following list of criteria are intended to provide guidelines to help establish the notability of earthquake articles on Wikipedia, although they should not replace common sense. To be considered notable an earthquake would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed below

  • Most 7+ earthquakes should meet additional criteria, although the largest will be notable solely because of their magnitude
  • Deep focus earthquakes of this magnitude are not necessarily notable
  • A swarm of events may be notable even if the individual events do not meet the magnitude or intensity criteria
  • Deaths attributable directly to the earthquake (including any related tsunami) - i.e. not one heart attack that might have been caused by the 'quake
  • Of scientific interest - discussed in the scientific press at the time and in papers published afterwards
  • Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e.countries rather than counties)
  • For some historical earthquakes, the interpretation put on them at the time e.g. a warning from god, and the effects it had on religious thought and philosophy, may make them notable despite not meeting any of the other criteria
  • Note that being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability, particularly if the news reports are only on during the few days immediately after the event


Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I don't think magnitude should be a criterion by itself. Aditya Ex Machina 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right Aditya, probably need to change the introduction to something like, To be considered notable an earthquake would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed below and in the magnitude section add a note, Most 7+ earthquakes should meet additional criteria, although the largest will be notable solely because of their magnitude. The last bit is to cover events like the 1965 Rat Islands earthquake, which produced virtually no damage at all but is one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded. Mikenorton (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:There is now an updated version at the head of this section. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could ask for a third opinion or ask members of Wikiproject Earthquake to leave a comment here. This isn't an active talk page. Aditya Ex Machina 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This notability guidelines is total bullshit. Threre is no way I would agree with this. Minor earthquakes can be notable as well, even ones that have not been felt. Even if its a little-known earthquake, it may be notable in a particular area. I find notibility guidelines are very opinionative. This is also unsuitable for users that are against notability. BT (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BT, I was hoping for something a little more constructive than being told that my work thus far is 'total bullshit'. I'm not saying that these guidelines are either necessarily good or definitive, but there appears to be a genuine need for them (as expressed in the posts in sections above here). Apparently you think that any earthquake, no matter how insignificant could have an article here. Over that we will have to disagree. Anyway it doesn't really matter whether you agree or not, if the community decides to use these guidelines (to some extent they already are), then articles will be kept or deleted at least partly on that basis. Note though that these are guidelines and as it says at the top of them "they should not replace common sense". Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe BT is referring to earthquakes like the 2007 Nazko earthquakes, which didn't cause damage but allowed for scientific advancement. Perhaps we could expand the historical earthquake criterion to include earthquakes like that? ceranthor 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had those particular earthquakes in mind when I drafted the bit that says "A swarm of events may be notable even if the individual events do not meet the magnitude or intensity criteria" - also they would meet the "Of scientific interest" part, so that article would clearly meet the guidelines. There is obviously a balance between making the guidelines completely comprehensive although several pages long (and therefore ignored by everybody) and too brief to have any flexibility. I expect and hope that the guidelines will evolve. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your work Mikenorton. It's just that in certain areas earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or around there are generally considered large in areas that normally have magnitude 1.0 or 2.0 or do not frequently have earthquakes. The 2010 Central Canada earthquake is an example, as well as the 2000 Kipawa earthquake. According to Natural Resources Canada, the magnitude 5.2 2000 Kipawa earthquake was one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000. Earthquakes are also meaningful for detecting the movement of fault lines, magma, rifts, etc. BT (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification BT, I understand your point, but I don't think that 'being one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000' should qualify as indicating notability. I have included a criterion about unusually large earthquakes in areas of low seismicity, although there appears to be plenty of opposition to having that in at all. If the Central Canada event was say the largest for more than 50 years in the Central Canada area, I would think that probably would qualify. That earthquake is most likely to meet the 'of scientific interest' criterion, I reckon. Scientific papers will be written about it I have no doubt. The final test of notability of an earthquake (or anything else for that matter) is whether most editors on Wikipedia think that it is notable - the guidelines can only ever be a basis for discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally those guidelines look reasonable to me, some might be notable for some other reason = eg manmade, allowed prediction of volcanic eruption, or caused a major concert cancellation (even if the quake in itself was small).EdwardLane (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence the comment about common sense :). Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now created a sub-page of the project page and added a link under the guidelines section of the page, so that people know where to find it. Remember that these are what they say they are - 'guidlelines' not hard and fast rules. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for naming[edit]

I feel that using country names in every earthquake would be a little unwieldy, also most earthquakes are in categories of the 'Earthquakes in a country' type, the Yushu event being in the Category:Earthquakes in China and most turn up in list articles such as List of earthquakes in China, although I just changed the link to that article from 2010 Qinghai earthquake, which I suppose supports your point somewhat. My main concern is that the titles will not be names used by anybody to describe these events and that some of the titles will be rather long, the 1888 (New Zealand) North Canterbury earthquake or the 1896 (Japan) Meiji-Sanriku earthquake just seem a little excessive. Mikenorton (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for assistance on Earthquakes in Germany article[edit]

  • User:Yngvadottir and I have been working on improving this one, which has gotten a nomination for the "Did You Know" section on the front page, although it's not in shape yet to be displayed yet. This is one where some where review by folks who have an interest in and knowledge of seismology would be greatly appreciated. History is my forte, but I'll be the first to say that I don't know much about geology. Mandsford 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that it looked okay. Mikenorton would probably be your best bet. ceranthor 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Central Canada earthquake[edit]

We don't get earthquakes 'round here that often - last one was in 1998. Any help would be much appreciated. There was some confusion about naming, see Talk:2010 Central Canada earthquake#Naming. –xenotalk 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a few sections back up here, you'll see the draft 'notability criteria' for earthquakes. I'm not at all clear that this event meets those criteria in any way. I doubt that this will make me terribly popular, but we are aiming to try to get some sort of consistency - there have been too many articles about very small earthquakes recently (try looking through the AfD archives). Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought similarly, but it appears that the claim to notability is the fact that earthquakes there are rare. I seriously am concerned with the notability too. ceranthor 21:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add a stipulation that it affects a major metropolitan area that has not had an earthquake in recent memory. See also Bearcat's comments at Talk:2010 Central Canada earthquake#Not encyclopedic. I realize that those that live on active fault lines are probably snickering at the big deal Torontonians are making about this little shake, but I assure you it is quite significant to the populace here. –xenotalk 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with all due respect, earthquakes usually do surprise people. ;) I've worked for more than two years here with earthquakes, and we tend to avoid having tons of articles on earthquakes that didn't cause damage or weren't major (ie. the 1968 Illinois earthquake was the greatest earthquake ever in Illinois). Maybe we could have a more formal discussion on this on the talk page? ceranthor 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really have much to contribute, I'm unfamiliar with earthquake articles. Admittedly, I do tend to lean on the inclusion side (WP:NOTPAPER, and all). –xenotalk 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll try to figure it out. I'm the "independent" of inclusionists and deletionists. ;) ceranthor 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in Chile[edit]

There appears to be vandalism on the List of earthquakes in Chile article. I'm pretty sure the 27 August edit is vandalism, but there might be other ones as well. The last edit, by a bot means a simple undo is not possible, since there needs to be an integration between the clean revision and the bot's changes.

76.66.194.106 (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripted numbers instead of Christian crosses in templates?[edit]

Re Template:Earthquakes in 2010, Template:Earthquakes in 2009, etc..

Dagger (typography): "Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text before or after the name of a deceased person or the date of death,[1] as in Christian grave headstones."

Since this is also used for earthquakes in predominantly non-Christian places, how about superscripted numbers instead like at [2]? -- Jeandré, 2010-09-04t14:12z

Banda earthquake articles for deletion[edit]

Not the big one, or even the second biggest one, but some of the more recent ones. Should they be deleted, merged, what? --KMLP (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Earthquakes articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the WikiProject Earthquakes articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to rename assessment categories for this project[edit]

Greeting WikiProject Earthquakes, it was noticed recently that your project was one of 8 out of about 1660 WikiProjects that preceed the assessment categories with WikiProject. All the rest state only the subject (ex. Earthquakes vice WikiProject Earthquakes). In an effort to standardize the assessment categories and make it easier to identify the scope of articles we would like to change the assessment categories of your project from WikiProject Earthquakes to simply Earthquakes to be in-line with all the others. Before doing this we would like your input on this change to ensure that it meets the consensus of your project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Earthquake templates[edit]

Just a suggestion, but would it be worth linking to the previous and next year earthquake templates in these - for example {{Earthquakes in 2010}} could link forward to {{Earthquakes in 2011}} and back to {{Earthquakes in 2009}} in the header. A similar system is in use on aviation accident templates, such as {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2010}} which links forward to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2010}} and back to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009}}. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Earthquakes. You have new messages at WT:TWP#2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A proposal has been made which would affect the structure of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami article and mean the addition of a navbox if accepted. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox earthquake[edit]

At the 2011 Sendai earthquake it was noted that the template does not include a field for foreshocks. It would be good to add such a field to template:Infobox earthquake.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the aftershock field is only rarely used in earthquake articles, but adding a foreshock field does makes sense as they are rather more rare. I see that a request has been made at the template's talk page, just need to wait for someone who understands these things to make the change. Mikenorton (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What level of incident is required for notability in an article about Sendai earthquake/tsunami?[edit]

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with an editor and several IPs over what is worthy of inclusion in the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami article and would appreciate some additional opinions at Talk:2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#Lesser_casualties_and_low-level_damage, especially since I don't edit a lot of earthquake and natural disaster articles. Basically, I think incidents in which tsunami warnings were issued and evacuations took place, but ended with little actual damage is worth a very brief statement mentioning that fact. I'm told this comes under the category of "nothing happened" and should be gotten rid of entirely. Also, some other incidents that didn't end in serious injury or deaths I'm told are to be dropped entirely, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

It strikes me that there's a bit of an "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality going on here, but I'd appreciate the opinion of somebody who is more experienced with articles in this category. Even if I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate the guidance. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami[edit]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami . 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in Europe 2011-2015[edit]

Newly created article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes in Europe 2011-2015. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moment Magnitude listings in the "Richter magnitudes examples" table[edit]

Hello. Additional participants would be of help in a debate of whether the Richter magnitude scale article's "Richter magnitudes examples" table should include listings measured in the Moment Magnitude scale. The discussion can be found at Talk:Richter magnitude scale#Japan earthquake, 2011. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Popular pages[edit]

I applied for Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Popular pages, if accepted, it'll need to collect a month of data first. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Miyagi earthquake[edit]

Hi. I just stubbed 2011 Miyagi earthquake and don't know if the name is right, or if it exists somewhere else under a better name. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just an aftershock, should it get redirected to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS are saying "This earthquake can be considered an aftershock of the March 11, 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake" so I would support a redirect. Mikenorton (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Japan Meteorological Agency concurs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Fukushima earthquake[edit]

I stubbed this too. Whether or not it becomes a section in another article, I thought there needs to be a place to add information about it. Feel free to move it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template:Deadliest earthquakes[edit]

{{Deadliest earthquakes}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Earthquakes to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Uzbekistan–Kyrgyzstan earthquake[edit]

should the 6.1 magnitude 2011 Uzbekistan–Kyrgyzstan earthquake article get added to the 'new articles this month' section?EdwardLane (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's been done by HurricaneFan - thanks :) EdwardLane (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Hierro[edit]

Hi just thought I'd point at El Hierro it currently seems to be suffering an earthquake swarm. But also looks like it must have had a fairly major earthquake 50,000 yrs ago as it looks like (assuming the sources are correct) a big (300km3) chunk of the island cracked off and fell into the atlantic with a big associated tsunami. There was nothing more than a mention of it (that I could see) in the otherwise fairly comprehensive spanish wiki article either. Anyway just thought I'd flag it up here too. EdwardLane (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less interested in the 'mega tsunami' stuff - and now quite interested by the swarm which has been ongoing for over a month - with 3000+ quakes - it looks interesting, anyone able to give any feedback on the article - I've put a fair number of source info bits on the discussion page but I think it needs someone with a better understanding of earthquakes to tie it together in a coherent manner. EdwardLane (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find time to look through the article over the next few days. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the landslides/tsunami section and gave it a rewrite using some other sources - I couldn't find any sources that supported there being a major transatlantic tsunami. I'll look at the earthquake swarm section next. Mikenorton (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the swarm section and gave it a few tweaks. Mikenorton (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seismograms going now showing harmonic tremor (increasing gradually in size) - check this out - looks like el hierro will erupt some point soon (if it's not already doing so underwater). EdwardLane (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the seismogram has just too much to display EdwardLane (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in plate tectonics[edit]

Hi folks. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on plate tectonics, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone lines clogged during earthquakes[edit]

Just saw this interesting article which seems to have some good suggestions about mobile phone masts and so forth. Any suggestions which article it might be useful to? EdwardLane (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake sensitive[edit]

Anyone feel like cleaning up this essay on how some people are "sensitive" and can predict the occurrence of an earthquake? Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's pretty awful. I think that a trip to AfD is called for here. I'll start the process by asking for evidence of notability on the article talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
grrrr Pseudo science grrrr, can we remove the template saying it is of 'interest' to wp earthquakes, I feel it's even lower interest than 'low interest' but I know I have a bias against pseudoscience. EdwardLane (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Kevin Rutherford reverted a lot of recent changes,it's a lot better than it was (although I agree about the pseudoscience). I'm waiting for comments on the talk page there. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per this thread, I added the Pseudoscience project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for inclusion in 'Earthquakes in country/state' Categories[edit]

I've noticed that some articles have categories added for every country/state where the earthquake was felt. I feel fairly strongly that articles should only be placed in categories for countries/states where either the epicentre was located and/or where there was significant damage (I'm thinking here of at least VI on the Mercalli intensity scale or perhaps VII, similar to the notability guidelines). Any other views on this? Mikenorton (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the idea that was one on some other pages that essentially added states if they had some sort of damage or people felt the quake there. There are a few pages like this, so I was only following the example of others. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that there were plenty of examples amongst North American earthquake articles for you to follow. Unless someone argues for a wider use of categories, I will start to trim them and perhaps add something to the guidelines section on the project page to make this a bit clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that to merit a category, the earthquake must have caused damage or something within the state. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for naming earthquake articles[edit]

While I'm in the mood for suggesting guidelines, I would like to propose some criteria for naming earthquake articles. There is more or less a consistent style out there, but there are quite a few that don't fit this very well. There are also specific issues with earthquakes in Japan, about whether to include era names. Another issue is the naming of articles where the tsunami is the main event that is recorded and written about, where the earthquake has almost no affect at all. I propose the following:

Proposed naming guidelines for earthquake articles[edit]

  • The normal style for naming earthquakes on Wikipedia (and in the wider world) is (Year) (Location) earthquake. This should be followed unless there is a good reason to choose another name. For historical earthquakes in Japan, it is normal to use the era name in addition to the year, as in 1854 Ansei-Nankai earthquake or in some cases for that to stand for the location as well, as in 1707 Hoei earthquake - this follows guidance from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles.
  • When an earthquake triggers a tsunami that causes most of the damage and deaths, there has recently been a tendency to name them with 'earthquake and tsunami' in the title. In almost no cases is such a name actually used in sources. Earthquakes cause deaths and destruction directly by shaking but also by triggering landslides that cause deaths directly, or by blocking rivers forming lakes that eventually flood and cause deaths, and through fires. To avoid such names as the 1949 Khait earthquake and landslides, articles should normally be named for the earthquake alone, with separate articles for the tsunamis if necessary/feasible, or the tsunami alone (as in the 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami, which was earthquake triggered).

This is very much a first pass, but I think that it would be useful to have guidelines something like these to refer to - comments welcome. Mikenorton (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

those seem sensible to me - sorry I can't give any better criticism EdwardLane (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Christchurch earthquake[edit]

Could an editor with experience in this area please review recent edits to the article by Rifled (talk · contribs). They are not using edit summaries and are making changes without providing in-line cites. I have raised my concerns with them in detail, though only about 20 minutes ago. A third opinion would be most welcome. ( And Merry Christmas!) 220 of Borg 18:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes/Archive_1&oldid=1162715533"