Talk:2008 Illinois earthquake/Archive 1

Need Name Change
We now have an official name, "Mount Carmel, Illinois, Earthquake of 18 April 2008". (see ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/maps/sigeqs/20080418/20080418.jpg)

Can someone make this name change? (Note that "Earthquake" is CAPITALIZED)

After the link gets changed, the article should be edited for consistency.

Also note that the EQ is being named after the larger pop center of Mt Carmel rather than the closer town of New Salem.

76.202.254.186 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I just felt an Aftershock, 10:16 AM local time, lasting about 10-15 seconds. This is the 4th earthquake of 4+ magnitude I've felt in Southern Illinois - lived here since 1986. Thought the map pinpoint was wrong, how can West Salem be east of Salem?. -- Midnite42 10:47, 18 April 2008


 * ah, yes, West Salem, IL is east of Salem, IL. And both are south of New Salem, IL.  One of the many inponderables of living in IL. 76.202.254.186 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't AfD this article mainly since this event just happened, but Fox and local news stations are reporting that there was no damage. I feel that unless there's a significant story beyond the fact that some people in the midwest has never felt an earthquake before, I don't see it meeting any notability criteria. Utopianheaven (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching WAVE-TV and they are reporting loss of power for Caesars Indiana and damage of a facade on Kentucky AVenue between 2nd and 3rd Street, so there is some damage. Not sure how to cite it.-- Bedford 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's considerably early to tag for AfD or anything else. As I noted on your talk page, Utopiaheaven, it's still dark here.  Give it some time for daylight to arrive and for damage to be fully assessed.  I would point out that this earthquake occurred in the New Madrid Fault region, which has been noted by scientists for many years as being "due" for a major seismic event.  You're right, many Midwesterners haven't ever felt an earthquake.  But, I'd say that's part of the reason this is a notable event because it isn't something that occurs every day in this part of the country, unlike - say - southern California.


 * If nothing else, if it turns out that this was a minor event in terms of damage, then I highly suggest merging whatever this article becomes into a new section of the New Madrid Fault article. Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. The section in New Madrid Fault seems an appropriate location for the event, notwithstanding significant new details. I'm personally in central Illinois, so we got a good little shake, emergency crews came out in droves, but nothing really came of it. I feel this was, by no means, a "major" seismic event compared to established earthquate standards though. However, I won't be making a major push for the merge until any new news on what all happened comes out. Utopianheaven (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone from the USGS said it might actually be of the Wabash Fault, not New Madrid Fault, so we might need to move the article into a new article called Wabash Fault that's part of the Wabash Valley.-- Bedford 10:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * KSDK-TV in St. Louis confirms that it occurred in the Wabash Valley fault system, not in the New Madrid Fault system. As for an AfD, baloney.  It's notable.  I am so tired of exclusionists....  -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We haven't had any seismic activity in a long time. I think it is relevant, personally. Vegetaman (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a 5.4 according to USGS Which is the largest in Illinois recorded history also according to USGS, I think that makes it notable Chipotlehero (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously notable. Not even meriting discussion at this point.  I always get a chuckle at the race to tag articles for deletion. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's too early to consider deletion, but I'd point out that the 5.4 scale is a preliminary rating only, so I'd be cautious about original research and saying it's the largest quake in Illinois until we have a source using that terminology. As a matter of  fact, I just heard a TV news report that the level was downgraded from 5.4 to 5.2.  So, let's be cautious here. --Elonka 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even then, I would point that earthquakes of 5+ magnitude are rare in this region. I can make the argument that it's notable on its own, for that reason and the one that I noted above.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge: As the comment below notes, its magnitude has been downgraded to 5.2; it is not the largest in Illinois or along the Wabash fault.  Some chuckle at the race to tag articles for deletion.  I cringe at the race to add a new article about every last little news event.  These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not newspaper articles.  The proper place to mention this quake ("these" quakes, acutally, there was a 4.5 at 10:15 a.m.) is in the Wabash fault article.  You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong. ;->  This is not "deletionist"; it is including the information in the proper manner in the proper place. --Kbh3rd talk  21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to [USGS Website For this Earthquake] it has been looked at by a Seismologist and been downgraded to a 5.2 Magnitude. Necrogami : Chat  11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to television reports here in St. Louis, the strongest quake in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone was a 5.4 quake in 1968. So yes, 5.2 is in the "notable"  range.  I recommend that we postpone any discussion of deletion though for at least 48 hours.  This article is going to get a burst of activity today, since millions of people were woken up by this quake, and news programs in at least three states are doing coverage every few minutes. --Elonka 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've got the article watchlisted, so I'll be updating as I get opportunities throughout the day at work and I'll keep an eye out for any vandalism / etc.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to note: This Earthquake happened 102 Years and within the Halfhour(EDT) of the Earthquake in San Francisco of 1906 that destroyed most of the city. Necrogami : Chat  12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a note about SF one would not be approative for the article. Neither local time at epiccenter for those were in the Eastern Timezone. (All of IL being in Central Timezone & all of CA being in Pacific Timezone). Jon (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftershock
We just had an aftershock tremor within the last 20 minutes or so here in Peoria, Illinois. It was a pretty good one, too. Vegetaman (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE! Somebody may want to clean up my citation, but Peoria also reported the second tremor as of 10:16 AM. As per the headline on the same link as the first one links to: ""PEORIA: Second earthquake felt following early-morning quake:: UPDATED 10:16 a.m"" ""A second round of seismic activity shook Peoria at 10:14 a.m.,"" Vegetaman (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we really going to replicate the laundry list of towns effected for every major aftershock? We also felt it up here in Chicago, but it didn't seem necessary to add that. 76.202.254.186 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see if the second wave is less impactful than the first. I'm sure information will fall in and out of favor with this article in the next 48 hours. I am sure by the end of next week it'll be to normal. And no, we don't need to replicate the whole list... But reports of aftershocks are handy right now because it is a CURRENT EVENT. Vegetaman (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This may not be the right context to remind everyone of this, but "impactful" is a classic word in Newspeak. And yes, I agree with the above user that thinks if this article stays independent we may want to cut down on the list of cities and towns that reported feeling the earthquake.  A simple map would  do just fine.Bigturtle (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I felt some aftershocks here in the Indy metro about 11:15. Very strange having earthquakes here in Indiana! HoosierStateTalk 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If one were to look at the USGS site or other authoritative resources instead of just Yahoo News, you'd see that there were also a cluster of 2.x magnitude quakes between the 5.2 and the 4.6. --Kbh3rd talk 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note for those outside the US, it didn't take an hour for the afterquake to reach Indiapolis; Indiapolis is in the Eastern Timezone and for the past few years has observed daylight savings time so it is an hour later there than at the epicenter in eastern IL. Jon (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this truly an "aftershock"? I've seen it listed (the 4.6) as a separate earthquake, with aftershocks following both events.--Lonadar (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Cities
The list of cities is now officially absurd. Why not 3 or 4 to show the outer range of the tremors, instead of listing every possible metro area affected? Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I pruned some of the minor cities, but it's still too large.-- Bedford  18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I pruned the list to only include the most extreme cities in all four directions. I think we should stick with this, and any city that would fall within and not stretch the boundaries of this should be removed.  Also, I removed all the cities from the aftershock.  I think people can understand that an aftershock is going to be felt in the same general area.  What we really need is a map showing this.  --    JT   Holla! 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur, the aftershock was siginficantly smaller so its zone of detection if anything ought to have been smaller rather than larger. It does look like for the main one, the 3rd city is missing a cite. (Unless the source for the 4th also mentions it. ) Jon (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. So much better. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Second largest quake
This thing woke me up.. I never experienced nothing like that before!

Foxnews pegs this as the second largest recorded earthquake in the midwest at 5.2. The largest was this one: "The strongest earthquake on record with an epicenter in Illinois occurred in 1968, when a 5.3-magnitude temblor was recorded about 75 miles southeast of St. Louis, according the USGS. The damage was minor but widespread and there were no serious injuries." Also I think we are at three majoy aftershocks now. A 2.6, 2.5, and 4.5  Charles Edward 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I got woken up by it or not; for no apprent reason I did wake up in the middle of the night but I didn't look at the clock before falling back asleep. In any case though I did use to live in Southern California growing up but that was a couple of decades ago. Jon (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ''The following is an archived discussion of the name of this article. A vote to hopefully obtain consensus has been added to the (current) bottom of the talk page.  Please do not modify this discussion.

Article name
Per Wikipedia's manual of style: Accordingly, the article title should be renamed back. TheslB (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case
 * Not necessarily. If you take "April 18, 2008 Midwest Earthquake" as the name of this event, Earthquake is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.  --    JT   Holla! 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do any reliable sources state that? TheslB (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do any reliable sources state that it's not?  For the time being, as I noted in my reasoning for moving the page back to its original title, this is the best name available for this seismic event. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the burden to find reliable sources is not mine. Since this contention of earthquake in the title being part of a proper name is unsupported and keeping in mind Wikipedia's manual of style, I have changed the title back. TheslB (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a cop out if I've ever seen one. Earthquakes of this magnitude are typically given a specific name in the scientific community.  Until this one is, the original title was accurate.  Period.   --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot be the source of "proper" naming for this. TheslB (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now we've got two separate versions. Pick one, and now.  --    JT   Holla! 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the redirect. It was a spurious fork due to vandalism cleanup. TheslB (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A Third Opinion has been requested. --    JT   Holla! 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I would note over 1,300 earthquakes occur in the 5.0 to 5.9 range of the Richter scale each year according to the United States Geological Survey.  So I do not expect this one to garner more than a general name. TheslB (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are common, but not in this area. --    JT   Holla! 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at 2008 earthquake, it probably should be called 2008 Illinois earthquake for consistency.-- Bedford 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I might agree with that - minus the E caps question. But, since it is still early in Q2 of the year, I'd hold off before naming it something like that, in the event - knock on wood - that there is another earthquake in the state this year.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bedford.  Dloh  cierekim'''  23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The word "earthquake" in the article name should be lower case, as in similar examples:
 * 1755 Lisbon earthquake
 * 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
 * 2005 Kashmir earthquake
 * May 2006 Java earthquake

As this event affected at least four states, "Midwest" seems best unless reliable sources cited as references consistently name it for one of those states. — Athaenara ✉  23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So, are you saying that 2008 Midwest earthquake is the best name?-- Bedford 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. A single term such as Illinois earthquake or Wabash Valley earthquake or New Madrid earthquake may emerge in the coverage over time as for the Loma Prieta earthquake and others.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (New Madrid earthquake is used for the 1812 event.) — Athaenara ✉  00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeable to 2008 Midwest earthquake, even though "Midwest" is a rather United States-centric term. --Lonadar (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd rather use a different term than Midwest as well. Wabash, West Salem, or Illinois are better names.  But like was said, lets see if a ommon name emerges.-- Bedford  00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest leaving the name of the article the way it is, with the specific date, at least until the end of 2008. At the present time, it is still very early in Q2 of the year and it is conceivable that we could have another earthquake in the region before the end of the year, which would create a conflict in the naming of articles.  If, at the end of the year, this is the only significant seismic event in the region, then - and only then - would I be agreeable to moving the article to 2008 Midwest earthquake.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Midwestern United States, to which Midwest redirects, is vast. Again, as per verifiability policy, it really depends on what the preponderance of reliable sources call it. — Athaenara  ✉  00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, in the meantime, may I suggest a compromise of April 2008 Illinois earthquake? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The addition of Illinois seems to limit the effect to just that state, but that is obviously not the case. I would go for April 2008 Wabash Earthquake or April 2008 Wabash Valley Earthquake.  I personally like Midwest, but seems that you and others don't, so I'll throw my vote toward Wabash.  --    JT   Holla! 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the date part of the title, it should default to "2008 ...." and if another quake hits, then it should be changed to "April 2008 ...", as opposed to naming it now as "April 2008 ..." and then if no other quake hits here this year then move it to "2008 ...". --Tombstone (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From looking at various news articles, the United States Geological Survey report, and the Earthquakes in the United States category, it seems to me the name should be 2008 Illinois earthquake. TheslB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the original mover I'm surprised it's so contentious. None of the other articles at Category:Earthquakes in the United States have the E capitalized (though for full disclosure I had New Madrid Earthquake moved to New Madrid earthquake today).  Do we have any indication that this title is a proper noun rather than descriptive?  I'd support moving it to 2008 Illinois earthquake or similar. Oren0 (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Count me in for 2008 Illinois earthquake (barring another notable one this year!). The headlines almost all say "Illinois earthquake" or "earthquake hits Illinois" or some variation, unless they are from a source close enough to make a further distinction. I'm not even certain this article needs to exist, frankly, but it certainly doesn't seem likely to get widely identified by the epicenter, a practice that is mainly common in California. Historically, most earthquake names are taken from cities that are flattened or the wider regions where they occur. That the epicenter was reasonably close to two other states seems to be something the headline writers are ignoring. --Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think that using Illinois as opposed to Wabash downplays any effect on any other state in the region. --    JT   Holla! 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge returning to the original name with the term "Midwest" since this is the most common name occurring in the media, because the tremor was felt beyond Illinois, and because it occurred very close to the border with adjoining states. Tmangray (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Early googling had most reports under "Midwest earthquake", although now there are more hits under "Illinois earthquake". However, the most hits with the suffix-word "quake" turn up under Indiana, as "Indiana quake".  The USGS has yet to dub the quake.  If and when they do, that ought to be the title of this article.  Before then, I still urge the title use the term "Midwest".  Let's also bear in mind that this is not a weird rivalry for claims on the quake, but a sensible title that will be recognizeable by Wiki readers outside of the region affected. Tmangray (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument against "Midwest" was that it was too US-Centric. --    JT   Holla! 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've created a future entrant into the ridiculous edit warring page.-- Bedford 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already changed it to 2008 Illinois earthquake, just prior to Jasont82 comment to Dhartung. Recent quakes that I have seen are named after distinct geographic regions.  Midwest is not sufficiently distinct (different states are included by different definitions) and not all of the midwest states were affected (whatever definition is used).  There does not seem to be any agreement on the specific town/village/city, so Illinois seems the easiest middle ground. If this turns into an edit war from here, I will be surprised. TheslB (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I posted above, to me, Wabash or Wabash Valley makes the most sense to me because it's the name of the region that it happened in. --    JT   Holla! 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at Google news results, Illinois earthquake seems to dominate the descriptions as compared to Wabash or Wabash Valley earthquake. TheslB (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the USGS has now given the earthquake its official name, and I now urge adopting it as the title of this article: Mount Carmel, Illinois Earthquake of 18 April 2008. Tmangray (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a little wordy, but 2008 Mount Carmel earthquake would be ok with me. And what about making all these other suggestions redirects?  --    JT   Holla! 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a good thing to abbreviate the USGS official name here, but if so, it should be consistent with other quakes. It's unusual for a quake to be named solely for a state.  For instance, the New Madrid quake(s) is not referred to as the "1812 Missouri earthquake", or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake as the "1906 California earthquake".  The suggestion is either "2008 Mount Carmel earthquake" or "2008 Mount Carmel, Illinois earthquake". Tmangray (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please note the editor who archived this discussion created a section below where the discussion continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheslB (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago "Damage" Report
I've removed the information again, because it really is not notable. Building swayed all over the Midwest. As I said in the summary, the scope of how far away the quake was felt is depicted in the opening part of the article, and has been discussed on this talk page. The fire department did not even respond to a single phone call, meaning that it wasn't even notable to the CFD. Plus, there was no damage to report, so it certainly would not belong in the Damage section. Please do not readd it, unless there is notable information to add. --   JT   Holla! 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a CURRENT EVENT. The fact that every skyscraper in Chicago is being inspected on an emergency basis is notable, even if no damage has yet been found.  If you don't want it in the Damage section, then you should move it to an Effects sections instead of removing such notable info altogether. 76.202.254.186 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've got to come up with a better argument than that. I'd be willing to make a significant wager that it's written somewhere in the City of Chicago's emergency response plans that this very situation be standard practice in an event like this.  Thus, it's not really notable, that is to say, out of the ordinary.    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's add in the fact that every building in Indianapolis is also being inspected, as is, I would imagine, every building in the Midwest. If it were ONLY the buildings in Chicago that were being inspected, that would be one thing, but it's not JUST Chicago buildings that are getting the once-over.  --    JT   Holla! 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the info I removed didn't even mention any inspections, just that they "shook" (not that having that would make it any more notable). --    JT   Holla! 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm using Chicago as an example. If emergency inspections are occurring all over the midwest, that is even more notable, regardless of whether it is part of a plan or not.  If the Sears Tower fell over, the pre-planned response by the City of Chicago would not nullify the event's notability.
 * If the Sears Tower fell over, clean up would be central to Chicago, and notable. Apples and oranges.  --    JT   Holla! 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring the pt, which is that just because a response is pre-planned, does not make it not notable. Btw here's the info that someone named Jasont82 removed regarding inspections:


 * City of Chicago building inspectors have made emergency inspections of high-rises and at construction sites around the city.
 * 76.202.254.186 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what the objection is here. Chicago is the nearest world-class city to the quake, and the city has more than 90 buildings taller than 500 feet, with several notable construction projects. Indianapolis has three buildings that tall, and no notable construction projects. The question of highrise earthquake safety in the Midwest has been raised by experts. The claim that these are "standard" inspections may or may not be true, but this was a nonstandard event, and they were notable by their appearance in news about the event.--Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The objection is that inspecting buildings after a quake isn't notable. Especially when every building in the Midwest is being inspected for damage.  If damage is found, fine, add it, but the fact that the quake was so widespread reduces the notability of one city, no matter how "world-class".  Then the second part about how people called 911 falls into the same category.  Of course people called 911.  All over the Midwest 911 call centers were flooded.  The fact that the CFD responded to none of them just proves how unnotable they were.  --    JT   Holla! 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it isn't notable, why was it noted by reliable sources? --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really want the article to include the fact that buildings are being checked in every city? Because every city will have a source from a reliable source saying their buildings are being checked.

How's this for a compromise: "Buildings in cities around the Midwest were checked/are being checked for damage".

Because if you add one city, you have to name them all, and that will clutter the piss out of this page. --   JT   Holla! 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Carmel Earthquake of April 2008
Why don't we just name it, merge the different titles about the same subject, and leave it alone?

It doesn't matter that some people don't think that it's very important, it still happened and should be on the wiki. (Just because people in California have earthquakes a lot, doesn't make a decent one for the midwest to be ignored.) Plus, this is the second largest quake in the area and only by a quake that was one to two times as big--5.3 to 5.4.

tlws 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Shit, I wasn't aware of this article when I created mine at 2008 West Salem Earthquake. That said, I think West Salem is a better title since (a) it's the nearest town to the earthquake's epicenter, and (b) it's a much less cumbersome title than "April 18, 2008 Midewest earthquake". If it becomes generally known by another name later on down the line then by all means move it to that, but for now, I think 2008 West Salem (E|e)arthquake is best. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian from Mount Carmel
I will provide pictures tomorrow if I can find the cord to my digital camera. We have TV stations from across the Midwest in front of an old school building that was converted to apartments. I have the local paper and I can cite pretty much all unreferenced information in here with the local newspaper. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Images
I removed the following images from the article:



The first image doesn't show damage well at a small enough resolution for the page. The full screen image is a decent shot, but when it's shrank to a thumb, it just looks like a random building. The second image is basically a repeat of the one image that is there now. While I like the look of the second image better, it's not descriptive enough and is difficult to make out exactly where the event took place, especially for someone outside the US (ie major cities not labled, state lines not clearly marked, etc). Plus for some reason having the images in there causes a wide patch of white space. --   JT   Holla! 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe add a gallery once the Mount Carmel photo is taken, and use it plus one of those from Louisville?-- Bedford 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gallery sounds good. --    JT   Holla! 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming Consensus
I'm starting this fresh down here because it's a little crowded in the middle of the page. I hope that we can just bring this to a vote to achieve consensus and put the silly thing to bed. "2008 Illinois earthquake" seems to be getting the majority of media coverage, but it was shown that "2008 Mount Carmel earthquake" was the name given by the USGS. So, just throw your vote for either of those, or something else, and a reasoning.


 * 2008 Mount Carmel earthquake - Should go with the name given by the USGS over what the media has called it. Maybe make 2008 Illinois earthquake a redirect just to be complete.  --    JT   Holla! 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline is to use common names. The USGS name can always be a redirect (and listed in the first line). --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Nobody can decide what the "common name" should be.  --    JT   Holla! 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not think USGS poster names are definitive when it comes to Wikipedia article titles for earthquakes. Just as an example, the 2004 Utica earthquake is known as the 2004 Northern Illinois earthquake by USGS's poster.  A much more significant quake, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, is instead the 2005 Pakistan earthquake by USGS's poster. TheslB (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008 Wabash Valley earthquake - What makes this quake notable in my view is the widespread area it covered. Illinois is only one of several states to feel this significantly. If we say only "Midwest" that smacks of USA-centrism. The town of the epicenter is also somewhat nebulous. Consensus does seem to agree that this was in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. --RayBirks (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wabash Valley earthquake" elicits 13 results on a Google search and no results on a Google news search. It is normal for an earthquake in this region to be felt over a wide area. The notability, I believe, came about because people do not expect to feel quakes in the region. It is not a usual occurrence there. That, and it was a slow news day (yesterday being Friday, the end of the work week). TheslB (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, ThesIB. I'm not going to argue very strenuously for this suggestion but just want to offer it as an alternative. Certainly, point taken about the limited number of search results found when quotation marks are used around the 3-word term. (Without the quote marks, the results are around 15,000 on Google and 240 on Google News.) I'm thinking that as the world gets educated about this specific seismic zone (Wabash Valley), the name will be increasingly meaningful. Perhaps we here at Wikipedia can lead the way in the naming process, although I can see that may be contrary to using common names. This is such a new event, perhaps naming will just be in flux for a while. (It took a little while to settle on 9/11 as a common name; however, its official name here is September 11, 2001 attacks.) Subsequent events may point us in yet another direction. Maybe a re-direct for now. Will wait and see. --RayBirks (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008 Illinois earthquake - It's where it was centered, and ith both West Salem and Mount Carmel given as the towns closest to it to eb affected, Illinois is a neutral term.-- Bedford 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, although we might want to avoid the excessive length of the USGS title, we should approximate it with a locale and not just the state. The USGS title is in fact definitive in the field of seismology, and Wikipedia ought to bias toward the official title in the interest of being encyclopedic.  The locale as given by the USGS is Mount Carmel, so it ought to be "2008 Mount Carmel, Illinois earthquake".  This has the added benefit of avoiding a problem if and when another quake occurs in Illinois this year, as it's unlikely the epicenter would recur at the same locale.  It also demonstrates that the title is not about what areas were affected---which included other adjacent states---but about where it was centered. Tmangray (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is definitive. The headline for April 18 on the homepage of the United States Geological Survey is Illinois Earthquake is a Wake-Up Call. Mount Carmel is not mentioned as the locale. The USGS's Latest Earthquakes M1.0+ in the USA - Past 7 days listing gives the M5.2 earthquake's location as "NNE of Bellmont, IL". Following the link gives the title of the earthquake as "Magnitude 5.2 - ILLINOIS" TheslB (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a title. You'll notice that for every state but Alaska and California, the name of the state is given for ALL the quakes in that field of the summary.  Alaska and California are broken up into regions for that field, but everyday, numerous quakes occur with identical regional locations.  Only truly notable quakes get a real title, like the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, for example.  This Illinois-epicentered quake will actually be discussed in the literature of seismology with the USGS name, regardless of the title chosen here.  A point worth considering.  Tmangray (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any examples of the earthquake being discussed with the poster title? TheslB (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Damage Details
Are they really necissary for something so minor? I mean we dont put up a list of damges we get when we get a really bad wind/thunder storm.


 * Why not? It's factual, verifiable information--so how is an encyclopedia article, whose purpose is to provide information, made better by leaving information out?  Just because we don't put them elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't--I would submit that if we had information on damage from thunderstorms it should be added to the articles on those thunderstorms.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite the Southern Illinois area being one of the "hotter" seismic spots in the U.S., notable seismic events are still few and far between, and any documented damage or effects from said events are 100% notable. And it's also been well discussed, documented, and dismissed that using other articles/events as a baseline for another article is moot. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Illinois earthquake
I moved the article back to 2008 Illinois earthquake. The reason got clipped, but this is basically it: "How the world refers to this event is not the same as the title of a poster. Illinois earthquake is how the majority of sources refers to this event, as previously discussed. See talk page. Lower case 'e' per MoS and, like the prefixed year, per standard earthquake titles on Wikipedia." Please do not move the article without addressing the lack of sources using the poster title to refer to the recent earthquake (and aftershocks) in Illinois. TheslB (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See COMMONNAMES for why the poster title is also incorrect. TheslB (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the United States Geological Survey, THE defining scientific authority on events like this in this country, is not a reliable source? Come on...  move it back, MoS be damned.  The last I checked, the United States Government trumps WP's wishes.    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied from Thes1B's talk page:


 * Are you really going to make me use your own words against you? Okay...

Do any reliable sources state that? TheslB (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do any reliable sources state that it's not? For the time being, as I noted in my reasoning for moving the page back to its original title, this is the best name available for this seismic event. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the burden to find reliable sources is not mine. Since this contention of earthquake in the title being part of a proper name is unsupported and keeping in mind Wikipedia's manual of style, I have changed the title back. TheslB (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a cop out if I've ever seen one. Earthquakes of this magnitude are typically given a specific name in the scientific community. Until this one is, the original title was accurate. Period. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot be the source of "proper" naming for this. TheslB (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Next argument? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all stop. I just took a link from the latest item on watchlist to here and it redirected me. Second of all, calm down. I can not say that I saw this title anywhere on the USGS website, however, either way, it needs to be reformatted to meet WP:MOS. USGS titles are not meant to be used as article titles. I live in Mount Carmel, and local media is calling it one of these names, however I will not tell you what to remain neutral. Just hear me out on this. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From above...  see ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/maps/sigeqs/20080418/20080418.jpg  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the name of a poster, it was not meant to be the name of an article read by lay people. I still am not going to give you my direct opinion to somewhat maintain neutrality. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * InDeBiz1, the most recent reason you listed for the move you made is:
 * The lack of sources using the poster title to refer to the recent earthquake has not been addressed, nor has a recognized reason for overriding Wikipedia's naming conventions been given. The question posed above before today's move initiated by you remains unanswered:
 * No one has found any. In view of the move reason given, the unanswered question can be revised:
 * Please answer this question to support your move. TheslB (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who was intended to see something. What matters is the fact that is the USGS scientific name for this event...  period.  But, since I seem to be soooo much in the wrong here, move it back and I'll stay away from the article.  You're wrong, but I'm not going to fight a battle that there's no chance of winning.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It really is more encyclopedic to use the USGS name, even if the media name is more common for now. Redirects from 2008 Illinois Earthquake would get people to the article, so the real issue is what is the better name.  These renaming contests can get insane though, and I too will not get into a war about it.  I would suggest maybe a Wiki arbitration, assuming there is such a thing.  For those insistent on just "Illinois" without the locale, I would reiterate that you may find yourselves revisiting this if there's another significant tremor in the state this year, not likely of course, but also, not impossible. Tmangray (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thought: this quake struck very close to the stateline with two adjoining states. Identifying it without a locality gives an impression that the quake only affected Illinois, whereas the locality indicates that the title is about where the epicenter was, not just where it was felt, and people can see (or discover) that Mt. Carmel is near Indiana and Kentucky. Tmangray (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We can address a future quake, should it come to pass, at that time. Wikipedia's naming conventions say the common name is the correct name for this article.  USGS refers to the earthquake by the region, Illinois, as well.  The poster title is used on the poster, but does not appear elsewhere. In additional, we requested a third opinion above and the outside opinion said
 * after saying
 * The poster title has not emerged in the coverage. TheslB (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But... that... does... not... matter! Okay, I'm going to pose a very simple question and the answer should settle this entire debate:


 * Are we (Wikipedia) here to be a source of information, as it is commonly known, or is it intended to be an "encyclopedia?"


 * Let the truth set you free, young grasshopper.   --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No one on the discussion page has stated a preference against using the poster title as a redirect to the article. That should address your concern. TheslB (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are STILL missing the point. Wikipedia, as an ENCYCLOPEDIA, should have its articles listed by the PROPER NAME of the subject.  In this case, the PROPER NAME of the event is what is shown on the poster, located as part of the United States Geological Survey website.  As someone else pointed out, the name "Illinois" implies that it only affected Illinois.  Reading the article, we all know that's not accurate.  THEREFORE, it is not only WRONG in terms of the OFFICIAL SCIENTIFIC NAME, but WRONG in the fact that it is misleading.  Use the name "2008 Illinois earthquake" as a redirect, but the article rightfully SHOULD be located under the title that I moved it to.  As I've pointed out, the wishes of Wikipedia and its precious "Manual of Style" do not trump the scientific and/or government community.
 * Do you see the point that you've obviously been missing to this point now?--InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given a choice, I prefer "2008 Illinois earthquake". It's simple, easy to link to, and clear. Now can we stop with moving the article back and forth? If there are future move requests, please file them through WP:RM. --Elonka 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But again, it does not matter what you "prefer." What matters, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an "encylopedia," is that the article is listed by its proper name.  In this case, that proper name - as defined by the United States Geological Survey - is what I had moved it to previously.  As I suggested, use the so-called "common name" as a redirect, if you must.  But if WP intends to remain credible as an "encyclopedia," then....   --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's naming convention says the names of articles should be the most commonly used name. As a rationale for not using a full formal name, it states: "Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more."  Under the examples section, it lists "common names that Wikipedia uses instead of a more elaborate, more formal or more scientifically precise version include (note that the latter is a redirect to the former):" TheslB (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you even bothering to read my comments? "What matters, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an "encylopedia," is that the article is listed by its proper name.  In this case, that proper name - as defined by the United States Geological Survey - is what I had moved it to previously.  As I suggested, use the so-called "common name" as a redirect, if you must.  But if WP intends to remain credible as an "encyclopedia," then...."  Use the common name (which is what most users will likely search) as a redirect to the full article on the subject, which - in order to maintain WP's integrity as an "encyclopedia" - should carry the official USGS-given name of the event.    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please follow the link to Wikipedia's naming convention. It says, as my comments explain above, to do the opposite of what your comments suggest. TheslB (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what? You're right, I'm wrong.  But also, you're wrong and I'm right.  Allow me to explain...  In terms of an "encyclopedia," WP should be using the USGS name of the event for the title of this article, with 2008 Illinois earthquake as a redirect to that article.  In that sense, I'm right.  But, under naming convention policies, which I will go on the record now as stating that I wholeheartedly disagree with on this particular subject, you are correct.  Yes, that's what you've been saying all along, I know.  But, I have this nasty tendency to be stubborn and rather bull-headed sometimes...  just ask my mother.  :)  I still disagree with you, but after consideration and a few drinks (hey, what can I say, it was a nice night in my area last night and I was able to clear the head a bit!), I bow to the name as it currently exists, with the notation that I agree with someone else on this page who stated that calling the event simply "Illinois" is somewhat misleading.  So, I end this chapter of this novel - and hopefully this subject completely - by offering my apologies to you, Thes1B, and anyone else who may have come across this article over the past few days and ended up saying or thinking, "What the (insert your choice expletive here)?!?"  Respectfully,    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the dumbest argument in the Internet's history. You both have made Al Gore cry.  I hope you're happy.  --    Me   Holla! 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto -- I've been involved in some dumb arguments, but this is dumberEditor437 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)