Talk:2012 Gippsland earthquake

Rename?
This earthquake didn't happen in Melbourne. How about Gippsland earthquake 2012 or Moe earthquake 2012?

Whatever, the word earthquake should not be capitalised. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Name needs to be changed, plus the article needs to be overhauled a bit. I think it's notable enough to retain, but should be named something like 2012 Gippsland earthquake, or perhaps 2012 Latrobe Valley earthquake (Gippsland is probably more appropriate).Trex21 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved. Standard practice is to put the year first. Went with Gippsland instead of Moe or the Valley because I thought it would be more recognisable and more likely to be searched for. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete proposal
I'm removing my proposed delete based on the new info. A 5.3 is a world of difference from a 3.0 (5.0 is 100 times more powerful than a 3.0.) And, given that it's the biggest in the country in a century, etc, it seems like it's relatively notable. Not sure about the name change proposal, though. Joel Why? talk  12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just point out that the "biggest in the country in a century" is quite incorrect, it is likely the strongest in Victoria since 1982 (which was in a much more remote area), there have been many stronger quakes in the country, in fact there was a 5.7 in remote SA not too long ago...Trex21 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh, ok, I was just going by a message posted on my page. I really haven't looked into it. (And, I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years, so a 5.6 to me feels a bit like a small truck driving by my house. ;) )

biggest or one of
in the interests of not starting an edit-war, i'd like some consensus on whether it should be written as "the biggest", or "one of the biggest". I'd note that the article cited is probably jumping the gun a bit, at least two quakes since have been of at least similar magnitude, in 1969 (quoted as 5.6, not sure which scale) & 1982 (quoted as 5.4, again not sure which scale, I should probably check...) I'd prefer "one of the biggest", but I'm open to debate.Trex21 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it for the time being...Trex21 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How about those people claiming different figures show us their sources HERE please. The source that gave us "biggest in over a century" was a clearly identified, normally well regarded source. Happy to see that claim changed if it's wrong, but we MUST have sources, not just unsourced claims on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah, i was a bit tired, couldn't really be bothered checking sources and crap last night. SEIS gives 5.4ML for Boolarra 1969, whereas GA gives it as 5.3ML . GA has the Mount Hotham one in 1966 (which i'd forgotten about) listed as 5.7ML. Wonnangatta is listed as 5.4ML . I do note that the Moe quake was at a shallower depth than the others. The point i was attempting to make (not very well, apparently) is that calling it "the biggest in over a century" might be a bit of a stretch. Trex21 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interstingly, in describing the aftershock last night, The Age is still claiming the original event was "the state's biggest earthquake in more than a century." HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)