Talk:2017 Chiapas earthquake

Strength Review
Strength of the Quake has been reviewed as 8.1 to 8.2, down from 8.4 by the SSN. --189.177.49.11 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For a comprehensive collection of estimated magnitudes, and about every technical parameter one could want, see this from the ISC. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun
http://www.tsunami.gov/

Tsunami warnings have not been issued as of 5:24 UTC, only threats — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgThomas (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A tsunami warning was issued for surrounding areas, including parts of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicuragua, Panama, and Honduras.

^Removed text, re-add when warnings are issued please SgThomas (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone please change the lead picture to this? https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ahv0#shakemap Alex of Canada (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may pick the JPG and load it up --Itu (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was still on commons ... --Itu (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems the USGS actually changed the map. Can someone please fix again? Alex of Canada (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex of Canada, you can upload the actual map with this "Upload a new version of this file" link. --Itu (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

In a century?
The opening paragraph claims it was the strongest earthquake in Mexico in a century, then in the very next sentence says the only recorded bigger one was 230 years ago. While technically true (it was also the strongest earthquake in Mexico this week), this is greatly misleading for most readers. That the press says so is no excuse — things are not any more true just because you provide many references. -KiloByte (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "in a century" figure was a direct quote from President Nieto, and has been noted as such in the lead. Technically the 1787 earthquake's magnitude was only an estimate, and depending on what the actual magnitude of this one is (USGS says 8.1, SSN says 8.2), this could be equal to the 1932 Jailsco earthquake or larger than it.  Sounder Bruce  19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should said: "the strongest since the intensity began to be measured", or something similar ;) Equinoxe 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when is the President of Mexico – or for that matter, any President – authoritative for any technical details of an earthquake? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Relief map
Currently, the earthquake infobox is using a relief map that shows historic Mesoamerica and no modern boundaries. I believe this has been done because when File:Mexico relief location map.jpg, the usual earthquakes in Mexico location map, is used the earthquake symbol goes beyond the bottom of the map. Not sure what the best solution is here... possibly 1) another relief map of Mexico that extends further south, 2) a smaller earthquake symbol, or 3) a new relief map of Mesoamerica showing modern boundaries? I don't believe the current map outlining a historic region makes any sense, but it might be the best option in the short-term. --NoGhost (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I have no solution. If it were a deliberate choice, it is a very odd choice to depict a vaguely defined, cultural–historical region, instead of a map showing modern political country or subnational boundaries. Holy (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

200 injured
--86.52.62.218 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Aftershocks table
Someone made up a beautiful table of aftershocks, but it took up way too much screen space, so I lobotomized it - took out the dates (I thought people could figure out that the night was progressing), took out a mostly unused Notes column and made one a reference. I'm mostly satisfied with this much-deflated version now (though I am tempted to take out the mile conversions and turn south-southwest into SSW, if an excuse presents itself), except.. now I don't understand it.

The text says there were 12 aftershocks in an hour or something like 337 in a day. The table shows 12 in a day and 6 in the first hour. So how were the aftershocks to show selected? Wnt (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Lightning
https://www.google.com.co/search?q=mexico+earthquake+lightning&oq=mexico+earthquake+lightning&aqs=chrome..69i57.18024j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-co&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

next one 2017-09-19
right now --Itu (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * http://geofon.gfz-potsdam.de/eqinfo/event.php?id=gfz2017skgl
 * https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ar20#executive


 * OK, article already online: 2017 Puebla earthquake --Itu (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New citation templates
In several instances where material from the USGS ANSS Comprehensive Catalog (such as this) has been cited to "USGS" or "usgs.gov" using a generic {cite web} I have replaced that generic usaage with the new, specialized cite anss and short-anss templates. The former provides a more precise attribution in a standard full citation format, which should be easier to use. The latter provides a "short-cite" similar to a Harv template which avoids the complications of using a named-ref. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aftershocks: inconsistent
In the Aftershocks section I see that 32 aftershocks are listed. However, the USGS-ANSS search url to which that is cited turns up 46 events. And the "Visit Nearby Seismicity" option at the ANSS page for this event has 41 aftershocks. This is not consistent (and poorly cited!), and raises a question: when using the ANSS or ISC (or other?) search functions to identify aftershocks, what parameters of location, magnitude, and time should be used?

Location can be quite arbitrary. Strictly speaking, a subsequent earthquake would be considered an aftershock only if it was in the stress field of the intiial quake, but I don't see that we have any of determining that. Magnitude is also a bit arbitrary, but a fairly "round" number can be picked that balances several considerations (such as: just how notable are these aftershocks?). The time range could be however long it takes the aftershocks to fade below the magnitude limit. (See Omori's law.) But while three weeks – the ANSS default – would suffice for Chiapas, the 2015 Nepal earthquake had substantial (M 5.0+) aftershocks two months out.

Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)