Talk:April 2015 Nepal earthquake/Archive 1

Image
Perhaps the image of an evacuation in Kolkata (in Eastern India) doesn't best describe the earthquake, which affected Nepal the most. Metanish (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as we have images available showing the devastation in Nepal, I am sure they will appear, but so far that image (or others very like it) is all we have . Mikenorton (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Also the image has been moved down in the page which also makes sense. Originally it was the main image (at the time of this comment) Metanish (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's entirely normal that images are not uploaded from the most affected areas to begin with - people have better things to do. Mikenorton (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add image of nepal Oikuchu (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting page protection
This article is being overrun with vandals who insist on putting unsourced information, as well as the notion that over 10,000 people were killed. I think it needs protection. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary at the moment. As long as there are enough eyes on the page we should be fine - most of the edits are not really vandalism. Mikenorton (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many eyes on it..-The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have also some changes over country 'China' which is constantly changed into 'Tibet'. Wykx (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Mikenorton, "[not] necessary"? Really? I've just had to have a user blocked for disrupting this page with incorrect information (as well as making personal attacks against me). It is necessary, which is why someone just made the request. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has also been rather inaffective as we have now a whole mess of death estimates. I keep trying to clear it up, but the edit conflicts make this just about impossible. Mikenorton (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Well we have semi-protection, which followed a flurry of edits. Hopefully it won't be needed for too long. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On Tibet I have received this message : "Tibet is not the same place as China. Tibet was stolen by China in 1950." which contradicts the list on List_of_sovereign_states Wykx (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel this is a minor quibble given the tragic nature of events, so it's pretty sad that some users are using this as an opportunity for violating WP:Advocacy. Given that Tibet is a political sub-unit of a sovereign country - China - and each of the other affected entities (India, Bangladesh, Nepal) are listed as whole countries, it is disingenuous to list Tibet as separate from China in the article.  Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.  As such all references to regions affected should simply state China unless someone wants to make it so that every reference to another country leads with the political sub-unit (state, province, district) affected. Lostromantic (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like people are editing this back to Tibet without explaining on the talk page. I recommend we fully lock the article and submit any violators to the admins. Lostromantic (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Noone is here to right anything or push any advocacy. The earthquake has affected the Tibetan Autonomous Region which is a disputed region, hence I assumed good faith and undid the reversion to China [only to be met with a you will be reported to admins message]. Let consensus be reached and till then leave things as it is. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your good faith but since the article only lists other whole countries without any mention of their sovereignty disputes, then the Tibetan sovereignty dispute does not need to be highlighted in this article. Given that you are a stated supporter of Tibetan independence, further edits are a violation of WP:NPOV as well.  Lostromantic (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. One userbox that I added six years on my userpage and you automatically assume that I make biased edits. thanks. Claps. Bashes head. Anyway. Do what you want. But also try and gain consensus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone is putting wrong information on Wikipedia for their own benifit or to harm society must be block. Oikuchu (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015
This is the updated aftershock map.

Metanish (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've updated the map in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Metanish (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015
Lopp899 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) I have been closely following this page for a few hours now, I just saw someone replaced 'China' and the PRC flag to 'Tibet' and its Tibetan flag on Death Toll table. It is fairly obvious why someone would do this. Tibet is not a independent entity whether some people like it or not. It is 'China' which suffered casualties in this event, not 'Tibet'. It is unacceptable to politicize such a tragic event and it should be changed back to 'China'.
 * Hello. I changed it back to Tibet. Someone changed it to China for no reason, so I changed it back. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Death toll
Maybe not such a good idea to mention the death toll in 3-4 different places on the page while it is in active flux, unless it may be bulk edited? At the time of this comment, the toll in Nepal stands at 1457, with atleast one media outlet already saying it is over 1500 (and speculation that it may go above 2000). Metanish (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's in the three places that you would expect - lead, infobox and the relevant section in the body of the article (+ table). When I last looked these were all consistent with each other. When updated sources come along we'll just have to try to maintain that consistency. Mikenorton (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the death toll table a death toll by number of people who died in each country, or by number of citizens of each state whose citizens were in the earthquake area? Though I added United States, then this currently one figure could be added to Nepal instead. -Mardus (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mapping for rescue work
The Humanitarian OSM Team has sprung to action map Kathmandu and surrounding area roads that can help relief teams. Mapping volunteers can go here for details. Also uploaded some high res streetmaps from osm to commons commons:Category:Street_maps_of_Nepal --Plane Mad 17:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Different Info?
The first line of the article says that the earthquake occurred at "6:12:26 UTC", while the quick facts column at the right shows "6:11:26 UTC". There's a minute difference between the two times. The link of the citation [2] (http://world.workercn.cn/63/201504/25/150425152814263.shtml) doesn't seem to contain any information regarding the earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay.C.S (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Akshay.C.S (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The time has been aligned with the USGS source. Dawnseeker2000   17:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Title versus infobox
Just a small point here, but should the title of the page and the title in the infobox match? I was going to make them match, but then thought there might be a perfectly good reason for the difference. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

✅, Dawnseeker2000   20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015
Minor correction: the "Response" section says "On the day of the quake, the USA sent aid and unblocked USD million to assist with immediate needs." That should be 1 million, acording to the cited source, which says "Outre-Atlantique, les Etats-Unis ont envoyé des secours et débloqué un million de dollars." "Released" might also be a better translation for "débloqué" in this context, but that's less important. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be resolved. -Mardus (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This wasn't me; I just noted that the issue was resolved after trawling through the recent article edit history. -Mardus (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was me, a day or two ago. I hadn't seen this discussion, just noticed the missing number, checked the cited source, and filled it in. I'm glad to know how it happened, though, and doubly glad that there are (as usual) lots of good Wikipedians watching & taking care of things. --Thnidu (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "USD million": someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the page by deleting the values of the financial contributions. Re "débloqué": Thank you! When I translated it, I experienced a blank/fit of stupidity for some reason, & couldn't think of a better word. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note on uploads of drawings
Images that are not actual photos, such as drawings, maps, etc., should be uploaded in PNG format and not in JPG/JPEG, because PNG is a lossless format and does not show artifacts of JPEG compression, most importantly in thumbnail form.

For example, I replaced File:2015 Nepal earthquake ShakeMap.jpg with File:2015 Nepal earthquake ShakeMap version 5.png (pictured) and removed some of the white space, while keeping the map centered. Although the original contains JPEG artifacts, which the PNG version might have retained at full size, then its thumbnail version does not show the artifacts, which allows for better legibility of small text in thumbnails, and a cleaner look.

Removal of superfluous white space (mostly in the margins) also contributes to better legibility of text, as it becomes slightly bigger in thumbnails. Allowing some white space is a good thing, if there is text around the main object, as in the given PNG version, because this white space allows for small text in the thumbnail to be noticed. -Mardus (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting some page protection
An IP vandal with a history of disruptive editing has made these disruptive edits: From a list of responding countries removed responses by China and Pakistan, modified U.S. contribution pledge from $1 mil to $100, changed India's contribution without updating references. I'd like the page to be protected from IP users and newly-registered users. -Mardus (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Put up a warning on the talk page of the IP. If the IP persists, take it to WP:ANI. If other IPs continue, then I guess WP:RPP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Someone keeps removing all the contribution amounts—I have replaced them several times now, & am about to do it again. I’m not sure what to do about this, but it needs to be watched closely. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reactions
There are a whole host of international ones but there is nothing listed from Nepal itself. Surely local NGOs and government are doing more than the PR utter rubbish by states. Other than India (the big brother next door), the LOCAL initiatives should be here.120.62.24.228 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then add it. With a source. But please refrain from removing data within seonds of it being added. That is disruptive. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Like all Wikipedia Reaction sections, what you see in the beginning is far different from what you'll see next week. More reactors, more exact quote, more flags. Not really worth edit-warring over in the early stages, unless maybe the warring is what always makes these drastically shrink, rather than knowing these start too big. In that case, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been looking for precisely such information, to no avail. My impression is that the situation on the ground is still too chaotic to obtain a clear sense of the domestic response. (Local media & aid workers will have been impacted, after all). Additionally, the notion that Nepal might have mechanisms in place to respond to events on its own soil probably hasn’t occurred to Western media quite yet. Give them a day or so to see beyond the dominant narrative. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mount Everest damage and peak altitude
Not asking for any original research here, but this earthquake had a significant impact on Mount Everest, with heavy avalanches. There were a fair number of deaths on Everest too, but deaths don't impact a mountains geology. Something to watch in the months ahead is whether or not there has been any change in Everest's trails, spine or peak height. Because of the high notability of these articles, any changes to related articles should be highly encyclopedic, and be well referenced. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It hadn't occurred to me this possibility, but I'm sure any future change to Everest's elevation will be highly scrutinized if it's not supported by several quality sources. Talk:Mount Everest might be a good (or better) place to add this. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this earthquake occurred too far away to affect the elevation of Everest. Kathmandu, however, was raised between one-half and one meter. Catrachos (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page for discussing damage caused by the earthquake. The Mount Everest page has seen very modest changes, and the article is stable. Your comments about making any changes to the Everest page first being well sourced mirrors exactly what I said. Thanks for the agreement. :) Juneau Mike (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Fredinburg
I don't think Mr Fredinburg was sufficiently notable to be singled out for mention in the article in the context of an event in which many thousands died. Roundtheworld (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a brief mention is fine since (1) he was the first American identified (from what I recall from sources) and (2) reliable sources mention it enough that a brief mention is probably warranted. Not a standalone article or anything, but I think a sentence is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dan Fredinburg for those interested. 'KIA' at Everest Base Camp (South), unfortunately. 220  of  Borg 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A singular mention in the avalanche section would be sufficient. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Monetary damage figure
Newby editor  has removed the "Total damage" section of the infobox twice now here, which also mucked up the info box, and. No summaries, and they removed the second time after I specifically asked them for edit summaries, though they have used them in the past. Can anyone see any reason for removing this? Should it be returned? 220  of  Borg 06:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess everyone is just on a frenzy to edit the article. A warning on the users talk page wouls be enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Casualties
I was surprised to see "France" appear as an entry in the table of deaths and injuries. Then I realised that the table must be showing casualties by nationality, not by location. But surely most of the sources have reported casualties by location? Is any kind of explanation needed at the table? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Up to now these have been casualties by location - the 3617 currently reported for Nepal is regardless of nationality. If we're going to have deaths by nationality, they need to be separate, but I would argue that it's too early to attempt such a breakdown. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a distinct table of Fatalities by Nationality (vs the existing Fatalities by Location table) would be useful, as more reports appear. Relabelling the current table might help reduce confusion. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Scratch that—the table was created while I was typing. Nice! Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This happened last night, I noticed USA appear on the table and undid it. Is it necessary to have a table with nationality breakdown> --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A separate table with breakdown by nationality (vs location) is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Below, I suggested a distinct table for the Missing by nationality. Perhaps, instead, a Missing column (after Injuries?) could be added to the Casualties by nationality table? Or would this make the table too unwieldy? Thoughts? Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing
Reports of high numbers of missing people are beginning to crop up in the media. For the most part, the individuals in question are foreign nationals who were visiting Nepal, but some are locals. Perhaps a Missing table (i.e., number by nationality) would be in order. What do people think of this idea? Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Social Effects
One of the important effect of earthquake is born of babies without parents. I added the mater in subtitle of social effect.Papeli44 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not currently clear if this is a "social effect" that is new, caused soley by the earthquake, or one which has been in existence for some time. Tne "airlift" of the surrogate babies and parents doesn't seem like a significant "social effect" for the area struck by the earthquake. Is it only Israelis who are involved? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The infants airlifted out by Israel were offspring of Israeli (would-be) parents who were employing Nepalese surrogates; see, inter alia, The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/27/israel-evacuating-babies-surrogate-mothers-nepal-earthquake, and The Times of Israel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/nepal-surrogate-mothers-cleared-to-come-to-israel/
 * Reports of orphaned infants may yet appear, but I’ve not encountered any in the media. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was trying to disentangle what may be an established Israeli route to surrogancy for same-sex couples, from the fact that this earthquake has, inevitably, produced more orphans. Maybe I'll just wait for tomorrow's headline in The Sun proclaiming "Gay Jews in Quake Baby Snatch Shocker" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is quite odd. Its emphasis, last I looked, was on gay couples! Why? I don't think it should be there at all.220  of  Borg 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also (partly) duplicated in the "National responses" section for Israel. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed. Since the section entirely deals with Israel, shift whatever is not already there to the section on Israel. It otherwise serves little to no purpose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ,,, and What is your idea about this Israeli law:

Under Israeli law, only heterosexual couples can legally have children through surrogate mothers, meaning homosexual couples and single people often seek help overseas, said Roy Youldous of Tammuz, an Israeli firm offering surrogacy services.(Israel to airlift 25 babies born to surrogates out of Nepal)Papeli44 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) What about it? It has no bearing on this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above subject can as social effect in Nepal that occurred after the earthquake. In fact, Israeli's homosexual couples kidnapped the babies. Because they can not to have baby according to Israel low (Many Israeli male couples have fathered children with the help of surrogate mothers in Nepal because surrogacy is illegal in Israel for same-sex couples.).Papeli44 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All well and good, but I don't get the connection to the earthquake here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kidnapping the babies that their parents died in earthquake is one of earthquake effect and this is its connection to the article.Papeli44 (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a total conspiracy theory. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.Papeli44 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

pati
§ Damage lists, among the heritage sites destroyed,
 * In Patan, the Char Narayan Mandir, the statue of Yog Narendra Malla, a pati inside Patan Durbar Square ...

pati was wikilinked. But the page is a DAB page, and none of the pages listed there made sense in this context. I unlinked it. Thnidu (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it's a use of Pati (title), but I can't see how to fit it in there. Anybody? --Thnidu (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rough Guide to Nepal describes "pati (open shelters)" . Rmhermen (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Time interval for "big earthquake"
The last line of the Geology section reads, "Based on the study of the Main Frontal Thrust, on average a big earthquake occurs every 1000 years in the east Nepal region." The referenced article providing the 1,000 year interval is a technical discussion of "return period" for earthquakes, which is how often a particular section of fault ruptures, not how often one should expect a "big earthquake." That is my layman's reading of the article. A large earthquake for the region can be caused at different spots. The previous large earthquake affecting the Kathmandu valley was in 1934.

"...four events of M6 or larger have occurred within 250 km of the April 25, 2015 earthquake over the past century. One, a M 6.9 earthquake in August 1988, 240 km to the southeast of the April 25 event, caused close to 1500 fatalities. The largest, an M 8.0 event known as the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake, occurred in a similar location to the 1988 event. It severely damaged Kathmandu, and is thought to have caused around 10,600 fatalities. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#general_summary"

The figure I'm seeing for large earthquakes affecting the Kathmandu valley is 70-100 years, with shorter and longer intervals possible, although someone will have to document that better with references. Catrachos (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the line, which is based on the study "Return period of great Himalayan earthquakes in Eastern Nepal: evidence from the Patu and Bardibas strands of the Main Frontal Thrust" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.T23C2607B, the link can also be found over at the Wikipeda page for Nepal. Even though the study acknowledges poor constraints and is from 2013, the overall conclusion is related to great earthquakes. If someone find reference to better document and pin point the "figure", go ahead. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated the study (version 2014, publication), added follow up study conclusions. prokaryotes (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at the referenced article, and you are correct that the article discusses events of 9 to 12.5 m of slip with a return period of 1,000 years. That would be a much bigger earthquake than occurred on the 25th, no? Catrachos (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of initial earthquake(s)
I find the following rather confusing: ''The India Meteorological Department (IMD) said two powerful quakes were registered in Nepal at 06:11 UTC and 06:45 UTC. The first quake measured 7.9 Mw and its epicenter was identified at a distance of 80 km to the northwest of the capital Kathmandu. The second earthquake was somewhat less powerful at 6.6 Mw. The seismic focus lay at a depth of 10 km (6.2 mi) below the earth's surface. Bharatpur was the nearest major city to the main earthquake, 53 km (33 mi) from the epicenter. The second earthquake occurred 81 km (50 mi) northwest of Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. Over thirty-five aftershocks of magnitude 4.5 Mw or greater occurred following the initial earthquake, including one of magnitude 6.6 Mw.[18]'' Surely the second earthquake should be considered an aftershock? Also, at the end of the section does including one of magnitude 6.6 Mw. refer to the second earthquake previously mentioned, in which case it should be including the one... or to the 6.7 aftershock the following day? Could someone try to make this a bit clearer? Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Listing injuries
Is it really necessary to list injuries in the two tables? The great majority of injuries will not be reported and thus I suspect that the figures presented are rather meaningless. Roundtheworld (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I think this is possible to update it in the first table but I think you're right, not in the second table. Wykx (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sections
Having an idividial subsection with == for each nation is stretching the table of contents and is mkaing the page a bit unreadible. I'm for reverting back to the old form. What do others have to say? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've applied the toc limit template with a value of 3, to reduce the size of the contents table. Mikenorton (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The T.O.C. looked quite ridiculous. I am also concerned that this article is turning into a mini United Nations where Wikipedians are competing to say how wonderful their own countries have been. There is far too much detail about the individual responses and, to my mind, insufficient information about the earthquake and its impact. The article will end up being unreadable, if it is not already. Perhaps we need a new article created called "Responses to the 2015 Nepal Earthquake"? Roundtheworld (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️, see Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Epic Genius (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Split off humanitarian response into sub-article
The humanitarian response section is getting rather unwieldy and would greatly benefit being split into its own article, possibly Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake. All content within the International humanitarian response section would be placed in this new article with summaries highlighting major actions taken by states, NGOs, etc... be placed into the main article. Main focus should be summaries of major events, such as India's Operation Maitri and collective contributions by nations. A table could also be used to convey the most important info such as cash donations, humanitarian supplies, and other pertinent info (example: Typhoon Haiyan). Wanted to bring up discussion here instead of just going ahead and doing it since this is such a highly viewed article at the current time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ with the split; a table is still needed. Epic Genius (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good work on being bold on this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have also completed the humanitarian aid overview table just now. Epic Genius (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work—looks cleaner, & is much easier to navigate.Stephanie Lahey (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the table in this article only for governments now? Can NGO contributions be placed in the table or should they go into the new article? Nathan121212 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The table is now almost as long as the text that was split off into a new article. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that work on this is needed, kept as one list in one place, to avoid having to update many WP pages. I would support that it be split as a sub article, this list is growing huge. And it even misses the contributions from Nepal citizens and relatives overseas, small in individual amount, but enormous as a total (is there even an estimate? do the Nepal banks say something?) Even here in Austin, Texas, the local Nepal associations are doing fundraising. Thank you for y'all work on this. Yama Plos   talk  00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Casualties section
We really need some text in this section. Someone mostly blanked it and no one has updated it. There is currently no discussion in the article on Nepal casualties at all. Rmhermen (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When was the article blanked? It can probably be retrieved. Epic Genius (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So many missing people in Nepal from all over the world. Somebody erased the column about them (that's not the case in the fr.wikipedia page for example > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9isme_de_2015_au_N%C3%A9pal ) & I think it's occulting the sad reality of the story. ManuelParis (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indian response section
This section is way too long. It should probably be split, as it has approximately 20 paragraphs in that section. Epic Genius (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the Indian response is the most important section besides the earthquake in itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have an article, about the Indian response, though. Epic Genius (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I returned from Kathmandu yesterday. A so called "Indian response" was in fact a massive inflow of relatively small military transport aircrafts such as C-130 Hercules and Il-76 that blocked Kathmandu airport apron disabling access to it for other, larger commercial aircrafts including cargo aircrafts capable of providing more help due to their capacity. E.g. Polish B787 dreamliner with Polish rescue team was put on hold for 3 hours awaiting for a place to stand. One B777 Qatar Airways Cargo in fact managed to land but compare its 653 m3 cargo capacity to about 153 m3 of Indian C-130 Hercules with comparable wingspan (64.8 vs. 40.4 m).
 * I do not neglect Indian help but they should provide it in a form of civilian non military aircrafts. Not to mention evacuating Indian citizens form Kathmandu sitting on the floor shoulder to shoulder on the ramps of these crafts. There also was a lot of show-up in this Maitri Operation. E.g. Air India officers provided us with boarding passes for the flight that was supposed to take us from there on Sunday (Apr 26) even thought no commercial Air India airliner arrived this day. Therefore Many people spent two days at the airport awaiting evacuation.
 * What is more important however is that this article is about the earthquake not about involvement of other states in helping Nepali people. And not only India provided help.
 * This information does not fit to the preamble of this article. Guswen (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this issue discussed in RS, like newspapers? As uncoordinated as things apparently were, we still cannot write about it in that context unless it is covered in a RS. Your experience is not enough, but if your experience was shared by enough people to receive coverage, then maybe the content should be discussed somewhere - maybe if there is a section in this article or in the article on the international response dedicated to criticisms of the response. Good luck! Dcs002 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I only meant that the statement that "Within minutes of the earthquake the Government of India, via the Indian Armed Forces initiated Operation Maitri, a massive humanitarian mission with the primary objective of conducting relief and rescue operations in Nepal. The Indian government also evacuated Indian and foreign citizens from Nepal." should not be included in the preamble of the article concerning the earthquake itself. Not only India provided help, one may raise objections as to the efficiency of Indian help, and - most importantly - the article is not about Indian help.
 * But now it is correct.Guswen (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Video
Why is there a 2 second long video on the article that basically doesn't show anything at all? Rerbun (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, removed. prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations and references
There seems to be no citations and references to Nepali news agencies at all here.Foreign news agencies, mostly english and indian are cited here. The real picture can better be shown by nepalese agencies as it occured in Nepal.And most foreign agencies are using unauthentic data instead of Gov of Nepal. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshetrysaugat (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most editors here would be unable to read Nepalese, so they will naturally use English sources. If these are any English (or Nepalese) language sources from Nepal, such as newspapers, please suggest them. It may also be that the Nepalese Govt. may not be a reliable source. That may also apply to most sources this early after the event.220  of  Borg 00:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Added "(or Nepalese)" to my post 220  of  Borg 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I also suggest that if Kshetrysaugat can read and understand Nepalese, and has access to reliable Nepalese language sources, it is perfectly legitimate to use those non-English sources in the English WP. The RS standards still apply, of course, but English language sources are not mandatory. Dcs002 (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just makes it easier for us majority(?) who are mono-lingual English speakers. 220  of  Borg 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Death tolls
I give up trying to improve the figures given for deaths and injuries (in the first paragraph, the infobox, and the main sections).

I thought putting 'over 6000' at the start was a reasonable compromise, because a) that number is absolutely confirmed by the Nepalese government, and b) it is true that it's a minimal value, and certainly will increase. I hoped that would be acceptable in the opening section, and that the body-text could provide more details, such as the Prime Minister declaring he thinks it will exceed 10,000.

However, people will continuously change the numbers, based on sources which Wikipedia certainly accepts as reliable - despite the fact that there are dozens of such sources, and few agree on the numbers.

I guess it will settle down with time.

For now, I'd think 'over 6000' or something is more meaningful than e.g. '6107' (changing hourly, depending on who you ask) or any other specific figure. But I don't see how that can be maintained, because people well-meaningly update it from reliable references.

It's got messy, because we have different totals and different soucrces in the start of the article, the infobox, and in the main section. Plus there are comments in the code about the reference, which don't make much sense to me. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur, it's a pain in the a$$. My beef is well meaning edits that change the figures, (having recently reverted a multiple place change) that are both unexplained and don't provide new sources. They may be correct, but there is no way to tell them from vandalism, which IIRC has also occurred with ridiculous figures added, without a new or updated wp:RS. I added a hidden note that basically said, please don't change the injured figures without providing a new or updated source. Well meaning editors hear or read new figures and just 'dump' them in, but leave the old sources in place. 220  of  Borg 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This may be of interest. Someone with some scientific nous connected to the International Center for Earth Simulation is predicting a possible death toll of 57,000, here. 220  of  Borg 00:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of interest, but I have concerns about his methodology, which in this source is poorly described. The link to his scientific publications is dead. This article could be written by a fan of his. It is not critical of his methods, and therefore seems unbalanced. It contains lengthy quotes from Max Wyss himself. He is affiliated with the International Center for Earth Simulation in Geneva, but in what way? He is a geophysicist, but there is really not much to establish his expertise on social factors. The author of this opinion piece says Wyss has a good track record. Is that enough? If there is RS coverage of these estimates, then stating that "geophysicist Max Wyss has projected the death toll to be..." would add quality to the article I think, but there are too many holes in this opinion piece. It almost seems promotional in nature. I'm sorry to come across as so negative, but that's just my opinion. Dcs002 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: I followed your link to "some scientific nous" - I don't know what that means, but I looked over his CV, and he is indeed well published in these estimates. Still, it's a self-published document, and it does not (obviously) contain criticism of his methods. (A CV would of course not do that.) I am more optimistic that his formulas might make a valuable contribution to this article. Thank you for bringing him up! Dcs002 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problemo, it looked of interest. One needs to be sceptical though! (After all, this is the encyclopaedia any idiot can edit!) Of course, it will be good if he is wrong. 'Nous' basically means knowledgeable, in colloquial Aussie English anyway, though Wiktionary doesn't have it. My speeling may be wrong. 220  of  Borg 15:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "nous (nous) n. (Gk Philos.) mind, intellect; (colloq.) common sense, gumption. [Gk]" - Concise Oxford Dictionary. (NB. this type of "gumption" not to be confused with the 1970s household cleaner). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Must remember to check the 'Oxfrod' Dictionary next time. 220  of  Borg 01:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Earthquake casualty estimation - an article created by User:MaxWyss. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While not a self-promotional piece, and quite educational, that article contains numerous authoritative statements. It reads like a textbook, in which one assumes the expertise of the author. I don't dispute his expertise, and he has written or edited numerous textbooks on this subject, but, y'know... WP needs to be well sourced without OR or SYNTH. The article is not self-promotional, and in a way that's unfortunate for this article because maybe there would be some secondary RS cited if he discussed his formula. (I skimmed the article and sources. Maybe there is more there than I noticed.) Dcs002 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thought I recognised the Wyss name from somewhere. hasn't edited since 2011 unfortunately, though appears to still be about in the real world. 220  of  Borg 01:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Death Toll by State
Would it be useful to have a table showing the death toll by state in India and Nepal? Like this:

Or would that clutter the article too much.

Information that can be used for the death toll in India by state is "As of 4:14 p.m. 27 April in India, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, confirmed that 56 people died in the state of Bihar, 12 in Uttar Pradesh, 3 in West Bengal and 1 in Rajasthan"  Kutchkutch  talk 00:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be more concered about the data being hopelessly out-of-date, than anything else.
 * That's 4 days old, and even the Prime Minister thinks it's out by a factor of 100%.
 * Still, if you say 'as of' whatever date, I don't see any harm in it, but personally I'd think a couple of sentences listing them might be better than a table - unless there's too many? 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We already have 2 tables, so I'd say no more. Note that we need an actual source, not just so-and-so said this. Currently we have a "Casualties by country" table saying 78 deaths in India, so they don't agree numerically. The tables sources are dated later too, 28th & 29th. Anything from the 27th is likely to be out of date. 220  of  Borg 00:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that we should be careful to keep the numbers consistent throughout the article. It's very confusing otherwise. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The table source from the 28th leads to an irrelevant page: http://ddinews.gov.in/National/National%20-%20Top%20Story/Pages/vaccine.aspx  Kutchkutch  talk 02:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is whether this could be used as a back door to re-open the Tibet question. I really do sympathize with both sides of that question, but I think it has been answered, and this risks opening another can of worms on a settled, sensitive question. Dcs002 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

List of aftershocks
I have created a list of aftershocks and linked it to this article. It is incomplete and has no citations but the informations are true.

I havenot got time to complete it and/or cite it. So I would request to cite and complete it if possible and not to delete. I would have completed it if i had time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshetrysaugat (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs a reliable source. prokaryotes (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Monetary assistance only from Bhutan and ADB so far: Mahat
Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat said on Friday 1 May 2015, that Nepal government has so far received monetary assistance only from Bhutan and Asian Development Bank (ADB). The government is yet to receive the assistance promised by the various countries and agencies. “Nepal government has so far received 1 million dollar from Bhutan. ADB has also given the monetary assistance to Nepal. But, we are yet to receive the monetary assistance promised by other countries,” Mahat said. He said that the ministry for foreign affairs and other government agencies will coordinate the assistance to Nepal. Minister Mahat also stated that the donor countries can directly distribute the relief packages to the victims, but they have to submit the details to the government.

Source: Setopati.com

Is this true or false? Wikipedia states they have received about $80 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.114.169 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to add "promised" in the other countries except Bhutan. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you show a link to that reference?


 * I found similar info on ABC News, but it says they've not received any at all yet, from any country; "The government of Nepal says it has not received any of the money pledged by foreign donors, as thousands of people remain missing after a catastrophic earthquake." 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have fixed some typos in that section and altered it to say no money received yet as that is what the cited ABC (Australia) source quotes the Finance Minister as saying. I also added a few 'little' things to the reference, (like a title!) and author, dates, etc. 220  of  Borg 13:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we should move the whole table to humanitarian response and rewrite the section in 4-5 sentence. We hav to be bold and change the section.The section is very bloated.

Delink the "Humanitarian" article from 'Aid' section here
We already have a separate article on Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake.

Should we move the large table into there, and just have a short summary (in text) in this article? The exact details of the amounts/items sent are so many and varied, from such a range of sources, that I don't think it helps understanding within this article.

I suggest we move the entire table out, and try to write a few lines summarizing the fact that a great many nations have provided enormous support, both financial and physical. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article "Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake" which has been called the 'Main article' of this article's 'International aid' section deserves to be delinked. One can plainly notice that article has no place in an encyclopedia. It is in such a mess, that straightening it up would overwhelm an editor.


 * Much of the article is just a laundry list of aid material in a narrative form. Next, more than this lineup of aid material is a lineup of "world leaders" offering their "get well soon"s and "I am with you"s.
 * Support the proposal?


 * SourceOhWatch (&#2360;&#2381;&#2352;&#2379;&#2340;&#2307;&#32;&#2313;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;) (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My favourite part is the UK, "$23.14 million, of which $7.713 million was donated by the government and $7.713 million was donated by the public". I assume the other 7m was found down the back of the sofa.

There are two issues;
 * For the content in this article - edit it to fix it, or remove it if it's not appropriate. I suggest that the entire table is removed, and replaced with a couple of sentences summarising the more noteworthy issues about responses. If the exact details belong anywhere, it's in the other article. Which brings us to...
 * For Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake - we will continue to have a link to it, as long as it exists - whether it's a good article or not. You could improve that article, you could discuss it on its own talk page. You could even nominate it for deletion if you think that's appropriate, although I think it's likely to remain.

Conclusion: be bold. I support removing the table, (putting it in the other article if appropriate), and trying to form a short coherent summary of the other article, in accordance with Summary style. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Spot on! Thing is, these are initial "exciting" days. By and by, the table should boil down to a summary, rightly so. In fact, I have been pruning a lot of grass under many a flagpole (without dislodging the poles. As an aside, I was reading --> http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2010/06/24/so-much-for-all-this-summitry/ (quote)--> "if you think your country is important, you’ve got to be there... an opportunity to show off... charms and... economic progress... to stay home is a diplomatic insult") and then I got tired and took a break. I'll continue with my shears and go chop, chop. Brought down "99 tons of baby food" and "199 tons of noodles and tuna cans" to plain "tons of food" and etc., etc.


 * You are right about the noteworthy issues. Since, the "Humanitarian" article is, I repeat, merely a narrative version of tabular data here, what I'll do for now, is move the link to it to the table where it belongs, and just delink it from the paras above the table, which are developing into the real issues. Those are like, how and where all tha aid is reaching out and what these personnel from abroad are doing on the ground, after the table has done its job of mentioning all the stuff piled up at the country's only wide-body jet airport, choking it, keeping on wait the more urgently needed personnel and equipment from flying in.


 * SourceOhWatch (&#2360;&#2381;&#2352;&#2379;&#2340;&#2307;&#32;&#2313;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;) (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.
 * Before you'd even started this discussion, I'd removed "Philipines - $1,700" - that type of thing is insulting to that country. Also 'Maldives $10k' -, and singapore   - the refs just don't check out. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the name of the earthquake
Nice of you to have posted a message on my talk page before you edited me at 08:16 hrs., 2 May 2015. You asked me whether you misunderstood anything. If fact, in my opinion you have, indeed. Here is what I have to say. Last time I reverted you, my edit summary was --> 15:41, 1 May 2015. I post it here for your reference --> "Reverting back (the second time) edit of 13:21, 1 May 2015 with "Himalayan". Please do not revert without reading the edit summary of 12:17, 1 May 2015. A search-engine test between the two terms should suffice to show overwhelming support."‎ Here is the edit summary of 12:17, 1 May 2015 --> "Unexplained edits of 06:04, 06:15, 08:59, 09:17 & 10:39, all of 1 May 2015 essentially changing the same text, now reverted. Also see --> WP:EN section on 'Established usage in English-language sources'"
 * Now two questions to you: 1) Have you read WP:EN --> Please click --> []

and the section --> "Established usage in English-language sources" there which says --> "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." 2) Do you feel this rule is wrong? I have no idea about rules of Wikipedia in other languages, but the rule of the English Wikipedia as it stands now is what I mentioned above. Till you can get this rule changed by people at Wikipedia, and since the rule is very clear, for the moment, I shall now proceed to revert back your edit, till I hear your reply to the above two questions.

SourceOhWatch (&#2360;&#2381;&#2352;&#2379;&#2340;&#2307;&#32;&#2313;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;) (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As per the rule,The title of the earthquake is commonly called Nepal earthquake. But,as I told you before,it's officially called Gorkha earthquake as it's epicenter is in Gorkha. And,I have never changed the common title(i.e. Nepal Earthquake). Just the official name. I completely disagree with your Himalayan earthquake which is completely false and wrong. I would suggest to read articles provided (cited) and our National Seismological Centre website and only then change the official name. Without further reading and investigating,never change any wiki articles.And,someone has already changed the title.

PS:The naming of earthquake is done from it's epicenter(always).Remember,I havent changed it's common name and am within rule.
 * You say "officially". Can you please provide a reference? Maybe then we say, on the top paragraph, "also called so and so by so and so", if the reference is very meaningful, like maybe the Nepal Government? Thank you Yama Plos   talk  00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , you can visit National seismological centre of nepal website. And as i said above the earthquake is always named by it's epicenter. Plz,check yourself. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you got a reliable source for the name, then i suggest this could be incorporated into the article. prokaryotes (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the title
As there are series of different magnitude earthquakes(not aftershock) the name should be changed to '2015 Nepal earthquake series' By: Ankit555551 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Which are the earthquakes that are not aftershocks? There have been no other earthquakes greater than M6.7 and they are all within the defined rupture area, so unless you have a source that states that some of the earthquakes are not aftershocks, I think that we should leave it as it is. Mikenorton (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dual citizenship
Searching google for dual citizen Nepal earthquake I only found results for one British/Hong Kong death. One editor keeps putting in two: a Chinese/U.S. citizen and a Vietnam/U.S. citizen. As a source for the first claim is a link that mispells Girawong as Gira Wong and lists her as U.S. (Her heritage was Thai.) That link also calls Vinh B Truong a U.S. citizen. Instead to support him a link is offered that calls him Vietnamese-American (a term in American English that means that he was American of Vietnamese heritage, not citizenship). That link also calls Girawong USA. They may both be dual citizens but these links don't show that. Rmhermen (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The U.S. State Department has called all four U.S. citizens. Rmhermen (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I'm agree with you, you're right on that position :-)ManuelParis (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rename Gorhka earthquake
How about renaming the article??? The current name, Nepal earthquake, seems like an uninformed name. Imagine if Hurricane Katrina had an article entitled "That U.S. hurricane, 2006" Poop fudge sundae (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest the above user change their name and also see the logic of and support name change to Gorkha Trees are more important than people (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Donations for New Zealand?
Shall someone add donations on the New Zealand section of international aid? I saw donation boxes in New Zealand from the red cross so just asking.--Planecrashexpert (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much Sugar coating of work done by UN and america,
The Page is Missing The Nepal Goverment Criticism section. Criticism Of the goverment:


 * cargo planes cracked the runways, making some areas dangerous to land
 * landing and take off delay due to unexpected Large Cargo planes turning up with no room to land.
 * Nepal asks for (Food grain and tents, sault), instead Forgien aid sent crates of mayonase.

Religious hate speechs Indian PM Fund
 * A US Christian Pastor Tony Miano sparks outcry Across america after suggesting Nepalis should convert and not rebuild their 'pagan shrines', while telling Nepal hindus To repent.
 * Priminister of india donates one month of his personal Salary to Nepals Relief Fund. The government has already announced Rs. 2 lakh from the PMNRFas compensation to kin of those killed. Those seriously injured in the earthquake will get Rs. 50,000

Lets face it, This page is painting india and china as Non-neutral parties in this event when it comes to aid, two of the largest populations on planet & just a slither of information about how they helped and yet a massive bulk of information on forgien aid and critism of the nepal goverment, i mean the nation was hit with the force of (700 times the power of Hiroshima) that the americans dropped on japan which made the nation into a giant creator, I personally feel that this page is looking darker and more sleezy.92.236.96.38 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)KeepstrongNepal
 * The statement regarding Tony Miano is cited by a reliable source.1  sami  talk 14:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for scandal mongering. If people want to know what some random nobody has said about the earthquake, they have plenty of opportunity on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name
The BBC are reporting a magnitude 7.4 earthquake has struck Nepal today. Obviously it is far too early to know the further impact. If this new earthquake is to get a separate article, then I would suggest this article is moved to April 2015 Nepal earthquake, with today's earthquake at May 2015 Nepal earthquake. If it is to be added in with this article, then I would suggest 2015 Nepal earthquakes would be a better title. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just an aftershock. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your usage of "just". Dustin  ( talk ) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name (2)
It will probably be debated whether the May 12 occurrence is a new earthquake, or an aftershock. So 2015 Nepal earthquakes is probably the safer bet. It will be good if name changed to 2015 Nepal earthquake series --Ankit555551 (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The page was moved (without discussion), so I've moved it back (for now). See what today's news unfolds before going to WP:RM.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was just an aftershock. no need to change it's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshetrysaugat (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Or to create this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

New article should be 2015 Nepal Earthquake 145?
I think the new article should be '2015 nepal earthquake 145' instead of '2015 nepal earthquake II' because there's been 145 earthquake before that quake. Haha. But, I am against creating a separate article for each aftershocks. Though it's notable and larger than normal, creating a sub article or mentioning it in List of aftershocks article would be more than enough. That's what the list of aftershock article is for. And it wouldnt be practical to create tens of aftershock article. P.S.: Its an aftershock rather than a separate earthquake. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of the WP:RS news reports, including those by the aid agencies, are calling it "an earthquake"? It had it's own aftershock about 40 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I m not saying that it's not an earthquake, just that its an aftershock as well. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Its an aftershock a separate earthquake."--Anders Feder (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Nepal earthquake listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2015 Nepal earthquake. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of two images
I've replace two of the existing images. The USGS aftershock map for 12 May contains a lot more information than the original image. The isoseismal map, showing annotated Mercalli contours, is a lot easier to read than the shake map (from which it's derived), particularly if your colour vision is a bit lacking (as mine is). Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Order, Order!!! The name needs to be chosen
April 2015 Nepal earthquake → ? – Let's stop this chaos. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC) -- Dharahara (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Originally closed per Wacky Pancakes.

Rename to 2015 Gorha Earthquake per slight consensus Note: I am an uninvolved user in the U.S. state of Massachusetts and a reader of Wikipedia for several years. Hiwiki123 (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Hiwiki123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic but is a 5 year Wikipedia user.

CLOSURE HISTORY
This survey has been closed at least two times. Both time, other users have re-opened it because they don't like the result.

I am a 5 year Wikipedian and do not fight. Do not interpret this as a sign of weakness but a sign of wisdom.

The 2015 Gorkha earthquake has the most net votes. Some other suggestions even have a negative net count. Furthermore, the Gorkha name is scientific, having been used in the earthquake scientific literature. NOBODY in the lay news media uses the term "April 2015 Nepal earthquake".

I will not move the article but this discussion is closed. Hiwiki123 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been closed before by uninvolved users but someone keeps reopening it. Dharahara (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be consistent with other earthquakes which use the more precise (and align with scientific sources) I think this page should be renamed, but I don't think the original user who closed this was uninvolved. I'm not sure though. I think the reversion was based on the premise that the last closer was a single-purpose account due to having few edits, and while I won't necessarily count that closure as valid, I do not fully take Dawnseeker2000's claim that it was a single-purpose account when it registered several years before the earthquake happened. I'm not trying to cast Dawnseeker2000 in a bad light or anything, that's just what I think. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion reeked of attempted WP:GAMING and disruptive single purpose accounts. There is not any specific consensus to any other name than the current one. Tutelary (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no specific strong consensus, yes. But you are incorrect in saying that there is consensus for the current title. The variant which you support currently is kept on the basis that there is no consensus either way. But again, there is no consensus to keep the current title either, and no change can be made as a result. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Possible choices:

2015 Nepal earthquake
Possible problem, there were two.
 * Oppose, there were two. Dharahara (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dharahara. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Supportin at least some form. The only common name that I believe there is. Just add an S and bam.
 * Oppose there were two Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were two I&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were two Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Nepal earthquake
Possible problem, original research, not used elsewhere.
 * Oppose illegal because original research. Dharahara (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "Napal earthquake" is the common name. It gets way more hits then "Gorkha earthquake". I checked Twitter, Google and Google News. See WP:COMMONNAME. We choose names by the more common name because it is the title that readers are likely to search for. (See Naturalness in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.) It is the usual practice to put the year in front of the earthquake name. Check any earthquake category and WP:NCE. We add the month to the front to disambiguate the two earthquakes that have articles. This is the convention followed for tornadoes. "Gorkha" would be more precise, but we only need to be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" per WP:PRECISION. So "Napal" is precise enough. This name fits all the criteria of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. It is fine the way it is right now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Not used by sources but at least it's clear which earthquake it's about. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Half support Again there were two earthquakes, but all we'd need to do was move it to the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes and we'd be good. I'm sure the other one is notable for its after shocks but it would probably be redirected anyways. Tutelary (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support especially from outside Nepal, Gorkha is not well known Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the best nameI&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unnecessarily long, not used by sources. This is not the best option. Also, just because random people might not know much about the geography of Nepal doesn't mean we shouldn't take the time to see if a more precise title is warranted. I'm sure there are some readers who don't even know where Nepal is, but that doesn't mean we should change the title to "April 2015 Asia earthquake" or "2015 Asia earthquake". Dustin  ( talk ) 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Gorkha earthquake
Possible problem, Americans don't know much geography and don't know where Gorkha is located. As a result few use the term.
 * Weak Support America is not the centre of the world. Americans can learn. Dharahara (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a bold assumption on your part to assume that all Americans are bad at geography. Of course, not knowing where this is does not make one bad at geography, but what's the problem with 2015 Gorkha earthquake?  Dustin  ( talk ) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - all other earthquake articles include the year in their title. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose all sources commonly refer to it as the Nepal Earthquake. Per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * Oppose especially from outside Nepal, Gorkha is not well known Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose slightly better name is among the choices.I&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violates WP:COMMONNAME Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Gorkha earthquake
Per suggestion of Dustin.
 * Support. Best among the ones that I've commented on and voted. Dharahara (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - seems the best solution. USGS in their page on the M7.3 aftershock say that the April earthquake is "known as the Gorkha earthquake" . Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not supported at all by the sources per WP:COMMONNAME. Tutelary (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, see my comment below to see why I consider this to be an invalid argument. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, your claim that this title is "not at all supported by sources" is simply incorrect. Both seismonepal.gov.np (the most relevant) and the United States Geological Survey (one of the most significant scientific agencies of its kind) refer to the earthquake as "Gorkha earthquake", and several other sources use the title as well. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose especially from outside Nepal, Gorkha is not well known Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support USGS is a very authoritative source. It is the United States earthquake center. I&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violates WP:COMMONNAME Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to bring up an instance of "OTHERSTUFF", but with the "2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" in Japan, most people haven't been calling that or have heard of "Tōhoku", but we still don't have it at "2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami", and so it arguably is grossly violating "COMMONNAME" by your logic. I understand that consensus is achieved individually on different pages, but this is a similar scenario. I argue that your reasoning is invalid for these reasons. Also, COMMONNAME is not everything. We must also attempt to have an unambiguous name, and "2015 Gorkha earthquake" appears to be unambiguous whereas both the April and May 2015 earthquakes both have been referred to as "Nepal earthquakes", and at least two significant scientific agencies have referred to it as "Gorkha earthquake". 2015 Gorkha earthquake is also more concise than "April 2015 Nepal earthquake". Dustin  ( talk ) 17:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – See my reasons above in my response to Richard-of-Earth. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Gorka earthquake (Nepal)

 * Moderate SupportDharahara (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - all other earthquake articles include the year in their title. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, not supported at all by sources per WP:COMMONNAME. Tutelary (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose especially from outside Nepal, Gorkha is not well known Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violates WP:COMMONNAME Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Nepal earthquake 145

 * Neutral but need more sources before using. Dharahara (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Completely unstandard title that nobody will be searching for. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Dustin. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why the 145? Am I missing something? Nonetheless, too wordy. Tutelary (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose 145 is not meaningful Wykx (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs further study I&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not follow WP:NCE. The usual convention on Wikipedia is to use the date of the event to disambiguous for other events of the otherwise same name. It is WP:OR that it is the 145th earthquake. (Thats why 145.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * So different name for Americans,different for south asia,different for nepalese,different with each month,day and aftershock. That's a perfect example of stupidity.Kshetrysaugat (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Try taking the long view: in 1, 2 or 10 years time what are people going to search for? In general I would expect '2015 Nepal Earthquake' (or the plural) to take me to general information about the whole event, summary of different shocks and tremors, effects, casualties, rescue effort & legacy. Then within the article I would expect links to specific pages about different aspects: the two (or more) major quakes with info. specific to each and these can be identified by the month and year. I really don't expect a DAB page - surely much of the info applies to the whole lot? I also don't expect the plural to take me to the first quake (which is probably an error). Btljs (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait – It's too early to have this discussion. This thing just happened. The reports from the professionals will take some time. Dawnseeker2000 04:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that a title like "April 2015 Nepal earthquake" constitutes original research is preposterous. Like many natural disasters, we're almost certainly going to have a descriptive title here. That this was an earthquake that happened in Nepal in April 2015 is all completely verifiable and unquestionably true. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me a bunch of reliable sources that call it the "April 2015 Nepal earthquake". Better yet, show me some seismologist articles that use that name. Original research: end of story. Sorry. If you want to discuss allowing original research on Wikipedia, I am willing to wisely contribute to such discussion. Dharahara (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "WP:OR" :: Erh??? Everybody with a television or a newspaper knows that it happened in April 2015. It does not need research, own or otherwise, to know what month it happened in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is we don't know what it will ultimately be called by sources. At the moment it is simply "Nepal Earthquake(s)". I am sure that in 1994 "World Trade Centre attack" would have been a perfectly good name but somewhat ambiguous a decade on. On the other hand "Boxing Day tsunami" is still widely used rather than the 'original research' WP title of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Btljs (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,Wikidiots. Officially, it's called "Gorkha earthquake based on it's epicenter Gorkha, though commonly called Nepal earthquake .You are stucked in nonsensical discussion rather than expanding the article . I have told before that earthquakes are officially named after it's epicenter(international practice) .And,wth is April and May. Why 12th may earthquake has separate article? It's just an aftershock. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If an aftershock causes enough damage, casualties etc., particularly in areas little affected by the mainshock, it becomes separately notable, and deserves its own article in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can visit seismonepal.gov.np website and can find Gorkha Earthquake mentioned over there. For me,it's down currently.So, if it's down for you too, you can use google cache to view cache for the website. The website is official,of the national seismological center of Nepal. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The result is 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, strongest support and least opposition. More than the required time has passed. WackyPancakesDie (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — WackyPancakesDie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not letting a 4 edit account close a discussion when they are very likely unaware of the burden for WP:CONSENSUS. Tutelary (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I am willing. I&#39;m not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — I'm not dead but I am fat (talk • contribs) has made few other edits outside this topic.

Addition of minor earthquake to lead section
I have again reverted the addition of a M4.8 earthquake to the lead section. It is described as not being an aftershock and is therefore not relevant to this article. As an aftershock it is of such small magnitude that it would not be worthy of mention anyway. The aim seems to be to point out that Nepal is a seismically active area and I would support the addition of a small section on the seismic hazard for Nepal in general terms, but that still would not refer to such a minor earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Images of Jorsali to fakding and Chaurikharka,Nepal after Earthquake
Three of us continued our Everest Base trek after earthquake in Nepal. We were coming back from Gorokshep after Gokyo and Everest Base trek on our own.We have photos of effect of Earthquake of area after Namche to Fakding, Chaurikharka and other areas. How I can add those photographs since not a single photograph are there in this "April 2015 Nepal Earthquake" from that area. One specimen which I have uploaded in commons Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I've put it in the article. You are welcome to upload any other photos here. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 08:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015
$$$$

101.59.207.52 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Casualties
The citations do not giving the numbers of Casualties in India (130/78) and China (27/25). --Diwas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right then I corrected the figures Wykx (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on April 2015 Nepal earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150505003653/http://tbo.com/health/the-latest-on-nepal-chance-of-finding-more-survivors-slim-ap_health5b1927e40a5b4e87a733dec1ecea7fad to http://tbo.com/health/the-latest-on-nepal-chance-of-finding-more-survivors-slim-ap_health5b1927e40a5b4e87a733dec1ecea7fad
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150428182235/http://www.thedailystar.net:80/backpage/biman-flight-returns-failing-land-kathmandu-79475 to http://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/biman-flight-returns-failing-land-kathmandu-79475

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Deathtoll
Hi User:Mikenorton. I checked also the Nepalese portal and I don't find the figures. Do you have a precise link for that? I would be happy to look at the right page. indicates 8856 and it was corrected later on by a tweet at 8857. Wykx (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The main link given gives you a table of figures, which allows you to search on the disaster of your choice. Select 'earthquake' in the 'type' box and you get the total figures that are now used in the article - this has no specific url. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The point is that it seems to mix April and May earthquakes. Probably they were unable to make the difference sometimes. 1/ You can't find figures for May earthquake. 2/ When you look at interpretation like the one by UNICEF the 8959 figure seems to count for both earthquakes. That's why I propose to revert the figures to avoid double counting. A secondary source (not updated after 26 May)  gives also a calculation for both earthquakes. What do you think?  Wykx  (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You may well be right, but the table of earthquake casualties has a column for the date of the event and in each case this is shown as the 25th. However, I've no objection to you reverting as it is unclear. Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wykx  (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits
Information added on geological context of future landslides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgrigo1 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on April 2015 Nepal earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://drrportal.gov.np/incidentreport
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518072827/http://www.globalpost.com/article/6529251/2015/04/26/algeria-sends-rescuers-drugs-quake-hit-nepal to http://www.globalpost.com/article/6529251/2015/04/26/algeria-sends-rescuers-drugs-quake-hit-nepal
 * Added tag to http://www.bdmilitary.com/bangladesh-sends-aid-nepal-earthquake-victims
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518074409/http://www.globalpost.com/article/6530305/2015/04/27/canada-sends-military-transport-deliver-aid-nepal to http://www.globalpost.com/article/6530305/2015/04/27/canada-sends-military-transport-deliver-aid-nepal
 * Added tag to http://m.thelocal.dk/20150426/denmark-sends-aid-to-nepal-following-earthquake
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426154949/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/nepal/la-france-et-le-nepal/evenements-4190/article/nepal-tremblement-de-terre-25-04 to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/nepal/la-france-et-le-nepal/evenements-4190/article/nepal-tremblement-de-terre-25-04
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427162037/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/nepal/la-france-et-le-nepal/evenements-4190/article/nepal-tremblement-de-terre to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/nepal/la-france-et-le-nepal/evenements-4190/article/nepal-tremblement-de-terre
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2015/04/27/nepal-sismo-terremoto-donaciones-donativos-ayuda-socorro-oxfam-cruz-roja
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.excelsior.com.mx/comunidad/2015/04/28/1021198
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429232514/http://www.mb.com.ph/dfa-to-help-2-pinoys-on-everest-as-nepal-quake-toll-nears-2000/ to http://www.mb.com.ph/dfa-to-help-2-pinoys-on-everest-as-nepal-quake-toll-nears-2000/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on April 2015 Nepal earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505021153/http://naturaldisasters.tk/ to http://naturaldisasters.tk/
 * Added tag to http://www.ekantipur.com.np/the-kathmandu-post/2015/04/29/news/great-earthquake-wipes-out-barpak/275829.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505021153/http://naturaldisasters.tk/ to http://naturaldisasters.tk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504225134/https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~palen/palen_papers/SodenBudhathokiPalen-ISCRAMKathmandu.pdf to https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~palen/palen_papers/SodenBudhathokiPalen-ISCRAMKathmandu.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ekantipur.com.np/2015/04/30/top-story/eu-commissioner-stylianides-to-arrive-in-nepal/404673.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926074632/https://www.bka.gv.at/site/cob__59333/6597/default.aspx to https://www.bka.gv.at/site/cob__59333/6597/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429191311/http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/colombia-esta-lista-para-brindar-ayuda-humanitaria-nepal-ungrd-208318 to http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/colombia-esta-lista-para-brindar-ayuda-humanitaria-nepal-ungrd-208318
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518080659/http://www7.as.irna.ir/en/News/81585193/ to http://www7.as.irna.ir/en/News/81585193/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518080655/http://www7.as.irna.ir/en/News/81585863// to http://www7.as.irna.ir/en/News/81585863//
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429220157/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/60294 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/60294
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518085655/https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/27535464/nz-aid-workers-off-to-nepal/ to https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/27535464/nz-aid-workers-off-to-nepal/
 * Added tag to http://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/274897/lajcak-vyclenil-30-000-eur-pre-nepal
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518090801/http://www.kfhi.or.kr/Together/News/MinistryNewsView.asp?WorkMasterNo=360&selectNews=G to http://www.kfhi.or.kr/Together/News/MinistryNewsView.asp?WorkMasterNo=360&selectNews=G

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Open Street Map
Why isn't the mapping don by OSM mentioned in the article? They made a lot of updated maps for the health workers. Here is a link about that. Adville (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have a secondary source? Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. Here are some, I googled "open street map nepal": Opensource.com, School of Data (maybe not the best, it is more like a fellowshipwriter) and Researchgate (a case study). And one in Swedish, which I think is the best, while it is writen by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency and is focusing on crowdsource maping and have a part about Nepal (but also other catastrophs). here it is. Br Adville (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks for pinging me, my main wiki is the Swedish. Adville (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)