Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016/Archive 1

Let's start with intensity
Depth is fairly meaningless to the bulk of our readers. Intensity information conveys much more information. Intensity information is available right on the USGS website and it uses the Mercalli intensity scale. Please follow the two examples. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, until now we have the following definition for the list: Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in damage and/or casualties, or are notable for some other reason. It means that we have two main criteria:


 * A. The magnitude (with a current threshold above 6.0)
 * B. The damage and/or casualties: generally eartquakes are included only when there are noticeable building destruction, deaths, injured.
 * The Mercalli intensity scale quantifies the effects of an earthquake on the Earth's surface, humans, objects of nature, and man-made structures. We could have some ways to consider introducing the Mercalli intensity scale into the article:


 * 1. Adding a new criteria in the list definition 'Mercalli intensity scale above a certain threshold' (for example above VI). In that case, the next question would be 'Does it substitute to another one?'
 * 2. Indicating the Mercalli intensity scale for all earthquakes that qualifies to the current criteria.
 * For the point 1., first thing that comes to my mind is that Mercalli intensity scale is linked to the existing criteria (B) on damage. On one hand, impacting earthquakes for humans activities are already included in the list because of this criteria B. On the other hand, we have a template Template:Earthquakes in 2016 that summarizes the most impactful earthquakes. Those earthquakes have got their specific page with a lot of supplementary information.
 * For the point 2., I'm concerned we add many information about 'Not Felt' earthquakes as most of them happen:


 * in uninhabited places,
 * in some places where earthquakes are recurring and information is not even filled by populations,
 * in places where Internet information collection is poor.
 * Moreover the maximum Mercalli intensity scale may be dependant of only 1 testimony.
 * Given all that, I think we could also keep the current qualification criteria and discuss a different structure of the earthquake's display: inside a month we could rank by Mercalli intensity scale instead of by date. Though we would loose the timeline. I'm not convinced and I think we should maybe put an example here with real data to see how it looks like and if it makes sense. Other suggestions are welcome. In the meantime, I would suggest not to add the Mercalli intensity scale as there is no consensus yet and as this information may seem duplicate with the damage and casualties description. Wykx 10:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, I'm afraid I don't understand your actions. Your English isn't quite up to par, so I'm having difficulty with some of your statements as well. You've removed the intensity information and appear to be actively arguing to exclude it from these lists. This is not a good move. These are lists of earthquakes and intensity information is probably the most relevent that a person could add. Excluding it denies the reader the ability to identify meaningful events in the list in a standardized and simple way. Intensity provides more to the reader than magnitude and depth combined. Not including intensity information from a list of earthquakes would probably be the most unintelligent and egregious move in a WP article I've ever experienced. So what's up with the demand for some long-winded discussion to include it? Dawnseeker2000 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it was not clear enough, I just corrected at least one of my sentences where one word was missing. I'm not against putting a Mercalli intensity scale information but I'm wondering for which earthquakes and on what criteria? Your primary objection was that the page was too long, so adding one more information isn't a solution. So I suppose that you suggest to remove depth completely, right? Wykx 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the length right now. Let's only focus on the issue of intensity. Do I suggest removing depth information? Maybe. What do you think that it adds? What does it demonstrate to the readers? What I don't want is a one-line entry with magnitude, location from nearest city, depth, and intensity. I'll use the northeast India earthquake as an example of what I would not want to see:


 * 🇮🇳 A magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck India 29 km west of Imphal on January 3 at a depth of 55.0 km with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VII (Very strong).


 * Don't you think that it looks too busy? There's too many pieces of information to read at once. That's the reason that I took out the depth yesterday and replaced it with the intensity. So again, maybe on the depth, but I want to hear what you have to say about my two questions. Dawnseeker2000  21:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Depth is a parameter, together with intensity, that enables to understand the potential of an earthquake to affect or not.
 * Firstly, I'm open to add the MMI for large earthquakes in tables (I have already added it in the 'By death toll' and 'By magnitude' tables - tell me if you disapprove and I'll revert it).
 * Secondly, With a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe) is manageable. It may feel redundant with the information that is already provided hereafter => At least 11 people were killed (six in India and five in Bangladesh), 200 others were injured and a large number of buildings were damaged. So do we really have to add it in the text? If so, do we want to add this information even for the 'Not felt' events? Wykx 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to quote you here. You said that together with intensity, having depth information enables a reader "to "understand the potential of an earthquake". Let me ask you this: If a reader has the intensity of the event in front of them, how do they gain any additional clarity by having the depth? What's the process?


 * Also, since we're listing earthquakes, it makes sense to present intensity information for all events, not just large events. Readers will get a much clearer picture of the effects with that detail and since every entry has magnitude, every entry should also have intensity. There's no reason exclude it. I hope that you'll begin to understand that. I have worked on quite a few of our articles and lists and they're just not complete without it. I would never have imagined that someone would want to fight me on this. Please answer my query. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000  05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * An earthquake of 6.0 at a depth of 5 km may have the same effect as an earthquake of 7.0 at a depth of 500 km.
 * I can understand. Wykx 09:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question and you're missing the point: Let's say that we compile a list that includes the four variables (magnitude, location, depth, and intensity), just like the example. The reader sees the intensity as VII (Very strong), so what additional clarity do they gain by seeing that the depth was at 29km? Depth can give the reader some idea of what the shaking intensity might have been like. Having intensity detail tells them what it was in no uncertain terms. In my opinion, not having intensity information (for every event that it's available) would be a major oversight. It would be analogous to Car and Driver magazine reviewing a sports car and omitting its horsepower. So again, if we have intensity, depth is not relevant.


 * I'm giving you a reading assignment that might help you process what we're talking about. Please read 2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami. While you're reading it, imagine that there are no details in the article about intensity, and think about what the reader might assume the intensity to be with only magnitude and depth information. Then come back here and let me know if you still want readers of your list assuming what the affects of the listed shocks are. Dawnseeker2000  20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Depths are as important as the location, as earth is in 3 dimensions!
 * Indeed, the effects can't be guessed. That's why we are describing the effects in the article when they are noticeable. For the 2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami it was important to describe the tsunami damages and the fact that intensity was disconnected with the damages. "For a typical Mw = 7.7 earthquake, shaking is usually clearly felt at this distance; however, this was not the case for the 17 July 2006 event." is an interesting sentence in the article.
 * Should I understand that we agree on intensity and that now we go beyond the title by discussing depth? Wykx 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You're on board with adding intensity then? Dawnseeker2000 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we can try some months and check how it goes. Wykx 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK great. I suppose we should talk the format. Quite a few of the entries are one-liners, so if we add intensity, it could make for a long and hart-to-read sentence with lots of figures. We could break it up into two sentences, but it might be nice to be able to keep the one-sentence format. That's the reason that I dropped the depth before. Dawnseeker2000  00:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thoughts on the format Wykx? Dawnseeker2000  04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would favor a single sentence but I have no objection for two. Wykx 09:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect request
Earthquakes in 2016 to List of earthquakes in 2016. I have requested/created it in articles for creation or the like, please finish the adding process.--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 1st edit:--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the North Korean Earthquake notable?
Because the other nuclear tests with all of them with a magnitude with 4.0 and above are not notable in the list of earthquakes in 2006,2009 and 2013 etc. --Planecrashexpert (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit. The 2013 nuclear test yielded the same result as the 2016 test, but it's not in the list of earthquakes in 2013 article
 * Indeed, we could wonder if we really have to include it. The biggest earthquake triggered by a US nuclear explosion was much bigger (magnitude 6.9) Moreover USGS qualifies it as Nuclear Explosion and not Earthquake. Thus I propose to remove it. Wykx 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYFI for the Northeast India event
Thanks for your comment ThE~fUtUrE~2014. It's good to hear you chime in on this, and thanks for all your help with the list :)

In response, I would say that yes, the banner at the top of the page shows VIII, but if you look closely at the DYFI details for that event, you won't find a specific entry of VIII. There are several orange circles near the epicenter with several independent reporters in those cities that reported a maximum of VII. It makes sense to put this one at VII because Shakemap data and the PAGER system also have it pinned at VII (and that's what twenty people on the ground had to say about it). Dawnseeker2000 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually there is an answer at VIII (you can display it in the 'Intensity vs. Distance' tab). The values displayed in the 'DFYI Responses' are averages of all the responses at a defined location. So it shows how MMI could be sensitive to a single answer. Should we use the maximum of average answers for each location (VII in this example) or the global maximum (VIII in this example)? USGS uses VIII. Wykx 09:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what tricks they use with DYFI, there are the two other USGS products that state VII. What we dont want to do is get into a habit of overstating the intensity. Dawnseeker2000  15:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Pager is an estimation of the number of fatalities calculated with the density of population and vulnerability of local structures to shakings. This is not relevant with MMI.
 * From "ShakeMaps are automatic computer generated maps that have not necessarily been checked by human oversight. Because the input data is raw and unchecked, the maps may contain errors. The maps are preliminary in nature and will be updated as data arrives from distributed sources... Ground-motions and intensities can vary greatly over small distances, so these maps are only approximate; at small scales and away from data points, they may be unreliable. • The instrumental intensity map is derived from ground-motions recorded by seismographs and represents Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) that are likely to have been associated with the ground-motions. Unlike conventional MMI, the estimated intensities are not based directly on observations of earthquake effects on people or structures." so it is not factual but predictions. Distributed stations are well distributed in California but not everywhere. Wykx 18:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, I think that I've been engaged in "conversation" with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. Your statements leave me no choice but to come to this conclusion. Please just continue to add Mercalli intensity to each entry – this is not a "trial run". Now that we've started, there's no reason to go backwards. It's a scale that was designed for measuring the effects of an earthquake. I wasted a ridiculous amount of time talking about this with you and you're still, for unknown reasons, being combative. See ya,  Dawnseeker2000  19:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mercalli intensity relevance
The recent |5.5 earthquake in Ambelau island illustrates how Mercalli intensity is not fully relevant. The earthquake injured  eight people and damaged 120 houses while the shock had a maximum Mercalli intensity (MMI) of I ("Not felt"). This is probably because of the lack of reports in this region. I have seen some users using the instrumental intensity for some earthquakes (based on calculation) instead of the MMI (IV - Light in this case) which is also underestimating the damages. I think that the text describing the effects (injuries and damages) is more relevant. The recent addition of MMI (on which we agreed to have a test period last week) has quickly demonstrated its foreseen limits. Therefore I propose not to keep it. Wykx 23:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, dropping intensity detail altogether would be going backwards, but this situation does present a situation. In this case, we can omit the USGS value for intensity until a more appropriate value is presented. Other sources for intensity exist when damaging events occur. Don't forget that this event just happened and sometimes reliable evaluations take some time. Dawnseeker2000  23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I realize that I didn't go through a proper training on how to best use the different USGS products and the different intensity values that are given. So, for the shock in Indonesia on Ambelau Island: The USGS gives two values for intensity. The one you're using is the DYFI value, which is I (Not felt). I wouldn't go with that because it's probably not representative of the actual shaking that occurred. I would choose the Shakemap intensity of IV (Light) because it's a bit more reasonable considering the damage and injuries. On that Island, they almost certainly don't have Internet connections, so the person that reported the DYFI intensity was in a larger city that's nowhere near the epicenter. Also, you need to consider what kinds of structures that people are living in. My guess is that they're using bamboo or maybe even non-engineered wooden or unreinforced brick houses to live in. It's completely reasonable that some of these could have seen partial or complete collapse with the light shaking that an intensity IV shock would have delivered. I'd just up it to IV and call it good. Dawnseeker2000  00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One other thing: Don't misinterpret what I said about waiting for a more reliable estimation of the intensity to come along. What I mean by that is that I absolutely trust the USGS products, but it's preferable to use the report that's written when a seismologist goes on site and observes the affects first hand. Those kinds of reports take a long time though, and are not available for most the events that we're listing, so using DYFI and Shakemap is fine to fall back on for what we're doing. Dawnseeker2000  00:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If an information is inaccurate, it would be better not to put it in WP and wait for the correct sourced information as per WP:NOR. The shake maps receive a grading from A (very good) to F (bad) for its accuracy. Shakes map with intensity calculated under VI are not even graded. You're right that when an event has been reviewed by a seismologist, description is more accurate. For example |this earthquake in Sorong in September 2015 has been reviewed with this description At least 62 people injured, 260 houses damaged and power outages occurred in Kabupaten Sorong. Felt (V) at Sorong; (IV) in Kabupaten Maybrat and in the Kepulauan Rajaampat; (III) at Manokwari. but the MMI for this event was at VI and the ShakeMap was calculated at VI. I propose to add the information on MMI only once events have been reviewed by seismologists. Wykx 10:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wykx, please sit down, be quiet, and follow my lead. I seriously have to consider that you really should not be editing WP at all. That's how bad you are, and you're really not helping here. Dawnseeker2000  16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NPA, this is your second personal attack, then I open a WP:RFC. Wykx 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement: you're making WP worse. Dawnseeker2000  21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Mercalli intensity be indicated?
Should Mercalli intensity be indicated? Mercalli intensity proved to be irrelevant in some cases and duplicate of existing text information on damages/casualties. Moreover values to be put on the page are always challenged because with multiple sources and unreliable until a certain period of time. Wykx 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – intensity information is vital and should be included in a list of earthquakes because magnitude alone is not sufficient to describe the effects. Intensity detail (usually given in Mercalli, MSK, or Shindo) is a standardized way to characterize the effects of an earthquake. Omitting it would be unwise. Dawnseeker2000  21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - intensity is redundant with the text describing damages/casualties ; isn't reliable unless it is revised by a seismologist ; is challenged by editors (sometimes using ShakeMap value which is a pre-calculated value and which is different from Mercalli intensity, sometimes arbitrary decreasing values because it is considered over-rated) ; isn't provided in area without full Internet access ; may change based on only 1 testimony among 100 thus accuracy is biaised. It may be factual and verified only after revision by a seismologist (which is never the case for ShakeMaps when Mercally intensity is under VI, as mentioned on the USGS site). Wykx 21:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Let me try to clarify a little bit. The reason we're here is that Wykx doesn't understand the various earthquake shaking products that are offered by the USGS. What he's saying is that the Shakemap product is different from Mercalli intensty. That's incorrect. Shakemaps are about intensity; the Mercalli intensity is shown at the bottom of each map. Did you feel it? is another USGS product, and because it's a Web 2.0 thing where anyone with an Internet connection can submit a report. The values for DYFI and Shakemap are often different, and that's confusing the other editor, but it often takes just a moment to choose the most appropriate value. For instance, I often choose Shakemap in undeveloped countries (because of villagers' lack of Internet access makes DYFI useless compared the Shakemap product, which is very good (but can sometimes overshoot a bit)) and when they're both close, I simply go with the most conservative value, as I don't think we should be overstating the effects of an EQ. Dawnseeker2000  22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I think I should take this a step further by explaining that DYFI and Shakemap both have their place. Shakemaps are automatically-generated by a very robust algorithm that was developed by the USGS. These values are very accurate for a computer-based system (don't let Wykx tell you otherwise – I have no confidence in any of his ideas). Where there are lots of citizens that report DYFI intensities and we're able to compare them with Shakemap values, they're often quite close. Like I said, Shakemap tends to overestimate a little bit, and in that situation, DYFI comes in very handy. If dozens of people reported an intensity of VII and Shakemap said VIII, we'd definitely go with the lower value. This is simple.


 * Now, why do we need intensity detail in a list of earthquakes anyway? I hope this side-by-side comparison will make it clear, and I think it will. Consider the following events. One was in Indonesia and the other in California. Dawnseeker2000  22:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't oppose MMI, I proposed to use only MMI reviewed by a seismologist to avoid misinterpretation done as WP:OR for each earthquake by each user. In any case, if ShakeMaps are used, they shouldn't be labelled as Maximum Mercalli intensity but rather as Intrumental intensity. But they are also a calculation not based on actual data. And we have a lot of examples where Shakemaps and DYFI values are very different, the latest one being today . Wykx 22:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice as an example - the DYFI map for that earthquake shows that there were no responses (which in some parts of the world is likely to happen - here there is mostly sea and only a small population on land), so that goes down as 'not felt' (I) on the DYFI. In contrast the shake map, which is pretty much an isoseismal map, uses all data sources - instrumental observations, government agency and news reports and DYFI responses - in this case you would obviously use the shake map estimate rather than the DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the Maximum Mercalli intensity doesn't make sense in that case. If ShakeMap is used it should be qualified as Intrumental intensity and not Maximum Mercalli intensity. The problem that would still remain is that ShakeMaps receive a grading for their uncertainty and that this particular ShakeMap didn't even received a grading because the two nearest stations have not felt the event (see uncertainty and station lists sheets on USGS site). In that case, calculation is done from the peak acceleration. USGS says: For moderate to large events, the pattern of peak ground acceleration is typically quite complicated, with extreme variability over distances of a few km. This is attributed to the small scale geological differences near the sites that can significantly change the high-frequency acceleration amplitude and waveform character. Although distance to the causative fault clearly dominates the pattern, there are often exceptions, due to local focussing and amplification. This makes interpolation of ground motions at one site to a nearby neighbor somewhat risky. Wykx 11:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The USGS distinguish between shake maps that are purely instrumental and those that aren't - see this example for the 2016 Northeast India earthquake, which is called 'intensity' rather than 'instrumental intensity' (see this for an example of one labelled 'instrumental intensity') and it is clearly coloured in terms of MMI - I don't understand why you're against it being described as such. Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you compare the two examples you gave, one is based on the current version of USGS website, the other one is based on previous archived version. You can check this is similar for all earthquakes. On the current site, USGS changed the sheet name from Intrumental intensity to Intensity (probably for space reason because there is much more information than before) but when you click on the explanation link you still got the complete name Rapid Instrumental Intensity Maps and on the graphic Shakemap also it is instrumental intensity. Having said that, I'm not against giving the MMI once it has been reviewed by a seismologist. I can imagine it will be soon the case for this quake. Putting information based on assumptions on which value will be retained is WP:OR. Wykx 12:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see that now. However, I don't see anything wrong with using the initial estimate, as long as we update it, if and when there is a better source available. Mikenorton (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And what value should be used? DYFI or ShakeMap? On a choice based on which criteria? And what name should be used? Your feedback is appreciated. Wykx 13:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would use the shakemap, as that's always available, even in areas of low population density. It may not be perfect, but it is produced using a well-defined methodology. Note that the final version of the shakemap for the 2016 Northeast India event incorporates the DYFI data (click on the Stationlist tab). Looking at the individual DYFI responses, the highest listed was VII, so I'm not sure why the USGS page still gives VIII for the maximum DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I can agree with that. Let's see if this is a shared point of view.
 * DYFI responses are incorporated in the ShakeMap with an average of the DYFI collected at each geographical point. Then the maximum average is reported in the ShakeMap summary value. That's why Maximum Mercalli Intensity based on DYFI is at VIII but the highest average collected for all the stations is at VII. What name should be used? Would Maximum intensity be sufficient (maybe a bit blurry but always valid)? Wykx 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maximum intensity is fine, but the value is on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. Presumably if the VIII observation on DYFI was balanced against several others giving a VII for the same location, then the software just uses the average value - the values quoted in the DYFI responses are not whole numbers. Mikenorton (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, for example, in this case you have a 6,2 and a 7,8 reported which gives a maximum DYFI of VIII and an average used for ShakeMap of VII. Wykx 13:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The maximum perceived intensity is an important parameter - in the short term the USGS shake map is generally the best source available. For more major events the USGS continuously updates the shake map as more data comes in - I've seen up to version 10. The DYFI is good where there are a lot of responses, but in general I think that the shake map is the way to go. Mikenorton (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's what I'm talking about – Wykx is not working out as a contributor to the lists of earthquakes. His egregious lack of understanding can be easily shown here. The other day we had a M5.5 shock on on the remote island of Ambelau. This part of the world is highly-undeveloped, with no telecommunications infrastructure. Said another way: DYFI values would not be appropriate for earthquakes there. So why does Wyks repeatedly choose the DYFI value over the Shakemap value? What he's telling our readers are that an intensity I shock caused damage to homes on the island. This is not consistent with the effects of intensity I. The two-word descriptor from the USGS for that value is Not felt, which just means that in some special circumstances someone might feel it, like people at the top of a high-rise building, but the majority of people would not. The Shakemap value for that M5.5 event is IV (Light) which I can imagine would be sufficient to cause very primitive bamboo or mud homes to collapse (even partially) and injure some people. News reports indicate that people were injured, so Intensity I doesn't make sense. I'll say it again, Wyks should work in some other area or leave WP completely per WP:COMPETENCE.  Dawnseeker2000  23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dawnseeker, i agree about the intensity being removed, but it's no reason to harass him, e.g: Saying to him that he is making wikipedia worse--Planecrashexpert (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: Thank you for your inputs. Based on the previous comments and because ShakeMap is partly updated by USGS based on average values of DYFI, could we agree to: - systematically refer to the ShakeMap value; - call it maximum intensity? Which for example for with a DYFI at III and a ShakeMap at VII would give :
 * 🇮🇩 A magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck Indonesia 8 km east of the Talaud Islands, North Sulawesi on January 11 at a depth of 20.8 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong).


 * Support - I'm happy with that - I've just been keeping an eye on the evolution of the shakemap for the M7.1 Alaska event mentioned below DYFI is at VII, the shakemap started at IV (version 1, presumably based on a few station observations) and is now at VI (version 3, after incorporating two station observations from an airbase), but still not including the DYFI - I expect that it will soon be updated to include the DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Even if when you look at the details of the DYFI, the maximum average is at VI and in that regard it's likely that (provided no new values are added in the meantime in the DYFI) the ShakeMap will stay at VI even after incorporating the DYFI values. Wykx 13:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DYFI have now been consolidated into the ShakeMap: with the new DYFI responses, we have a grand maximum at 7.2 corresponding to VII for DYFI and the maximum average for ShakeMap at geocoded station 11 of 6.6 which has been rounded at VII. That makes sense. Wykx 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Article protection
This page has been fully protected until 24 January per a complaint of edit warring at WP:AN3. If you want to make a change during the period of protection, and believe that consensus supports it, use here on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2016
✅

The magnitude of this earthquake has been downgraded from 6.0 to 5.8 as per which doesn't qualify anymore for this page.

The request is to remove:

1/ 14th line of the source:

Location map~|Earth|mark = Yellow pog.svg|lat_deg = -21.471|lon_deg = 176.211

2/ Just before the Reference section:


 * 🇫🇯 A magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck offshore of Fiji 171 km east of Ceva-i-Ra on January 18 at a depth of 14.8 km. The shock had a maximum Mercalli intensity of III (Weak).

Wykx 12:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

7.1 in Alaska
Please update the article to show a 7.1 in Alaska on January 24th. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10004gqp#general_summary Juneau Mike (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC) ✅

Anyone who added the 6.0 earthquake near Papua New Guinea?
Someone needs to --Planecrashexpert (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The USGS have this as 5.8 now, so I don't think that it qualifies. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC:comments
I was notified last night of the request for comments on this talk page. After completing my research, I see that the request has already been closed. Talk about arriving late to the party! I didn't want my research to go to waste since I know nothing about earthquakes and I tried my darndest to get educated to help weigh in on this topic. Here are my points-
 * The USGS does a very good job of pointing out that the Mercalli scale is purely subjective. Anyone reading the description on their site gets a pretty good feeling for that. Our Wikipedia article on the scale does not convey that very well. I am a big proponent of including relevant data for our readers. You never know what questions they need answered and, hopefully, by following our links they can educate themselves on the different scales used to describe earthquakes and make their own decisions on how important the data is rather than we, as editors/authors, making that decision for them. That being said, my recommendation would have been to include the Mercalli data in the earthquake list, but to do a serious re-write of the Mercalli Wikipedia page so that the subjective nature of the scale is pointed out in the first paragraph along the same lines that the USGS site does it. That being said, I feel that the discussion between Wykx and Mikenorton was very productive and convinced me they had made a good decision and that it shoudl stand.
 * After reviewing previous posts on this article, including edit summaries and reverts, if I were an administrator I would impose sanctions on Dawnseeker2000 for repeated violations of Civility including personal attacks on the talk page and in edit summaries directed towards Wykx. I would also caution Dawnseeker2000 that questioning another editor's competency is borderline OUTING as any response to prove competency by an editor could divulge personal information. Proofs of competency are not a requirement for editing articles on Wikipedia. I would also commend Wykx for not responding to any of these attacks as is evidenced on the talk page and in edit summaries.

I hope my comments were usefull to the editors on this talk page and that you will move forward with strong, intelligent discussions on how material should be presented to our readership. StarHOG (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

April Guatemala quake
You forgot to add it--193.163.223.128 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Should a "Current" tag be added or not?
Information about casualties from the quake in Ecuador can change a few times a day. So, to reflect that, should the tag indicating this article documents a current event be added? But, most of the events in this article are no longer current. SlowJog (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary for a single information in this article. Wykx  (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why there is no second? in "By magnitude"
in the section «By magnitude», because there is no second place if it is assumed if the first two (Indonesia and Ecuador) are in the first place and following it (Russia) is the third. Where the hell is the second? --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ↳ In response of:
 * There is no second there are two first ex-aequo. Look at 2015's List_of_earthquakes_in_2015 for another example with more quakes listed. Wykx  (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Table
The table "Number of earthquakes worldwide for 2006–2016" needs to be updated. The column for 2016 has fewer earthquakes than the sum of the number of earthquakes by month. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Details about hours between two quakes
About the Myanmar quake, is a remark like " just a few hours after the italian earthquake" necessary? I think not, knowing that date is already mentioned and it could applicable to many many quakes of this list. Wykx (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this is not worth commenting on - chance does that all the time. I've removed that bit. Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's NZ quake
A 7.1 magnitude quake has struck off New Zealand. (BBC) Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

nereju earthquake
add--193.163.223.128 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to add. Wykx (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it was rare, 'strongly felt', no injuries/deaths, no damage. --193.163.223.128 (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then it doesn't fit the criteria Wykx  (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this report which says minor damage occurred and two people were injured.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thank You. Can someone verify whether it should be added? I can't, for unexplained/weird reasons...--193.163.223.128 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article in Romanian explains one man had a fracture after jumping from his window and one old woman was injured in her home. Plus some bricks falled (very minor damages). We may add it.  Wykx  (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Which eq website should be used when determining the number of earthquakes in any given month/magnitude range?
If you know what I mean--193.163.223.128 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * USGS as mentioned at the beginning of the page. Wykx  (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Chile 5.9 in November
Should it be added? USGS informs that it's significant.--193.163.223.128 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely not. As far as I know, the quake apparently did not cause any damage or injuries. And as per the lead section of the article, "only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in damage and/or casualties, or are notable for some other reason".--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

nov 7.8 nz
2 6.0+ aftershocks not added to list yet, please, anyone do this? i cant, something's not right/working..—193.163.223.128 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

some1 plz fix the december infobox asap, i don't know how to--193.163.223.128 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed - way too many closing curly brackets. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now plz add 5.2 India to "largest magnitude", I don't know how to, either (in December).--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This list should be Table not bullet list
like this:

December

 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting thought. Most of our other lists are tables, so this would be a way to work towards uniformity. Another thing is that it really highlights (by separating with space) the depth, intensity, and any effects. If we were to convert what we've got now it would be quite a bit easier to see that we've got:


 * Twelve intensity I events
 * Seventeen intensity II events
 * Thirty-six intensity IV events
 * Twenty-five intensity V events


 * So, after this first year of including the intensity, the question is why are we documenting all these low intensity events? I say let's stop doing that and instead only list events that are intensity VI or stronger and that have damage, injuries, or deaths. I'm open to the possibility of adopting the table format, but we need to address the issue of the unencyclopedic entries. And on that note, I would suggest adding several columns to the table for deaths and injuries. One way to weed out non-notable entries would be that if there's nothing to enter for deaths, injuries, or effects, don't bother writing it down. Dawnseeker2000  00:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of converting this article to table. Instead, the change should apply to the next article List of earthquakes in 2017. I think the merit of readability overrides the consistency. As for the inclusion criteria, the lead says "Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in damage and/or casualties, or are notable for some other reason".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not opposed to the table format, but if there is an agreement to make that change it shoukd be applied to all lists. To my knowlege, there has never been an agreement on the inclusion criteria. Some unknown editor wrote down that everything above M6 should be included, but they never stated why. Inclusion should be based on effects, otherwise we're documenting events with little substance. Thanks for your proposal. Dawnseeker2000  05:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for inclusion criteria, we should have a criteria based on magnitude anyway, not only intensity, as magnitude is the most important measure of the strengh of an earthquake. Wykx  (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. What would become the informations (such as the number of earthquakes per magnitude) provided inside the infobox? I'm concerned that readability will be more difficult to have a quick full compact view as most of the content will be in the Description column and the content inside this column will be very long compared to others. Also if we have one table instead of prose, why should we have a breakdown per month? Wykx (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Following data are wrong but it gives an idea how long would be the table for one month. Size is doubled compared to today with the same number of earthquakes. It's difficult and too long to read. Wykx  (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Compare the current format:

December

 * 🇨🇷 A magnitude 5.2 earthquake struck Costa Rica 6 km east northeast of Cartago on December 1 at a depth of 5.0 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VI (Strong). The earthquake caused landslides and damaged some homes, forcing at least 5 families to move to a community centre.
 * 🇵🇪 A magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck Peru 43 km northeast of Huarichancara, Puno Region on December 1 at a depth of 10.0 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong). At least 40 houses in Lampa Province were damaged, with some suffering total collapse. One person died and 17 others were injured.
 * 🇺🇸 A magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck offshore of the United States 53 km south of Shemya Island, Alaska on December 3 at a depth of 26.9 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IV (Light).
 * 🇮🇩 A magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck Indonesia 148 km north northeast of Palu'e Island, East Nusa Tenggara on December 5 at a depth of 526.0 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of III (Weak).
 * 🇮🇩 A magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck Indonesia 19 km southeast of Sigli, Aceh on December 6 at a depth of 8.2 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IX . About 245 buildings collapsed as a result of the quake. 104 people were killed and over 900 were injured, of which 136 suffered serious injuries.
 * 🇨🇳 A magnitude 5.9 earthquake struck China 57 km south southeast of Shihezi in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region on December 8 at a depth of 13.7 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VI (Strong). Two people were injured, and 25 houses suffered damage in Ürümqi region.
 * 🇺🇸 A magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck offshore of the United States 160 km west of Ferndale, California on December 8 at a depth of 12.1 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IV (Light).
 * 🇸🇧 A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the Solomon Islands 69 km west southwest of Kirakira on December 8 at a depth of 41.0 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong). Tsunami waves up to 5.0 cm were measured in New Caledonia and Vanuatu. More than 200 buildings in the southern part of Malaita were damaged and buildings collapsed in Makira; more than 7,000 people were affected by the quake. An eleven-year-old girl died when a building collapsed.
 * 🇸🇧 A magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck the Solomon Islands 79 km west southwest of Kirakira on December 8 at a depth of 14.7 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of V (Moderate). This was an aftershock of the 7.8 quake.
 * 🇭🇷 A magnitude 4.4 earthquake struck Croatia 3 km east of Trogir, Split-Dalmatia county on December 9 at a depth of 21.9 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VI (Strong). The quake caused minor damage in the form of cracked walls and broken windows.
 * 🇸🇧 A magnitude 6.9 earthquake struck offshore of the Solomon Islands 94 km west southwest of Kirakira on December 9 at a depth of 20.6 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong). This was an aftershock of the 7.8 quake.
 * 🇵🇬 A magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck Papua New Guinea 131 km west northwest of Arawa, Bougainville on December 10 at a depth of 157.1 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IV (Light).
 * 🇲🇵 A magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck offshore of the United States trust territory of the Northern Mariana Islands 97 km north northwest of Farallon de Pajaros on December 14 at a depth of 27.6 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of III (Weak).
 * 🇵🇬 A magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck Papua New Guinea 46 km east of Taron, New Ireland on December 17 at a depth of 103.2 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VIII (Severe). Though tsunami waves up to 8.0 cm were measured and power was knocked out in some parts of the country, no reports of injuries or damage were reported.
 * 🇵🇬 A magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck offshore of Papua New Guinea 169 km southeast of Taron, New Ireland on December 17 at a depth of 35.9 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IV (Light). This was an aftershock of the 7.9 quake.
 * 🇸🇧 A magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck the Solomon Islands 83 km west northwest of Kirakira on December 18 at a depth of 39.1 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of V (Moderate). This was an aftershock of the 7.8 quake.
 * A magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck the Federated States of Micronesia 24 km east southeast of Ngulu Atoll on December 18 at a depth of 13.2 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of IV (Light).
 * 🇵🇪 A magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck Peru's Ucayali Region 201 km south of Tarauaca, Brazil on December 18 at a depth of 619.4 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of II (Weak).
 * 🇪🇨 A magnitude 5.4 earthquake struck Ecuador 14 km south southwest of Propicia, Esmeraldas Province on December 19 at a depth of 10.0 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VI (Strong). This earthquake damaged houses, hotels, and caused some landslides in Atacames. Three people died and 47 others were injured.
 * 🇸🇧 A magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck the Solomon Islands 80 km west northwest of Kirakira on December 20 at a depth of 11.3 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong). This was an aftershock of the 7.8 quake.
 * 🇮🇩 A magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck offshore of Indonesia 278 km east northeast of Dili, East Timor on December 21 at a depth of 151.5 km. The shock had a maximum intensity of V (Moderate).

with proposed table:―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

December

 * I think the table looks much neater and tidier than the current layout that we have at the moment. Maybe we should use that for next year. AlphaBetaGamma DeltaEpsilonZeta 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

List with country/location combined
...And the proposed list with country and location together, as suggested by some contributors: Wykx  (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Modified version of the table as per Dawnseeker2000's comment
Depth is not included, the location info is simplified and an extra column has been added to list the number of deaths/injuries. The data is mostly incorrect and is only for representative purposes.

Updated at 07:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC): Separate columns for injuries, deaths and refs created per this comment. The last few rows have been removed due to the sheer length of this page. --My Chemistry romantic (talk)

Proposed creation of templates to aid sortkey generation
The task of manually specifying sortkeys using  to ensure the data gets sorted properly seems a waste of time, and I have drafted 2 templates to aid in these tasks:

User:My Chemistry romantic/Templates/Quake intensity – Automatically generates a sortkey when given a MMI intensity value in Roman numerals between I and XII. Used in the form

User:My Chemistry romantic/Templates/Quake depth – Auto-generate a sortkey and integrates the functionality of convert. Used in the form

Do give some feedback on this idea. Thanks.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be really great if it works.. but I'm confident it will ;) (I don't know yet how to use it). Wykx  (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of, use  . If the support for this idea is good enough, the templates can be moved into template-space and given a short and sweet name to make it even easier.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It works fine. For me it's ok. Wykx  (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

t&t 5,9 dec 6th
Since USGS lists it as significant, should we include it?193.163.223.128 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "there were no reports of injuries or serious damage," if I refer to Trinidad & Tobago quake. Wykx  (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But surely it is "notable for some other reason", right?--193.163.223.128 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which other reason? Wykx  (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That USGS assesses that it's significant.--193.163.223.128 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still not enough to warrant inclusion in this list. No news reports that I know of reported damage or casualties from this event. Only an earthquake which is above magnitude 6.0 and/or caused damage or casualties should be included.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on list format
Which format should be used, Bullet list or Table? See section above. This result will be reflected from next year.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table to take advantage of sorting and just plain ability to eyeball it. I adjusted the column widths to make intelligent use of the horizontal space available. I'd suggest combining the Country and Location columns to make even better use of space i.e. a single column with country followed by location.  E Eng  05:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true that combining country and location makes its shorter and better to read. Wykx  (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table, it's much more accessible and organized. Agree with EEng about combining columns. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * List, to privilege reading and seeing info in a whole in a more compact way compared to sorting. Wykx  (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table More organised and easier to read than the wall of text we have at present. The table format enables the data to be sorted by the reader as they wish and also ensures consistency between the list articles on Wikipedia. A description of the shaking intensity (Weak, Light, Moderate etc.) should also be included. --My Chemistry romantic (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC); edited 11:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table. My opinion: A table with grid lines is easier to read. Especially if there are multiple facts about an item which can be presented as columns in a row. Tables also provide function, like sort and colored cells.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table. IMHO it makes the information more accessible, although at cost of losing some completeness. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support change to table:
 * 1) ) The table format is a better form to present details like these. When prose is used, we wind up redundantly using the same phrases
 * 2) ) Our other earthquake lists are in table format (or are in the process of being converted – I've done three this last year (Iceland, Samoa, Panama))
 * 3) ) The table format is simpler and will be easier for the ESL editors to contribute to the list
 * Recommend table column changes:
 * 1) ) Drop the depth column. Depth does not contribute to the readers' understanding of the events' effects. That's what they want when they come to these lists
 * 2) ) Add columns for deaths and injuries for simplicity (the text "66 people were injured in Nepal during this earthquake" becomes "66")
 * 3) ) Simplify the location column. Example: "19 km (12 mi) SE of Sigli, Aceh" → "Sigli, Aceh".
 * Support change: why not after the different optimisation proposed by previous contributors. 1/ I would although keep the depth because depth gives an indication on potential effects. We don't consult this list only for effects. 2/ Why not, however we have to be aware there are often precisions on the location of deaths and injuries and there are only few quakes on this list with deaths or injuries. 3/ I'm afraid that's too vague: we have some distance between 1 and 1000km. Wykx  (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of this change, but I'd prefer keeping the depth of the quakes since it could allow readers to understand the effect of depth on the impact of the events. It would also be advisable to keep the info on the distance of the quake from the nearest settlement since it can give the reader an idea of its impact on the population.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Depth is unnecessary. The reader is being told, unequivocally, what the potential for damage is via the Mercalli intensity. Telling them the depth doesn't improve on that at all. Let's please leave the the distance to the settlement out, as we're desperate for space. And keep in mind that the detail to the nearest settlement is not lost; it's still in the reference titles. Dawnseeker2000  03:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a point there.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I only just saw that you took the time to create a few nifty templates. Thanks for doing that. The timing doesn't seem that great though. I just think that we have to ask ourselves if having depth is critical on these lists. I don't think it is. I have contributed to a handful of earthquake articles, but it seems like I've slowed down in that area, and instead have been working on lists quite a bit instead. I never include depth. It's an aspect of these events that is easy enough to come by, but isn't all that necessary in the big picture, and there's not really enough room for it. I'll reiterate that what I think people want to know when they come here ( and they do, with spikes on this graph for the Kaikoura, Fukushima, and Solomon Island events). They want to know if there was any damage or if there were people injured or killed. We should tell them in a format that's as simple and easy to read as possible.
 * So thanks for the work on the table without the depth. It looks good. Should we create separate deaths and injuries columns and maybe one for the refs? The way forward with the text in these lists, I think, is to not be as verbose. What I mean by that is instead of using complete sentences, just use abbreviated comments. If landslides took some lives, say "Landslides" in the comments. Brevity helps the reader and it helps us too (space being at a premium). I think that sometimes we think that we have to say as much as we can say, and in the process we try to jam as much as we can into the list. But in the process, the text becomes convoluted and hard to use. The solution, I think, is to keep the presentation simple. Overcrowding things really hurts lists like this. A little space between the elements goes a long way towards a presentable and usable table. Dawnseeker2000  05:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing. We can probably call the "Mag" column "Mw" Or simply "M" instead. I think that more than 90% of the time, the magnitude scale that's used by the USGS is Mw. If there's ever a case that it isn't (Mb, is used rarely) just place that in the column next to the value or in the comments section. Dawnseeker2000  06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table has been updated as per your suggestions, with the event descriptions condensed shorter than the edit summary limit. Perhaps we could include a description of the shaking intensity alongside the MMI value (Weak, Light, Moderate etc.), since raw Roman numerals most likely are meaningless to the readers.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone else also mentioned that today, but it's probably one of those things that we can't afford because of space. We have the column header linked (MMI) and we can also create a footer that gives some more explanations and links. For footer markup, use something like this:


 * - class="sortbottom"
 * colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Footer text
 * }


 * Thanks for all your work. Let's see what everyone else has to say. Dawnseeker2000  08:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We could do something like this next year. For now, I've inserted the descriptions into the table as small text. --My Chemistry romantic (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For me all these changes go too far. We are loosing depth and precise location information. The tables will be very long without having the possibility of a quick look at the quakes as a whole. The link to the earthquake pages which is what people are looking for are not visible anymore. Wykx  (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For earthquakes that have a separate article, it seems that the earthquake's magnitude serves as a link to the main article. The exact distance location is still available in the title of the USGS reference. The current table is mostly a product of Dawnseeker2000's suggestions and I will try to work out a compromise as soon as possible.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The new version is now up at .--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. To me the link to the earthquake page will still not be obvious to find. And information in links are not information in pages. If we don't want to put information in the pages, we could just have a link to the USGS page and people would find information there... which is not the purpose. Wykx  (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The link to the main article would be under the 'Description' column using main. The more precise location info is still available when mousing over the USGS ref next to all the magnitude values; we can't really put that in as we are short of space here. I also reduced the font size of the column headers in order to reduce the width of columns that don't need to be so wide. --My Chemistry romantic (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to use a table but the location and depth should be included into that page. I propose we see on the first month how it goes with the full location and depth. The purpose of going into a table was not to eliminate information. Wykx  (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Depth doesn't seem necessary here, as with most other lists of earthquakes. We could try including the location info however, and see how it all works out over time.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the case of other lists, they are summaries and indeed depth in not the main criteria for a summary but this list is exhaustive and thus we should find all the relevant information. I suggest we include both. Wykx  (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Which table format to use next year?
Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Your feedback and suggestions are welcome.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Like people have said earlier, when you have the MMI depth isn't really at all important. So I'd go with either 2 or 3, although I like 2 slightly more. AlphaBetaGamma DeltaEpsilonZeta 08:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The separate column for the references takes up a fair amount of space, making the 'Description' column a bit narrower. Would it be better if we used inline citations instead of dedicating an entire column solely to references?--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * True. In that case, I'd go with 3 then. AlphaBetaGamma DeltaEpsilonZeta 10:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Table 1 will probably prove to be more flexible when we'll have to describe where effects occured; and provides more information. MMI is not the only information we are looking at when we want to know which earthquakes occured during one year. Wykx  (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but imo the depth is not needed. When you've got the MMI for each earthquake, then it doesn't matter how deep the earthquake is. AlphaBetaGamma DeltaEpsilonZeta 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Algorithms to calculate MMI take also into account the population in the impacted areas, not only the depth. And later on MMI is adjusted based on observations. Lastly, depth is one piece of information regarding quake location. Wykx  (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of earthquakes in 2016. 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/20160319120417/http://www.usgs.gov/faq/taxonomy/term/9830 to http://www.usgs.gov/faq/taxonomy/term/9830
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124215652/http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/strong-earthquake-with-initial-magnitude-of-about-71-hits-south-alaska/37610068 to http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/strong-earthquake-with-initial-magnitude-of-about-71-hits-south-alaska/37610068
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160415074517/http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/strong-quake-hits-kyushu-region-4-dead-400-injured to http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/strong-quake-hits-kyushu-region-4-dead-400-injured
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161124083127/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20161122_40/ to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20161122_40/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161124091759/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20161123_16/ to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20161123_16/

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) 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)