Template talk:Infobox earthquake

Map
I really don't see the reason to have an image description for a MAP. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

some extra bits
What about a couple of extra sections to the infobox. How bout the Coordinate details and the depth that the earthquake struck at? Both of these are already listed on any USGS earthquake report page. Nomadtales 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * done, you read my thoughts :) -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Columns
How the heck do I make the right column wider than the left one? I want to do this so country names don't get wrapped. Lexicon (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption problem
Is there a way to make the caption of this template more center? When being used it seems to shift right of some reason and makes the infobox longer. Black Tusk (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Microformat and bot request
I have added the hCalendar this bot request:


 * For pages using Earthquake, convert dates (if after 1750AD) to use Start date, and change coordinates display parameters to  as in this edit. The former will make the date appear in the template's hCalendar microformat; the latter will make the articles appear in Google Earth/ Maps mashups.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Map2
Hello all. I added "map2" to allow for map templates to be used instead of images. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Damage to template
Beginning on Jan 20, User:Thumperward made a series of changes to this template that made all the bullseye maps disappear from all articles using the template. I reverted these changes given the high profiles of articles using these maps. The bulleye maps are still missing from many dozens of articles unless the code in each article is manually changed from Earthquake to Infobox earthquake. Abductive (reasoning) 16:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Earthquake articles needing a picture
Can the template be altered so that it doesn't automatically put earthquake articles into this category? There are many such articles, most of them with pictures in the body of the page, so it really is unnecessary. See for instance discussion at Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Pontificalibus (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreshocks
This template needs a field for foreshocks. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

AmE vs BrE, AuE, CanE spelling
The current location parameter defaults to the American spelling "Epicenter", which causes style inconsistencies for earthquake articles written in other variants of English ("Epicentre"). Any way to change this so that the user can choose between the spelling?
 * ✅. en-UK will show "Epicentre". Same effect with en-AU, en-CA. Intention: template should follow article WP:engvar spelling. -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

ISO region, long and lat
The German template de:Vorlage:Infobox Erdbeben uses ISO region codes and long and lat in order to automatically provide a locator map. e.g. de:Erdbeben vor Sumatra 2012 is XI brings in the locator map defined at de:Vorlage:Info ISO-3166-2:XI. Is "XI" in the region code spec? I tihnk this would useful to add to our template..? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

PGA parameter
Should be wikilinked in the infobox like this: Peak acceleration. Wikilinking of g is not right per WP:EGG. GregorB (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Regularly occurring earthquakes
Tōkai earthquakes is using this template, but it seems to me that it's not semantically correct—it's a series of regularly occurring earthquakes, which makes the "date" field seem a little strange—shouldn't it be "frequency" or something? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Magnitude notation
I propose an improvement on noting the magnitude(s). Background is that the magnitude is a well-defined physical quantity (SI even), and we could use that. At the moment, the notation is incorrect very often. First, I'll talk about Moment magnitude scale, or Mw, as this is the modern value used. Later it can be expanded to Rich. ter and other magnitudes.

A physical quantity is that something we try to measure, and is noted in this pattern:
 * Physical quantity notation
 * physical quantity = number &times; unit

Instead of words, we can use symbols:
 * v = 10 km/h

Main takeaway: recognise the math pattern ("lefthand = righthand").

Some notes. It is a true mathematical formula, especially when using symbols. We are very familiar with seeing a 'unit symbol' "km/h", but the 'quantity symbol' "v" is more rare, because in reading we use "speed=..." and "the speed is ...". That is all fine and OK. The dimension of the quantity and of the unit are the same: "length/time". (we can convert the righthand value into another unit with the same dimension, like m/s).

First: Its quantity symbol is: Mw (capital M in italics, lowercase upright w subscripted). Therefor both name and this symbol belong in the lefthand side of the equasion. Second: it has no unit (the value is "dimensionless"). Or, mathematically: the unit is "1". (caveat: actually it has a unit with an energy-related dimension, a very complicated one, but by convention it is omitted). So we can write:
 * Magnitude scale notation


 * moment magnitude scale = number &times; 1
 * moment magnitude scale = number

We may replace the name with its symbol:
 * Mw = number

(wrong is: "moment magnitude scale = number &times; Mw": ❌: Mw is not the unit)

Instead of writing today's "Magnitude [=] 8.3 Mw" in the infobox, we better write:
 * Infobox improvement
 * "Magnitude (Mw) [=] 8.3".

Because this follows the main pattern: "Magnitude = number &times; unit".


 * Implementation


 * 1. Add new parameter magnitude Mw to template.
 * 2. Edit article to refine the input: change 6.3 Mw into 6.3
 * 3. In the infobox, show:

Note: As a style choice, I've linked the text, and unbolded the Mw.
 * 4. To consider: extra automated checks on their usage (not used together).
 * 5. Additional advantage: the editor does not need to enter the "Mw" (link) right. The infobox already has.

For Richter magnitude scale and its quantity symbol ML, similar. magnitude Richter or magnitude ML (todo: choose one). Similar for max magnitude.
 * Other magnitude scales

Once the parameter(s) are added, each article should be revisited and the parameter edited, taking a good look.


 * Summary
 * 1) Add magnitude Mw next to existing magnitude
 * Showing in infobox like:
 * Magnitude (Mw)6.3[1]


 * 1) Edit articles (change parameter name and input when appropriate).
 * 2) Add magnitude ML, similar (for Richter scale)

Comments? -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's largely a recapitulation of comments DePiep made at Talk:Seismic scale, which bears on the M template I have been developing. The purpose of the template is provide an easy yet flexible way of presenting earthquake magnitudes in a consistent manner (with additional tracking features). Currently we are looking at some subtle variations of formatting (such as mbLg, mbLg, and mb_Lg, etc.)


 * I think additional scale-specific parameters in this infobox are unnecessary, and even undesirable. The various scales that might be encountered (even in the popular media) and the details of the proper labels, their formatting, and explanations of proper usage, are rather more than conveniently handled in this and similar templates. I suggest that the infobox remain with the generic magnitude parameter, and rely on the M template to handle the details.


 * What might be considered here is whether the presentation should be in the form of:
 * 1. Magnitude6.3
 * 2. Magnitude
 * 3. Magnitude 6.3


 * (These will probably use an italicized M; that's a detail handled in {M}.)
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense . For starters, Mw is not an abbreviation, it is a symbol. (abuse of abbr). -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, why are you talking about mbLg? I don't mind what template you are developing. I mind what we show. And that is: correct magnitude value formatting. That's for Mw and ML. SI is clear and does not leave much leeway (good). -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Magnitude6.3 ❌ Mw is a lefthand symbol, not a unit!
 * 2. Magnitude ❌ Mw is a lefthand symbol
 * 3. Magnitude (Mw)6.3 ✅ ~as I proposed: goes with the wording, and so LH side. BTW, add link to be Magnitude. No abbr. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * re The various scales that might be encountered (even in the popular media) and the details of the proper labels, their formatting, and explanations of proper usage, are rather more than conveniently handled in this and similar templates.
 * -- No they are not. Right now, it is up to the article editor to enter this right, and they failed easily (also the template /doc did not help). While using like magnitude Mw solves this. You seem to think that there are no mistakes in current formatting? -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't go flying off about transitory, trivial details. The use of {abbr} was something I tried, and am replacing with optional wikilinks. The template documentation is, AS IT SAYS (and in a box, no less) "NOT complete", so you're rather premature to be complaining about it.


 * I am talking about mbLg because it is one of about a score of commonly used magnitude scales, and my intention is to make all these scales easily accessible to all editors, expert or not, as well as adding tracking categories and optional wikilinks. You deny that is more conveniently done with a template, and seem to be saying that it is the responsibility of each article editor to get all these details right. So why is it that you used the template when you replicated my three examples? Okay, yes, I know, you just copied it, But it would be instructive if you would rebuild that entirely without using the template, and see if that is more or less convenient. I suspect you really don't know, on account having extremely little practice with these labels.


 * Your rhetorical question ("You seem to think that there are no mistakes in current formatting?") is rhetorical bullfart. Of course there are problems in current formatting. Don't be trying to stick that on me; I'm trying to fix it. The current state is that until now there has been no guidance on the use of earthquake magnitudes, no standard or style, and no templates. So each individual editor, many of them knowing nothing more about magnitudes than what they see in their local newspapers, has had full and complete freedom (and responsibility) to do it however they want, but usually little to zilch knowledge on the standard ways of doing so. And little interest in coordinating with anyone else. So now that I am producing a multi-faceted and easy-to-use template you are complaining that it is – not convenient to use? What gall. And that coming from someone who seems to think that only two scales are sufficient for all future uses. That you are sooooo hung up on "correct magnitude value formatting", and then so careless about the scale of those values, is no improvement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck my unhelpful comment above, not in place.
 * In general: I'm not about your developing template, I am writing about how to write the (two main) magnitudes correctly as a physical quantity. That's with or without any template for starters. That could be solved at Talk:seismic scale centrally, while this talkpage can continue with that result. It might take a careful second reading to shift main issues from details & distractions, indeed. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm still a bit rankled by some of your comments, but I'll accept that as expression of good faith.


 * I wonder if what you want needs to be clarified. It seems to me you have raised at least three issues:
 * 1) details of formatting (e.g., italicization and subscripting);
 * 2) general "left-hand or right-hand" usage (right?);
 * 3) particular changes to this infobox.


 * I think the formating is best done in the template, but at any rate this is more properly an isssue for Talk:Seismic scale. The second issue seems to be your principal concern, which merits consideration, but again, I think not here. My objections to what you propose are actually independent of the second issue. So while I am open to discussion of "left-hand/right-hand", I think that should not be entangled with the changes you propose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

separate date-time fields
Eventually someone could install 2 different parameters one for UTC-date-time and another for the local-date-time. This would it make a bit harder for wikifants to always produce the popular wrong-mixing that will occur (at least) whenever the beloved date discrepancy allows it. Thanks for slightly reducing traditional Wikipedia Bullshits. --Itu (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to disambiguate date-time
There is a problem with date-time: all authoritative sources identify and index earthquakes (including aftershocks, and other seismic events) by their UTC date and time, but many editors use, and many readers expect, local date and time. As the infobox allows only one date and time, and without specification, we get both inconsistency in use, and ambiguity in expectation.

To fix this I propose the following change: that the 'date' and 'time' parameters be replaced with utc-timestamp, date-local, and time-local. These to be displayed as follows: UTC timestamp: 1989-10-18 00:04:15 Local date:    October 17, 1989 Local time:    5:04:15 p.m. PDT

The Infobox also to be modified so that use of 'date' and 'time' default to local-date and local-time, and add the article to a maintenance category. I anticipate this being done with other changes proposed in the next section.

Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks helpful. Every earthquake article should have UTC and local time, although for historical earthquakes once you get back to before the establishment of GMT, this can be a little trickier - see Talk:1835_Concepción_earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think pre-GMT is a problem, as given approximate local time and a location, the GMT equivalent is trivially determined; which is likely how it was handled in the one or two historical catalogs I can recall off-hand. Pre-Gregorian would be more of a problem, but for that we should just go with what the catalog says. (If two catalogs differ, then state, and cite, both.) Calling such derived times "UTC" is a bit of a stretch, but I think acceptable. For deeply historical cases, such as the 464 BC Sparta earthquake, I am inclined towards having a key word – "historical" – that would suppress the "UTC-timestamp" field entirely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Better yet (I think): I am going to add a "pre-1900" parameter, that defaults to "no". If set to "yes" the article gets added to a tracking category, and "utc-timestamp" becomes optional. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To stop the earthquake date-time mess which i'm fighting until today this can of course be supported... as i still suggested in September  --Itu (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The new parameters are in. See Template:Infobox_earthquake for details. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There were a couple of bugs affecting 'historical' (pre-1900) quakes, but I think I have all that worked out now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add USGS-ANSS and ISC links
For documenting the technical details of earthquakes (such as time, location, and magnitudes) we have widespread citation of sources that are non-authoritative (such as newspapers) and even non-English. It is regretable that such data is not routinely cited to either the Advanced National Seismic System (accessible through the USGS website), or the International Seismological Centre (here).

The ANSS is the premier system for near-realtime and comprehensive coverage of significant earthquakes globally. (It is designed as a resource for emergency officials and first responders.) The ISC catalog specializes in refining hypocenter and magnitude (from all sources, and sometimes years later); it is the ultimate authority. (See samples from the ANSS and ISC.)

We should always cite the ANSS, or the ISC, even both. To this end I propose modifying the Infobox to include links to both the ANSS and the ISC. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I an contemplating something like:

ISC Event: USGS-ANSS: ComCat


 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For your Loma Prieta example, the ISC catalogue gives a magnitude of 6.89±0.1 Mw, a location of 37.074	-121.806 and a depth of 12 km, differing from the event 38909 values you linked to above, presumably because the earthquake was later reviewed (as is ISC practice). However, these are very useful for adding to earthquake articles just after the event has happened, which I presume is their main intended purpose. Mikenorton (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, on all points. The ANSS (ComCat) data is available effectively immediately, but subject to revision; the reviewed and definitive ISC value won't be available for about two years. (But even within months it has data which can be useful in resolving any spats WP editors might get into about magnitude or location.) The important point is that we should be using both of these sources, and not the newspapers, for earthquake parameters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: No objections as far as i can judge now. --Itu (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The new parameters are in. See Template:Infobox_earthquake for details. There are a couple details needing fixing; I'll get to them in the coming days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea! I'll be sure to check out the changes. Master of Time   ( talk ) 23:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you know how, I recommend making the new parameters not show up at all if left blank, rather than just showing nothing; I imagine it will take some time for all the parameters on all the relevant pages to be filled in. Master of Time   ( talk ) 23:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A key item to note is "pre-1900". That marks the beginning (albeit incompletely) of instrumental data, and events before that are (mostly) not in the ISC or ANSS catalogs. So I want to suppress those fields for pre-1900 events. (But! there is a bug I have to fix.) However, after that I think the new fields should be shown. (At the least, it's subtle suggestion to use the new fields.) I was hoping that the new form would not show up in an article until the article was edited (didn't realize that changing the template causes it to be reevaluated everywhere it is used), but even so I think it little or no harm to have them displayed as empty. (And a reminder use the new fields.) The timestamp parameter ("UTC time") certainly should be used in all post-1900 cases, and even an error if not used. Because of the problems that have accrued to the 'time', 'day', and 'origintime' parameters I am thinking they should be tagged with a red bullet or something to both indicate to the reader they are not reliable, and remind editors they need to be replaced. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite a few of the earthquakes with articles in the early 20th century are not present in the ANSS/ISC catalogues e.g. 1917 Bali earthquake - there are almost no earthquakes before about 1952 with M<6 for instance in the ISC list. This means that we will have quite a few articles with the ANSS and ISC fields left empty, but perhaps we'll just have to live with that. Mikenorton (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Johnston and Halchuk (1993) distinguished the modern instrumental era (subdivied into 1964–1976 and 1977–present) from the early instrumental era (~1900–1963) because of the paucity of instrumental data. I think that not always having an authoritative catalog record is, as you suggested, something we have to live with. Though perhaps we should indicate that with "n/a". My concern is that some editors might be tempted to throw that in instead of getting an event id. I suppose that would be something we would just have watch for, perhaps track.


 * I have been wondering if a general "catalog" link might be useful, for where some other catalog has an event page. But I don't know how useful that might be. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, an article on earthquake catalogues would probably be a good idea, but I won't be writing that in a hurry. I'm going to be very busy doing other real life stuff over the next couple of weeks - I'll get back to updating infoboxes when I get the chance. Mikenorton (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting, but doubt if I will get to it. My focus is mainly on getting the bulk of the editors familiar with the ANSS and ISC, and then I want to get on with some other work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added the option of "n/a" ("not available") for events not in the ISC or ANSS catalogs. It is expected these apply mainly to events prior to 1964, when there weren't so many seismographs in operation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Earthquake swarms
[Continuing from the prior discussion.]

It [time issues] is also an issue on articles using that do not cover a single event, e.g. earthquake swarms, pairs, etc.  Master of Time   ( talk ) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this Infobox is titled earthquake (singular), so I wonder about its suitability for multiple events. Could you provide some links to such cases? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy-Greenbrier earthquake swarm, October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes, 2009–18 Oklahoma earthquake swarms, etc. Master of Time   ( talk ) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see. One approach to dealing with this to adopt the view that Template:Infobox earthquake is for individual events, and therefore inappropriate for swarms. As the maps and some of the other data is valuable for documenting swarms, that would suggest a need for a specific template. (Which might also be tailored for swarms.) Alternately, we could explicitly suppress (or modify) the parameters that don't fit. Which I could do, but am reluctant to do, because adding special cases tends to multiply complexity; I would want to see if there are other alternatives. Should this be raised as a separate discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes,1703 Apennine earthquakes and 1783 Calabrian earthquakes, which are all closely linked earthquake sequences. A lot of Italian earthquakes occur in sequences like that, which are generally handled together. Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across Tōkai earthquakes, which led to Nankai megathrust earthquakes, Tōnankai earthquakes, 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes, and possibly others. I gather these are all sequences, but there is not category for such, so they are not readily found. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * More examples: 1856 Djijelli earthquakes and 1880 Luzon earthquakes, being (resp.) two and three shocks which, for lack of sufficient information, can't be distinguished into main, fore-, and after-shocks. Sequences? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created Category:Earthquake clusters, swarms, and sequences (see next section), which now includes these examples and others, to a current total of 52. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am leaning towards a specific Infobox eqswarm template, similar to this one. The question is: how should swarms be characterized? Start-date, of course, and end-date (or "on-going"). Largest magnitude? Are swarms cataloged as such? Well, if anyone wants to make a list I can work up the template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Swarms are different to sequences in my view. Swarms are generally all in the same place, whereas sequences are generally progressive, with stress transfer from one triggering the next of the dominos and need to handle multiple mainshocks - so far I've done that by putting details in a separate table. Perhaps best to stick with the current infobox for sequences and add the details for the first in the sequence to the infobox. Mikenorton (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see the distinction between "swarms" and "sequences". But either way, both are sets of events, while the infobox is setup for single events. Even though the infoxbox can handle multiple values for some parameters, they are inherently all about a single event.


 * If sequences are distinct events I could see a basic list. But I wonder if the first is always the principal or most significant event. And these would need to be distinguished from aftershocks and foreshocks. (E.g., are Christchurch B & C, and Loma Prieta B, C, & D, aftershocks? Or a sequence?) And how do we handle a swarm (e.g., Oklahoma) where notability is with the swarm, and not in any included event?


 * Whether swarms and sequences have separate infoboxes or share an infobox (perhaps with different modes), I still lean towards having it separate from this one. One reason is to avoid bloating the current code, which is hard enogh to debug and maintain as it is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have revised the code so that the timestamp, isc-event, local-time, and magnitude parameters now have up to five variants (distinguished by the suffixes "-A" through "-E"). I don't have the documentation ready yet, but these features can be seen in action at 1993 Klamath Falls earthquakes, and at Template:Infobox_earthquake/testcases. These are not for foreshocks, aftershocks, or swarms, but for doublet earthquakes and such where the main rupture was interrupted, resulting in two (or more) closely located shocks of similar intensity; use should be conditioned on a scientific journal describing the quake as a "doublet" or "multiplet" event. I don't plan to extend this to the other parameters as not being that useful. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Category: sequence, series, swarm, or ..?
With reference to the preceding discussion, I keep finding articles that cover multiple events. In some cases there are two or three distinct and close shocks (e.g.: 1880 Luzon earthquakes}, in other cases they are more in the nature of a swarm of less distinct shocks. Despite the variations, all are cases of subjects with multiple events, and which special handling is needed. I'd like to create a category for tracking these, but am uncertain how it should be named. Any suggestions? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am leaning towards a catch-all Category:Earthquake doublets, sequences, and swarms, into which I will move the articles currently in Category:Earthquake swarms. ~ &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I went with Category:Earthquake clusters, swarms, and sequences. I have also retained Category:Earthquake swarms a subcategory (and now have to move some articles back), and added Category:Doublet earthquakes. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Consequence
I am unconvinced about adding "Consequence" to the infobox. I'm not sure that it's providing any extra information and at least one field "foreshocks" is definitely not a consequence. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Perhaps you could describe your changes? I see that Dawnseeker2000 has just reverted your edits, but presumably they could be considered.

I am also unconvinced about "Consequence". And definitely would reject "number of events". Such a number is dependent on factors of space, time, magnitude, and even detectability. If such a number is deemed significant these factors need to be specified, which is more appropriately done in the text. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Plate boundary field?
As a result of a discussion over the "fault" parameter for the recent 2019 Albania earthquake, I think that it would be good to have a "plate boundary" field in the infobox for where that is known, even if the actual fault isn't. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The apparent intent of the "fault" parameter, as written, appears to be the field where you list the plates on "either side" of the fault (known or otherwise.) I'm not sure the infobox is entirely clear on this. Perhaps renameing so that it clearly reflects "plate(s) involved". I think "faults" isn't clear.Trilotat (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent, as I understand it, is to mention the named fault that moved during the earthquake, for instance, in the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami, the fault was the Palu-Koro Fault. Some segments of plate boundaries have their own names, like the Sunda megathrust. What we lack is a parameter that describes the plate boundary involved for interplate earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the example given on the template page, the plate interface doesn't have a separate name, so you could use the plate boundary itself, but in say the 1906 San Francisco earthquake you would definitely use San Andreas Fault rather than Pacific–North American Plate boundary - all I'm suggesting is that where we have a named fault, that we have a parameter that allows us to add the plate boundary involved. Many intraplate earthquakes happen on named faults, so renaming to "plate boundary" would not be appropriate. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor changes to label 20
I think you should change label 20 from

USGS-ANSS

to

USGS-ANSS

WikipediaNeko (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping intensity boxes when two scales are used
I've noticed a readability issue on article 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake. The two blocks in the intensity field of the infobox overlap, making the first one hard to read (the lower rectangle overlaps parts of the letters of the upper template). This issue comes from usage of template Unbulleted list. Other articles use two &lt;br/&gt; tags, which is not good wikitext, but it's readable. Side note: the articles place the templates MMI and JMA in the different order.

Here are the demos of these two solutions. I've also tried a single &lt;br/&gt; tag and plainlist, and stack with clear, but the same overlapping issue remains.

Are there any other ways to arrange MMI and JMA in the infobox? —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To clarify the lower rectangle overlaps parts of the letters of the upper template — for me, the font is Noto Sans. The capital letter "J" of JMA has a descender, which is covered by the lower rectangle in such a way that it's hard to distinguish it from a capital letter "I". —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)