Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes/Archive 2

Articles for deletion/2007 Ağrı earthquake
I have nominated the 2007 Ağrı earthquake article for deletion. The January 21, 2007 5.0 earthquake doesn't seem to be a significant event. The article is around 3KB.

There's no entry at USGS Historic World Earthquakes

The most similar earthquake articles in Turkey that we have in terms of magnitude are the 1952 Hasankale earthquake (5.8) but that one claimed 41 lives. Also at 5.8 was the 2011 Kütahya earthquake that claimed 2 with 122 injured.

Dawnseeker2000  19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Flags
Hi, I noticed some (but not all) earthquake articles with infobox flags. Not only does this go against the advice in our style guidelines on flags and seemingly add no useful information, in many cases like this it had flags which were grossly anachronistic. Both the US and Canada have different flags than they had in 1872. I would ask members of the project to consider removing flags in cases like this and to refrain from adding more. Thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Their use in earthquake articles has been reducing - a lot of those left are a result of the copying and pasting of earthquake infoboxes (I'm guilty on several occasions I realise), from older articles that use the same location maps, where flags were routinely used. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1918 Vancouver Island earthquake
Looking for input on an article with borderline significance. Would like to hear some opinions before expanding the article any more. I've only put a few edits into it, but there probably isn't much more to say, being the area was unpopulated and only minimal damage was reported. Just based on the earthquake notability guidelines it seems the earthquake sits very close to being noteworthy enough for inclusion. It's not that it's a bad thing to include it, but we do need to draw the line somewhere. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000   16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * update, to save clicking through, nomination was withdrawn - after several keep votes. EdwardLane (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment sweep
I recently (within the last month or so) worked through and looked at most of the articles that we have that are associated with this project. I spent most of the month of May doing this in the evenings after work, and made quite a few changes to the class and importance of many earthquake articles and other related articles that had previously been tagged with WikiProject Earthquakes.

I changed around 300-400 articles, mostly upping the class where possible, although I was very conservative, at least during the initial few weeks of the survey. During the last few weeks I seemed to be more generous with the C class articles and started assigning that class instead of the start class, especially if an article was an older event where fewer sources of information exist for us to base the article on. A few good examples of these are 1202 Syria earthquake which stood at 5,666 bytes at the time of the assessment and 526 Antioch earthquake and 526 Antioch earthquake which was 7,700 bytes.

I mention the size of the article because that was used to determine its class. Generally, the lager articles would receive a higher rating, unless they lacked sources. I would rate a smaller article higher if it had awesome sources. Some articles I found had been redirected to lists or other articles. For these I discovered there's a redirect class that we can use. This might be helpful in the future, since we'll know what redirects are out there by checking the quality statistics chart. Tagging a redirect with "class=redirect" puts it in NA class and NA importance group.

No articles that I looked at were tagged with anything higher than C class. I wanted to get through this whole run first then see about those potentially higher ratings, but there's tons of work to do on the lower end to stay busy for a few years :)

I did change some importance items up to much higher ratings, and I did this based on what I think I know about the WP:1.0 process. At least a few articles were tagged with top importance because I thought they should be "must haves" for a print encyclopedia. So that's it for now. Dawnseeker2000  21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawnseeker2000, thanks for doing all that - I've just been working on a similar sweep for WP geology (as of today no articles left that are unassessed for quality there, but thousands of unknown importance). RockMagnetist came up with a good way of focussing attention by ranking all the articles . I'll see if we can do that here. Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article request - 1935 Helena earthquake
Anyone interested in creating and working on this:


 * 1935 Helena earthquake or similar title. 6.3 magnitude Should be lots of info, these on a cursory search:
 * http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1935_10_19.php
 * http://nisee.berkeley.edu/montana/montana.html
 * Thank you. Pumpkin Sky   talk  11:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've created a stub, should be able to fill in some more during the day. Mikenorton (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! Let's keep in touch. Let me and Montanabw know if we can help. Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For interested users, see 1935 Helena earthquake. Mike, I'll nom it for DYK when it's a tad bigger, giving you credit of course. Excellent start! Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a PD image that could be used, but not sure it would show up well at 100px. Mikenorton (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request
Made at 2005 earthquakes. This stand alone list of earthquakes does not match the others like it. Would like it moved to Earthquakes in 2005 (which is a redirect to Lists of earthquakes. A few more details are on the talk page. Dawnseeker2000   02:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request
The 1995 Egypt earthquake article title needs to be more specific and I've made a proposal on the talk page there. Dawnseeker2000  14:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Verify The Duration of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake as Being 2 Days and 8 Hours
The edit here at 2008 Sichuan earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Sichuan_earthquake&oldid=457076884 was done by a Wikipedian that only came here and made 1 edit and probably created a page on himself that was speedyed. I am wondering if someone can verify the duration of the earthquake lasting 2 Days and 8 Hours? I can't find anything on this right now as I thought it only lasted a few minutes. Please Help!  Sawblade5  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 19:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryukyu Arc nominated for deletion
Perhaps it can be improved along the lines of Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

2009 L'Aquila seismologists sentenced to 6 years
2009_L'Aquila_earthquake it all seems a bit unjust, so I thought I'd flag it up EdwardLane (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been nominated for in the news, so if you're good at describing earthquake predictions and wanted to make sure that the article makes sense in scientific terms might be worth heading over to the L'Aquila article. EdwardLane (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deadly lists
Going through list of orphaned articles I found the article List of earthquakes in the 2010s (by death toll). Do project members think this is needed considering there is Lists of earthquakes, List of deadly earthquakes since 1900, Earthquakes in 2010 and so on? If it has some use just a little unsure how all these lists should be cross linked. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Iran Earthquake
2012 Iran Earthquake just saw this article created - not sure if there is much info out there - 6 dead I gather no epicentre etc type stuff on the page yet. EdwardLane (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ring of Fire
The usage of Ring of Fire is under discussion, see talk:Ring of Fire (song) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Earthquakes in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Earthquakes for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Merging small/rare earthquakes into catchall articles, specific case
I'm advocating delete in the discussion at Articles for deletion/2009 Georgia earthquake (so please don't think this is canvassing) but I think it should be merged into a larger set of relatively-rare earthquakes in the South Eastern U.S. I figured this project would be the best place to know about that sort of thing. If anyone's interested in integrating it into either na existing article, or just discussing if that's a future possibility, let me know. A 5.9 in California seems like nothing, but in Georgia seems more significant. Not enough for a standalone article, but at least for incorporation into something summarizing these. But this project knows better than I do about how best to do that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Relief location maps
Whenever you wish to include a relief location map (in templates such as Template:Location map+, or Template:Infobox earthquake), please use the relief parameter of the standard location map and not the depreciated and slightly inaccurate relief location map.

Correct usage:

Incorrect usage (to be avoided):

As can be seen here, both usages generate the same relief map; however, the (correct) map above displays the correct locations, while those at the (incorrectly used) map below are slightly displaced; Ajaccio and many other places end up in the sea or at the wrong side of a border. displacement error fixed.

In short: Please always use the relief parameter and never the relief map !

Thank you in advance!

Michael! (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: An example of the correct usage of a relief location map inside Template:Infobox earthquake. Michael! (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

File:8-2earthquake-kanto.jpg
File:8-2earthquake-kanto.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude
I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude (based on the Richter magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient. —Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 2.0 to 2.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 3.0 to 3.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 to 4.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 5.0 to 5.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 to 6.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 7.0 to 7.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 8.0 to 8.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 9.0 to 9.99

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength. —Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Earthquakes by moment magnitude
I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by moment magnitude (based on the moment magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient. —Wavelength (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 2.0 to 2.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 3.0 to 3.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 4.0 to 4.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 5.0 to 5.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 6.0 to 6.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 7.0 to 7.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 8.0 to 8.99
 * Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 9.0 to 9.99


 * not sure if I have an opinion on the categories but anything with magnitude less than about 5 is very unlikely to be notable, so 5.99 and below should perhaps be the bottom bound. EdwardLane (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What I meant by "one decimal place in the upper bound s " ("bounds" in the plural, one upper bound for each subcategory) was 2.9 instead of 2.99, 3.9 instead of 3.99, and so on, up to 9.9 instead of 9.99. If Wikipedia has no article about an earthquake with a moment magnitude less than 5.0, then the subcategories can begin at 5.0 to 5.99 (or 5.0 to 5.9).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to address the decimal places issue - but that could probably be cleaner as single decimal places - I don't think I've ever seen more accurate than that, I can't imagine that they can accurately measure a 4.71 quake as distinct from a 4.72 quake. EdwardLane (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced of the need, but if they are created I agree that we won't need any for earthquakes less than Mag 5 and that one decimal place should be sufficient. Also some of our articles report ranges that cross the proposed category boundaries (e.g. 1868 Arica earthquake) - how do we handle those? Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For those articles, editors can agree on using the lowest estimate, or they can agree on using the highest estimate.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stay neutral on this because although I think the categories might be beneficial, they would probably attract the interest of our casual editors (and drive-by editors) and could present a maintenance nightmare for those of us working long-term on the quality, presentation, and accuracy of the projects' articles. Dawnseeker2000  15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength. —Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm more about telling the story of what happened with these events and am not necessarily the kind of person that goes around comparing intensity between the earthquakes in such a way that these categories would allow. Yes, it would be another way to present the information (and I can imagine people using it that way) but it might not be necessary. I'm not saying yes or no here, but will just keep moving forward with building up the articles, since reading about the events is primarily what we're here for. :)  Dawnseeker2000   01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Burnintsunami.jpg
image:Burnintsunami.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Natural Disturbances" class looking for interaction with editors
Hi! A class (course page here) at Louisiana State University about natural disturbances will be editing Wikipedia this semester. The professor has used Wikipedia as a teaching tool before, and the students at LSU tend to do pretty great work with the help of their Ambassador Becky. In the last few classes, the students have hoped for more interaction with experienced editors. Since those of you in this WikiProject are likely interested in the articles they'll edit (some will most likely edit articles related to earthquakes), I wanted to reach out to see if anyone is interested in communicating with these new users during their Wikipedia assignment.

Even if you're only interested in participating very informally, it would be great to have editors who are familiar with the topics comment on the work they're doing! One of the great features of the course page is that you can even use this link to see a feed of their edits (they are not yet editing), which I find extremely useful for providing good feedback. You can also now leave messages on the talk page of the course, which will notify all students in the class. So if you happen to see a trend about references they're using, have suggestions for topics to edit, etc., that's a great way to reach them. Please let me and Becky know if you're interested in working with them this semester, either by notifying us on a talk page, sending me an email, or pinging us back here! Thanks so much, Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, if any of the topics include earthquakes, then I would be happy to take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft:List of intraplate earthquakes
Significant intraplate earthquakes, and intraplate earthquakes with articles are not all too common compared to their interplate counterparts. Because of this, I decided to create the page, Draft:List of intraplate earthquakes. I don't know exactly how all of the things are done in this WikiProject, so I thought I would bring this up here. The list-table at that page includes intraplate earthquakes which I was able to find Wikipedia articles for. Please take a look, and if you can, tell me how I can improve it. Thank you. Dustin ( talk ) 22:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to ping you, but since you at least appear to be the only editors who may possibly be capable of responding to my inquiry, I am doing so. You still are by no means required to respond, but I was really hoping to know how I could improve and whether or not my list is an okay topic. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Although we first made contact on a list article, I would just say that those aren't my preferred areas to work. I think some of the reasons why are that a lot of times they tend to not be that complete, require a lot of work to be complete, and I usually like to focus on improving and making the articles on individual events complete. Sourcing is also an issue as well, considering there's a good deal of info present for each entry, but I may be overly persnickety with regard to that. Many of our articles don't make a distinction as to the tectonic setting or the type of earthquake that's being discussed, though improvement is being made. There was a proposal around this time last year for what I felt was an overly-specific categorization system, and this one may be in a similar position. Like the last one, I won't say no, but just probably won't be fully on board with the idea. BTW, I am not a pro with these articles, and just consider myself a worker bee in this project. Thanks again for the help on the other list, Dawnseeker2000   03:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since there is not other apparent way of making that distinction, I thought that it would be helpful to create a list. Intraplate earthquakes do not usually become as intense as interplate earthquakes, but I considered a list of the significant ones to be useful in making that distinction without necessarily requiring an overly complex categorization system. The list I created only includes earthquakes that have articles, and I actually just had to search for earthquake articles which mention the word "intraplate" and pick through the ones that actually were intraplate. In any case, thank you for the response! Dustin  ( talk ) 04:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is defining those that are actually interplate. Do we regard earthquakes close to, but not actually on a plate boundary as intraplate? What about very broad zones of deformation, such as that between the Arabian Plate and Eurasian Plate are any of those earthquakes intraplate? However you define it, there are going to be hundreds of earthquakes on your list - many of those in the list of earthquakes in Italy, some of those in Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Iran, India, Pakistan, Ecuador, Thailand, all on the list of earthquakes in China. I think that this would probably be better as a category, but I'm open to persuasion, although I'd rather not have a very incomplete list. Mikenorton (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, with two exceptions, I have attempted to include only earthquakes which at least do not appear to be disputed in any way. Also, I decided to only include articles that contain a mention of the earthquake being "intraplate" in the first place, which cut down my possibilities to little if any more than what I have already included. By the way, since I never said it, where I have "several" given as the location, that is mainly just a placeholder where there were more locations then I would consider to be suitable for the table because they would widen it too much. In any case, thank you for the response; I may say more about this later. Dustin  ( talk ) 11:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake properties on Wikidata
(relaying a question that I previously posted on 's talk page) Have you thought of submitting a proposal on Wikidata to capture some of the basic properties of earthquakes? A couple of good places to get the discussion started are: wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Geology and wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science. I've never gone through the process of proposing new properties so I'd have to learn this by myself. (cc ) --DarTar (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the idea. I've only done minor bits of work on Wikidata, and now that you've brought it up I can totally see that there could potentially be large amounts of work categorizing of all sorts of earthquake-related details there, but I'm so consumed with content creation here that there's probably no real way for me to break away from it. Dawnseeker2000   03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, consider that extracting from infoboxes data like magnitude, intensity, depth, date and time, coordinates of the epicenter will make all entries on earthquakes searchable, queriable and easy to plot on a map: none of this is currently possible. Hope someone with more experience on getting properties started on Wikidata can help get the ball rolling. --DarTar (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I can help with proposing and creating properties. I hope anyone interested will sign up with d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Geology. There will be some very cool things we can do with Wikidata, so I think everybody should at least have working knowledge of it. Ping me for any kind of help or questions. Tobias1984 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New map: File:2014 pga2pct50yrs (vector).svg
I have some doubts that anyone will respond to this due to a lack of watchers, but I think it is still worth a try. I thought I would say that I have created a file from a PDF from the United States Geological Survey. I converted it to an SVG file. If there's are place where it would be good to use it, let me know. Thanks. Dustin ( talk ) 16:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks useful, I'll see where else it might be a good addition. Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

New catalogue
While looking into the magnitude of the 1960 Valdivia earthquake, I came across a newly completed catalogue of earthquakes from 1900-2009. Locations, depths and magnitudes (with error estimates) have been recalculated for most major earthquakes in that time period, giving us another reliable source for these things. The catalogue is available as a downloadable spreadsheet, but not online. Mikenorton (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How should earthquake swarm articles be laid out?
There is a draft I have created and sporadically worked on at Draft:2009–14 Oklahoma earthquake swarms. These swarms (and there is reliable coverage indicating that there are multiple identifiable earthquake swarms occurring simultaneously), receiving significant attention from local and national media, most certainly meets notability guidelines, but I am still working on the draft, and there is much left that I hope to add. Also, after asking the United States Geological Survey whether or the "Earthquake Advisory" is still currently effective (read about the advisory in the draft), its continued validity was confirmed. If you have ideas for how I can improve the draft, go ahead (leave comments on the talk page if you can), but for the time being, I am just going to leave it in draft namespace. In any case, I was going to ask how articles about earthquake swarms should be laid out, as there does not appear to be much coverage about how this should go down, and the standard infobox for earthquakes does not appear to be a good fit for swarms of earthquakes, but I think there should be an infobox of some sort. At some point, there appears to be some indication that the USGS may present an "induced seismicity layer" to be added to the National Hazard Map (PDF SVG) which may be much better at accounting for the true short-term risk, and I hope to add this information when it comes out (if it hopefully does). So, please give me your thoughts (on the talk page of the draft if you can, although you can still put them here if you don't feel like going there). Dustin ( talk ) 18:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several swarm articles that could use eithe attention (or creation) and think we could start thinking about some fields to add to Infobox earthquake to accommodate details that are specific to these events. It seems that earthquake articles tend to develop based on what kind of things the sources are discussing so the layout will probably differ from swarm to swarm. Some fields to include on the template that would be useful for swarms could be:


 * Start date
 * End date
 * M of largest event
 * Number of events
 * Causative fault
 * Surface rupture (this might be useful for non-swarm events also)
 * Depth range
 * Previous swarm


 * Those are some ideas, Dawnseeker2000   23:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the reply. Regarding these particular earthquakes, I think most of the faults have a connection to the Nemaha Fault System, but some of the most active swarms (in terms of max magnitude), such as the southern Arcadia Lake / Jones Swarm happen to not be occurring on named faults (as far as I am aware), and are east of the Nemaha Ridge. I'll say more about this in the afternoon (see my userpage clock to know when that is) but thanks for the comments. Dustin  ( talk ) 11:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Earthquakes articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it seems a little unnecessary since the majority of our earthquake articles need general improvement that can be handled by a layperson, let alone an expert. We also have someone who heads the project and he's pretty good about finding trouble spots. Dawnseeker2000   22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the category should be deleted? I have no personal opinion. Iceblock (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we should jump to any conclusions just yet. I could be wrong. It's just that I have seen all of our articles and it seems most could use even basic attention. Let's see what happens. Thank you for checking in, Dawnseeker2000   00:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Iceblock (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction
The Earthquake prediction page is potentially important, but the page needs attention from more than one editor familiar with the subject. Please consider contributing. Grandma (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Orkney earthquake
Would someone here be able to comment at Talk:2014 Orkney earthquake/GA1? I'm doing the GA review, and I'm concerned about the quality of the sources used. I would expect that for the seismic context and the assessment of the cause and description of the quake one would be able to find good quality reliable sources that were scientific in nature. Most of the sources about the technical aspects of the quake in the article are news sources; they quote geologists, but that seems less than ideal to me. Are there better sources available for this sort of information? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area FAR
I have nominated Geology of the Capitol Reef area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

archiving the talk page
I saw someone suggest archiving the talk page - I've never done it - is the template below correct? do we want to do that ? I have no objection but it's a bit too bold for me to do that as I'm not sure of the tech involved. EdwardLane (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's one where I think that I understand all the parameters (taken from WikiProject Palaeontology) -


 * With a little trepidation I'm adding this to the talk page - I don't mess around with this sort of thing either. Thanks to SandyGeorgia for providing the necessary push and also for sorting out the template. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on Miszabot, but it seems to have worked, so I'm unwatching now. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Trimming and focusing content
A couple of the articles have seen quite a trim in the last couple of days, and I even took a stab at cleaning up Richter magnitude scale before having a change of heart. The trim on that one wasn't welcomed at all, so reversed myself, but there are some other articles that may need some consolidating/trimming. The one on San Jacinto Fault Zone has a number of earthquakes that are discussed. I've thought about whether that section should be kept more than a few times. Right now I'm working on lesser-known California earthquakes and I may even get around to creating several that are mentioned in that section. Then remove? Not sure right now. Dawnseeker2000  01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Nepal earthquake listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2015 Nepal earthquake. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2006 Java earthquake listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for May 2006 Java earthquake to be moved to 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sabah earthquake
thought I'd mention the article on 2015 Sabah earthquake - I'm not sure if I have the skills but the article is likely to get a reasonable amount of traffic - due the recent news story. Apparently local beliefs suggest that spirits caused the earthquake - so making that article as clear as possible about what actually caused it - the movement of plate X at cm/year in a certain direction, and the adjacent plate Y heading in a different direction at cm/year ... etc etc. I can try and dig the info out but one of you may be familiar with the region's geology - or know where to look to find that ? EdwardLane (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I found two articles that have some related material that could be used. Both have their own reference sections where other possibilities are listed:


 * Tectonic Evolution and Sedimentation of Sabah, North Borneo, Malaysia – American Association of Petroleum Geologists
 * The origin of the 'circular basins' of Sabah, Malaysia – Geological Society of Malaysia

Dawnseeker2000 14:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Both articles look like good finds - quite a lot to absorb. EdwardLane (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More from Robert Hall


 * Contraction and extension in northern Borneo driven by subduction rollback - Journal of Asian Earth Sciences


 * and this one from another group


 * The recent convergence on the NW Borneo Wedge—a crustal-scale gravity gliding evidenced from GPS - Geophysical Journal International


 * There had been a lot of disagreement about exactly what is going on beneath Sabah - active subduction or transpression or gravity collapse. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a start on tidying up the article, intending to add a tectonic setting section using the material that we've gathered above. I'm somewhat familiar with the regional geology, having worked on offshore Sabah about ten years ago, although the understanding is in a state of flux. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

looks good - and at least gives some sense of what is going on to me - thanks EdwardLane (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft class
I created Category:Draft-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles to add in the drafts (there's a lot of earthquake and other draft articles currently untagged). I don't know if there's a banner for to-dos for the projects but drafts could be added as a new focus. At the very least, reviewing the drafts may be helpful since the people here may know sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - will look at how this could be added to the project page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of earthquakes
The criteria for inclusion on the list articles needs to be refined a bit. I've never looked back through the page histories to check where the arbitrary M6+ threshold came from, but in my opinion, listing every M6 & above event is not the right direction to keep going. Currently, we're listing all M6+ earthquakes, but some are non-events, as in no damage, injuries, or deaths. I'm initiating this discussion to consider why we are doing that. Not every M6+ event is notable by default and I don't think that using magnitude alone is sufficient to keep using it in order to qualify for the lists.

I've been considering WP:INDISCRIMINATE (In a nutshell: Wikipedia doesn't exist to list pages of sprawling statistics) since last winter while working on a list article. Some of the lists that we have are very large and contain uninteresting and unnecessary events. Let's let the seismological agencies keep doing what they've been doing (isn't the new USGS site amazing?) and let's change the way we approach these list articles by only including noteworthy events. Other great resources that readers of our encyclopedia can peruse include the National Geophysical Data Center, National Earthquake Information Center, and International Seismological Centre. I just don't think there's a good reason to duplicate every M6 & above event that they list.

I'm proposing that we include some additional requirements for inclusion on these list articles. The main reason is listed above (the agencies have all the statistics an earthquake junky could ever want) but there are other internal things to consider as well. If a person wanted to shoot for featured content, for example, they'd have a tough time making a case for including low-intensity non-events to a reviewer. Please see the Stand-alone_lists for stand-alone lists for more about that aspect. (There's no reason that we shouldn't be shooting for featured content on the work that we do.) What I'd really like to see is an equivalent guideline similar to Mikenorton's notability guidelines for stand-alone earthquake articles. That has been a great resource for helping to clean up unwanted/unnecessary WikiProject Earthquakes articles at AfD and I'd like to have something similar to fall back on for use in maintaining our focus and direction with the list articles.

Matt EK 87 has been tirelessly working on lists of earthquakes by year and I brought this to his attention last weekend. He started List of earthquakes in 1900 in January 2014 and has created list articles all the way up to the mid-1950s. In the past week, we have both made some progress in reducing the number of non-notable events on some of the early 20th-century list articles, and I think the same type of work should be applied to our more current lists. The new inclusion criteria would still include a specific magnitude threshold, but would also include intensity, as it is based on the effects of the shock (and is what we should be looking for—events with consequences—not just events that happened):

M6 or greater and one or more of the following:


 * intensity VI (Strong) or greater on the Mercalli intensity scale
 * Injuries
 * Damage
 * Deaths

Occasionally, small to moderate events (of less than magnitude 6) have high intensities (and related effects – damage, injuries, or deaths). Those events are noteworthy and are worth listing, but to continue blindly adding events based on magnitude alone is impractical. Dawnseeker2000 19:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, a listing based on the effect of the shock implies that countries that are well prepared to earthquakes as well as places in the middle of nowhere will not appear anymore. It won't be representative of where earthquake occur. This is a human-centric vision. Secondly, I agree that thresholds for injuries and damages are not so well defined. Wykx 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Magnitude alone is not enough, depth in km is also clearly significant. Proximity to inhabited areas or geologically interesting structures might also affect that. Not sure if there is a good formula for inclusion/not. EdwardLane (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input EdwardLane. Wykx, let me clarify that yes, my intention is to refine these lists by reducing the total number of events that are listed. We are only interested in shocks that affect people, places, and things. These lists should exist as something to fall back on if there's an earthquake that doesn't meet the notability requirements, or wouldn't be practical, for a standalone article. Two or three sentences does not make an article, but is an ideal amount of text in a list for a lightly or moderately damaging event. The goal is to stop using these lists as a dumping ground for every event above some superficial value. Dawnseeker2000  22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not only interesting to know events affecting people, places and things but also to know where main events occur on the planet. Wykx 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand on what you mean by "main events". The reason I'm wanting clarification is that a significant amount of the events that are listed don't affect people, places, or things. Dawnseeker2000  00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those with the highest magnitudes. Wykx 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Altiplano Plate AfD in progress at Articles_for_deletion/Altiplano_Plate
. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alboran Sea earthquake today
The Metro is reporting a 6.6 magnitude earthquake in the Alboran Sea today. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An interesting earthquake (down to 6.1 now), but not one that should get an article I think, USGS summary, based on IV-V maximum intensity. The distribution of aftershocks combined with the focal mechanism suggest that this was caused by movement on a SSW-NNE trending dextral strike-slip fault (my OR). Mikenorton (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Is this an incident, accident or a disaster, for the renaming discussion, see talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

List page proposal
I think we should add the depth of the earthquakes along with the intensity as that is very important in determining its damage potential.Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you be more precise: to add it where? Wykx  (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have intensity, why do our readers need depth? Dawnseeker2000  15:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * to the list of earthquake pages (by year)
 * Depth matters more 'cause smaller intensities at a lower depth do more than big ones deep down.Lihaas (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's the felt intensity that matters most. Many list by year articles do have depth either as a column or in each entry - see almost all of those in Template:Earthquakes by year. Only 2016 has a column for intensity, but it could be added to all the others. Mikenorton (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

VAN "natural time"
"VAN" is back, with a vengeance. Could use some additional opinions from folks with some awareness of seismology/geology at Talk:Earthquake prediction as to whether "natural time" is a concept "broadly supported by scholarship in its field" per WP:FRINGE. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Still could use some assistance at Talk:Earthquake prediction, with both "natural time", and also the overall "VAN POV-pushing" issue. If some of you folks with knowledge of, or at least some kind of familiarity with, this topic don't join in there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method". Anyone that works in the field should consider how much professional embarrassment will be incurred if we let this key article devolve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Holapaco77 (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

TOTW 45/2016
Just to inform you that the article 1639 Amatrice earthquake has been elected today as TOTW - Translation Of The Week 45/2016 by MediaWiki. --Holapaco77 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Christchurch, NZ
There's been another earthquake in Christchurch. The 2016 Christchurch earthquake article might need to be retitled. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

magnitude type problem
Talk:2016_Fukushima_earthquake. Anyone with a clue, with a bit of knowledge? I'm not a real seismologist, unfortunately, but i'm traveling on the edge of knowledge within (de.)wikipedia, trying to find out how things really are. So far i found no knowledge on special Magnitude labels (and other items). --Itu (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see this page on the USGS site. "Mwb" is a specific notation for "Mw based on moment tensor inversion of long-period (~10 - 100 s) body-waves (P- and SH)." ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Itu is asking about how Wikipedia lists the magnitude type as a subscript, e.g. Mwb vs. Mwb. They mean the same thing; the only difference is the notation. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is the correct notation. Apparently the USGS is too lazy to do it on its website in most cases. In printed works, however, the correct notation is used. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on list format
A 'RfC on list format' is open at Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016. All editors are welcome to respond to the RfC.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I will post a response there in the next few days.  Dawnseeker2000  04:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox_earthquake: Magnitude notation
See my proposal at Infobox_earthquake: Magnitude notation. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And more basic: Talk:Seismic_scale. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Another earthquake in Mexico
Sky News reporting another earthquake in Mexico, registering 6.2Mw in Oaxaca state. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

New article help
Hello! I created a new article about an earthquake, 1688 Sannio earthquake, but I'm not an expert in the field and I'd like someone knowledgeable to take a look at it. Namely, I need help in two ways: Any general tip would be precious! I also have a question: would it be ok to insert this article in the List of historical earthquakes?
 * 1) A quick, general c/e since English isn't my first language, especially a check of the seismology-related terms
 * 2) There are good scientific sources related to the technical aspect of the earthquake, but they are all too hard to decipher for me, so if someone has some time to waste I'd really appreciate some info in the article taken from this publication, and for anyone who has access to paywalled sites like geoscienceworld or sciencedirect, this or this.

Thanks a lot! Zidanie5 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Never forget: Google is your friend! And Google Scholar is a good friend. Searching on Scholar for "1688 Sannio earthquake" got me 252 hits. Sure, many of these are only passing mentions, but even those can provide interesting details.


 * There are several catalogs of historical earthquakes that might provide an authoritative estimates of magnitude and epicenter, but off-hand I don't recall anything. The USGS website might mention some (watch for "PAGER-CAT"), otherwise google on "catalogs of historical earthquakes". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of new temlate for ISC links at Talk:Lists_of_earthquakes
Anyone here still awake? In case anyone missed it (and might be interested), I have described a new template for linking to the ISC at Talk:Lists of earthquakes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of proposals to modify 'Infobox earthquake'
Please note that I made two proposals at Template talk:Infobox earthquake for how date and time is handled, and for adding links to the ISC and ANSS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of discussion re lists of aftershocks
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Lists of earthquakes on whether lists of aftershocks are ever notable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Book on historical earthquakes
For any of you interested in historical earthquakes: I see there is a good book on the topic for sale at the GSA on-line bookstore for only $10 (+ $5 shipping). &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that "Ancient Earthquakes"? If so I can see some of it using Google Books and it looks like it has quite a lot of useful information on some of the earthquakes that I've previously worked on. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

New notability guidelines
The new WP:Notability (earthquakes) guidelines are up for review. The Specific guidance section particularly could use more feedback from experienced editors (as many of you are!) on just what is, or is not, a notable earthquake. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline doesn't seem to pertain to inclusion in lists like List of earthquakes in 2019. Is there a community consensus on what to include here? I'm thinking specifically of this morning's 4.6 event near Seattle, which is being described the largest in the Puget Sound area since the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. If it makes a difference, it is being reported countrywide; e.g. NYC local media and national news networks. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Earthquake? What earthquake? Did you notice an earthquake? :-)
 * There seems to be a great deal of slackness in applying (or not applying?) notability guidelines to elements of lists. Why shouldn't they pertain? As I vaguely recall, elements of a collection need not be individually notable if the collection itself is notable. But I don't see that here. (And if we included all M 4.5+ quakes the lists would be useless.) Criterion "h" ("M < 5 and no reported deaths or damage") seems applicable here. As to "the largest since X": just like it says at WP:BIGFROG: there's always a "biggest since" whatever. Unless there are further (and notable) events I would say this quake is nothing notable, and ought not to be noted, not even in a list. Keep in mind the primary criterion of notability: "significant and enduring impact on human society". I see very little prospect of that in this case. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Philippine earthquakes - Intensity inconsistencies.
I have noted that there is a frequent inconsistency related to earthquakes in the Philippines. This is because the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology uses its own intensity scale, the PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS) rather than the Modified Mercalli intensity scale (MMI). The problem is national media sources don't specify if its the MMI or the PEIS they are using leading to good faith edits of "correcting" the intensity of Philippine earthquakes.

I have resorted to mentioning both intensity scales in the recent 2019 Batanes earthquake. In the PEIS system, the max intensity would be placed at VII (Destructive) and the USGC places the earthquake at VIII (Severe) in the MMI. Also how would we deal about this in the infobox.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We get similar problems with magnitudes from different agencies, sometimes using different scales. I think that mentioning both is the best way to go, as you've done and that could also be done in the infobox. Mikenorton (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Earthquakes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Earthquakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Earthquakes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for review
Hallo geophysicists ;-) it would be great if someone among you could find some time to review this short article about the earthquake which rocked Istanbul and surroundings on 22 May 1766. Being myself only an engineer, it is for sure better if a specialist take a look at it. Many thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What features does this bot provide? What would it be useful for? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This project is not part of the database for the bot, looking at the current index here. It would be very useful to be able to generate a full list of articles that are tagged with WP Earthquakes so that recent changes could be monitored as in this for WP Geology. I have no idea, however, how to get the project added to the database. Mikenorton (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Recent changes" being – what? Except for the very rare cases where an article is retracted, or there is a specific correction or erratum involved, I don't see articles being specifically updated (or changed) so much as later articles add more data or consideration of the topic. If someone is quoted as supporting some view, and then changes their position, we would certainly want to know about it. But I doubt if that is best learned by monitoring the source of the original quotation, as the subsequent source quite likely won't cite all the instances where the former opinion was expressed. I think it is better to rely on editors who are interested enough in the topic to stay abreast of current developments, as these are often (even usually) not traceable from whatever subset of the literature has been previously cited in an article. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strictly that should be "related changes", although "recent changes" is more descriptive and is how it's linked from the WP Geology Main Page. It's a way of monitoring changes in any articles that link to or from a specific page such as the bot-generated WikiProject Geology/List of articles, producing what is essentially a project specific watchlist. I only watch a fraction of the 19,465 articles in WP Geology, because I can look at the "related changes" page for that list and see activity on all articles tagged with the project. For WP Earthquakes I have about half of the project's articles watched - it would just be easier to be able to watch all of them. The "Related changes" link is in the "tools" section of each page. Mikenorton (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely convinced of the utility here, but if you like it that's good enough for me. Thanks. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ISC event numbers
I have recently noticed that some of these that have been added to articles no longer find the correct event in the isc catalogue. I don't know how general this problem is, I'm just letting other editors know that there is an issue. I intend to check back through all the earthquake articles, starting with those in 2019. I'll report back on what I find. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * With examples? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably broke it 🤣 Dawnseeker2000  22:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. Mikenorton (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the 2018 Hualien earthquake I added the isc event with this edit. It targeted the correct event in the catalogue at the time and I know that it was still working fine a few months ago when I checked on the bibliography. When I checked today the data gave a location in the Atlantic at Lat Long (0.0, 0.0) and no bibliography - I updated the isc-event with this edit. I updated another three this evening that had the same issue - all events in 2019, but I haven't finished checking yet - I would say at least 10% of events had the issue on this admittedly small sample. Mikenorton (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's the situation. while the EQ-isc-link template links to both the "On-Line Bulletin" (catalog) and the "Online Event Bibliography", the isc-event parameter in the EQ Infobox links only to the Bibliography. Which has no content until there is some bibliography, often for a year or more. This choice of links is a design choice: the Bulletin page is quite technical, and I reckon our readers will find the bibliography more interesting, and less intimidating. The bibliography page is also where one ends up using the event index. I considered having the Infobox link to both, but decided that would be taking too much screen space.


 * Another consideration: it appears that event ids are replaced as more information comes in, which might explain why a link stops working.


 * So would it be better to things differently? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've gone back to the beginning of 2013 checking every earthquake in the "by year" templates and I can now say that, although the problem is significant for recent earthquakes, it doesn't seem to affect those that are more than 4 years old - the oldest one that I found was from December 2015 - but nothing from the previous three years, which is encouraging. I've updated all those that I found in error, which totalled 24, with an average of about 6 a year. I don't think that we need to change anything - just check earthquake articles more than about a year old every now and then. Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not so much "in error" as the targeted Event Bibliography page has not yet been created? Or does that event have a bibliography page under a different event id? (And let's not forget that a single "earthquake" often has multiple identified events, with separate ids.)


 * I'm still trying to work out just what the problem is. The chronological Event Index appears to link only to the Event Bibliography, so if an editor uses that (which is the easiest way to find an event id) there is no entry until the bibliography page is created. I don't know if ISC does that as soon as they notice a publication, or if they wait until they do the authoritative determination (about two years later). Searching the Bulletin will return an extant catalog page, but it won't necessarily have a bibliography page. What I am wondering about: are we finding initial event ids, where the event later gets a different id, which is used for the bibliography page?


 * One way of handling not-yet-extant Bibliography pages is set isc-event to "n/a". That will flag it in Category:EQ_articles_with_ISC_set_'n/a'. Which I see has several recent (and not so recent) entries that ought to be checked. I am also wondering if there might be some way of flagging event ids that don't yet have a bibliography page. Perhaps a "bibli" parameter that would point 'isc-event' to the Bulletin page? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * These are virtually all cases where no event was returned via the "On-line Bulletin" using EQ-isc-link. These all use event IDs that were valid at the time that they were added, but have been updated, such that the old ID produces an error message from the catalogue e.g.such as this for the 2016 southern Taiwan earthquake, before the ID was updated. Mikenorton (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's an update problem. I might ask them about that. And we should have some way of checking these links. More work for the new year. Let me know if you have any inspirations on this. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just clicking on the "authoritative data" link on the template will give you the error message if the ID has been superseded, so that's the quick way to check. I've been adding the templates to those earthquakes that don't have them. Mikenorton (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 1) I don't like having to interrogate each article each time I want to see their status, 2) the "authoritative data" link is at the bottom of the article, and 3) there is still the problem of the isc-eventid not finding a bibliography page. So I have been ruminating on this, and I am thinking of an isc-prosp – or perhaps isc-prosp?? – parameter to the infobox. If set to "y" or "yes" it would direct the event-id to the catalog page, and add the article to a maintenance category. The maintenance tasks would be to check new articles that this flag is set, and to check articles more than two years old for updated event-ids. Comments? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That might work. I've now checked back as far as the start of 2000 and found only one other isc ID in error and that was for another valid earthquake and probably represents a simple mistake, so that's 16 years of earthquakes without any isc ID issues, so I think that we can safely assume that a two year window will suffice. Mikenorton (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Earthquake Spectra articles are free through February 2020
The EERI has changed publishers recently and is no longer disseminating their journal articles and books. This is not an advertised thing, but during the transition to SAGE journals (and through the remainder of February) all articles in every volume since 1984 are available for free. Dawnseeker2000 22:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * All Issues – Earthquake Spectra November 1984 – November 2019


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can find in there - should be some useful damage reports. Mikenorton (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. I should take a quick tour through there. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on wording in the lead of 1976 Tangshan earthquake
There is an RfC on the wording of "ceased to exist" regarding the lead of 1976 Tangshan earthquake. All editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 07:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple new articles and a couple new templates
I've created the following articles and templates: Just making people aware of them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hansel Valley earthquake
 * 1992 St. George earthquake
 * Template:Earthquakes in 1934
 * Template:Earthquakes in Utah


 * Thanks for the update. Mikenorton (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also made List of earthquakes in Utah. It still needs some expansion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested rename of Template:M
Please see the discussion here.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Renaming proposal of earthquake maintenance categories
Please see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Article alert not picked up
The article alerts didn't pick up 2019 Pleasant Hill, California earthquake. (Article for Deletion). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It will appear, I'm not sure what the timelag is, but I wouldn't expect it to be instantaneous. Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Shumagin Earthquake
The earthquake off the coast of Alaska this past July should have a page to itself. It is a large, notable earthquake. It caused damage, a tsunami warning, was all over the news, and occurred on the plate boundary. For these reasons alone, it is necessary that it have its own page dedicated. I will make the page, if anyone wants to help out, feel free to DM on my talk page. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was notable enough among the big ones. What kind of significant damage happened?  Wykx  (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A citation in Yedikule
Could someone explain what this article tries to say and write down to the article (because I don't have enough sismology knowledge to understand it exactly)Ahmetlii (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed the text to better match the cited source. Mikenorton (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to review draft article
Hello! I'm sorry to interrupt, but can anyone please review the draft article for the 2021 West Sulawesi earthquake? It was a large earthquake with death toll that continues to rise. I need help to review the draft immediately so that the article can be accessed more quickly by many people. I have done many editings but I can't edit this by myself. I'm sorry if I asked in the wrong location. Thank you! PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing of earthquake parameters
A lot of earthquakes appear on the main page as part of the "On this day" section. Issues are repeatedly raised regarding some of the offline catalogues used, especially PAGER-CAT and ISC-GEM, both of which are incredibly useful sources. Rather than have repeated discussions, I felt that it would be useful to reach an agreed approach here, rather than argue about it every few weeks or so at WP:Errors. Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. The bottom line is that facts like deaths, injuries, damage, Mw etc are often used in quake blurbs on the main page, and often are only cited to a top-level USGS page which offers no insight as to how to verify the claims.  Also, it seems we mix-and-match using USGS and ISCGEM which don't always agree on things like quake depth, magnitude etc. While it's great to get these disaster articles onto the main page, much of the material within is often nigh-on impossible to verify and regularly internally inconsistent.  As Mike says, it'd be better to get a solution which can be applied in these circumstances, rather than having to continually ask where the information can be verified.  Even the fact that Mike has said these are "offline catalogues" yet an online link is provided is confusing... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I refer to them as "offline" because with both the PAGER-CAT and ISC-GEM catalogues, they have to be downloaded as spreadsheets in order to be checked, which is obviously non-ideal. Looking at the individual parameters:
 * Magnitude, Depth & Location - ANSS provides quick estimates of these parameters, which they sporadically update over a period of days and weeks and occasionally months and years. Mostly they do not take into account other agencies or published papers, except when they do. For pre-2004 (or thereabouts) they often use the ISC-GEM parameters for non-US events. The ISC-GEM catalogue provides recalculated magnitudes, depths and locations for all M>5 earthquakes (current time range is 1904-2016), consistently using moment magnitudes - it takes a few years for an earthquake to get included though. For older earthquakes (pre-1904) it is necessary to delve into many other catalogues, some of which are area specific, and published scientific papers where available.
 * Intensity - ANSS provide good information on this, although it may be superseded by either better local information from local agencies or later publications - NGDC/NOAA provide this information but neither ISC-GEM or PAGER-CAT do.
 * Damage - ANSS have an "Impact" sub-page for each event, but only sometimes does this contain information on damage and these appear to be early estimates. The NDGC/NOAA "Significant earthquake database", which provides information on damage for many earthquakes, is a useful secondary source, although it tends not to include more recently published information. PAGER-CAT provides some information on the number of buildings destroyed.
 * Casualties - The ANSS "Impact" sub-page sometimes contains early estimates of casualty numbers. The NDGC/NOAA "Significant earthquake database" is useful for this, with the caveat already noted. PAGER-CAT contains a compilation of casualty numbers taken from a number of sources, including PDE (provided by the USGS National Earthquakes Information Canter), UTSU (the Catalog of Damaging Earthquakes in the World (through 2015), created by Tokuji Utsu, now maintained by the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquakes in Japan), NGDC/NOAA and EM-DAT (the international disasters database from 1900 to the present). The numbers contained in these, and other published sources, are often contradictory.
 * The catalogues:
 * The ISC add events to their online "Bulletin" normally within 24 hours, which is compilation of observations from multiple agencies around the world. Eventually earthquakes get added to the ISC-GEM catalogue, once they have been thoroughly reviewed and the parameters recalculated in a consistent way, taking into account published papers in addition to the initial observations. This is intended to be the prime global reference catalogue for earthquake parameters and is routinely used by seismologists, particularly those looking at future earthquake hazard. The download page is here.
 * PAGER-CAT (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response Catalog) - A Composite Earthquake Catalog for Calibrating Global Fatality Models "incorporates eight global earthquake catalogs and additional auxiliary data to provide comprehensive information not only for hypocentral locations, magnitudes, and human fatalities, but when available, focal mechanisms, the country of origin or the distance to the nearest landmass, local time and day of week, presence of secondary effects (e.g., tsunami, landslide, fire, or liquefaction) and deaths caused by these effects, the number of buildings damaged or destroyed, and the number of people injured or left homeless." The download page is rather opaque and I am considering whether we should directly link to the automatic download of the version cited - I've done this for the February 1998 Afghanistan earthquake article. Knowing what to do with it once you've got it is another issue. The columns are all labelled, and once you've identified the earthquake that you're interested in from its date, it should be possible to work out what's what. However, when you download and open the file in Excel, you have to change the formatting of the date column (B) to date, or all you get are hashes. Irritating, but not insurmountable in my view.
 * double clicking a column edge will usually expand the width and so that might work without needing to tweak it to 'date' format (tends to show as hashes on a lot of xls sheets I've used - I've not downloaded one of these to check - but I thought i'd mention it as it might save you some time in future 09:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both ISC-GEM and PAGER-CAT can be superseded by newer information published in scientific papers. The ISC event number in the infobox links to a regularly updated bibliography, which is most helpful, but the GEM catalogue may not reflect this new research. PAGER-CAT is only as good as its sources, which are other databases, rather than scientific papers, so that needs to be kept in mind. In the absence of later publications, or other definitive information, the ISC-GEM and PAGER-CAT are our main reliable sources for parameters and casualties. Mikenorton (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've started a section under "Resources" on the main project page to list the main catalogues/databases with some notes on their use, so that interested editors have somewhere to go to find out more about these sources. Mikenorton (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 Sicily earthquake
Hi! In December 22, 2020 there were a magnitude 4.4 earthquake. I would like create the page about this eartquake, is this article suitable for Wikipedia? Dr Salvus (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Is this the one you're speaking about?
 * M 4.5 - 7 km NNW of Scoglitti, Italy (2020-12-22 20:27:23 (UTC) 36.955°N 14.407°E 23.0 km depth)
 * Dawnseeker2000 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Dr Salvus (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for that. Can you please list a few of the sources that you'll be using? Dawnseeker2000  22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In this moment I don't know which sourced I'll used, but I'm sure that these will be reliable. Tomorrow (UTC+1 time zone) I will start the project in my sandbox. My question is: "Is this earthquake notable for becoming a Wikipedia article?". I would like have an answer for avoid to do a possibly useless project. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the USGS report, I would say no. I was hoping that you had one or more comprehensive sources that could be used to build an article. Dawnseeker2000  23:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will create the page in one sandbox and you'll can have a glance in my sandbox and you'll can view the sources I'will put. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of notability, the project has its own suggested guidelines, but we also need to look at WP:EVENT, which is a full WP guideline - to quote the summary "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope". As far as I can tell, this earthquake does not reach that level. Mikenorton (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These are the source I'll use.      Dr Salvus (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on those sources, I am almost certain that the earthquake is not notable. The press coverage seems to be local rather than global and the lack of damage or casualties means that it had no significant impact. To quote again from WP:EVENT, "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

New colorful template for earthquake infoboxes
I stated a discussion for MMI at WP:Infoboxes.

Dawnseeker2000 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Earthquakes articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Earthquakes articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

GAR for 2008 Sichuan earthquake
2008 Sichuan earthquake, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Eurasian Plate	6,636	221	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I add an earthquake that happened in 1922 in Brazil due to "significant media coverage"?
the first paragraph of List of earthquakes in 1922 says the following: "Only magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquakes appear on the list. Lower magnitude events are included if they have caused death, injury or damage. Events which occurred in remote areas will be excluded from the list as they wouldn't have generated significant media interest"

The earthquake that happened in 2022-01-27 was 5.1 in magnitude. The sources from this time claim one person died "due to shock" (or panic, not sure how to translate), but this seems unlikely. I can still mention with an observation though. No one was injured or caused significant damage.

So, my main sources (mostly from Brazil, and in Brazilian Portuguese) are the following:


 * http://moho.iag.usp.br/eq/event/bsb19220127065040 -> Centro de Sismologia USP
 * https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-60147867 -> BBC in Portuguese, with photos of local newspapers of the time, mostly covering the event as it happened in São Paulo, but mentioning a few other places
 * https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2022/01/terremoto-que-balancou-sao-paulo-completa-cem-anos.shtml -> Folha de S. Paulo, shorter than BBC article, also mentions that the earthquake was felt in other places/states other than São Paulo

My question is if this earthquake fits the criteria to be in the list, since the cause of death is dubious, the magnitude was 5.1, and no one was injured (according to the sources) and there was no significant damage. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Deprecading Erdbeben news as a source
This issue regarding Erdbeben news was brought up in Talk:List of earthquakes in 2022 due to editors relying exclusively on the site to reference descriptions. Mikenorton provided some imputs into this matter and highlighted that the site is exclusively managed by Jens Skapski, without external parties reviewing information. Without a fact-checking team in place, information is susceptible to inconsistencies and factual errors. Mike also proposed we deprecate it as a source. Hoping for additional imputs and a possible consensus on this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

1995 Aigio earthquake peer review
Hello, I have listed the 1995 Aigio earthquake for Peer Review at Peer_review/1995_Aigio_earthquake/archive1 as prep for FAC, and I would greatly appreciate it if everyone could leave some comments on what can be improved in the article. Thank you, SamBroGaming (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Help with Early Warning Labs
Early Warning Labs, An R&D partner with the USGS for the ShakeAlert project, was nominated for deletion. Please see COI! Any help with references or thoughts on ATD would help. EricFishers11 (talk) EricFishers11 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Please see Village pump (policy). Rschen7754 15:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Request regarding restoration of article
Dear Admins and Editors,

I am writing to bring to your attention an incident regarding the removal and redirection of the article on the 2023 Doda earthquake. I believe that this notable event deserves its own dedicated article and kindly request your assistance in restoring it. I am adding this topic here after discussion on User's talkpage who removed this.

The 2023 Doda earthquake, which registered a magnitude of 5.5, had a significant impact on the Chenab Valley region. According to various reliable sources, including Reuters, Times of India, The Hindu, India Today, Indian Express, and Deutsche Welle, the earthquake resulted in the unfortunate loss of six lives. This tragic consequence further emphasizes the significance and severity of the event.

Despite the earthquake being of moderate magnitude, it is essential to consider the localized impact and the cultural, historical, and societal implications for the affected region. The Deutsche Welle news article (Link here), titled "Kashmir: Can traditional construction mitigate quake damage?," provides valuable insights into the aftermath of the earthquake and its potential effects on traditional construction practices in the area. This source adds depth to our understanding of the event and highlights the need for a dedicated article to document and preserve this notable earthquake.

Moreover, I would like to address the concerns raised about the event's lasting consequences and in-depth coverage. While the earthquake may not have had far-reaching impacts or received extensive coverage on a global scale, it is important to recognize the relevance and significance of events within their specific contexts. The loss of lives and the potential implications for local construction practices demonstrate the lasting consequences of the earthquake on the Chenab Valley.

In light of the compelling evidence supporting the notability and importance of the 2023 Doda earthquake, I earnestly request your intervention to restore the article. By doing so, we can ensure the preservation of accurate and comprehensive information about this notable event for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I greatly appreciate your expertise and contributions to maintaining the quality and integrity of earthquake-related articles on Wikipedia.

Sincerely  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 17:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources that exist in the article don't describe a noteworthy event so I think that the redirect is sufficient. Dawnseeker2000  22:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Kindly check this version of article and then DW article of yesterday.  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 00:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Input requested: Articles for deletion/Olancha Earthquake Sequence
Please see Articles for deletion/Olancha Earthquake Sequence. Is this something we want to keep? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Richter magnitude scale
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richter magnitude scale that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

1139 Ganja earthquake
There seems to be a problem with the 1139 Ganja earthquake article. See Talk:1139 Ganja earthquake. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Responded on the article talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)