Talk:1356 Basel earthquake

Note for proofreader

This article has been edited since the translation finished. Please see this version for the text as it appeared immediately after translation. Carcharoth 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Now proofread. Carcharoth 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change proposal

I propose that the move from 1356 Basel earthquake to Basel earthquake be undone (but that the talk page which was created here is moved back), and a redirect from Basel earthquake to 1356 Basel earthquake be left in place. As the redirect at 1356 Basel earthquake (created by the move) has no history, I think a simple move back can be done, but I will list at Wikipedia:Requested moves, as Matthead (who originally moved the page) has expressed preference for Basel earthquake. See also the discussion at User_talk:Matthead#1356_Basel_earthquake. Carcharoth 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Specific Google searches show 331 hits for "1356 Basel earthquake" [1], 607 for "Basel earthquake" (which also includes the 331 hits for "1356 Basel earthquake", so that is about 276 hits for pages with "Basel earthquake" but not "1356 Basel earthquake") [2], 43 for "Basel 1356 earthquake" [3], and 18 for "Basel earthquake of 1356" [4], and 14 for "Great Basel Earthquake" [5]. Carcharoth 23:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to move, unless there have been other earthquakes in Basel; why should the reader or linker be expected to remember the year? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the discussion there involves how to link. I see nothing wrong with linking "1356 Basel earthquake", and doing so allows us the flexibility of writing "Basel earthquake of 1356," or even, in a suitable context, "The year after her marriage, the Basel earthquake..." In a parallel case, Alexander Cruden links "The Correctors Earnest Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, published in 1756, was occasioned by the earthquake at Lisbon". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last example of linking uses piping. Why not do that for all the examples? Here is the example with and without piping:

• Without piping - "1356 Basel earthquake", and doing so allows us the flexibility of writing "Basel earthquake of 1356," or even, in a suitable context, "The year after her marriage, the Basel earthquake..." In a parallel case, Alexander Cruden links "The Correctors Earnest Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, published in 1756, was occasioned by the earthquake at Lisbon".
• With piping - "1356 Basel earthquake", and doing so allows us the flexibility of writing "Basel earthquake of 1356," or even, in a suitable context, "The year after her marriage, the Basel earthquake..." In a parallel case, Alexander Cruden links "The Correctors Earnest Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, published in 1756, was occasioned by the earthquake at Lisbon".

Piping solves most problems, and articles should be at the most common name used to refer to the event, not the name that is most convenient for Wikipedia editors. In any case, redirects deal with both the problems of readers and editors typing in 'Basel earthquake'. Carcharoth 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Piping is a (small) inconvenience; as at Cruden, which pipes because the phrasing 1755 Lisbon earthquake would be unnatural. We should not force the choice between inconvenience and artificiality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that 1356 Basel earthquake is the right format, like 1755 Lisbon earthquake? Both are the names commonly used to refer to the event. Seems clear-cut to me - if the literature is referring to this earthquake as the 1356 Basel earthquake, why on earth should we have the right to turn around and insist on calling it the Basel earthquake? Carcharoth 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What have I said to suggest such a conclusion?

On the contrary, we now use 1755 Lisbon earthquake; and you propose adding 1356 Basel earthquake. We should do neither; both forms are inconvenient, long, and unnecessarily disambiguated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when are the title of Wikipedia articles when referring to a named event meant to be constructed on the basis of convenience or minimal disambiguation? General topic articles, yes, you have to be creative and precise with article names, but for specific named objects and events, the main criterion is the most commonly used name. I agree that with earthquake articles it is not clear cut (the names "1755 Lisbon earthquake", "Lisbon earthquake" and "Great Lisbon Earthquake" seem equally well-used). I have been searching for a guide on earthquake naming conventions, but haven't found anything so far. The default seems to be to use the name in the literature. In this case, the 1356 Basel earthquake. Can you explain why we should use a different name to that used by those writing and studying the event? Carcharoth 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the adoption of Wikipedia:naming conventions (common names), which says, among much else: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"; "Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general" and gives examples of common names that Wikipedia uses instead of a more elaborate, more formal or more scientifically precise version. 1356 fails the first test: what would our readers search for; 1755 may or may not. Both dates fail the second: is this as simple as possible?

If there were a predictable convention of including dates with earthquake articles, that would be another matter; but there clearly isn't. Why should our readers have to look up the quake to find out what it's listed under? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is no common name for the Basel earthquake. Most readers will type in "Basel earthquake" and get redirected to "1356 Basel earthquake". Where is the problem? There is a long history of naming event articles this way. The examples you give concern names of people, animals, a statue and a philosophy (for want of a better word). It says nothing about names for events. It is incredibly common for event articles, and specifically earthquake articles, to have a year in the title. See Category:Earthquakes_in_the_21st_century; Category:Earthquakes_in_the_20th_century; Category:Earthquakes_in_the_19th_century. I count 49 earthquake articles with a year in their title. It is how things are done. This is why I originally asked for the article to be created at 1356 Basel earthquake, and I feel that Basel earthquake should have been created as a redirect, rather than having it done the other way around. Carcharoth 00:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the first two references used in this article refer to it as the 1356 Basel earthquake. Anyway, I'm off to actually link this article to others in the encyclopedia! Carcharoth 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Something I've realised might not be clear from the above is that the article was originally at 1356 Basel earthquake. When creating the translation request, I considered both 1356 Basel earthquake and Basel earthquake for the title, but neglected to actually do all the redirects after I'd chosen 1356 Basel earthquake (based on what the references called it and what other historical earthquakes have been called). Anyway, I'll go and do all these redirects now. Carcharoth 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support more than half the articles in subcategories of Category:Earthquakes by country appear to be in the form "<year> <place> earthquake". This is an example of being as precise as necessary. If/when there is another earthquake in Basel, who is going to want to move this page and fix the links at the same time as writing the article about 20?? Basel Earthquake? --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request rejected as malformed

Hmm. Because I didn't use the required template to generate a discussion-vote, the request was rejected as malformed. I'm restarting it below. Carcharoth 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

• 1356 Basel earthquake
• Basel earthquake
• Basel 1356 earthquake
• Basel earthquake of 1356
• Great Basel Earthquake
• Great Basel earthquake
• 1356 Basle earthquake
• Basle earthquake
• Basle 1356 earthquake
• Basle earthquake of 1356
• Great Basle Earthquake
• Great Basle earthquake
• 1356 earthquake
• 1356 Basel Earthquake
• Basel Earthquake
• 1356 Basle Earthquake
• Basle Earthquake
• 1356 Earthquake

I think the above are all reasonable (I didn't write out all possible combinations of capital letters and spellings of Basel). Carcharoth 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting German article

This German article, w:de:Walram von Thierstein seems to have something about the earthquake. Anyone want to request a translation and see what it says? Carcharoth 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The legend for short: two careless horsemen riding from Pfeffingen to Basel nearly hit an oncoming priest near Reinach, who warns them to be more careful, or else an Unglück (accident/disaster) will happen. They laugh at him and proceed, but Count Walram von Thierstein eventually regrets and returns to apologize when, while being on open field, the quake sets in. He is horrified to see the castles of Pfeffingen, Reichenstein, Birseck und Dorneck crumble to dust. His Burg Pfeffingen is damaged, but his family alive. Ritter von Bärenfels, on the other hand, just was under the Basel city gate when the Earthquake set in and was killed, as would have had von Thierstein. He set up the cross at the road near Reinach to commemorate, which was rebuild and moved since. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if this could be true at all, given that the quake happened at 22:00 in mid-October. Pretty dark at the time, hard to imagine someone could see four castle at once unless under full moon and clear sky. Has anyone a Moon almanach for Julian calendar period, or is willing to check distances in Google Earth? :-) -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great story! Thanks. Not sure how to put this in the article. Would it be sufficient to quote the source given in the German article, or is it best to try and find an English source. Must also remember to add more about the damage to castles and the damage to Basel cathedral. As for whether it is true or not, well, probably not, but just call it a story rather than a historical fact. Carcharoth 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another article

Well, there are lots of articles on this earthquake, but this pdf paper from the USGS looks good:

• "Lambertetal QSR2004" (PDF). (1.26 MiB).

Mentions Thierstein, but also crashes my browser. Carcharoth 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. That's already in the article. The "Lambert J., Winter T., Dewez T. J. B. et P. Sabourault (2005). New hypotheses on the maximum damage area of the 1356 Basel earthquake (Switzerland), Quaternary Science Reviews, 24, pp. 383–401." one - though having this link is good. I'll pop it in there. Carcharoth 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. The new name is consistent with many other earthquake articles, and seems to be a quite common name of the event. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Basel earthquake → 1356 Basel earthquake — more common name used in earthquake literature - see also talk page discussion. This is a relisting of an earlier, malformed listing. Also, new naming convention evidence mentioned in discussion. Carcharoth 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support - (1) This is how the earthquake is commonly referred to in earthquake literature; (2) The new name follows the naming conventions for historical events in general; (3) The new name follows the convention for how other earthquakes have been named on Wikipedia (see Category:Earthquakes; (4) The page was originally created as 1356 Basel earthquake. Carcharoth 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support More consistent with other earthquake articles. 205.157.110.11 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I see no reason to change my comment above: more than half the articles in subcategories of Category:Earthquakes by country appear to be in the form "<year> <place> earthquake". This is an example of being as precise as necessary. If/when there is another earthquake in Basel, who is going to want to move this page and fix the links at the same time as writing the article about 20?? Basel Earthquake? --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose as above; this is overspecification. Basel earthquake would be equally distinctive, is easier to link, and will presumably remain a redirect. I do not follow the claim about historical events in general; we have Battle of Gettysburg, not 1863 Battle of Gettysburg. The literature as cited here seems to vary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• This is a relisting of an earlier, malformed request. Please see the earlier discussion further up the talk page. I will notify the other two people involved in the discussion. The discussion with the original page mover, Matthead, is now at User_talk:Matthead/Archive2006#1356_Basel_earthquake. Carcharoth 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• In support of the move, there is this recent discussion about naming conventions. Carcharoth 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Epicentre

The article states: "The epicentre was in Germany, in the Upper Rhine valley (Rhine rift) between Waldkirch and St. Peter in Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald." The German Wikipedia and some other sources indicate, that the epicentre was located south of Basel, close to Reinach, Basel-Country, and not some 50 miles north of Basel. Could you plse doublecheck? Rgds --Boobarkee (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The same epicenter location is in the Earthquakes in Germany summary and also in the Upper Rhine Plain Seismic activity section. Citation needed has been added to the text in this article. If the location should be S of Basel, the Category:Earthquakes in Germany should be reconsidered for this article. SBaker43 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The epicentre to the south of Basel, near Aesch is also in the infobox and therefore on the location map. The best reference for this is probably the An earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe based on Mw magnitudes, this is also very similar to the NGDC catalogue and the Utsu catalogue. The description of the epicentral location needs to be changed unless a better ref is found, although that's unlikely I think. Mikenorton (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1356 Basel earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720000723/http://www.kantonslabor-bs.ch/files/presse/93_3_Expertise-Fessenheim-f.pdf to http://www.kantonslabor-bs.ch/files/presse/93_3_Expertise-Fessenheim-f.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)