Talk:1983 Coalinga earthquake

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Coalinga earthquake search -- (

• wp
• g
• b

)

Rename?

1983 Coalinga earthquake seems what most news sources use and is consistent with other earthquake names. Bebestbe (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It seems fine to keep it as it is, for now. --RyRy5 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Bebestbe (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please elaboate on wy it is fine. I personally like the proposed title better, or 1983 California earthquake. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't find any name for the earthquake that was most used. 1983 Coalinga earthquake was used about three times and the rest had scattering usage. 1983 Coalinga earthquake does seem to make things clearer. I agree with whatever Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming suggests. Bebestbe (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention from WP:DM is a guideline. As a rule of thumb, we use <year> <place> <event>, like the 2006 Pakistan landmine blast. If the year is not needed, i.e. there has been no similar event in the <place>, then it can be left out, e.g. the Canal Hotel bombing. The <place> and the <event> are when possible guided by media and common usage. If there is no standard provided by media, one would be inclined to assume that the effect of the event was localised and that it is more suitable to use a local <place>, in this case Coalinga. --rxnd (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, guidelines are flexible -- and there are no hard and fast rules. And yet, I would have thought the extended discussions and debates which were involved in creating WP:DM would tend to create a presumption against which proposed variations can be measured.

Maybe it helps to put it in different words: In such situations, I'd guess that there would be something like a burden of proof or persuasion which needs to be born by editors who decide to argue for something else. I'm thinking of something like a hurdle which would probably need to be surmounted by any editor who would want to argue for something other than <year> <place> <event>. In this case, 1983 Coalinga earthquake is clear, concise, conventional -- but any alternatives could be both piped and linked, for example:

• [:[1983 Coalinga earthquake|Coalinga, California earthquake]]

--or--

• Coalinga, California earthquake

1. REDIRECT 1983 Coalinga earthquake

If this helps, good. If my modest contribution to the discussion is perceived as unnecessary at this point, so much the better. --Tenmei (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was re-named for the following reason:

• conforming to DP:WM WP:DM conventions -- per discussion at Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake#Rename?; US state name deleted -- e.g., 1872 Lone Pine earthquake

It probably would have been better if this moved had been accomplished sooner, but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-101007138.html
  • In 1983 Coalinga earthquake on 2011-05-25 05:05:37, 400 Bad Request
  • In 1983 Coalinga earthquake on 2011-06-07 03:22:50, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)