Wikipedia

Talk:List of earthquakes in the British Isles

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Dunarc in topic Possible condraticion in article
Learn more about this page

Joke

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this article a joke. Most countries do not list any earthquake under 7 magnitude. Why is there even a list of these pathetic non events. It is an insult to countries like Japan, Portugal, China and Chile that have serious earthquakes. Wallie (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No it's not a joke. A list of Earthquakes in a country which is not tectonically active could never compare to those on major fault lines and seismic zones such as Japan, China, Portugal and Chile. In the UK an earthquake that could be felt is significant and notable enough to be demonstrated in an Encyclopaedic list of events. JonEastham (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just looking at information on "All Saints Church, West Stourmouth" and see that it was also damaged in the 1382 earthquake, Thought you might like to add it to your list.

Also to the enlightened Wallie, the Christchurch Earthquake would not have been recorded using his lower limit of 7. It caused significant death and destruction.

OldManwoodian (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Format

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Table is not sortable due to format of date and magnitude fields. Drutt (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now sortable JonEastham (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Still seems to not sort properly - it's done alphabeticly due to the date being in text format? I have no idea how to change this however 81.109.175.173 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
See Wikipedia:Sortable_table#Dates Good luck. :-) Longwayround (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've made the first two tables sortable by date. The dates must be in the format DD-MMM-YYYY (e.g. 21 Feb 1673).
Where no DD and MMM is known, please use <span style="display:none">00 Jan </span>974.
Where no DD is known, please use <span style="display:none">00 </span>Jan 974
If someone could please have a look at why the year 1750 does not sort correctly, I should be grateful. Longwayround (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unsourced quakes

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It is unclear to which of the earthquakes any of the cited sources refer. I am inclined to be bold and remove the unreferenced quakes while also marking [1] more clearly as one source. Longwayround (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. Unless I'm very much mistaken we have As of 8 December 2011 cited sources for all the earthquakes. I have removed mention of the 1249 South Wales earthquake since:

The earthquake of 20 February 1247 is mentioned by both the Annals of Inisfallen (Färber, 2000a) and the fragmentary annals (Färber, 2000b). The former misdates the year as 1249 and states that it was felt in Ireland and Wales; the latter describes it as affecting Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

— R.M.W. Musson, http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5356/1/Musson_OffshoreM7_revised.pdf

Longwayround (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notable earthquakes

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This list states that it is a list of notable earthquakes. As far as I can see, it includes any record of an earthquake that has been felt and that definitely doesn't match any reasonable definition of notability on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes/notability_guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria members of a list would normally be existing articles or articles that could be created. It also discusses Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group, but says that these should be within an article and be less than 32K in size - the article is currently 55K. The article is undoubtedly as complete as it could be and thoroughly sourced, but I question whether we should have earthquakes of magnitude less than five in the list. Mikenorton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's been no response for the last 10 months, so I'm starting the cull, with the smallest first. - I will report here on progress. Mikenorton (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure deleting earthquakes purely based on magnitude is the best approach. There are quite a few significant ones with a magnitude less than 5. I would propose retaining events where damage or injury is recorded, regardless of magnitude. Such events tend to have significant coverage so as to meet WP:GNG e.g. 1. I will start adding in sources and deleting those which don't appear notable. I will keep everything with magnitude 4+ for the time being. I would say feel free to delete everything <4.0 unless it's particularly unusual ("the most shallow", "the first in London since 1750" that sort of thing...) --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's why I started with those of less than magnitude 3, as I thought that would be uncontroversial. I will proceed slowly. Mikenorton (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of earthquakes in the British Isles. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of earthquakes in the British Isles. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of earthquakes in the British Isles. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notability (again)

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

I've been through the whole list of earthquakes, re-examining sources and I have created a draft replacement list of the current article at User:Mikenorton/Sandbox4. As you will see this reduces the list to just 14 earthquakes and to be honest some of those are only of borderline notability. I intend to do this replacement in about a week's time, unless someone can come up with reasons (justified by Wikipedia policies) why this shouldn't be done. Note that two on the current list have their own articles, the 2002 Dudley earthquake and the 2007 Kent earthquake, but they do not in my view meet the notability quidelines so I have left them out and I intend to take both of them to AfD. I don't expect this to make many people who look at this page happy, but what I'm aiming for is consistency and matching current policies and guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article is emblematic of several WP tendencies to what I call "encyclopedic softness", such as making lists of no particular interest or value just because there are items that can be made into a list. That about two-thirds of the citations here are of a single source (BGS) suggests that this list is little more than a replication of the BGS list, with little or no value added. This list starts by stating it "a list of notable earthquakes that have been detected in the British Isles", but never indicates what the notability is. As for any value in collecting in one place, for the convenience of the reader, an index to notable quakes in a given country or region, well, that is what Categories are for.
Lacking any added value (let alone notability), I think this list itself is a candidate for AfD. But I'll leave that for others to decide. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've reduced the list to only those earthquakes that are either notable or are at least borderline notable. Mikenorton (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping that we can at last have a discussion about this, rather than just reverting back and forth. I am trying to think of ways to include the non-notable events in the article, without them taking over. Any ideas would be appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Had a look at the sandbox draft about a week ago and thought to myself that it was a huge improvement. Was going to post that thought here (because how could anyone see otherwise, right?), but didn't because I had second thoughts about stating the obvious. To whomever thinks that these lists should be an attemt to duplicate earthquake catalogs: we discriminate potential content around here because that is one of the necessary elements of creating an encyclopedia. Dawnseeker2000 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me the list is now more indiscriminate than the last list. What makes an earthquake notable? (I know there's the notability guide, but that is for stand-alone articles.) The other list at least appeared to have all earthquakes in an area of the world with long record keeping: now it appears the criteria is that someone likes the earthquake. Perhaps that's not the criteria, but it's not spelled out what the criteria is in the article. Many other countries have lists sourced only to the NGDC. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The lists states (and has stated since it was created back in 2006) that it is a list of notable earthquakes, not a list of every earthquake that has been observed. The current list (as recently modified) only lists earthquakes that meet (or in some cases nearly meet) the criteria. There was something wrong when the list of earthquakes in the British Isles (224 listed) was nearly three times longer than the list of earthquakes in the United States (80 listed). Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
An NGDC list of significant earthquakes for the UK is even shorter (13 events), although their criteria are actually much more stringent " Moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), 10 or more deaths, Magnitude 7.5 or greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the earthquake generated a tsunami" - unclear why they list any of the 21st century events in the UK using those criteria. Mikenorton (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
As to sourcing only to the NGDC, in our 60 existing list articles, 43 don't use the NGDC as their primary source, 9 use it in part and only 8 use it as their only source. Mikenorton (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notable can be looked at in a varying amount of ways, in a varying amount of circumstances. By definition, notable is something that is worthy of attention. So, for the U.K., I believe anything that has made the news headlines or has been felt is worth being a notable earthquake as they are rarely felt here. It's also worth mentioning that the name of this article is "List of earthquakes in the British Isles", and thus it should reflect that. I have once again reverted the article to a previous version that includes all of this, whilst removing the word "notable" from the introductory section. It might be better reflected if a new article that only lists "Notable list of earthquakes in the British Isles" should be created. It's a simple solution, which would end this back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.250.84 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NOTNEWS, quoting "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Mikenorton (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not so much inclusion, but more down to notability i.e. how worthy an earthquake within the U.K. is deemed to be. Something that is reported on major news channels can be deemed as notable. Regardless, the wikipedia article is indeed named "List of earthquakes in the British Isles", and thus everything listed in the article fulfils that. It was only down to a past user putting "notable" in the introductory description that could be misleading, which has now been removed in order to comply with the actual title i.e. a list of earthquakes that have occurred within the U.K. A new notable list/page that takes into account what other international sources deem as "notable" could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.250.84 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
What matters is what Wikipedia deems notable. Your statement "Something that is reported on major news channels can be deemed as notable" does not match Wikipedia's " most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Anyway I have been through the original list of events, looking at the available sources and I have added back in some on the basis that they meet the criteria of maximum intensity≥VII, had associated deaths or were part of a major swarm or sequence. I've also added in the largest of the fracking earthquakes as there was a great number of scientific publications generated by those events and it materially changed the procedures for handling seismicity while fracking in the UK. That still leaves dealing with the earthquakes that are not individually notable and taking note of "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" I have come up with a draft that just gives location and year for these events. A draft of this appears in the section below. I'm not entirely happy with how this looks, but I think that we need something along these lines. Obviously my draft has no citations - if people are OK with this, it's trivial (if a little tedious) to add citations, which will allow interested users to get more detailed information themselves about each event. Note that in the original list almost all of these were just a date and a place, with no other details, so we're not losing much. Mikenorton (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not about notability with this article, as it is simply "A list of Earthquakes in the British Isles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.67.135 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC) As this back and forth could go on for a while, here is now a simple solution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_earthquakes_in_the_British_IslesReply

Did you even look at the section just below where I suggested a way of handling the events that didn't meet the notability criteria? Splitting the articles is not a solution. Mikenorton (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I did, but it should be the other way around. The article is "List of Earthquakes in the British Isles" - it does not state notable. This was only added by a user in the introductory section. The most notable should be in their own section in order to keep the original purpose of the article, and not the other way around (as it is a list of Earthquake, not "notable Earthquakes". Whether this section is at the top or bottom, it wouldn't matter. Possible "Notable" and "Compiled List" sections could be created, with the less notable being in a section that currently reflects the format of the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.67.135 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It was never added, it was there from the very first edit when the article was created. Mikenorton (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
If that is the case, then it obviously did not match the intention of the article title. If it is about notable, then the title of the article should reflect that. As it does not, then as the page stands it does rightfully reflect what the article is producing - a list of earthquakes within the British Isles. Nothing in this implies that they are, or not, notable - it is simply a list producing earthquakes that have been detected within the U.K. Although at this point, earthquakes that are deemed to be notable (by whatever terms) should be removed from the overall list and placed into a separate section at the top of the article instead (as they would be the most note worthy). Removing all that is listed and just having a page dedicated to notable earthquakes is not reflective of the article title, and thus they should not all be purged from the article (as they are reflective of the title). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.67.135 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has no (or nearly no) lists that include the word notable, because as WP:MOSLIST states " words like complete and notable are normally excluded from list titles", so nothing is implied by that. Mikenorton (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
And so thus the article should reflect both. The article should not solely reflect either or, as reflecting solely on notable does not reflect the title of the article would be misleading. Sections containing both would be preferential i.e. Notable Earthquakes (listing "notable" events") and "Seismic Events" (Listing the events currently listed that are not notable by century) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.67.135 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well that seems an odd way of looking at it, it could be list of purely notable earthquakes (which is what most earthquake lists are), a list of purely non-notable earthquakes (assuming there was sufficient justification for its existence) or a mixture of the two - as I said "nothing is implied". You have suggested a two section solution, something that I have already proposed in the section below this one, but I've had no response to it. I will continue to work on that solution, as ultimately I think it is where the answer lies to this dispute. Mikenorton (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Defining what is and isn't notable, especially for the U.K. is the question really. You could go by other countries standards (that experience earthquakes more often) and a lot of the list wouldn't be deemed as notable, yet going by the U.K's standards would deem a lot of them notable. For example, the recent 4.6 magnitude South Wales earthquake gained a lot of widespread notability due to it's magnitude and rarity, yet on the list you proposed it wouldn't be (going by other countries standards where it might be a lesser deal). For public information purposes, proposing a list of the two (notable and "other" seismic events) would be beneficial and probably the best outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.67.135 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
As you can see I have now added some extra details to the 20th-Century and 21st-century earthquakes in my proposed "Other events" section below this thread, including this year's Cwmllynfell earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Draft summary for events not notable enough for the main list

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As mentioned above this is a draft, I'll add citations when I'm more certain on the format before adding it to the article. Comments are welcome.

No comments so far - went ahead and added the citations. The main question for the newer events is do we need more information included? If we do, how can we achieve this without recreating the original list? I'm keeping in mind that the likely outcome of this debate is "Merge". Mikenorton (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
And now I've added maximum intensities and magnitudes for the 20th and 21st century events. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Other events

edit

This is summary of earthquakes that are not individually notable, split by period and approximate location (affected area specified if available). For events from the instrumental era (roughly post-1900) maximum intensity (shown in roman numerals) and magnitude (ML ) are included.

Pre-1700

edit

18th-century

edit

19th-century

edit

20th-century

edit
  • Scotland - 1986 (Oban V, 4.1)[1]
  • Wales - 1903 (Caernarfon VI, 4.9)[1]
  • England - 1926 (Jersey), 1990 (Bishop's Castle VI, 5.1), 1994 (Norwich IV, 4.0), 2000 (Warwick V, 4.2)[1]
  • North Sea - 1927 (VI, 5.7), 1958 (V, 5.1)[1]

21st-century

edit

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I trimmed the article after seeing an editor add a minor shock that was "felt by residents" today, 21 February 2022. These lists of earthquakes are meant to be scrutinized and adding insignificant events like that that have no effect on people or things goes against one of the most simple of Wikipedia's policies. Lists are not intended to be a dumping ground of sorts for each and every occurrence. If you look now at the footer of the table you'll see some text that outlines what the requirements are for inclusion in the list. That is essentially how the encyclopedia encourages the different Wikiprojects to do it. Create criterion for inclusion and stick to it. Dawnseeker2000 02:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If anyone wants information on all the minor shocks that occur in the British Isles they can look no further than the authorities on earthquakes. The USGS even has great records on these events (and there are a ton of them – 422 on this list). We, the encyclopedia, cannot compete with those organizations as far as depth of coverage. What we can do, though, is write good and featured articles (and discriminating lists) on the events that have a minimum threshold. Again, that is how it is suggested to be done. No featured content will come out of a sloppy, anything goes list, for example. There's literally no good reason to keep adding every single event that happens. Dawnseeker2000 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Notes on individual earthquakes". British Geological Survey. Archived from the original on 16 May 2011. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
  2. ^ "Dumfries is shaken by earthquake". BBC News. 26 December 2006. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
  3. ^ "Earthquake shakes Shetland awake". BBC News. 15 January 2009. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
  4. ^ "BBC News - Earthquake hits west of Scotland". bbc.co.uk. 23 January 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
  5. ^ British Geological Survey. "Moidart, West Highland". Retrieved 2018-03-16.
  6. ^ "Earthquake shakes Welsh Valleys". NewsWales. 13 February 2002. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
  7. ^ "Report IR/06/047: Bulletin of British Earthquakes 2005" (PDF). British Geological Survey. p. 12. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
  8. ^ "BBC News - Llyn peninsula earthquake: Residents woken by tremor of 3.8 magnitude". Bbc.co.uk. 2013-02-08. Retrieved 2013-05-29.
  9. ^ "Lleyn Peninsula". Earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk. 1984-07-19. Retrieved 2013-05-29.
  10. ^ "Earthquake felt across Gwynedd and Anglesey". BBC News. 26 May 2015.
  11. ^ "CWMLLYNFELL,SOUTH WALES". British Geological Survey. 17 February 2018.
  12. ^ "Earthquake felt across parts of UK". BBC News. 17 February 2018.
  13. ^ "Earthquake rocks Devon and Cornwall". Daily Mail. 1 June 2001. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  14. ^ "Earthquake shakes Welsh Valleys". NewsWales. 13 February 2002. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
  15. ^ "Earthquake shakes parts of Kent". BBC News. 28 April 2007. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
  16. ^ "Press Release" (PDF). British Geological Survey. 26 October 2008. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
  17. ^ "Second earthquake hits coast town". BBC News. 3 March 2009. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
  18. ^ Wainwright, Martin (22 December 2010). "Lake District and Cumbria shaken by earthquake". Guardian. London.
  19. ^ "Coniston, Cumbria Earthquake - Magnitude 3.5 - 21 Dec 2010". British Geological Survey. 22 December 2010.
  20. ^ "Earthquake hits North Yorkshire". bbc.co.uk. 4 January 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2011.
  21. ^ "Earthquake hits English Channel". bbc.co.uk. 14 July 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2011.
  22. ^ "Two earthquakes shake Blackpool". BBC News. 25 August 2013. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
  23. ^ "British Geological Survey Report". British Geological Survey. 20 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 20 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ "Rutland hit by second earthquake in two days". BBC.
  25. ^ "British Geological Survey Report". British Geological Survey. 11 July 2014. Archived from the original on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 11 July 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ "Kent earthquake 'causes homes to shake'". BBC News. 22 May 2015. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
  27. ^ "Cumbria earthquake: Houses shake as tremor of 3.2 magnitude hits county". Sky News. 28 February 2018.
  28. ^ British Geological Survey https://web.archive.org/web/20100918211518/http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/recent_events/20100901054555.7.html. Archived from the original on 18 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ "British Geological Survey Report". British Geological Survey. 2 May 2014. Archived from the original on 8 May 2014. Retrieved 2 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Possible condraticion in article

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For the 1275 earthquake the comments section states "Only contemporary report of earthquake fatalities before 1580". Yet for the 1580 Dover Straits earthquake it is stated "First recorded fatality". Unless I am missing something the latter point contradicts the former. The article for 1275 British earthquake would certainly seem to suggest that there was loss of life in it and cites sources to support this. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've removed that claim, which is not repeated in the article on that earthquake nor in the cited source. Thanks for pointing that out. Mikenorton (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Thanks for checking and sorting. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles&oldid=1206971966"