Talk:Lists of earthquakes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Lists of earthquakes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References and Magnitudes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is bad practice to change article information without changing the reference cited. In particular, some recent edit attempts have altered event magnitudes without changing the reference cited for that event. Since most of these references have not altered (particularly the books and journal articles), there is no way a different magnitude is supported by the same citation. Please, do not change event magnitudes without a (new) reference. In the cases of events without references on this page, the reference is usually listed on the individual event page. Changing magnitudes here without changing the magnitude on the individual page is also a problem, since encyclopedias should be as self-consistent as possible.

Multiple individuals have spent a fair amount of time making the event magnitudes in this list as self-consistent as we are able. If you feel that a different scheme is justified, or that mistakes have been made, please discuss that here before making sweeping changes to the list itself.Elriana (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stronger Quake in Finland and Fake Quake in Norway

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the list "strongest Quakes by Country" is the strongest Quake in Finland given by M3.5. But there are Reports of an M4,7 Quake in 1898 in Tornio. http://www.emidius.eu/ahead/main/info/?eqid=95198

In the same list, the strongest quake in Norway is given with M6,2 in Svalbad, but without a query and USGS didnt confirmed it. The strongest quake in Norway in the USGS archive is M6,1 (21 February 2008) or M6,7 (20 July 1992). Please correct it.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221459263890844%22%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221459263890844%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%221016-03-22%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222016-03-29%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A81.888%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A74.24%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A42.715%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-0.879%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A5.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B68.39918004344189%2C-17.666015625%5D%2C%5B81.72318761821157%2C74.267578125%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%7B%22plates%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%7B%22help%22%3Afalse%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Afalse%7D%7D (only for Svalbard, there arent strong quakes in Mainland Norway)

217.24.225.128 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongest quakes by country

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

So far I have examined three countries that either had no citation, or oblique citation, and all three were incorrect - namely: Poland, Cuba and Denmark. I have replaced those entries with the stronger quakes. The Cuba entry had listed its deadliest quake as its strongest. The other two listings were just plain smaller quakes. I suspect that this is more of a problem for countries that do not have an article "List of earthquakes in X-country", but again Cuba does have a List of earthquakes in Cuba article, and for countries with less seismic activity. I'll check a few more to see if the errors really are that rampant (as suggested by many of the enries above). If the errors are so rampant, I will post a checklist here to mark off countires that have been thoroughly checked. --Bejnar (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked the Malaysia entry and changed it to the largest event in the USGS interactive catalog (I know this is not the most exhaustive list, but it's good back to the start of instrumentation for this area). My guess is that people are adding the largest event they can find or think of, rather than doing a search in one of the comprehensive databases, which tend to be less public-user-friendly. I seem to remember the USGS website having a list of largest EQ by country at some point, but that doesn't appear to exist now. Elriana (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Vietnam entry is not cited, and the only event I can find in the catalogs near the listed size is the 6.7 from 1935. Vietnam's Institute for Geophysics seems to have a report listing the 1983 event at 6.7, and the 1935 event at 6.8, but I can't confirm that anywhere but in their online report (http://idm.gov.vn/nguon_luc/Xuat_ban/2008/b31-32/b220.htm). Best practice would be to reference the sources they claim to use directly, but I can't find entries with those magnitudes.Elriana (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Two issues:

1) @Loran33 has been adding a number of entries, which is good. But they are based on a single source website (http://earthquaketrack.com). I don't mind these entries for countries which were previously not in the list, but a couple of them disagree with other sources and other wikipedia articles. Also, the website does not include events before 1900. That's reasonable, since data before then is extremely patchy, but it does risk omitting historical events. Just how much weight do we want to give a website with no obvious affiliation and a clipped data set?

Personally, when that website includes a link to the USGS (or equivalent official seismological organization) entry for a given quake, I think the original source should also be cited. When no such link is available, I would be a tad more skeptical of the list results. Some effort should also be made to determine if a country has any accounts of pre-1900 seismicity.

2) I reverted the Bolivia entry, since the previous entry was larger than the new one, and large enough that the earthquake spanned a huge geographic region. But it brings up some interesting issues. The 1877 Iquique earthquake was centered in a region that was then in the middle of a border dispute between Bolivia and Chile. Are we limiting our earthquakes to those within the modern borders of a specific country? I think we must. But what about very large quakes very close to a border? In some cases, the earthquake rupture area may span multiple countries, and the shaking definitely crosses those borders, but the epicenter is only in one of them. Do we confine our evaluation to epicenters within a country's geographic borders, or do we include events that ruptured into that country as well?

Elriana (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using earthquaketrack (not an authority). If the USGS is their source, we should drop the middleman for simplicity. There was no explanation for some of the other changes that Loran33 made, and I did restore a small bit of detail that was removed. Dawnseeker2000 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Wykx (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Earthquakes by country. What counts as "in" a country?

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Someone changed the magnitude for the very recent earthquake in South Korea (from the Mw to the Ms), and I changed it back since there is an Mw estimate. However, looking at it, there appear to have been some larger earthquakes offshore in the historical record. How close to land should an earthquake be to be considered in a country? (Assuming that the epicenter is closer to that country than to any other.) In the instant case, the earthquake this month was on land, and is Mw = 5.4. There's a 5.8 near offshore, and a 6.2 further offshore, but both are closer to South Korea than to North Korea or Japan. Should we use either of those as South Korea's largest earthquake? Argyriou (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"In" a country is at maximum inside Territorial waters, it means 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi). Wykx (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wykx that inside the Territorial waters is a solid definition. I would add the caveat, however, that if an earthquake occurs in the subduction zone parallel to and associated with a particular country's coastline, and it has a large impact on that country, I would be willing to associate the earthquake with that country even if the epicenter is beyond the 12 nautical miles cutoff. For large subduction zone earthquakes, the slip area is also fairly large, and most of that is likely to be within territorial waters, even if the epicenter manages not to be. I do not think there are many places where this could possibly apply, since most subduction trenches seem to be within the territorial waters of their associated countries. But I want to acknowledge the possibility. Elriana (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was 70 km off the coast of Japan and the 1906 Ecuador–Colombia earthquake was at least that far off the coasts of both Ecuador and Colombia, which is why it's listed as the largest earthquake in both countries (correctly in my view), so there needs to be some slack in this. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A country's EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) extends up to 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) from the territorial sea baseline. We could potentially base our classification on this. However, some earthquakes could occur within a country's EEZ without having any significant effect on that country or being particularly related to the geology of the nearest landmass (I'm thinking about assorted Pacific islands). So some caveats might still be in order if we use the EEZ's as our borders. Elriana (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

EEZ is not part of the territory. Wykx (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize that the EEZ is not a country's 'territory', but we are not discussing who controls a given piece of ocean. We are trying to determine how to classify whether a given earthquake occurred in a particular country. No one is going to argue that the 2011 Tohoku earthquake should be excluded from the list for Japan, but the epicenter and most of the actual rupture area were outside of Japan's territorial waters. For large earthquakes, including events within a country's EEZ could make sense.Elriana (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake affected Japan but the epicenter was certainly not in Japan. Wykx (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So, by your definition, most subduction zone earthquakes are orphans, and should not be assigned to any country. Considering the massive economic and societal impacts of subduction zone earthquakes, that seems problematic. We name these events based on the countries and towns/cities that are nearest to them. The general public and news media associate these earthquakes with a specific country. To *not* associate the nearby subduction events with the countries in this list would be misleading, at best. Elriana (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

They happen in oceans or seas which are international waters. If it associated to a country, this is by effects but not by location. We need to stick on facts. If a quake happens in a country 1 near the border of country 2 but affects mostly country 2 would we say it happens in country 2? No. Wykx (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am about to revert the edit regarding the largest earthquake in Iraq. We can't be changing this for an earthquake epicentre with a real uncertainty that is so close to the border. What is wrong with having it in both countries, if it's that close to the border? Mikenorton (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Epicenter inside the territory of the country seems reasonnable. For example many Iran quakes have affected Iraq but they can be counted only in one country, in Iran. Wykx (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Lists of earthquakes. 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) 05:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

On formating scale labels and table headers

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Quite likely you all know that there are multiple scales for measuring the magnitude of earthquakes, which vary somewhat in their valuation, and therefore it is often important to identify the scale used for an earthquake's magnitude. I have been preparing a template (Template:M)) for identifying and tracking the use of these scales, and to provide easy and uniform formatting of the scale labels. There are two points on which I would like to hear if there are any preferences.

First point: Should the labels for the various magnitude scales – such as M_L, M_w, M_s, mB, mb, mb_Lg, etc. – be italicized, or not? Note: these are not symbols for the quantity; these are labels for the scales, analogous to the use of "F" and "C" for the temperature scales. There is no scientific significance to using italics or not. Some journals and agencies use italics, some do not; it is merely a matter of preferred style. A secondary point: should italicization (if applied) also apply to the subscripts? The argument against is that subscripts, being smaller, are little less legible, and italics might be confusing.

Second point: the various lists (tables) of earthquakes typically list the magnitudes in a column labelled "M", but without explaining what that is. As most WP editors neither explain their table headers nor wikilink them, I am thinking of offering an option to automatically wikilink that. The question is: would "Mag." be acceptable as a standard header? (I believe "Mag.", referring to "magnitude" generally, is preferable to "M", which suggests a particular magnitude scale.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mikenorton, Elriana, GeoWriter, Materialscientist, Ceranthor, Volcanoguy, and Gorthian: If you're all fine with leaving these matters up to me, very well, but I don't want anyone complaining they weren't consulted. Note that I have also presented the first point at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Formatting of earthquake magnitude scales. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've usually seen the scales italicized, but I don't have a strong preference either way. The second part seems fine to me. ceranthor 22:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1) I typically do not italicize magnitude scale labels. It is unnecessary, and I think it best to default to the simplest possible formatting. But in wikipedia articles, I do default to wikilinking the labels to the page for that particular scale, especially if that label is in a column or list heading.

2) The header for a list/column of magnitudes should be "Mag." or "Magnitude" with some indication as to the default scale. For example: "Magnitude (M_w)". "M" is essentially meaningless, and a label (e.g., "M_w") on its own is opaque to non-experts.

Elriana (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am of the same opinion, and anticipate removing the italicization. I think you'll like Template:M, as it does all that you describe. Well, I still have to write a couple of paragraphs at Seismic scale to link to, but they are coming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Done Labels produced by {{M}} are now non-italic. I have also added a "mag" option for tables that produces "Mag.".

I still have details of documentation to complete, but the template is ready for general use. You all try it out and let me know how you like it, and if you find any problems. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not use the authoritative source(s)?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Wykx: among the other details this edit of yours replaced a USGS sourced item (from https://earthquake.usgs.gov) to https://earthquaketrack.com. Why? Why not use the official and authoritative source? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This was a reversion to the previous edit because the new link wasn't concerning Iraq. You're welcome to replace by a USGS source provided it concerns Iraq. Wykx (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized you weren't replacing the USGS sourced entry, but reverting to an older entry. Okay.

But I still raise the same question for everyone: why not use the official and authoritative sources? Why not mandate use of the USGS and ISC? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ISC links with Template:EQ-isc-link

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created a template, {{EQ-isc-link}}, to make it nearly trivial to add links to the International Seismological Centre (ISC) – the ultimate authority on the magnitudes and other technical details of the world's notable earthquakes – and to the event pages corresponding to specific quakes ("events"). These event pages are very rich resources; check out this example for the Loma Prieta quake:

The International Seismological Centre has a bibliography and/or authoritative data for this event.

An event id is required, but that is very easy to obtain: the event pages are listed chronologically at the ISC event index (or the IRIS mirror). Just pop the id into the template, and there you are. The ISC is typically six months or a year behind; using a zero for the event id adds the article to a tracking category for follow-up.

The USGS "Latest earthquakes", "Preliminary Determination of Epicenters", and "Past 30 days" lists are useful for the initial sourcing of magnitude and epicenter, and even damage, But note: those are all preliminary. Once the ISC assesses all the data and posts their estimates, all other sources are out-of-date. We should be using the ISC as the preferred and authoritative source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lists of earthquakes. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Richter scale popular nonsense spread by wikipedia

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

So EN-WP does aggressively insist on linking the Richter scale to high magnitude determination. Its unscientific and makes no sense at all, but popular media set the facts. The not yet vandalized article still tells everyone that Richter magnitude scale is obsolete since ~40(!) years. But for EN-WP it is "factual information" .

So, welcome in the Wikipedia where alternative facts have their home. That will encourage stupid people to find their playground. But the others will not take part in that game. --Itu (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be reading that sentence wrong. Dawnseeker2000 05:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

First, over the last decade, more and more media articles have been using the word "magnitude" to describe an earthquake and *not* mentioning the Richter scale. Written articles are better about this than video news, presumably because they get more opportunity for editing.

Second, regardless of what the media does, anyone who went to school more than 20 years ago was taught about the Richter scale. It's a memorable name, and a lot of people remember it. A differentiation should be made in this article between Richter Magnitude and Moment Magnitude. BUT most people neither know the technical difference nor need to. They just need to know that there is a consistent modern scale that is currently used and that it is conceptually similar to the Richter Scale. Whether it is the Richter Scale or not is irrelevant to most people. Direct them to the Seismic magnitude scales article for the details, and avoid getting lost in the details here.

I would recommend rephrasing to avoid the words "popular media" because the media is not at all consistent about this. Perhaps say something like: "Listed below are all known earthquakes with an estimated magnitude of 8.5 or above on the Moment magnitude scale (which has replaced the Richter magnitude scale in modern seismology)."

Let's settle this here instead of playing the edit war game on the actual article? Elriana (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like better wording. Mikenorton (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good work. I like it as well. Dawnseeker2000 00:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there is no "Richter magnitude scale", not even in pre-modern seismology. As near as I can make out that name came out of the press (back in the 1930's and later) referring to Richter's magnitude scale, which became the local magnitude (). Which is still used for events under M 4.0 (and some other uses).

As to M 4+ events as reported by – and how else can this be said? – the popular (non-technical?) media, "Richter scale" is still widely used. (Google shows hundreds of hits in just the last month.) The problem I see is that with increasing mention of moment magnitude alert readers might wonder about this seeming use of two different scales, which warrants some brief explanation of the situation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Elriana, yes thats a much better wording, because at least its factual true. Its not very smart, because its not a central location here to give the information about obsoleteness of richter scale (for at least high magnitude quakes). I do not see any need to mention Richter at all (except a rare case when an agency would actually communicate it). I do not understand why people, in case they read just "$number magnitude" may expect there is a scale that is not conceptually similar to the Richter Scale(what is not that wrong) because no one ever said such. "Magnitude" is not reading as an alternative scale at all.

But at least its true to tell that Richter scale is replaced, and it may be help that people, and hopefully media, forget about that useless phrase "Richter scale". It is not the mission of an serious encylopedia to let people read what they may have heard an read times before, when it is literally untrue + useless, even if they may, in some strange way, be addicted to hear and tell about "Richter scale" in addition to an magnitude number ... --Itu (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I made the change. Elriana's wording is pretty spiffy (though both achieve nearly the same goal). Feel free to revert, expand, change, etc. Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How about we put the clarification of "magnitude" in a footnote? At that point in the text "magnitude" is not being used for any specific value, so the exact scale referred to does not make that much difference. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, with more than 2,000 views per day, the prominent location in this article's text is probably our best opportunity to help correct the misunderstanding. Dawnseeker2000 19:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

True, and an opportunity not to be squandered lightly. And I am probably over-hopeful that most readers will read a note. However, I am still greatly irked by any mention of "Richter magnitude scale" as a distinct scale. "[I]n modern seismology" (as the article currently reads), there neither is, nor has been, any such scale. That term is the creation of reporters referring to Richter's scale, which is the Local magnitude scale.

The problem is that much "popular" ("non-technical"?) reporting still refers to "Richter magnitude", so having mentioned moment magnitude we need to resolve this apparent discrepancy. I think the simplest way is to follow "moment magnitude scale" with (in parentheses) "often called the Richer magnitude". Or similar, the key points being that "Richter" is an appellation, not a scale, and to steer clear of ambiguous and inaccurate notion that M_L  has been "replaced". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NO, media do not call the moment magnitude "Richter scale". They are fully ignoring any scale-specification that may in fact ship with the number and just then adding "Richter scale" because it's their common tradition to what they are addicted. There is no evidence that the "Richter scale"-callers ever even tried to deal with scales that factually belongs to given numbers. --Itu (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"NO"?? Itu, you are speaking nonsense. As a matter of demonstrable fact, the "media" (as sampled using Google News) DO 'call the moment magnitude "Richter scale".' Check it yourself: go to Google News and search for "earthquake richter scale". I get thousands of hits. What do you get? Certainly enough to demonstrate that at least some of the "media" use "Richter scale" to refer to an earthquake's moment magnitude.

You are in error in some other regards, but I (and likely others) have refrained from mentioning them because of a very large problem: your histrionics (aka, drama). This is not helpful. E.g., implying that what is essentially a minor content dispute will result "in the Wikipedia where alternative facts have their home. That will encourage stupid people ..." is way out of proportion. It is absurd. Such exaggeration deters other editors from wanting to deal with you. Likewise with the tone of some of your edit summaries. (E.g.: characterizing the edits you reverted as "unscientific crap" and "blatant crap".)

Similarly, the very title you selected for this section – "Richter scale popular nonsense spread by wikipedia" — is non-neutral, even inflammatory. The problem is not simply a violation of the WP:Talk page guidelines (see WP:TALKNEW), it shows that you have already set your opinion, and are more inclined to engage in histrionics than in discussion. Even if we should agree on "Richter scale popular nonsense", the tenor of your edits is to suppress any attempt to address that "nonsense".

Your comments are factually wrong in various respects, but there is little to be gained in trying to discuss them (besides being a big waste of time) when you are being so WP:DRAMAtic. If you continue in this mode I believe ANI should be the next step. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So, the media say "Richter scale" when in fact in most cases "moment magnitude" would be right. So, now your conclusion is they must mean "moment magnitude" when they say "Richter scale". What you call "demonstrable fact", thats obviously what is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

I think everything is said now and i can not hinder you believing something else.

If you go to the court, don't forget who started to be aggressive. You reap what you sow. Don't complain. --Itu (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's alright. I don't think anything was meant by that edit summary. I wouldn't take offense. It just means "lacking awareness". Let's just call this discussion as complete with the article being improved with the refined wording and call it good. Dawnseeker2000 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this as "alright". On one hand, I am against this "replaced by" language for being quite misleading. On the other hand, Itu's disruptive histrionics rather impairs the prospect of a calm, useful discussion. One approach would be to just ignore him, but based on his past behavior that would probably lead to an edit war. Not "alright". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see that media learning their lessons: German newspaper "World" tells earthquakes as "strength of 6.4". No more Richter-phantom (and not even needing "magnitude"). --Itu (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Re "magnitude" details

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article currently refers to "earthquakes with an estimated magnitude of 8.5 or above on the moment magnitude scale (which has replaced the Richter magnitude scale in modern seismology)." After three weeks I still find this objectionable, as it reinforces a muddled view of "Richter magnitude". Dawnseeker2000 has previously suggested that the text here "is probably our best opportunity to help correct the misunderstanding." Indeed, and I previously said it should not be squandered lightly. But this text does not do that.

In trying to find a better formulation I have come around to a position that this "Richter misunderstanding" is not a "wrong" that should be corrected here. I therefore propose the following: that in this text we drop mention of specific scales, reverting back to the previous text which said only "magnitude" without qualification, but making the change previously suggested by Elriana that "magnitude" be wikilinked to Seismic magnitude scales. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No objections being raised, I am proceeding with ~~that~~ this change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how others feel, but I don't feel particularly strongly about this, though I still think that if there's an improvement to be made in the choice of words, this high traffic list is probably the place to do it. I'm still in a mode where writing is not coming all that naturally and have still been relying heavily on AWB to make an impact. So, no objection from me, and I won't stand in the way, but am interested in what some of the other heavy hitters might have to say. Dawnseeker2000 18:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My worry is that we will end up with a list where the magnitudes are not listed on a consistent scale. The reason for specifying the Moment Magnitude scale is that, in the past, people have used magnitudes from other scales as inclusion criteria without understanding what they are doing (or why their edits are reverted). This is a list, and as such, the inclusion criteria should be explicit. Linking to the set of magnitude scales does *not* specify what scale is actually used for inclusion. Elriana (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. Which is actually two points. First is the criteria for inclusion; I am not aware that this as been explicitly and definitely stated. (And I agree it should be.) In regards of "largest", Mw often is not the best measure of an earthquake's significance to human society (e.g., see here), and it might be preferable to use a more nuanced criterion than simply "Mw".

Your second point, on having a consistent basis of comparison, goes beyond inclusion criteria; readers also need a consistent scale. (Which also affects sorting.) Unfortunately, we probably can't be as nuanced with the readers as with editors. E.g., if inclusion is on the basis of (say) , or even extent of damage, sorting the table by Mw might lead to "smaller" quakes having greater damage. Perhaps that could be a teaching opportunity, perhaps we could sort the table by damage, I don't know.

As to the current text: I wasn't trying to say that 8.5 on any scale suffices for inclusion, I was making a general characterization for the reader, while avoiding making a specific statement that might not be true. When we have definite criteria we can state that (or not). Without knowing the actual and stated criteria for inclusion I think it best to stay with generic "magnitude". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of proposals to modify 'Infobox earthquake'

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Are lists of aftershocks ever notable?

Latest comment: 6 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion

Closing this request for comment, as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The discussion seems to have come to a conclusion, which has been summarized neatly by J. Johnson:

Aftershocks – the series of steadily smaller and less frequent events that typically follow a major earthquake — are commonplace, and generally not notable. Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia, and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable.

Regards, Fish+Karate 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are lists of aftershocks ever notable?

After a major earthquake it is normal to have many aftershocks. For several days after the largest event (which is identified as the "main shock") these may be nearly as big, then steadily decrease in size in the following months. (See Omori's law and Gutenberg-Richter law.) In some cases a large earthquake is followed by an aftershock large enough to cause substantial damage to structures already weakened by the main shock, and such cases may be sufficiently notable to mention in article. However, of the hundreds of aftershocks that might be recorded in the two months following a large earthquake, it is rare that even one of them is in any way distinguished from all the rest. (With the exception of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake.) I am not aware of any set of aftershocks that is in anyway notable, unless it was for being selected for special study. In the three "Lists of" articles I have examined – List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks, List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, and List of aftershocks of April 2015 Nepal earthquake – and some dozen articles that contain lists of aftershocks, I have seen no explanation of why any these are notable. In most cases there is no indication of the selection criteria used, and often consist of only M 3 or 4 earthquakes that many people experiencing them would not notice.

Any showing of notability being notably absent, and such lists having no evident purpose, value, nor interest, why do we have them? A map of aftershocks above a significant magnitude (5?), or even a plot of magnitudes over time, might be of interest, but where is the value or interest in a list of unnotable, uninteresting aftershocks? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this question. I think that it strikes at the root of the problem that I see with some of our stand-alone earthquake lists. I started bringing this up about two years ago, but was met with some resistance. I don't think we need the lists of aftershocks. The reason, which parallels the problems in the other lists, is that what that type of content is really trying to (re)produce is that of an earthquake catalog. We'll never be able to compete with a better earthquake catalog than is already available to everyone with an internet connection. What we can do though is create some very encyclopedic articles about individual events (the content in the earthquake articles that we create here isn't really available to the masses – I consider what we do a service to those that wouldn't otherwise have the means to access some of the finer details). We can also make lists about notable events, while adhering as close as possible to WP:CSC (thank you MikeNorton) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

They should definitely go - the main reason these articles were spun off was that the tables were taking up too much space in the original earthquake articles. The solution adopted for the 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake seems to me to be a good one, a scrollable table that doesn't take up much space. How easy it would be to put these tables back into their original articles is another matter.

As to our list of earthquakes by country, there is a problem with lower seismicity countries, where every earthquake is commented on in the media and by the relevant geological survey and scientific papers get written even for M4 (and lower) events. The worst case I know of is list of earthquakes in the British Isles - in many ways it approaches the second kind of list mentioned in WP:CSC, which is Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group, but that is supposed to be restricted to a total size of about 32k and it's currently 49.8k and growing. I should probably mock up a version of that list using the strict notability criteria to open a discussion - at least it will be short. Thanks for raising this. Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion - we'll see how that goes. Mikenorton (talk)

Agreed, we should not be tryng to produce catalogs. The nature of an encyclopedia is not a detailed assemblage of data, but a summary of our understanding. For aftershocks a graphic or two suffices.

I don't think scrollable or collapsible tables are helpful here. (Also seen at 2017 Chiapas earthquake.) The lists themselves (as far as I can see) are non-notable, and it is irrelevant how they are packaged.

I am going to open an RfC to get more comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable?

Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable? While, on rare occasions, individual aftershocks (or foreshocks) might be notable, for various reasons raised in the preceeding discussion it appears that lists of aftershocks (and foreshocks), whether stand-alone or within an article, are not notable. Further comment is requested. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@JL 09, Lilac Soul, PichPich, Pontificalibus, and Mandsford: you all were involved in a related discussion. Any comments for here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And a belated ping to @Pichpich. Sorry about that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think in certain occasions they are if they are covered by reliable sources, such as List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. In that particular case, the whole phenomenon is notable and covered extensively in news, articles etc. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't belive that merely "covered by reliable sources" makes anything notable. That is a minimal requirement, not a sufficient condition. As an example: the ISC – the premier reliable source for global seismicity – "covers" nearly every seismic event since 1900, but that does make any event notable. Similarly for the USGS-ANSS catalog. Mere mention does not establish notability.

As to newspapers and similar non-technical media: while I maintain they are generally not reliable sources regarding earthquakes, I do allow that mention of any earthquake, or earthquake swarm, in a newspaper could be taken as possible indication of notability in the region of that source. Thus, the Japanese sources that the Tōhoku aftershock list relies on might establish a local (or regional/national) notability. But several problems with this view. Primarily, it does not show significance "by the world at large" (WP:Notability nutshell). Also, because the principal sources are all in Japanese it is not clear – and the article does not explain – how this set of aftershocks is more notable than any other sequence of aftershocks. You say "the whole phenomenon is notable", but is that on any basis other than being "covered" in various news reports? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Just follow the sources. If reporting of the overall event gives a distinct notice to an aftershock, then it was notable. Seems unlikely, but if it is noted then it is noted. Whether that was due to a particular result of the further shaking, or some unusual nature of the aftershock itself or a cultural attitude might be mentioned as why it was noted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
If particular aftershocks are notable, fine, mention them. But note, first, that (as I said before) the ISC – the most reliable source for global seismicity – "gives a distinct notice" to (i.e., catalogs) hundreds of aftershocks (down to about, off-hand, M 4), which in no way qualify as adequately notable for inclusion in WP. Second, please note that the question here is not individual aftershocks, but lists of aftershocks. I agree with you that the basis of such notablility need not be merely seismic, but could be cultural, or historical. But I have yet to see any sequence of aftershocks that are notable in such a regard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking in general or for specific cases? Because I think this is a question of specific cases. in List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake all earthquakes listed are over M 6. Some caused deaths. This list is obviously notable. And the events make sense in the broader context of the Tohoku Earthquake. You can find plenty of international independent and non-technical/database sources of these events, and they all contextualize them as aftershocks of the main earthquake. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
How do you get "obviously notable"? As to being found in a database: did you read my prior comment? That various sources "contextualize" (huh?) the Tohoku aftershocks as .. aftershocks? – what does that mean? Are you suggesting that the notability of an earthquake implicitly extends to the aftershocks? I find that absurd.

I view this discussion as general. But showing any specific list of aftershocks to be notable would disprove the notion that no such list is notable, and might suggest bases of notability broadly applicable to such lists. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I haven't been clear. I mean those quakes are found in sources that are not merely databases or technical listings, but also newspapers, journals, books etc. They are talking about the specific aftershocks and they characterize them as such (not independent quakes). --Ita140188 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Then we agree that mention in a catalog or database does not amount to notability. I suggest this should also apply to any subset of a catalog selected on the basis of location, time range, and minimum magnitude, lacking any other criterion of notability. Such a criterion might be (as Mike suggests further on) a sequence of aftershocks (or any sequence of quakes) that is the subject of multiple scientific papers, but I have to see that.

I grant that some notability of an aftershock, characterized as such, is demonstrated by mention in various news sources. (And here I would point out that the ISC provides event bibliographies that can demonstrate scientific notability.) Where an event is not notable enough to have its own article, the notability derives from the main event, and the proper place for mentioning the aftershock is in the article of the main event. Where there are several notable aftershocks I would allow the possibility of a list. But mere mention in a newspaper (or even worse, a neighborhood blog) is a pretty low standard; I think there needs to be higher standard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
For most earthquakes, such list articles are unnecessary and have no inherent notability to support their existence. If a large earthquake has a lot of damaging aftershocks/foreshocks then such a list may have a point. However, every entry into such a list should meet the notability standard for standalone articles. Maybe there will be an earthquake whose aftershock sequence is so unusual that scientific papers get written about it, but that would potentially justify an article about the sequence, not just a list. Mikenorton (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the discussion. There are some cases where the aftershock actually causes more deaths than the original intense quake, or comes several days after the initial cataclysm. Arguably, there's a significance to earthquakes that are accompanied by a powerful aftershock, though such a list should be limited to those where there are two or more 7.0 magnitude events. Mandsford 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Even without "more deaths than the original", aftershocks can be pretty significant. A prime example would be the M 7.2 Kodari event of 2015-05-12, quite notable itself, even though considered by some to be an aftershock of the M 7.9 Ghorka (Nepal) event two weeks earlier. But are the other two dozen M 5 events at List of aftershocks of April 2015 Nepal earthquake really notable enough for inclusion? If not, then we have a list of one item. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake looks reasonable. To quote the page " 60 aftershocks being over magnitude 6.0 and three over magnitude 7.0". Looking at a Google News search I'm seeing a lot of news coverage explicitly about the aftershocks. I'll also note that the article is still getting more than 40 pageviews per day - seven years later.

On the other hand, aftershocks of most other quakes are not going to be independently notable. In most cases aftershocks probably don't warrant detailed coverage within the article on the main quake. Geological catalogs may be excellent sources for authoritative comprehensive and authoritative information, however indiscriminate catalogs are worthless as a basis to include the information. We do not include WP:INDISCRIMINATE details. There has to be meaningful news or other discriminate ReliableSource discussion of aftershocks to warrant mentioning them in an article. And even then, in most cases it should probably be summarized in a few sentences providing meaningful context. An actual list of aftershocks should be reserved for cases where they were particularly significant in (discriminate) ReliableSources, and should be limited to the most significant events. But to reiterate, in most cases I expect such lists would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE detail. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes but generally no Unless RS are giving significant coverage to the foreshocks and aftershocks (at least as much coverage as the major earthquake), there's no need to spin off a separate article listing them. Generally I think they'd be included in the main earthquake event article as having occurred, and perhaps noting the highest magnitude/duration along with how many days the fore- and aftershocks continued to occur (whatever the RS are saying about them, really). Even then, a detailed list in the article is unnecessary and UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing this discussion: my sense is that "generally no" is the general sentiment, but allowing the possibility of exceptions. As to possible cases Alsee says List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake "looks reasonable", and Mandsford suggests some unspecified cases "where the aftershock actually causes more deaths than the original intense quake". But I question the notability of the former, and lacking any other specifics I think we have no examples of notable lists of fore/aftershocks.

Would everyone be agreeable to a finding that: lists of earthquake fore- and after-shocks (as stand-alone articles) are generally indiscriminate collections of detail and not notable, unless the list itself is notable? And that such lists are discouraged unless a strong case is made? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Rarely I agree with Alsee, and they put it well. These lists should be like List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, showing impact of these aftershocks and not like List of aftershocks of April 2015 Nepal earthquake which goes out of it's way to say how 'mundane' those aftershocks were. Though I admit I did like having a nerdy look at the data. Nessie (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Nerdy look at the data"? Perhaps that was via the ISC links, which I added as a trial of the new templates. (I was going to add them to the Tōhoku list, but I couldn't deal with all the citations in Japanese.) I suspect the major aftershocks in Nepal were just as notable to the populations affected as the ones in Japan, but Nepal list seems to be derived from a single source (the Nepalese catalog), with some casualty figures added. This rather highlights the difference between some event (or series of events) being notable versus shown to be notable. It's not so much that the Nepal list shows the aftershocks to be mundane, as it does not show otherwise. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Poll on a proposed statement

I believe we have a general consensus, which I propose to express as follows:

Aftershocks – the series of steadily smaller and less frequent events that typcially follow a major earthquake — are commonplace, and generally not notable. Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia, and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable.

Please indicate whether you concur, or not, that we have consensus for this statement. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There having been a fair amount of discussion with no strong conflicts, and no objections to the proposed statement, I invite an uninvolved editor to summarize and close this RfC per WP:RFCEND and WP:CLOSE. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of largest earthquake by year

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I support keeping the Largest earthquakes by year list in the article. It's a list of earthquakes, there isn't a separate article with the list, it's interesting, and it's hard to get the data otherwise. The table could be fixed up a little - I'd like to see a separate column for country and for earthquake name, with the latter being a link to the earthquake article, and the date should be immediately to the right of the year. But overall, I think it's worth keeping. Argyriou (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am dubious. Do we (anyone?) really need a list of each year's single biggest quake? That seems quite trivial. Why not list every quake above, oh, 7.5, which could be sorted by magnitude or year? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am also dubious, but not sure about your suggested 7.5+ list, I estimate nearly 1,000 events - we already have a list of largest by magnitude of 8.5+. My main issue is that the page is already long enough without this extra list. Mikenorton (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the cut-off could be adjusted. The 8.5+ list has only 36 events (though the ISC finds 58). If the cut-off is adjusted such that each year gets at least one then we have each year's largest quake. Plus a few others. I just don't know how many total that would be. (G-R relation?) But then, I am not convinced we need any such list. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I also support keeping the list of largest earthquakes by year. It's not long and it's interesting. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the list of largest earthquake by year be a separate list page? Just like the lists of notable earthquakes in certain time periods? Then the list could have its own discussion of inclusion criteria, and we can all argue about how far back it can reasonably be extended.

Alternatively, the largest by year should be part of the List of 21st-century earthquakes, since that is as far back as it currently goes. If it gets expanded to include earlier years, then it will definitely be too long for this page, and could become its own list. An argument could be made that such a list is sufficiently notable on its own because it allows for discussion of the history of seismological observation and societal response to events (a discussion which may already exist in other articles). Such a list also could be tied into any discussion of the statistical occurrence of large earthquakes that I know exists in other articles.

Either way, I do not feel that it should be the first list fully spelled out in a list of earthquake lists. That lends way too much weight to the 21st century events.Elriana (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Most studied earthquakes

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few questions about this relatively new list: 1) Should the magnitude be a column? I would find that interesting. 2) Should there really be 50 entries? We don't go to 50 entries on most of the other lists included within this page. Is there a different cutoff that makes sense? Elriana (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The table has exactly 50 entries because that is what the source – the ISC's figure 2 at http://www.isc.ac.uk/event_bibliography/overview.php – has. They collated the data, and cut it off at the top fifty. Conceivably we could download the entire bibliographic database, sort it, and pick off however many we want. But I wouldn't recommend that. And I don't know how any other number is better than fifty. (And please don't anyone suggest listing each year's most studied earthquake.)

I oppose including magnitudes, in part because I think they are overrated, and that editors tend to get too fixated on a simple number rather than grappling with the nuances. And also because there are almost always multiple magnitudes, which leads to bickering as to which magnitude is best.

The key to this table is the count of papers. (Which I considered putting putting in as the first column, but decided against.) All the other fields are just identifiers. ("Rank" is a proxy for the paper count.) While it might be interesting to see how "most studied" quakes are distributed by time or magnitude across the range of all quakes, I don't see what the value is in sorting this subset by any criterion other than "how much studied". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Earthquakes in historic countries

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Back in 2009, there was a discussion about use of historic names of countries for historic countries. User:J. Johnson has reverted the addition (by User:Lorent33) of an earthquake in Hawaii which occurred in 1868, when Hawaii was independent. The discussion in 2009 wasn't very conclusive. So - should we keep the 1868 Hawaii earthquake as the biggest for the former country of Hawaii, or not? Argyriou (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The basic concept of associating earthquakes by countries seems questionable to me, as if they had some national character (by regions is more sensible.), though it makes some sense as a means of locating an earthquake. As such the modern association of the U.S. state of Hawaii is more recognizable than the kingdom of Hawaii. If we accept the latter as a sort of historical overlay then Lists_of_earthquakes#Lists_by_country should include "Hawaii (kingdom)", as well as separate entries for (e.g.) Wales and Scotland prior to their incorporation into Great Britain. Unless an earthquake's association with a notable historical entity is significantly stronger than its association with whomever currently occupies the land, I would incline towards staying with the modern entities. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It depends what the list is being used for. In general it seems most likely that someone would just want to look at past earthquakes within a defined geographic area, in which case we should be using the modern definitions and boundaries (that last point is important in the case of some countries where the boundaries have shifted a lot - see e.g. 1868 Arica earthquake). Mikenorton (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Slovenia

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article states that the strongest earthquake in Slovenia was in 1995 (5.6). However, the 1895 Ljubljana earthquake was a 6.1, so clearly that's the one that should be listed here. I have edited the page with this correct info, however an official Wikipedia editor keeps reverting my edit without a real explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you, and to be clear, I'm not an "official" anything... I volunteer here, just like you are doing (sort of), the main difference is I have registered an account and you haven't. You didn't explain the first time, but you had no problem posting an obnoxious, profane and extremely juvenile rant on the talk page of the IP address you're currently editing with, and no problem vandalizing my talk page and attacking me with that very same rant. You've had no problem edit earring on multiple articles and disruptively editing (as the multiple warnings you've been given in just the past 3 days shows) and trying to debate edits via lengthy edit summaries, and so on and so forth.

But now you want to have a discussion? Very well. I already stated why I initially reverted you. On further review, I see that you are attempting to change the entry for Slovenia to a quake from 1895. Slovenia didn't exist then. That quake took place in what was then Austro-Hungaria. So the appropriate entry for Slovenia is the current one, the 1998 quake. If you would like to offer alternative solutions for the addition of the 1895 quake somewhere in the article, I am open to suggestions. Just try to keep it mature, civilized and on topic. Focus on edits, not on editors. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 08:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That is completely unacceptable. The list includes strongest earthquakes for countries that exist today based on the territories they are on today. You can clearly see that with the following examples: Lebanon (strongest earthquake listed: 550 / country exists under current name since 1943), Syria (1202 / 1920) and there are dozens of others. Just admit that you are wrong and let's have the correct info listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You really need to calm down. I have no idea why you are taking this so personally and getting so emotional about this, but it is not helping matters here in the slightest. Are you capable of a civil dialogue, and if so, do you think you can start? (Like... right now?)

In the meantime, I'll take a look at the examples you provided, as well as the page history, specific contributions & contributors, and also take a look through the talk page archive for any related discussions (which will take awhile, I just archived the entire tp history and it's almost 150k! So that'll take awhile).

It's possible some other changes are needed based on your examples, especially if they are listing countries that didn't even exist at the time of the quake noted. So... no, I'm not providing any admission of 'being wrong'. (But maybe you could start taking ownership of your behaviour?). It's late and I'm going to take a break. But I will continue reviewing this article for issues and possible improvements when I return. And if necessary, continue 'discussing' this here with you, if you can stop personalizing and stay on topic.

Meanwhile, please learn how to use a talk page; you need to indent your posts and (for the third? fourth? time...) you need to sign your comments. That would be a good start. - ^theWOLFchild 09:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's reasonable to use the area currently defined by the country boundary, no matter the age of the earthquake or that of the country's formation. Mikenorton (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

But it's not accurate, is it? The 1895 quake can't be the biggest quake in Slovenia's history if Slovevia didn't exist at the time. If the IP user is correct and there are only a few examples like this, why not list them separately? "Largest quakes in former countries", or something like that? It's more accurate and includes more info. - ^theWOLFchild 20:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)