Talk:Timeline of Kobe

1995 earthquake reference

The events included in the timeline of the city of Kobe are chosen by using sources that indicate relative significance. For example, the BBC News country profile for Japan includes the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and that is why the BBC timeline is included as a source for key events in Kobe's history. The earthquake has its own Wikipedia article, with well-sourced detail. The Kobe city timeline has somewhat different sources, because they serve a different topic (i.e., the city, not the just the 1995 earthquake).

In this case it makes sense to restore the BBC reference, deleted from the city timeline twice on 13 September 2017 (first deletion, second deletion). -- M2545 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on how you're thinking about these lists. It was only recently that I realized that quite a few of these lists that I've recently started contributing to were created by you. I have done some work on lists previous to this series, but they have mostly been dedicated lists of earthquakes rather than just specific entries in generic lists like days of the year or timelines.

When constructing the lists of earthquakes (these are usually list of earthquakes by country) I found that because there are so many details of an event that often have different sources (that are used in the article) it is easier and more straightforward to not copy all of those references into the lists due to difficulties with ref placement and readability. I then realized that there is a web of trust in WP in the sense that not everything needs to be sourced all the time. There are instances where this is acceptable practice. There are disambiguation pages where sources are not used (because they are sourced on the target article) or in the lead/body situation in standalone articles.

I have begun using this model successfully in the earthquake lists. It is attractive because of the simplicity in creating new entries without the burden of having to potentially copy or duplicate multiple references from the target (event) article. There is also the "why" aspect of this. What I mean by that is that references are meant to confirm or establish that what is being said is true. In these timeline or list articles, that we have dedicated articles (and a healthy AfD process) signifies that entries with blue-linked articles are valid. I'm also bothered by the idea of placing a reference which does not support the stated ideas, only that the event occurred. To me, it is redundant to the blue link. Dawnseeker2000 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the "5,502–6,434 people dead, and 251,301–310,000 displaced" information refer to people within the city of Kobe? or does it refer to people in the region that includes Kobe? -- M2545 (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that's everything, as in the whole region. Yes, after looking, the article states that 4,600 deaths occurred in Kobe. This is something that I've been aware of (adding details that cover a broader area than what the list covers). I don't know how many times I've been able to refine an entry to be specific to the list title. Probably a few. Dawnseeker2000 23:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably better to include only city-specific numbers. If numbers in the city timeline refer to something other than the city, please specify (e.g. "5,502–6,434 people dead and 251,301–310,000 displaced in the Kobe region"), or omit (but include in the main earthquake article). Make sense? -- M2545 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I don't think there is a widespread problem, though as I mentioned, I may have left an entry or two without clarification. I am an AWB user though and will put together a run to double check my work. Dawnseeker2000 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you! -- M2545 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)