This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
It says Chinese Taipei is one of the countries affected, changed it to say Taiwan instead of Chinese Taipei-- Kenbei ( talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The article lists countries as far away as Nepal and Pakistan as being affected by the earthquake, but not Bhutan. Would it be reasonable to assume that Bhutan was affected too, since it's in the circle on the map and Pakistan isn't? Nyttend ( talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain me how an earthquake can reach to Bangladesh from an epicenter which is China, without passing through India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marudhaan ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The original author has no source to back up the statement about the order and timing in which different countries felt the shake. And the listing of the countries/regions have already been given in the infobox. So I don't see why this section should be there before anybody can come up with some more useful information. Unless anybody has a good reason why it should not be deleted, I am removing it. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
the Magnitude is 7.8 or 7.9? According to Xinhua press release that the Magnitude is 7.8 . Does the USGS said it is 7.9? if it is so ,i think it should state separately.-- Prinz.W ( talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
7.8 Ms(State Seismological Bureau of China) and 7.9 Mw(USGS) "Other more recent magnitude measurements include: ...... surface wave magnitude (Ms).... Each of these is scaled to give values similar to those given by the local magnitude scale; but because each is based on a measurement of one aspect of the seismogram, they do not always capture the overall power of the source. " "In particular, for very large earthquakes moment magnitude gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have some questions about this that may also help in the improvement of the article.
Thanks. ~
A
H
1(
T
C
U) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty cool that China can get their (ahem!) in gear for rescue efforts - whereas we poor Americans fail miserably at rescue attempts after a major natural disaster like hurricane Katrina. Maybe Americans are better off in China. :) Coolsnak3 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsnak3 ( talk • contribs)
Taking original material verbatim from someone else requires the use of quotes. It doesn't matter if it's public domain. Rewrite it if you wish to dispense with quotes. Tmangray ( talk) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That is totally false. I have relatives staying in China and I called in to ask if they were ok. They said CCTV has this event all over the news. Either I misread that to mean something else or something is wrong. 68.94.114.250 ( talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Chinese-language page with some photos. I can't read the text. http://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2008-05/12/content_8151518.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.178 ( talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Are images of damage available? Images of damage should be included. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Images of Premier Wen http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256818270.shtml Yuanyelele ( talk) 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not a country,but they are not same goverment.
reaction is a Press Release:
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SARG) is very concerned about the serious earthquake in Sichuan today (May 12).
The SARG will closely monitor the latest earthquake developments and will make a prompt and proper response, and render all possible assistance according to the situation to help with the disaster relief work on the Mainland.
(From http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200805/12/P200805120216.htm) -- Ats10802 ( talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am warming up to can the whole section, because it doesn't add anything and makes an already very long article needlessly longer. So, I think the point will shortly be moot. Yunfeng ( talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to an earthquake of 4.3 magnitude epicentred at Arunachal Pradesh just south-west of Sichuan less than 48 hours before the event. Couldn't find any technical connnection between the two and hence dumping on the talk page. Am putting up the ref on the talk page for anybody else who might be able to find such a relation, if it exists. Prashanthns ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
On Google Maps I discovered a dam just 20 km from the epicenter. Does anybody know, what happened to it? Here you can read more about it. Ansiwen ( talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Earthquakes are both more frequent and have a different cultural significance in China than in the west. Some mention of how this affects current event would be interesting. Lycurgus ( talk) 11:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw in baidu forums that Japan predicted this EQ in May. 12 (the post has been deleted). Does any one in Japan saw that prediction? Another question, does US government or other governments offer EQ forecasting service? Pithree ( talk) 11:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An article published in the Journal of catastrophology by Long Xiao Xia (09-2006), College of tourism and environment of Shaanxi Normal University predicted an earthquake of magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008.
(The full article can be downloaded from Wanfang scholar database, but the database is not free. this is the url: http://ilib.cn/A-zhx200603018.html there's no "magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008" in its abstract.) Pithree ( talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, released "Quick Report for Eastern Suchuan Earthquake", which refers to Longmenshan fault (The Longmenshan thrust zone). ( http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/china2008/index_eng.html ) Is there any information about this fault? -- miya ( talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As the headline, I believe the Sanxia dam is more closer and easier to effect by the earthquake. I add it twice once but finally totally del. --
Prinz.W (
talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
is very, very bad, and it is going to take a long, long time to fix it. Please, if you can't write English well, restrict yourself to posting items on the talk page and leave it to editors that have better writing skills to incorporate that material. Yunfeng ( talk) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not be discouraging Chinese speakers. Much of the published information about this event is not in English. Be bold and fix any poor english and quit grumbling. This is a group effort. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I figure it's better to have poorly written content than to have no content. So long as you write unbiased facts, please keep editing and don't worry if your English isn't perfect. Readin ( talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is being widely reported in the Western media, e.g. BBC "In one city, Mianyang, near the epicentre, more than 18,000 people are said to be buried under the rubble, state news agency Xinhua reports" - can anyone get a ref to Xinhua's statement?
This info needs adding ASAP. If anyone can word it nicely, go ahead and add it - the original ref can come later-- Chzz ► 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add and source this article? I'm relatively new and don't know how to source things yet... cheers!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/china.naturaldisasters1
"In Mianyang 60 miles east of the epicentrre, 18,645 people remained buried under debris and survivors spent a second night sleeping outside in the rain, some under striped plastic sheeting strung between trees. The government ordered them not to return home, citing safety concerns, and posted security guards outside apartment complexes to keep people out. At least 4,800 people remained buried in Mianzhu, local authorities said."
Third paragraph into the article.
Duct tape tricorn ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there's a suprisingly shocking (for BBC) video here. -- Chzz ► 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone fancy putting this pic somewhere? The current pics don't really give a sense of 'where in China', IMHO. -- Chzz ► 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this - particularly "China transfers 11,420 soldiers to quake-hit Sichuan" - replace wnd para in 'rescue efforts'? Is it citable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is everyone happy with that addition, in tectonics? Does it work OK, etc? -- Chzz ► 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is inappropriately titled. Mortality rate is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in some population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit time. Mortality rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 1000 individuals per year. This section should be renamed Casualties or similar, and can include injured and missing when known. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? "places" is neural enough. GunRock ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And once again I'd like to remind all the Chinese on here that this *is* English Wikipedia. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep this article and discussion about the earthquakes and its effects, not about the status of Taiwan. I've just edited it so Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, the U.S., Japan, etc. are all listed at the same level in alphabetical order (except for mainland China which is first). If you want to think Taiwan is part of China, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level and in the same way as Hong Kong and Macau. If you want to think Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level as the U.S. and Japan. Please leave it that way. The status of Taiwan isn't what this article is about. Readin ( talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I suggest we all keep an eye out for any future changes, and if necessary, seek protection. 24.222.211.65 ( talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten all kinds of NSFW stuff splashed across my watch page. Any way to get rid of that? Simonm223 ( talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that occasional vandalism of this page has continued. Can we get it protected? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this was vandalism or an accident, but the cite (140) in the "Media" section about "Liaoning Girl" is about Tibet, not about the "Liaoning Girl" or the earthquake. -- 76.83.24.57 ( talk) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Reverted two separate instances of vandalism where large bodies of text were deleted and replaced with obvious joke messages. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
On May 25th 2008 4:21 p.m an aftershock of 5.8 magnitude occurred. While one death was reported, 70,000 homes collapsed. 69 dams are said to be at risk of collapsing. The location of the aftershock at 32.587°N, 105.424°E was more than 200 kilometers from the epicenter of the May 12th tremor in the Sichuan-Gansu border region about 40 km WNW of Guangyuan, Sichuan, China. This was preceded by an 5.2 magnitude aftershock 35 km further southwest on May 20th at 01:52:33 AM at 32.233°N, 105.035°E. Such shocks were predicted by the USGS as the original earthquake transferred strain north eastward from the site of the original tremor.
[3] [4] [5] [6] Pdeitiker ( talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The disinfection image does not belong in "reactions" - it is not a social reaction of any kind. I propose it moved to "rescue effort" or somewhere else. Benlisquare ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This section needs some serious clean-up work. There is a significant amount of redundant information whose sole purpose is to show how seriously Chinese people and media took the disaster, e.g. mourning day change for major websites. Other information either lacks notability outside China mainland, e.g. a whole paragraph is dedicated to CCTV's donation event with only one source, or is only loosely relevant, e.g. before my latest edit, there was even something like "Faye Wong performed a song during the donation event". ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
er... incase you haven't realised, CCTV is the ONLY source for that event... 122.106.52.128 ( talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Signs and Predictions section continues to attract outlandish claims. In the past 24 hrs I have twice reverted edits that included a claim by the infamously crazy Lyndon LaRouche about how the US has created earthquake generating weapons. Everyone, please be on the look-out for such garbage. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who User:Excirial is, but I do know that he hasn't spent any time editing this article, and he doesn't know wtf he is talking about here. The question isn't one of a factual dispute. We've allowed the pseudo-science of the EQ clouds stand for awhile. The question is whether the ravings of a crazy man who has no expertise in anything even remotely connected to EQ and unsourced info about the Russian Fed should be included. The answer is obviously no. I'm using my third revert, and I ask User:Excirial to spend some time getting up to speed on what the issues are before he molests this page again. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider adding a section with a table listing earthquakes with same Mw with the dates, casualty numbers and so on. The thing might help with better linking of articles-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 09:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Isnt' this still a current event? Rescue efforts, evacuation efforts, the quake lakes, that's still new news. 70.51.10.126 ( talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Beichuan, the worst striken city, is a city where Qiang People compromise over 50% of its population. Qiang People is a nation closely related to TIBETAN people! Not mention that many tibetans died in another city, Aba, as well!
What would be the importance of mentioning those? Did the Chinese media release any number yet? If the Chinese media hasn't released any, how would the western media know. Plus we have a total number of death, as Chinese, there is no reason to mention which minority died what number. I don't remember American media focus on Black people being killed in Katrina? Speaker1978 ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt western media like ccn bbc etc intend to overlook the fact. They may have the intention to tell western people that: look, those CHinese got earthquake! In some sense, ccn bbc etc are just a bunch of sharon stones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisomycin ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This article quotes only two experts that imply and/or say that the collapsed buildings were old, even though many of these buildings weren't old (most certainly not pre-Tangshan). What these experts don't seem to understand is that Chinese architecture is very often so aesthetically rudimentary and spartan that most buildings outside a very small handful of cities have an old *look* even if they were built today. This false and irresponsible assumption of "old buildings" from most of the "western" media is extremely harmful to the people of China and entirely counterproductive -- it has the potential of prolonging the widespread corruption of China's construction and development sectors, which in turn could cause more untold suffering.
As of June 4, there have been plenty of voices (including local and foreign reporters, and even members of the rescue teams) expressing their dismay at the shoddy construction of many (perhaps most) of the buildings that collapsed. Quite a few buildings had steel beams that were about the diameter of a pen, in obvious violation of regulation. During the last week or so, there have been numerous protests inside China from grieving parents. The latest large protest was forcibly dispersed by police just yesterday.
Please, the relevant section of this article *must* be revised. Otherwise, the article implies a deep bias.
After the mourning period, videos appeared on youku and todou (chinese youtube variants), with people swearing and cussing at the quake victims, because of the mourning period (there was no entertainment on TV for three days). I can't recall the exact link as of yet (try searching?). Should this be included? Benlisquare ( talk) 09:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've found one of the many videos from different people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdWj35Dg5g Benlisquare ( talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's good that signs & predictions admits that basically no one has ever predicted one, but it should also point out two things :
But the real point is, you can't predict when an earthquake will occur, but you can build to withstand them. So virtually all earthquake deaths, except from landslides, are the result of poor building codes or corruption. JeffBurdges ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese structural code is regarded to be the leading seismic design code worldwide. However, 'Former Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics chairman Ziggy Lubkowski said that while current seismic codes are good, it appeared that many of the buildings destroyed – particularly in Chengdu – were "either pre-code or early code structures".' http://www.nce.co.uk/international/news/2008/05/china_quake_leaves_nearly_12000_dead.html. Also, the area was not predicted to have anything like this magnitude of quake (like Kobe). The Zipingpu dam was designed for accelerations of 0.25 g at the crest but experienced some eight times this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 ( talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The design level was roughly one fifth the quake that hit http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13885-accepted-level-of-earthquake-risk-in-china-too-high.html
I overhauled the prediction section.
Sillyvalley ( talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish the article tell me more about this problem in English. I know this is about how high the plane can fly, but I don't quite understand it, and I wish to see more examples from other events. Thanks. 118.169.96.250 ( talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is definitely good enough. But I don't think it would fit the neutral category. ~ Me ldshal 42 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
Boxun.com and The Epoch Times (which also discusses the Boxun story) are not reliable sources on the science of nuclear weapons, and the idea that a nuclear weapon could have caused the earthquake sounds very much like scientific nonsense to me.-- Pharos ( talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That section is even larger than the main article. Using the information in this section, I think somebody expert on the subject should expand the main article. -- haha169 ( talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Gary King ( talk) 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This article now meets the GA criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King ( talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been almost two months since the earthquake. At what point can the missing be presumed dead? The USGS is already doing this (ie, including the missing in their dead total). Can anyone find a Chinese source that is doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would really like to get the article featured by next year so we could put it on the main page by May 12 2009. It is very well-referenced, but I would like to fix some issues so it is very, very, good! -- Meldshal42 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
An obvious example is that while most cited dates use dd M yyyy, "epicenter" and "center" are spelled in U.S. style, mixed with use of "kilometre". I am under the impression that China's official English publication tends to use British style, but not sure. Sillyvalley ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Very confused about one of the top notes. What could possibly make this topic controversial? Sillyvalley ( talk) 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no such thing as an "American English" article, to say so would mean... there's a need to split Wikipedia into British English and American English. Also how do you decide this would be "American English" when infact Hong Kong (now back inside Chinese control) for example would follow British English spelling along with their native Cantonese language???? CaribDigita ( talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"逝者安息 生者奋发 - 关注5.12汶川大地震 (May the dead rest in peace. May the living thrive in strides - Focus on 5.12 Wenchuan Great Earthquake) (Special Publications about the Sichuan Earthquake)" (in Chinese). 腾讯大成网 (Tencent QQ). Retrieved 2008-07-24. There must be other references. The casualty section is a bit difficult for me - and really late for me Sillyvalley ( talk) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the note about use of non-English sources because in view of the article's use of such, it is not a concern.
In short, this article's use of non-English sources largely conforms to the policy in Verifiability#Non-English sources. Sillyvalley ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone with Chinese language skills please review the line "It was also known as the Wenchuan earthquake (simplified Chinese: 汶川大地震; traditional Chinese: 汶川大地震; pinyin: Wènchuān dà dìzhèn)," (currently 3rd from top). It appears the chars labeled as simplified are actually traditional. 72.227.121.137 ( talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)tickerhead (not signed in)
Approximately one year after theh earthquake, the information on persons missing remains 17,923 on the Wikipedia entry (statistics as of September 22, 2008). At some point, will that number be added to those who died, or relabeled as "presumed dead"? -- 71.111.205.22 ( talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall that in the aftermath of this there was a lot of superstition about this and other natural disasters, especially having to do with the dates on which they happened (ie, 3/14 adds up to 8), the animals associated with the Fuwa and supposedly with the earthquake/etc., and a bunch of other mumbo jumbo. I couldn't find any mention of it in the article, though...would it be nice to add some (or, if it's already there, make it easier to find?). I know it was covered in some reliable sources, I just don't have them on hand right now; I might be able to find some later if there's an interest in adding this to the article. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This statement is posted with no supporting information or examples. I have no idea what the statement means... Jabberwockgee ( talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=333430. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Earthquake's results section contradicts the factfile.
Factfile - Earthquake's Magnitude = 8.0 Ms / 7.9 Mw
Earthquake's results - Earthquake's Magnitude = 7.9 Ms / 7.9 Mw
188.221.24.27 (
talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.
I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.
I think one section, or series of sections our is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.
I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.
Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The 25 minutes tremor is a bit dubious in that, within the same section, it states the tremor lasted 2-3 minutes. I was wondering if it was a mis-typed 2.5 minutes?.
Confirmation from an additional source would help.
J.P.Lon ( talk) 09:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Should we link the much lesser-known but similar magnitude 2001 Kunlun earthquake that struck a connecting fault west of the Longmenshan Fault that produced the 2008 quake, but the earlier one caused no fatalities? Article should probably include a mention and reliable sources. For example, try Google Scholar and bring up any articles that explicitly make a connection. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 16:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_Sichuan_earthquake&oldid=457076884 was done by a Wikipedian that only came here and made 1 edit and probably created a page on himself that was speedyed. I am wondering if someone can verify the duration of the earthquake lasting 2 Days and 8 Hours? I can't find anything on this right now as I thought it only lasted a few minutes. Please Help! Sawblade5 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 19:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2008 Sichuan earthquake. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
2008 Sichuan earthquake. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
It says Chinese Taipei is one of the countries affected, changed it to say Taiwan instead of Chinese Taipei-- Kenbei ( talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The article lists countries as far away as Nepal and Pakistan as being affected by the earthquake, but not Bhutan. Would it be reasonable to assume that Bhutan was affected too, since it's in the circle on the map and Pakistan isn't? Nyttend ( talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain me how an earthquake can reach to Bangladesh from an epicenter which is China, without passing through India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marudhaan ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The original author has no source to back up the statement about the order and timing in which different countries felt the shake. And the listing of the countries/regions have already been given in the infobox. So I don't see why this section should be there before anybody can come up with some more useful information. Unless anybody has a good reason why it should not be deleted, I am removing it. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
the Magnitude is 7.8 or 7.9? According to Xinhua press release that the Magnitude is 7.8 . Does the USGS said it is 7.9? if it is so ,i think it should state separately.-- Prinz.W ( talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
7.8 Ms(State Seismological Bureau of China) and 7.9 Mw(USGS) "Other more recent magnitude measurements include: ...... surface wave magnitude (Ms).... Each of these is scaled to give values similar to those given by the local magnitude scale; but because each is based on a measurement of one aspect of the seismogram, they do not always capture the overall power of the source. " "In particular, for very large earthquakes moment magnitude gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have some questions about this that may also help in the improvement of the article.
Thanks. ~
A
H
1(
T
C
U) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty cool that China can get their (ahem!) in gear for rescue efforts - whereas we poor Americans fail miserably at rescue attempts after a major natural disaster like hurricane Katrina. Maybe Americans are better off in China. :) Coolsnak3 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsnak3 ( talk • contribs)
Taking original material verbatim from someone else requires the use of quotes. It doesn't matter if it's public domain. Rewrite it if you wish to dispense with quotes. Tmangray ( talk) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That is totally false. I have relatives staying in China and I called in to ask if they were ok. They said CCTV has this event all over the news. Either I misread that to mean something else or something is wrong. 68.94.114.250 ( talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Chinese-language page with some photos. I can't read the text. http://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2008-05/12/content_8151518.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.178 ( talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Are images of damage available? Images of damage should be included. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Images of Premier Wen http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256818270.shtml Yuanyelele ( talk) 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not a country,but they are not same goverment.
reaction is a Press Release:
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SARG) is very concerned about the serious earthquake in Sichuan today (May 12).
The SARG will closely monitor the latest earthquake developments and will make a prompt and proper response, and render all possible assistance according to the situation to help with the disaster relief work on the Mainland.
(From http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200805/12/P200805120216.htm) -- Ats10802 ( talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am warming up to can the whole section, because it doesn't add anything and makes an already very long article needlessly longer. So, I think the point will shortly be moot. Yunfeng ( talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to an earthquake of 4.3 magnitude epicentred at Arunachal Pradesh just south-west of Sichuan less than 48 hours before the event. Couldn't find any technical connnection between the two and hence dumping on the talk page. Am putting up the ref on the talk page for anybody else who might be able to find such a relation, if it exists. Prashanthns ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
On Google Maps I discovered a dam just 20 km from the epicenter. Does anybody know, what happened to it? Here you can read more about it. Ansiwen ( talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Earthquakes are both more frequent and have a different cultural significance in China than in the west. Some mention of how this affects current event would be interesting. Lycurgus ( talk) 11:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw in baidu forums that Japan predicted this EQ in May. 12 (the post has been deleted). Does any one in Japan saw that prediction? Another question, does US government or other governments offer EQ forecasting service? Pithree ( talk) 11:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An article published in the Journal of catastrophology by Long Xiao Xia (09-2006), College of tourism and environment of Shaanxi Normal University predicted an earthquake of magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008.
(The full article can be downloaded from Wanfang scholar database, but the database is not free. this is the url: http://ilib.cn/A-zhx200603018.html there's no "magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008" in its abstract.) Pithree ( talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, released "Quick Report for Eastern Suchuan Earthquake", which refers to Longmenshan fault (The Longmenshan thrust zone). ( http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/china2008/index_eng.html ) Is there any information about this fault? -- miya ( talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As the headline, I believe the Sanxia dam is more closer and easier to effect by the earthquake. I add it twice once but finally totally del. --
Prinz.W (
talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
is very, very bad, and it is going to take a long, long time to fix it. Please, if you can't write English well, restrict yourself to posting items on the talk page and leave it to editors that have better writing skills to incorporate that material. Yunfeng ( talk) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not be discouraging Chinese speakers. Much of the published information about this event is not in English. Be bold and fix any poor english and quit grumbling. This is a group effort. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I figure it's better to have poorly written content than to have no content. So long as you write unbiased facts, please keep editing and don't worry if your English isn't perfect. Readin ( talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is being widely reported in the Western media, e.g. BBC "In one city, Mianyang, near the epicentre, more than 18,000 people are said to be buried under the rubble, state news agency Xinhua reports" - can anyone get a ref to Xinhua's statement?
This info needs adding ASAP. If anyone can word it nicely, go ahead and add it - the original ref can come later-- Chzz ► 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add and source this article? I'm relatively new and don't know how to source things yet... cheers!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/china.naturaldisasters1
"In Mianyang 60 miles east of the epicentrre, 18,645 people remained buried under debris and survivors spent a second night sleeping outside in the rain, some under striped plastic sheeting strung between trees. The government ordered them not to return home, citing safety concerns, and posted security guards outside apartment complexes to keep people out. At least 4,800 people remained buried in Mianzhu, local authorities said."
Third paragraph into the article.
Duct tape tricorn ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there's a suprisingly shocking (for BBC) video here. -- Chzz ► 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone fancy putting this pic somewhere? The current pics don't really give a sense of 'where in China', IMHO. -- Chzz ► 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this - particularly "China transfers 11,420 soldiers to quake-hit Sichuan" - replace wnd para in 'rescue efforts'? Is it citable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is everyone happy with that addition, in tectonics? Does it work OK, etc? -- Chzz ► 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is inappropriately titled. Mortality rate is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in some population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit time. Mortality rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 1000 individuals per year. This section should be renamed Casualties or similar, and can include injured and missing when known. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? "places" is neural enough. GunRock ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And once again I'd like to remind all the Chinese on here that this *is* English Wikipedia. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep this article and discussion about the earthquakes and its effects, not about the status of Taiwan. I've just edited it so Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, the U.S., Japan, etc. are all listed at the same level in alphabetical order (except for mainland China which is first). If you want to think Taiwan is part of China, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level and in the same way as Hong Kong and Macau. If you want to think Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level as the U.S. and Japan. Please leave it that way. The status of Taiwan isn't what this article is about. Readin ( talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I suggest we all keep an eye out for any future changes, and if necessary, seek protection. 24.222.211.65 ( talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten all kinds of NSFW stuff splashed across my watch page. Any way to get rid of that? Simonm223 ( talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that occasional vandalism of this page has continued. Can we get it protected? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this was vandalism or an accident, but the cite (140) in the "Media" section about "Liaoning Girl" is about Tibet, not about the "Liaoning Girl" or the earthquake. -- 76.83.24.57 ( talk) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Reverted two separate instances of vandalism where large bodies of text were deleted and replaced with obvious joke messages. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
On May 25th 2008 4:21 p.m an aftershock of 5.8 magnitude occurred. While one death was reported, 70,000 homes collapsed. 69 dams are said to be at risk of collapsing. The location of the aftershock at 32.587°N, 105.424°E was more than 200 kilometers from the epicenter of the May 12th tremor in the Sichuan-Gansu border region about 40 km WNW of Guangyuan, Sichuan, China. This was preceded by an 5.2 magnitude aftershock 35 km further southwest on May 20th at 01:52:33 AM at 32.233°N, 105.035°E. Such shocks were predicted by the USGS as the original earthquake transferred strain north eastward from the site of the original tremor.
[3] [4] [5] [6] Pdeitiker ( talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The disinfection image does not belong in "reactions" - it is not a social reaction of any kind. I propose it moved to "rescue effort" or somewhere else. Benlisquare ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This section needs some serious clean-up work. There is a significant amount of redundant information whose sole purpose is to show how seriously Chinese people and media took the disaster, e.g. mourning day change for major websites. Other information either lacks notability outside China mainland, e.g. a whole paragraph is dedicated to CCTV's donation event with only one source, or is only loosely relevant, e.g. before my latest edit, there was even something like "Faye Wong performed a song during the donation event". ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
er... incase you haven't realised, CCTV is the ONLY source for that event... 122.106.52.128 ( talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Signs and Predictions section continues to attract outlandish claims. In the past 24 hrs I have twice reverted edits that included a claim by the infamously crazy Lyndon LaRouche about how the US has created earthquake generating weapons. Everyone, please be on the look-out for such garbage. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who User:Excirial is, but I do know that he hasn't spent any time editing this article, and he doesn't know wtf he is talking about here. The question isn't one of a factual dispute. We've allowed the pseudo-science of the EQ clouds stand for awhile. The question is whether the ravings of a crazy man who has no expertise in anything even remotely connected to EQ and unsourced info about the Russian Fed should be included. The answer is obviously no. I'm using my third revert, and I ask User:Excirial to spend some time getting up to speed on what the issues are before he molests this page again. 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider adding a section with a table listing earthquakes with same Mw with the dates, casualty numbers and so on. The thing might help with better linking of articles-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 09:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Isnt' this still a current event? Rescue efforts, evacuation efforts, the quake lakes, that's still new news. 70.51.10.126 ( talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Beichuan, the worst striken city, is a city where Qiang People compromise over 50% of its population. Qiang People is a nation closely related to TIBETAN people! Not mention that many tibetans died in another city, Aba, as well!
What would be the importance of mentioning those? Did the Chinese media release any number yet? If the Chinese media hasn't released any, how would the western media know. Plus we have a total number of death, as Chinese, there is no reason to mention which minority died what number. I don't remember American media focus on Black people being killed in Katrina? Speaker1978 ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt western media like ccn bbc etc intend to overlook the fact. They may have the intention to tell western people that: look, those CHinese got earthquake! In some sense, ccn bbc etc are just a bunch of sharon stones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisomycin ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This article quotes only two experts that imply and/or say that the collapsed buildings were old, even though many of these buildings weren't old (most certainly not pre-Tangshan). What these experts don't seem to understand is that Chinese architecture is very often so aesthetically rudimentary and spartan that most buildings outside a very small handful of cities have an old *look* even if they were built today. This false and irresponsible assumption of "old buildings" from most of the "western" media is extremely harmful to the people of China and entirely counterproductive -- it has the potential of prolonging the widespread corruption of China's construction and development sectors, which in turn could cause more untold suffering.
As of June 4, there have been plenty of voices (including local and foreign reporters, and even members of the rescue teams) expressing their dismay at the shoddy construction of many (perhaps most) of the buildings that collapsed. Quite a few buildings had steel beams that were about the diameter of a pen, in obvious violation of regulation. During the last week or so, there have been numerous protests inside China from grieving parents. The latest large protest was forcibly dispersed by police just yesterday.
Please, the relevant section of this article *must* be revised. Otherwise, the article implies a deep bias.
After the mourning period, videos appeared on youku and todou (chinese youtube variants), with people swearing and cussing at the quake victims, because of the mourning period (there was no entertainment on TV for three days). I can't recall the exact link as of yet (try searching?). Should this be included? Benlisquare ( talk) 09:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've found one of the many videos from different people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdWj35Dg5g Benlisquare ( talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's good that signs & predictions admits that basically no one has ever predicted one, but it should also point out two things :
But the real point is, you can't predict when an earthquake will occur, but you can build to withstand them. So virtually all earthquake deaths, except from landslides, are the result of poor building codes or corruption. JeffBurdges ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese structural code is regarded to be the leading seismic design code worldwide. However, 'Former Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics chairman Ziggy Lubkowski said that while current seismic codes are good, it appeared that many of the buildings destroyed – particularly in Chengdu – were "either pre-code or early code structures".' http://www.nce.co.uk/international/news/2008/05/china_quake_leaves_nearly_12000_dead.html. Also, the area was not predicted to have anything like this magnitude of quake (like Kobe). The Zipingpu dam was designed for accelerations of 0.25 g at the crest but experienced some eight times this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 ( talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The design level was roughly one fifth the quake that hit http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13885-accepted-level-of-earthquake-risk-in-china-too-high.html
I overhauled the prediction section.
Sillyvalley ( talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish the article tell me more about this problem in English. I know this is about how high the plane can fly, but I don't quite understand it, and I wish to see more examples from other events. Thanks. 118.169.96.250 ( talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is definitely good enough. But I don't think it would fit the neutral category. ~ Me ldshal 42 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
Boxun.com and The Epoch Times (which also discusses the Boxun story) are not reliable sources on the science of nuclear weapons, and the idea that a nuclear weapon could have caused the earthquake sounds very much like scientific nonsense to me.-- Pharos ( talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That section is even larger than the main article. Using the information in this section, I think somebody expert on the subject should expand the main article. -- haha169 ( talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Gary King ( talk) 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This article now meets the GA criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King ( talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been almost two months since the earthquake. At what point can the missing be presumed dead? The USGS is already doing this (ie, including the missing in their dead total). Can anyone find a Chinese source that is doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 ( talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would really like to get the article featured by next year so we could put it on the main page by May 12 2009. It is very well-referenced, but I would like to fix some issues so it is very, very, good! -- Meldshal42 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
An obvious example is that while most cited dates use dd M yyyy, "epicenter" and "center" are spelled in U.S. style, mixed with use of "kilometre". I am under the impression that China's official English publication tends to use British style, but not sure. Sillyvalley ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Very confused about one of the top notes. What could possibly make this topic controversial? Sillyvalley ( talk) 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no such thing as an "American English" article, to say so would mean... there's a need to split Wikipedia into British English and American English. Also how do you decide this would be "American English" when infact Hong Kong (now back inside Chinese control) for example would follow British English spelling along with their native Cantonese language???? CaribDigita ( talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"逝者安息 生者奋发 - 关注5.12汶川大地震 (May the dead rest in peace. May the living thrive in strides - Focus on 5.12 Wenchuan Great Earthquake) (Special Publications about the Sichuan Earthquake)" (in Chinese). 腾讯大成网 (Tencent QQ). Retrieved 2008-07-24. There must be other references. The casualty section is a bit difficult for me - and really late for me Sillyvalley ( talk) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the note about use of non-English sources because in view of the article's use of such, it is not a concern.
In short, this article's use of non-English sources largely conforms to the policy in Verifiability#Non-English sources. Sillyvalley ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone with Chinese language skills please review the line "It was also known as the Wenchuan earthquake (simplified Chinese: 汶川大地震; traditional Chinese: 汶川大地震; pinyin: Wènchuān dà dìzhèn)," (currently 3rd from top). It appears the chars labeled as simplified are actually traditional. 72.227.121.137 ( talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)tickerhead (not signed in)
Approximately one year after theh earthquake, the information on persons missing remains 17,923 on the Wikipedia entry (statistics as of September 22, 2008). At some point, will that number be added to those who died, or relabeled as "presumed dead"? -- 71.111.205.22 ( talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall that in the aftermath of this there was a lot of superstition about this and other natural disasters, especially having to do with the dates on which they happened (ie, 3/14 adds up to 8), the animals associated with the Fuwa and supposedly with the earthquake/etc., and a bunch of other mumbo jumbo. I couldn't find any mention of it in the article, though...would it be nice to add some (or, if it's already there, make it easier to find?). I know it was covered in some reliable sources, I just don't have them on hand right now; I might be able to find some later if there's an interest in adding this to the article. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This statement is posted with no supporting information or examples. I have no idea what the statement means... Jabberwockgee ( talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=333430. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Earthquake's results section contradicts the factfile.
Factfile - Earthquake's Magnitude = 8.0 Ms / 7.9 Mw
Earthquake's results - Earthquake's Magnitude = 7.9 Ms / 7.9 Mw
188.221.24.27 (
talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.
I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.
I think one section, or series of sections our is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.
I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.
Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The 25 minutes tremor is a bit dubious in that, within the same section, it states the tremor lasted 2-3 minutes. I was wondering if it was a mis-typed 2.5 minutes?.
Confirmation from an additional source would help.
J.P.Lon ( talk) 09:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Should we link the much lesser-known but similar magnitude 2001 Kunlun earthquake that struck a connecting fault west of the Longmenshan Fault that produced the 2008 quake, but the earlier one caused no fatalities? Article should probably include a mention and reliable sources. For example, try Google Scholar and bring up any articles that explicitly make a connection. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 16:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_Sichuan_earthquake&oldid=457076884 was done by a Wikipedian that only came here and made 1 edit and probably created a page on himself that was speedyed. I am wondering if someone can verify the duration of the earthquake lasting 2 Days and 8 Hours? I can't find anything on this right now as I thought it only lasted a few minutes. Please Help! Sawblade5 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 19:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2008 Sichuan earthquake. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
2008 Sichuan earthquake. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)