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 |
The reference to a "6.2 magnitude" earthquake is meaningless, without referring to the scale used. 125.236.202.112 ( talk) 23:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Shakemap Earthquake 24 Aug 2016 Italy.jpg should be added to category commons:Category:Maps of 2016 Central Italy earthquake, as the page is protected from editing. Thanks, -- MB298 ( talk) 02:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that this change was a little premature - that newspaper report is not really sufficient on its own to make the change. As of a few minutes ago the INGV list 7 aftershocks of over magnitude 4 and only one of over 5 - for comparison the USGS currently list 8. So far these all appear to be aftershocks and not separate earthquakes. It won't be a surprise if other mainshocks occur over the next few days/weeks, but they haven't yet. Mikenorton ( talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just removed a "reactions" section which contained nothing of substance; mostly just that some countries have, in the name of their heads of state, issued press releases expressing condolences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if the edit [1] were sourced (which it isn't) it is not appropriate to list all of the victims' names in the article. Meters ( talk) 07:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The the number of deaths is being 'updated' by editors, exclusively IPs recently. AGF, they may be correct, however the references are not being changed or updated in any way. It says "As of x...", but the source is dated days earlier. Example
[2] and
[3]. It's gone from 268 to 290, without a new or more recent source.
• This is actually fairly common, but on other pages I've also seen absurd figures sneaked in. :-( Needs watching.
220
of
Borg
17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:DECIMAL, A period/full point (.), never a comma, is used as the decimal point (6.57, not 6,57).""―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Many media in the English speaking world are reporting a magnitude of 6.2 Mw from USGS. However, the competent seismological institute in Italy, which operates 350 monitoring stations close to the event, has produced a final analysis which reports 6.0 ± 0.3 Mw at a depth of 4 ± 1 km. The USGS has got 9 monitoring stations in Europe, of which none in Italy. Just like it wouldn't be wise to ask the Italian meteorological institute for the wind speed of a hurricane in Florida, it is not wise to use USGS data for an earthquake in Italy.-- Japs 88 ( talk) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the initiative shown in creating the new chart. But is the current version the best way to visualize the data? The y-axis is linear, so the main shock looks like it's just floating there above a few hundred aftershocks. The expected exponential dropoff in aftershocks is plainly visible but a trend line would be neat. Geogene ( talk) 23:26, 25 August 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 |
The reference to a "6.2 magnitude" earthquake is meaningless, without referring to the scale used. 125.236.202.112 ( talk) 23:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Shakemap Earthquake 24 Aug 2016 Italy.jpg should be added to category commons:Category:Maps of 2016 Central Italy earthquake, as the page is protected from editing. Thanks, -- MB298 ( talk) 02:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that this change was a little premature - that newspaper report is not really sufficient on its own to make the change. As of a few minutes ago the INGV list 7 aftershocks of over magnitude 4 and only one of over 5 - for comparison the USGS currently list 8. So far these all appear to be aftershocks and not separate earthquakes. It won't be a surprise if other mainshocks occur over the next few days/weeks, but they haven't yet. Mikenorton ( talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just removed a "reactions" section which contained nothing of substance; mostly just that some countries have, in the name of their heads of state, issued press releases expressing condolences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if the edit [1] were sourced (which it isn't) it is not appropriate to list all of the victims' names in the article. Meters ( talk) 07:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The the number of deaths is being 'updated' by editors, exclusively IPs recently. AGF, they may be correct, however the references are not being changed or updated in any way. It says "As of x...", but the source is dated days earlier. Example
[2] and
[3]. It's gone from 268 to 290, without a new or more recent source.
• This is actually fairly common, but on other pages I've also seen absurd figures sneaked in. :-( Needs watching.
220
of
Borg
17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:DECIMAL, A period/full point (.), never a comma, is used as the decimal point (6.57, not 6,57).""―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Many media in the English speaking world are reporting a magnitude of 6.2 Mw from USGS. However, the competent seismological institute in Italy, which operates 350 monitoring stations close to the event, has produced a final analysis which reports 6.0 ± 0.3 Mw at a depth of 4 ± 1 km. The USGS has got 9 monitoring stations in Europe, of which none in Italy. Just like it wouldn't be wise to ask the Italian meteorological institute for the wind speed of a hurricane in Florida, it is not wise to use USGS data for an earthquake in Italy.-- Japs 88 ( talk) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the initiative shown in creating the new chart. But is the current version the best way to visualize the data? The y-axis is linear, so the main shock looks like it's just floating there above a few hundred aftershocks. The expected exponential dropoff in aftershocks is plainly visible but a trend line would be neat. Geogene ( talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)