![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Dr. Ampuero: I thank you for your interest in contributing, and please convey my thanks to Dr. Heaton for his interest. However, Wikipedia is not entirely free-form in how we go about matters; there are certain policies and processes we need to conform to. These are often a bit clunky (which is to say, not yet perfect), but that is how things are. If you won't mind, I would like to offer some guidance that will make the process of contributing easier.
Please note that First and foremost is the policy of [[WP:verifiability|] (often referred to as WP:V). Basically it means that all content is based on reliable, published sources, and must be cited to those sources. Even if Dr. Heaton personally wrote and signed the material you added, that is not adequate: it has to be attributed to a verifiable source. (I note that this material does contain citations, albeit incomplete. Those are fixable, so not really at issue.)
But if the text you added is verbatim from a source, then, as Jasper Deng noted in his edit summary, there is a possible copyright issue. This may require some discussion.
I point out that while "boldness" in editing is encouraged, reversion should also be respected. In particular, immediately restoring your material is improper. (See WP:BRD for an explanation.) So please understand that my undoing of your edit should not be taken as lack of appreciation, but that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Particularly: is the material you added verbatim from a soucrce? And if so, what source? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
not traditionally[historically?]
exposed to earthquakes" as significant; but perhaps ML is more significant for small "local" (i.e., non-teleseismic) quakes that might not register out of the area? I have also seen comments that ML is faster, easier to calculate (for a preliminary determination), but is that still a factor, given all the fancy software available nowadays?
Should the "Nuclear explosions" section be deleted?
While readers might be interested in the seismic equivalent of a nuclear explosion, the essence of the matter is, as stated: "Such comparison figures are not very meaningful.
" But
as currently written the section gets there in rather round-about way, with a lot more detail than is necessary. Even worse, that section is effectively unsourced: the first note is from a Congressional report with no sources, and no attribution, and fails as a reliable source; the other two sources are 404 urls.
As this article has been written at technical level, it should have primary and secondary sources (perhaps textbooks), not blogs. And regardless of the level of the intended audience, it is probably sufficient to explain why the comparison is not meaningful, rather than work out a result only to throw it away.
I am inclined towards deletion. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In this article formulas are displayed using the <math> tag, which generates large and bolded LaTex output. For formulas on their own line this is standard and acceptable. However, the same markup has also been used in the text for the sole purpose of formatting the several magnitude scales. That is an undesirable use, as the large and bolded result (e.g.: ) is TOO LOUD, and rather intimidating. It is also unnecessary, as the {{
M}} template is now available that provides a more reasonable result. (And is easier to use, and provides other features including more consistent use across the encyclopedia.) I am therefore replacing in-line instances of (and similar instances) with
Mw
. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am going to remove the table under Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison with Richter scale. It is not well done, does not provide a good sense of how Mw relates to ML (or any other scale), it's just so much clutter.
What we need is a well-done graph, such as Utsu's 2002 figure 1, showing "Relationship between magnitude scales" (seen here as figure 7). Or even Kanamori's (1983) figure 4b. But both of those are copyrighted. Maybe someone knows how to create a similar chart? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ampuero: With all that high-grade talent you hang out with, is there any chance you could get someone to contribute a publication grade graph showing the interrelation of the several scales? Some good ones have been done, but the main problem is getting one that the creator (or copyright owner) will grant copyright permission. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I propose removal of the Moment magnitude scale#Nuclear explosions section. I would argue that nuclear (or any other kind of) explosions and earthquakes are not directly comparable, and attempting to do so (without more explanation than is suitable here) is misleading. Distinguishing between explosions and quakes is certainly notable, but more for seismology generally; it has nothing to do with this scale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit summary by @
Ampuero: Actually, we do need to cite where equations come from. They are (essentially) being quoted, and per our core content policy
WP:Verifiability: "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
" Sure, this is often scamped, but continuance of a bad habit should not be taken as justification.
Proper citation is essential for verification, especially when there are (as we have been having) little spats as to the correct details. Resolution of such matters is generally by getting everyone's eyeballs on the same source. This should be cited immediately adjacent to the equation (not just casually mentioned somewhere in the text). And we really should have an in-source specification such as a page number, else we can't find the equation or formula cited, or (even worse) we find a slightly different formula. (Incidentally: the "named-ref" construction does not allow in-source specification; please use {{ harv}} templates instead.)
As to the case at hand, the text in the "Definition" section is currently:
- The moment magnitude Mw is a dimensionless value defined by Hiroo Kanamori[12] as
- Mw = 2/3 log10 M0 10.7,
- where M0 is the seismic moment in dyne⋅cm (×107 N⋅m).[1]
Note [12] is to Kanmori 1977, but without any page or equation numbers. The problem is: that formula does not appear in Kanamori 1977. It appears in Kanamori 1978 (but not cited here), and in Hanks & Kanamori 1979 (note [1]) but again without page or equation numbers. Which MAKES ALL OF THIS REALLY HARD TO VERIFY!
So we need to not only cite equations (or rather, their source), but also consider their placement (unambiguously associated with the equation) and specification (page number and, ideally, equation number).
There is also the matter of: which source to use. E.g., can anyone explain why credit for devising the moment magnitude scale is usually given to Kanamori 1978 1977 (his JGR article), which doesn't carry his work through to the actual formula, but not to his 1978 article in Nature, which shows the formula?
Similarly: why do modern sources credit Hanks & Kanamori 1979 with the coefficient of 16.05
, though that value appears no where in that paper? (See also Tom Heaton's six-year old comment
here.)
I am putting together a table with my best representation of the Mw formula in various sources so that as we sort through this we can be better assured we're all looking at the same item. When I am done other editors should double-check these against the originals. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Best representations of Mw formula variants from different sources. These should be double-checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Source | M0 in dyne-cm (CGS) | M0 in Newton*m (SI) |
---|---|---|
Kanamori 1978: | Mw = (log M0/1.5) – 10.7 | |
Hanks & Kanamori 1979, Eq. (7): | M = 2/3 log M0 – 10.7 | |
IASPEI IS 3.3, p11: | Mw = (log10M0 – 16.1)/1.5 | Mw = (log10M0 – 9.1)/1.5 |
While trying to display the Hanks & Kanamori 1979 equation 7 (above) in <math> I have difficulty rendering their bold, non-italic "M". Perhaps someone could explain how to do that, but I got wondering (again): (a) Do we have to use <math>? (b) Is it really useful to display equations so ? E.g., I am a lot less intimidated by math equations than the most readers, yet even I have often felt put off by Wikipedia pages with such powerful expositions of (rendered in <math>!). As an alternative, it seems to me that for most cases {{ math}} is easier to use and displays just as well. Examples:
(1) is in standard <math> markup, with the incorrectly italicized M, and everything is bolded. (2) is in {math} markup, with a correct M, and a tad less bolding. This is also wrapped in <big> to make it the same size as (1). (3) is normal size {math} markup, and a lot less intimidating. And the most accurate representation of the original equation.
Wouldn't the less intimidating {math} format be better? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to work up a better lead section, but having a little difficulty pulling together anything entirely satisfying; would be interested in comments on the following candidate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The moment magnitude scale (MMS; denoted Mw or M) is a measure of the magnitude ("size") of an earthquake based on its seismic moment (or work done in producing the earthquake) expressed in terms of the familiar magnitudes of the original magnitude scale developed by Charles F. Richter.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Science and mathematics says that scientific terms like "local magnitude scale" are lowercase, unless they are derived from proper nouns. If the convention was to capitalize, it would be "Local Magnitude Scale", but "Local magnitude scale" is a weird combination of the two conventions. -- Beland ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, J. Johnson! It seems two editors have now changed
to
This is not a quotation from any particular source, so quote marks aren't appropriate here. Yes, "work" is being used in a specific technical sense, but adding quote marks is not in general a way in English to indicate technical usage, and the presence of quote marks makes it sound like the article is weirdly skeptical about the concept of work. If it's necessary to explain to readers in what sense the word is meant beyond providing the link, it should be done explicitly. For example:
-- Beland ( talk) 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to calculate the seismic magnitude from the released energy using the following Kanamori's definition
Since there was no mention about the log base in the formula, I assumed that the it was e, or Euler's number.
However, I found that my calculation results fell many orders of magnitude greater than what other online resources indicated. A post in socratic.org describes the relation between magnitude and energy. It claims that magnitude 8 equqals to 6.309573e+16 joules in energy. When I plug in this number in the formula above, I got 22.588952994535738 as the magnitude. I started to speculate that the base should have been 10 instead of e, and sure enough, when I swapped the base to 10, I got 7.999999979589213 as the final magnitude.
Since the post on socratic.org doesn't cite anything, they could also be using a wrong formula, but either way, there should be a clarification on what the base is in all the formulae in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Марсианский ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please, can we pretend, that not all of us have skipped high school for good, and realise that logarithms of non-dimensionless quantities do not make sense? It is just stupid to write "log(E) = ... (in Joules)", a logarithm of an energy is undefined, basically this amounts to writing nonsense, and adding in brackets an instruction for how to deal with the nonsense. I realise this notation is often used in practice, but slang language is also used in practice yet is avoided on Wikipedia. The proper way would be to make the logarithm argument dimensionless by including the reference quantity there. The given example could be "log(E/1J) = ...". WikiPidi ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Dr. Ampuero: I thank you for your interest in contributing, and please convey my thanks to Dr. Heaton for his interest. However, Wikipedia is not entirely free-form in how we go about matters; there are certain policies and processes we need to conform to. These are often a bit clunky (which is to say, not yet perfect), but that is how things are. If you won't mind, I would like to offer some guidance that will make the process of contributing easier.
Please note that First and foremost is the policy of [[WP:verifiability|] (often referred to as WP:V). Basically it means that all content is based on reliable, published sources, and must be cited to those sources. Even if Dr. Heaton personally wrote and signed the material you added, that is not adequate: it has to be attributed to a verifiable source. (I note that this material does contain citations, albeit incomplete. Those are fixable, so not really at issue.)
But if the text you added is verbatim from a source, then, as Jasper Deng noted in his edit summary, there is a possible copyright issue. This may require some discussion.
I point out that while "boldness" in editing is encouraged, reversion should also be respected. In particular, immediately restoring your material is improper. (See WP:BRD for an explanation.) So please understand that my undoing of your edit should not be taken as lack of appreciation, but that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Particularly: is the material you added verbatim from a soucrce? And if so, what source? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
not traditionally[historically?]
exposed to earthquakes" as significant; but perhaps ML is more significant for small "local" (i.e., non-teleseismic) quakes that might not register out of the area? I have also seen comments that ML is faster, easier to calculate (for a preliminary determination), but is that still a factor, given all the fancy software available nowadays?
Should the "Nuclear explosions" section be deleted?
While readers might be interested in the seismic equivalent of a nuclear explosion, the essence of the matter is, as stated: "Such comparison figures are not very meaningful.
" But
as currently written the section gets there in rather round-about way, with a lot more detail than is necessary. Even worse, that section is effectively unsourced: the first note is from a Congressional report with no sources, and no attribution, and fails as a reliable source; the other two sources are 404 urls.
As this article has been written at technical level, it should have primary and secondary sources (perhaps textbooks), not blogs. And regardless of the level of the intended audience, it is probably sufficient to explain why the comparison is not meaningful, rather than work out a result only to throw it away.
I am inclined towards deletion. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In this article formulas are displayed using the <math> tag, which generates large and bolded LaTex output. For formulas on their own line this is standard and acceptable. However, the same markup has also been used in the text for the sole purpose of formatting the several magnitude scales. That is an undesirable use, as the large and bolded result (e.g.: ) is TOO LOUD, and rather intimidating. It is also unnecessary, as the {{
M}} template is now available that provides a more reasonable result. (And is easier to use, and provides other features including more consistent use across the encyclopedia.) I am therefore replacing in-line instances of (and similar instances) with
Mw
. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am going to remove the table under Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison with Richter scale. It is not well done, does not provide a good sense of how Mw relates to ML (or any other scale), it's just so much clutter.
What we need is a well-done graph, such as Utsu's 2002 figure 1, showing "Relationship between magnitude scales" (seen here as figure 7). Or even Kanamori's (1983) figure 4b. But both of those are copyrighted. Maybe someone knows how to create a similar chart? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ampuero: With all that high-grade talent you hang out with, is there any chance you could get someone to contribute a publication grade graph showing the interrelation of the several scales? Some good ones have been done, but the main problem is getting one that the creator (or copyright owner) will grant copyright permission. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I propose removal of the Moment magnitude scale#Nuclear explosions section. I would argue that nuclear (or any other kind of) explosions and earthquakes are not directly comparable, and attempting to do so (without more explanation than is suitable here) is misleading. Distinguishing between explosions and quakes is certainly notable, but more for seismology generally; it has nothing to do with this scale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit summary by @
Ampuero: Actually, we do need to cite where equations come from. They are (essentially) being quoted, and per our core content policy
WP:Verifiability: "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
" Sure, this is often scamped, but continuance of a bad habit should not be taken as justification.
Proper citation is essential for verification, especially when there are (as we have been having) little spats as to the correct details. Resolution of such matters is generally by getting everyone's eyeballs on the same source. This should be cited immediately adjacent to the equation (not just casually mentioned somewhere in the text). And we really should have an in-source specification such as a page number, else we can't find the equation or formula cited, or (even worse) we find a slightly different formula. (Incidentally: the "named-ref" construction does not allow in-source specification; please use {{ harv}} templates instead.)
As to the case at hand, the text in the "Definition" section is currently:
- The moment magnitude Mw is a dimensionless value defined by Hiroo Kanamori[12] as
- Mw = 2/3 log10 M0 10.7,
- where M0 is the seismic moment in dyne⋅cm (×107 N⋅m).[1]
Note [12] is to Kanmori 1977, but without any page or equation numbers. The problem is: that formula does not appear in Kanamori 1977. It appears in Kanamori 1978 (but not cited here), and in Hanks & Kanamori 1979 (note [1]) but again without page or equation numbers. Which MAKES ALL OF THIS REALLY HARD TO VERIFY!
So we need to not only cite equations (or rather, their source), but also consider their placement (unambiguously associated with the equation) and specification (page number and, ideally, equation number).
There is also the matter of: which source to use. E.g., can anyone explain why credit for devising the moment magnitude scale is usually given to Kanamori 1978 1977 (his JGR article), which doesn't carry his work through to the actual formula, but not to his 1978 article in Nature, which shows the formula?
Similarly: why do modern sources credit Hanks & Kanamori 1979 with the coefficient of 16.05
, though that value appears no where in that paper? (See also Tom Heaton's six-year old comment
here.)
I am putting together a table with my best representation of the Mw formula in various sources so that as we sort through this we can be better assured we're all looking at the same item. When I am done other editors should double-check these against the originals. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Best representations of Mw formula variants from different sources. These should be double-checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Source | M0 in dyne-cm (CGS) | M0 in Newton*m (SI) |
---|---|---|
Kanamori 1978: | Mw = (log M0/1.5) – 10.7 | |
Hanks & Kanamori 1979, Eq. (7): | M = 2/3 log M0 – 10.7 | |
IASPEI IS 3.3, p11: | Mw = (log10M0 – 16.1)/1.5 | Mw = (log10M0 – 9.1)/1.5 |
While trying to display the Hanks & Kanamori 1979 equation 7 (above) in <math> I have difficulty rendering their bold, non-italic "M". Perhaps someone could explain how to do that, but I got wondering (again): (a) Do we have to use <math>? (b) Is it really useful to display equations so ? E.g., I am a lot less intimidated by math equations than the most readers, yet even I have often felt put off by Wikipedia pages with such powerful expositions of (rendered in <math>!). As an alternative, it seems to me that for most cases {{ math}} is easier to use and displays just as well. Examples:
(1) is in standard <math> markup, with the incorrectly italicized M, and everything is bolded. (2) is in {math} markup, with a correct M, and a tad less bolding. This is also wrapped in <big> to make it the same size as (1). (3) is normal size {math} markup, and a lot less intimidating. And the most accurate representation of the original equation.
Wouldn't the less intimidating {math} format be better? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to work up a better lead section, but having a little difficulty pulling together anything entirely satisfying; would be interested in comments on the following candidate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The moment magnitude scale (MMS; denoted Mw or M) is a measure of the magnitude ("size") of an earthquake based on its seismic moment (or work done in producing the earthquake) expressed in terms of the familiar magnitudes of the original magnitude scale developed by Charles F. Richter.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Science and mathematics says that scientific terms like "local magnitude scale" are lowercase, unless they are derived from proper nouns. If the convention was to capitalize, it would be "Local Magnitude Scale", but "Local magnitude scale" is a weird combination of the two conventions. -- Beland ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, J. Johnson! It seems two editors have now changed
to
This is not a quotation from any particular source, so quote marks aren't appropriate here. Yes, "work" is being used in a specific technical sense, but adding quote marks is not in general a way in English to indicate technical usage, and the presence of quote marks makes it sound like the article is weirdly skeptical about the concept of work. If it's necessary to explain to readers in what sense the word is meant beyond providing the link, it should be done explicitly. For example:
-- Beland ( talk) 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to calculate the seismic magnitude from the released energy using the following Kanamori's definition
Since there was no mention about the log base in the formula, I assumed that the it was e, or Euler's number.
However, I found that my calculation results fell many orders of magnitude greater than what other online resources indicated. A post in socratic.org describes the relation between magnitude and energy. It claims that magnitude 8 equqals to 6.309573e+16 joules in energy. When I plug in this number in the formula above, I got 22.588952994535738 as the magnitude. I started to speculate that the base should have been 10 instead of e, and sure enough, when I swapped the base to 10, I got 7.999999979589213 as the final magnitude.
Since the post on socratic.org doesn't cite anything, they could also be using a wrong formula, but either way, there should be a clarification on what the base is in all the formulae in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Марсианский ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please, can we pretend, that not all of us have skipped high school for good, and realise that logarithms of non-dimensionless quantities do not make sense? It is just stupid to write "log(E) = ... (in Joules)", a logarithm of an energy is undefined, basically this amounts to writing nonsense, and adding in brackets an instruction for how to deal with the nonsense. I realise this notation is often used in practice, but slang language is also used in practice yet is avoided on Wikipedia. The proper way would be to make the logarithm argument dimensionless by including the reference quantity there. The given example could be "log(E/1J) = ...". WikiPidi ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)