This
level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article on the Manila Trench says the South China Sea part of the Eurasian Plate is being subducted beneath the Luzon Volcanic Arc part of the Philippine Sea Plate (at the Manila Trench subduction zone in the South China Sea). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Philippine Sea Plate.
The article on the Philippine Trench says the Philippine Sea Plate is being subducted under the Eurasian Plate (at the Philippine Trench subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Eurasian Plate.
Can an expert kindly unravel these conflicting statements please?
Gubernatoria ( talk) 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The transform fault said to bisect Luzon is not considered by Phivolcs to fully bisect Luzon but rather to terminate about Baguio. Unfortunately the Phivolcs website is off line at the moment so I can't call up their fully detailed seismological map to give the link.
If the South China Sea section of the Eurasian Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at the Manila Trench, and the Philippines Sea Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at both the East Luzon trough and the Philippines Trench, it could appear that the Philippines is located on its own block, or plate, riding over both the Eurasian Plate and the Philippines Sea Plate.
This seems a more logical explanation than the apparently contradictory suggestions in the other two articles, which either ignore the Manila Trench, or ignore the Philippines Trench.
Gubernatoria ( talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Philippine Mobile Belt is now online with supporting scholarly references. Gubernatoria ( talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
14th May 2009 Ϣere SpielChequers 11:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject in the last 2 months, some of which are cited in Philippine Mobile Belt, that the correct name is Philippine Sea Plate. This also reduces confusion with the Philippine Mobile Belt and the Philippine Microplate. I propose this article be redirected back to Philippine Sea Plate. Comment invited for next 2 weeks. Gubernatoria ( talk) 10:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"It's obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject" that the name of this plate is the Philippine Plate. It is the case that a *few* sources on the Internet use the term 'Philippine Sea Plate,' but 'Philippine Plate' is the more common term, and is used by the NOAA, the USGS (disclosure: which also had one reference I saw to Philippine Sea Plate), the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and websites from Caltech and MIT. Please consider moving the title of the article back to Philippine Plate. FYAYP ( talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article on the Manila Trench says the South China Sea part of the Eurasian Plate is being subducted beneath the Luzon Volcanic Arc part of the Philippine Sea Plate (at the Manila Trench subduction zone in the South China Sea). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Philippine Sea Plate.
The article on the Philippine Trench says the Philippine Sea Plate is being subducted under the Eurasian Plate (at the Philippine Trench subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Eurasian Plate.
Can an expert kindly unravel these conflicting statements please?
Gubernatoria ( talk) 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The transform fault said to bisect Luzon is not considered by Phivolcs to fully bisect Luzon but rather to terminate about Baguio. Unfortunately the Phivolcs website is off line at the moment so I can't call up their fully detailed seismological map to give the link.
If the South China Sea section of the Eurasian Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at the Manila Trench, and the Philippines Sea Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at both the East Luzon trough and the Philippines Trench, it could appear that the Philippines is located on its own block, or plate, riding over both the Eurasian Plate and the Philippines Sea Plate.
This seems a more logical explanation than the apparently contradictory suggestions in the other two articles, which either ignore the Manila Trench, or ignore the Philippines Trench.
Gubernatoria ( talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Philippine Mobile Belt is now online with supporting scholarly references. Gubernatoria ( talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
14th May 2009 Ϣere SpielChequers 11:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject in the last 2 months, some of which are cited in Philippine Mobile Belt, that the correct name is Philippine Sea Plate. This also reduces confusion with the Philippine Mobile Belt and the Philippine Microplate. I propose this article be redirected back to Philippine Sea Plate. Comment invited for next 2 weeks. Gubernatoria ( talk) 10:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"It's obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject" that the name of this plate is the Philippine Plate. It is the case that a *few* sources on the Internet use the term 'Philippine Sea Plate,' but 'Philippine Plate' is the more common term, and is used by the NOAA, the USGS (disclosure: which also had one reference I saw to Philippine Sea Plate), the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and websites from Caltech and MIT. Please consider moving the title of the article back to Philippine Plate. FYAYP ( talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)