User talk:Dora the Axe-plorer: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:::I'm sorry, but you're completely missing my point about what most RS are reporting. The USGS 6.8 estimate is confirmed by that primary source; there is NO question that it's been accurately reported in the popular media. Yet you prefer the 6.9 GCMT estimate even though not a single secondary source I know of reports it. This doesn't make sense to me. Virtually all of readers coming here will expect to see 6.8 and, as I initially did, think that 6.9 is an error. I don't object to mentioning both in the lead and infobox, but if we're to pick only one to report, it should USGS. [[User:Xan747|Xan747]] [[Special:Contributions/Xan747|✈️]] [[User talk:Xan747|🧑✈️]] 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::I'm sorry, but you're completely missing my point about what most RS are reporting. The USGS 6.8 estimate is confirmed by that primary source; there is NO question that it's been accurately reported in the popular media. Yet you prefer the 6.9 GCMT estimate even though not a single secondary source I know of reports it. This doesn't make sense to me. Virtually all of readers coming here will expect to see 6.8 and, as I initially did, think that 6.9 is an error. I don't object to mentioning both in the lead and infobox, but if we're to pick only one to report, it should USGS. [[User:Xan747|Xan747]] [[Special:Contributions/Xan747|✈️]] [[User talk:Xan747|🧑✈️]] 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::I understand it's moment magnitude in generic (Mww or Mw, just different subtypes). It is correct to say "... moment magnitude 6.8–6.9 earthquake ...", without the symbols. '''''[[User:Dora the Axe-plorer|Dora the Axe-plorer]]''''' ([[User talk:Dora the Axe-plorer|explore]]) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
::::I understand it's moment magnitude in generic (Mww or Mw, just different subtypes). It is correct to say "... moment magnitude 6.8–6.9 earthquake ...", without the symbols. '''''[[User:Dora the Axe-plorer|Dora the Axe-plorer]]''''' ([[User talk:Dora the Axe-plorer|explore]]) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Marrakesh-Safi_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=1174625149 edit] updates infobox and lead to add 6.8 USGS estimate, and links to this discussion in the edit summary. |
|||
:::::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Marrakesh-Safi_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=1174625439 edit] to the body moves the GCMT estimate after the USGS/Morocco estimates to reflect prominence in RS. If you feel strongly the 7.2 should not be mentioned at all, I will not complain if you remove it. [[User:Xan747|Xan747]] [[Special:Contributions/Xan747|✈️]] [[User talk:Xan747|🧑✈️]] 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:05, 9 September 2023
Index
|
||
![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake magnitude
Hi. After my first edit changing from 6.9 to 6.8, I noticed that three different reporting agencies published three different magnitude estimates: 6.8, 6.9 and 7.2. I propose that the lead and infobox give the range as 6.8-7.2. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 15:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The agencies that gave 6.8 and 6.9 specified the magnitude subtype (Mww or Mw). Note these are two different magnitude types so they shouldn't be merged. I can't find any sources specifying the 7.0-7.2 magnitude subtypes. Either way, due to the subtypes, I oppose giving a range. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The 6.8 Mww attributed to the USGS is incorrect: that agency publishes in Mw. The 6.9 magnitude attributed to GCMT is also given in Mw. Like you, I cannot find a subtype specification for the 7.2 published by Morocco, but given that most RS which publish both the USGS and Morocco estimates without distinguishing, I think we're safe to assume they are the same subtype. Finally, the GCMT 6.9 Mw citation is the agency itself. I find it odd that a primary source should trump what the vast majority of RS are reporting; where both are reported, they lead with the USGS 6.8 then the Moroccan 7.2; otherwise they're reporting only the USGS 6.8. So if we're to pick one and only one number for the lead and infobox, it should be 6.8. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The USGS subtype is Mww. Open the page and see carefully.
- The 6.8 Mww attributed to the USGS is incorrect: that agency publishes in Mw. The 6.9 magnitude attributed to GCMT is also given in Mw. Like you, I cannot find a subtype specification for the 7.2 published by Morocco, but given that most RS which publish both the USGS and Morocco estimates without distinguishing, I think we're safe to assume they are the same subtype. Finally, the GCMT 6.9 Mw citation is the agency itself. I find it odd that a primary source should trump what the vast majority of RS are reporting; where both are reported, they lead with the USGS 6.8 then the Moroccan 7.2; otherwise they're reporting only the USGS 6.8. So if we're to pick one and only one number for the lead and infobox, it should be 6.8. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
No, we're not going to assume anything about the subtypes if they are never specified. Earthquake information should only come from authoritative datasets, not news publications. Nearly every earthquake article on Wikipedia follows what the primary authoritative source indicate. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Digging further: Mww (Moment W-phase)(generic notation Mw)
- I read this as Mww and Mw are synonymous. If you feel strongly that the 7.2 Moroccan estimate is unreliable despite being reported in multiple RS, then please delete it from the body of the article. I truly do not understand why you would pick the 6.9 GCMT estimate over USGS's 6.8 when NOBODY in the press is publishing the former and virtually all RS lead with the latter, which is confirmed directly by the primary source. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- You could be bold and remove them yourself. FYI i reverted your edit to the lede because it contradicted the article body. Had you look into the page history, you'll make the brilliant discovery I didn't change the magnitude in the infobox in favour of the GCMT.
- Again, magnitude, depth, epicenter coord., mechanism, etc ... are technical details of earthquakes that are preferably sourced from authoritative data. That means relying on major catalogs (GCMT, USGS, ISC, etc), not media reports. Technical details shouldn't come from mainstream media. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- One thing you can do is include the Mw and Mww types into the infobox and lede. The article 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake included both magnitudes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't made any further edits because I want to be in agreement with you before making any changes.
- Do you agree that Mw and Mww are equivalent per the USGS link I provided? Or if not exactly equivalent, comparable? (BTW, the New Guinea quake lead gives the range as 7.6–7.7 even though the former is Mww and latter is Mw.)
- I'm sorry, but you're completely missing my point about what most RS are reporting. The USGS 6.8 estimate is confirmed by that primary source; there is NO question that it's been accurately reported in the popular media. Yet you prefer the 6.9 GCMT estimate even though not a single secondary source I know of reports it. This doesn't make sense to me. Virtually all of readers coming here will expect to see 6.8 and, as I initially did, think that 6.9 is an error. I don't object to mentioning both in the lead and infobox, but if we're to pick only one to report, it should USGS. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I understand it's moment magnitude in generic (Mww or Mw, just different subtypes). It is correct to say "... moment magnitude 6.8–6.9 earthquake ...", without the symbols. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This edit updates infobox and lead to add 6.8 USGS estimate, and links to this discussion in the edit summary.
- This edit to the body moves the GCMT estimate after the USGS/Morocco estimates to reflect prominence in RS. If you feel strongly the 7.2 should not be mentioned at all, I will not complain if you remove it. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I understand it's moment magnitude in generic (Mww or Mw, just different subtypes). It is correct to say "... moment magnitude 6.8–6.9 earthquake ...", without the symbols. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- One thing you can do is include the Mw and Mww types into the infobox and lede. The article 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake included both magnitudes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)