Talk:2010 Canterbury earthquake

Name

I was bold and changed this to 2010 Canterbury earthquake to reflect the name used by the media (notably TVNZ). This also reflects common usage in New Zealand with respect to names of earthquakes. They are normally named after the geographic region in which the most serious damage occurs. Ben Arnold (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed all the redirects now. Hope everyone's okay with this name change. New Zealand Earthquake seems wrong. No other New Zealand earthquake has ever been granted so grandiose a title by history. There are probably some parts of New Zealand where this won't be the strongest earthquake they've felt this year. On the other hand Christchurch Earthquake was inaccurate, the earthquake was closer to Darfield, and damage seems to have been experienced all over North Canterbury. The name Canterbury Earthquake uses the name of the geographic area which is consistent with other famous New Zealand earthquakes for example the 1931 Hawkes Bay earthquake and the 1855 Wairarapa Earthquake. Ben Arnold (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it got my attention, but only because for me, Canterbury is in England. MickMacNee (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Region Diego Grez (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand's GeoNet.org has named this event the "Darfield Earthquake" http://www.geonet.org.nz/news/article-sep-4-2010-christchurch-earthquake.html

The New Zealand Herald is using the term "Christchurch Earthquake". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10671050

New Zealand Civil Defense is using the twitter/RSS hashtag #christchurchQuake http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.nsf/vwluRSSDocs?openView&CHANNELNAME=Emergencies

I recommend changing the title to Christchurch Earthquake before 0000hrs NZT 5 Sept 2010.Benitoite (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Quake was centred well outside of Christchurch. Nurg (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Canterbury earthquake is an appropriate article name, and I thus disagree with the proposed name change, too. Schwede66 02:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. 2010 Canterbury earthquake is better than 2010 Christchurch Earthquake because the epicentre and most severely damaged areas were outside Christchurch. Much of the reporting is from Christchurch, but that's mainly because that's where the people and infrastructure are to do the reporting. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The geologists are starting to call this the Darfield Earthquake. [1]. Future geological papers will probably use that name. Christchurch was the largest city affected but not at the epicenter. Contemporary earthquake names go by the name of the epicenter (in most cases) not the name of the damaged area e.g. the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake not the 1989 "San Francisco" earthquake. This page should be named the 2010 Darfield Earthquake with a redirect from other commonly used names. Kevin Purcell (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2010 Christchurch earthquake, it was the most affected town and the earthquake occurred very close to the town. Diego Grez (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• It think it should stay as Canterbury. It is not just Christchurch that it affected - and the epicenter is in Selwyn District. Also (comment above) you define 41km as "very close"?118.82.154.49 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shake Map

The USGS website has a revised shakemap, the intensity is much lower so the main image should be updated. I'm not sure how to do this http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010atbj/ is the site of the new map 188.221.161.189 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the version shown here. The version shown on Wikipedia's main page is protected, so I'll have to get help with that. --Avenue (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So, the USGS map is significantly different to the map produced by GeoNet Science, New Zealand's main geological research agency (rating the quake at about 1-2 intensity levels more than the USGS one). See http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3366146g-maps.html for this. The USGS map is computer generated and not checked by a human (see the note about this at the bottom of the image), whereas the GNS one is human generated. Given that, and given that GNS, as the local agency, is more likely to have accurate reports of intensity to based their map on (MMI being a subjective scale, this is important), I'd argue that the GNS map should be used in place of the USGS one. There's plenty of reason to expect a discrepancy between the two, too, as so much of the damage in the Christchurch quake was due to liquefaction, and wasn't predicted by a model with normal assumptions. There's probably some argument for mentioning the USGS map as well, and pointing out the discrepancy, but given Wikipedia's no original research policy, we probably shouldn't conjecture on the causes, just note the difference. In that case, I'd argue that the GNS map is a better choice for the top panel. There's good discussion at http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2010/09/tectonics-of-the-m7-earthquake-near-christchurch-new-zealand/ for context. Not sure this is something we could link to as research describing the discrepancy as the relevant discussion is in comments, but it's a good resource for geological information about the quake. Edit: There's relevant discussion two sections down about the difference between USGS and GNS estimates of magnitude and other physical parameters. It's probably appropriate to choose images and info on intensity so that the decisions on source are consistent. Xorgnz (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the discrepancies, I think we shouldn't show a shake map in the infobox, as it would need more explanation than is possible there. I've removed it. It's not clear to me that the GNS map is necessarily better than the USGS one, as it is also based on a model, and the ellipses don't seem complex enough to reflect the effects of liquefaction. Nor does it seem to agree with the greater shaking measured south of the fault, as in this map showing peak ground acceleration. We cannot use the GNS map directly anyway, because it's under Crown copyright.

We should address the discrepancies in reported intensity somewhere in the text though - perhaps where shaking strength is mentioned in the "Relative lack of casualties" section. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

suppressed content

I felt compelled to suppress the following content from the article, as it was spammy/advertorial in nature: ====Community Assistance==== [http://www.nzrt.org.nz/nwrt/ North Wellington Resilience Trust] has started contacting residents' associations in the Canterbury area to assess if any assistance can be provided by the people of Newlands, a suburb near New Zealand's capital city that is considered one of the safest areas in the Wellington Region<ref>http://www.nzrt.org.nz/documents/Snapshot_of_Newlands_v1.4.pdf</ref>. The NWRT has sent out a [http://www.newlands.residents.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19:christchurch-earthquake&catid=10:community-news&Itemid=5 call to all residents] of the greater Newlands area to contact the Newlands Paparangi Progressive Association with any offers of help for the Canterbury area. in wikipedia:Good faith, Nankai (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Not to sound crass, but if people feel like giving assistance I think Pakistan needs it more. Ben Arnold (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a troll? You're censoring information that would simultaneously inform us about, and facilitate the provision of, assistance to the people of Christchurch (and surrounding area) who are suffering as a result of the earthquake? Ben Arnold, please stick to mindless talkback radio when you want to have your misanthropic "miserable old bugger" moments. BlueRobe (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right and I apologise, my comment was off topic and insensitive. I do however think the user made the right decision in removing that section for the reasons they gave. Ben Arnold (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your apology might seem a little more sincere if you hadn't followed it up with a groundless allegation of aggression against me in a Wikipaedia Alert page, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Differing reports of magnitude, depth, latitude & longitude

GNS Science, on their GeoNet site, say magnitude 7.1, depth 10 km and location 43.55°S, 172.18°E.

USGS says magnitude 7.0, depth 5 km & location 43.530°S, 172.120°E. USGS say their source of info is "Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences" (which has been known as GNS Science since 2005). I think the article should follow the original source.

GNS is the top source, and they are based in New Zealand, so they would be more accurate. Also, the two organisation could be using different magnitude scales. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lcmortensen makes a valid point. As the New Zealand based source, the datas from GNS should be used. 111.69.246.46 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• USGS is more trustworthy than GeoNet in my humble opinion. Non-New Zealand sources also report the earthquake to be magnitude 7.0. Diego Grez (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Diego, why do you think USGS is more reliable, when they state they get the info from GNS anyway? Nurg (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GeoNet, which is a division of GNS Science, owns the machines that measure the earthquakes. Plus, their information is generally the most accurate and up-to-date. USGS rely on GeoNet for their data, and they're not usually so quick to update it.122.59.229.147 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the USGS page credits "Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences" (the old name for GNS Science) as their source. --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GNS last updated 2010 Sep 03 20:53 (UT), USGS last updated September 04, 2010 04:02:25 UTCTrex21 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

References

I tried to format the references, but the article is being changed so often that merging the results of the conflicts would have given me a headache. When things quieten down I'll try again, if someone else hasn't already formatted things properly. in the meantime, if you add a reference, please format it using one of the citation templates, and use the correct styles (eg italics for newspapers) and spell out things in full (eg The New Zealand Herald rather than NZherald.co.nz). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Richter scale vs MMS

I noticed that the article mentioned that most of the aftershocks "measured more than 5.0 on the Richter scale". GeoNet, which provided the data on the earthquake, doesn't use the Richter scale at all. Instead, they use the Modified Mercalli (or Moment Magnitude) scale. The Richter scale isn't all that accurate, as it doesn't take damage into effect, so GeoNet don't use it at all. 122.59.229.147 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

News reports often report magnitude on the Richter Scale but this is usually wrong - it is rarely used and has been replaced decades ago by the Moment Magnitude Scale. Earthquake magnitude scales represent energy released, are calculated from seismometer measurements and don't consider damage. Modified Mercalli is not the same as Moment Magnitude. It is an intensity scale - represents shaking at a specific location rather than a property of the earthquake as a whole. 188.221.161.189 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Death?

According to this reference http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/4094986/Officers-flown-in-to-protect-Christchurch, one person died of a heart attack during the quake. Should this be mentioned? 124.187.106.166 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems trivial to me, and most of the media seem to be saying that "no-one has died from quake-related injuries". Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deaths are never trivial, direct or indirect. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I added it before I saw this discussion, but I can't see why we wouldn't mention it. Perhaps we could add a footnote saying media reports are conflicting, although they might just not be counting the heart attack as a "quake-related injury". --Avenue (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source for the heart attack victim: Earthquake key facts, The Press (although they only say someone is "believed to have died from a heart attack during the quake"). --Avenue (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather iffy statement anyway. It may be that no one was with them, so know one knows whether the quake was involved. There's a fair chance even if there was someone with them the media don't know the details. In any case I agree it doesn't seem worth including as anything more then a minor mention Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From here: "[A] Christchurch resident died of a heart attack as the quake struck. Doctors could not confirm whether the death was linked to the earthquake." So this still seems uncertain. --Avenue (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Geonet website and assuming that their reporting is somewhat more factual than what is in the general media, I note that their article on this earthquake (last updated 9 Sept at 9.30 am) states that "there has been no loss of life". As such, I propose that we amend the article accordingly. Schwede66 01:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's been amended accordingly and now talks of "two seriously injured". Thanks. I think that's the right way to go about it. Schwede66 03:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did You Know nomination

I have nominated the article to appear on the main page in the DYK section. If you can think of a better hook, or can incorporate another new (or recently expanded) article, please do comment at its entry. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles that have appeared in In The News are not eligible, as far as I know. sonia♫ 06:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks for that. I will withdraw it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Geological background section

Someone please reword it so that it's not an exact replica of the source. I would, but I'm afraid of completely distorting the meaning. sonia♫ 08:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of casulties

It isn't just overseas media. E.g. [2] Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The comments that strict New Zealand building standards reduced casualties when compared to earthquakes overseas isn't correct. Building codes here are not as strict as in some other countries. And most of the buildings in Christchurch pre-date the stricter codes.

Few deaths are caused in NZ earthquakes because most buildings here are not built of of unreinforced masonry. Timber buildings - even with brick or stone veneers - are far less dangerous.

The reality is that most deaths overseas are caused by unreinforced buildings collaping completely. Almost all of our buildings have at the very least a timber frame, so even unreinforced walls would most likely collapse outwards rather than onto the occupants.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the shaking, according to the most recent USGS shake map (see section above) is much less than that in Haiti (which there article mentions), despite their similar magnitude and depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.161.189 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, as multiple media sources have noted, the number of casualties were significantly less because almost everyone was at home in bed when the earthquake hit. If it had occurred during business hours, the number of casualties (especially in retails areas - where falling debris is a big problem) would have been substantially higher. BlueRobe (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Instrumental shaking records from Haiti [3] show maximum accelerations of 0.83g. I saw a news report (which I can't locate at present) that this quake reached 1.25g, the highest recorded in NZ. Remember that Mercalli Intensity is a measure of observed effects of shaking, so quality of infrastructure will affect it. dramatic (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Plane Crash

There is no logical reason why the skydiving plane crash should have had anything to do with the erthquake. Unless any shred of evidence can be produced to suggest even the slightest connection, I recommend deleting all references to the crash.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Why on Earth is that in there? BlueRobe (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Evacuation of City Centre - proposed deletion of text

Propose deletion of text "People inside the Christchurch city centre were evacuated, and ". in the "Effects in Christchurch" section.

The Radio NZ source cited has been updated and no longer mentions such a proposed evacuation.

PegasusAoraki (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed two passages about evacuation that were no longer supported by the links cited. --Avenue (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable buildings damaged?

Would it be worth adding a section listing notable buildings damaged, both in Christchurch (the Rep theatre, for instance) and elsewhere (e.g., Hororata Anglican church, Deans homestead)? There's info about some of them here. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. BlueRobe (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Some pictures of them would be great, too. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New section added - please copyedit to taste! As for photos, that's gonna have to be from someone more local than me. Grutness...wha? 09:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had one of the Hororata church, which I've added. --Avenue (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Lyttelton Timeball Station was damaged (Oh, you got it already!), and that has also been mentioned in the Lyttelton, New Zealand article. (Hi Grutness! ) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Good to see a lot of work going itno this article! Grutness...wha? 10:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth adding some of the information here, to provide a bit of balance: Christchurch landmark buildings mostly unscathed. --Avenue (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea (and thanks for the link!) - done. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article shows a photo of a destroyed building on the corner of Worcester and Armagh Streets. It's not a notable building; just one of the many heritage building along both those streets. The business owners have updated their website, and it's worth having a look at it for a laugh. It's entirely unencyclopaedic, so if you are not up for a laugh, don't look at it. I guess it's a way of coping with the situation. Schwede66 02:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of our 'downunder' (Aussie & NZ) sense of humour. Quite funny, and a little bit 'black'. (But NO sheep jokes!) Perhaps it could be mentioned (eventually) under a 'Response' section? "Despite the damage some Christchurch business owners saw the humorous side of events", though it may be a bit early right now! (Just an idea!) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've found a few more photos from Flickr, now at the relevant category. If you are image hunting on Flickr, be careful around copyright - I have been caught out by a few from 'Benjamin Humphrey', who has copied and uploaded from news sites, and now have had to tag for deletion. Anyway, if some Christchurchians can think of any other notable buildings that have been damaged, please do take pictures of them. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As to the humour thing, I saw a nice ad on Trade Me yesterday with someone trying to lease out a "split-level apartment". It was split all right - vertically! PS - an addendum to what Adabow just said - pictures would be nice, but please don't get in people's way trying to get them! Remember that this is still a disaster area. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"...but officer I need these photos for Wikipedia!" And if your front facade is gone = "panoramic views", "open plan living", or "some renovations needed" 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't mean to come across that way. Do keep out of people's ways (especially police officers). Apparently rubber-necking is quite an issue in the CBD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Especially police officers"? Because, all the other emergency workers don't count? BlueRobe (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, sorry, stop hassling me! I'll just keep my trap shut then. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

looting

The American NPR news organization has reported that Christchurch Police have reported that some looting has taken place in the aftermath of the quake.[4] 69.126.126.70 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now mentioned it in the "Effects in Christchurch" section. --Avenue (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The media and the police have a long history of using selective language (half-truths) to publicly vilify people they've decided to squeeze. Is there a WP:RS for the definition of "looting" used by the media and police with regards to Canterbury Earthquake? I don't mean to be pedantic, but, one man's "grabbing some blankets and bottled water for the injured" is another man's tabloid media headline. BlueRobe (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article includes an account of people smashing a hole in a bottle shop's reinforced front window after the quake and taking some liquor. That sounds like looting to me. (I guess I'm assuming they weren't taking the liquor to aid the injured.) The article says that other liquor shops and a pharmacy were also looted. --Avenue (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, The Press feels this was 'misleadingly reported as "looting"' (Editorial: A sharp reminder ). --Avenue (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Avenue, thank you for that reference. That link was quite slow at my end, so I have provided the relevant quote for those who may otherwise give-up trying to access that article, "The only instance of untoward behaviour, misleadingly reported as "looting", appears to have been committed by a couple of drunks who opportunistically filched booze from a damaged liquor store." BlueRobe (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Westfield Riccarton

One of my mates reported about 25 mins ago that the upper-level of Westfield Riccarton caved in in one of the aftershocks following Saturday's earthquake. Can anyone confirm this? The mall website says that the mall is open again, meaning that there may now be mass casualties. --Megatronacepticon (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, the mall's Twitter has confirmed rumors to be false. --Megatronacepticon (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to have a word with your mate about his sense of humour. I'm guessing he's one of those tools who runs along beaches screaming about reports of incoming fictional Tsunamis. BlueRobe (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly someone texted her and roughly 2000 others about it. Presumably it has been a troll chain-mail started by some infantile jackass. --Megatronacepticon (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to your friend. It appears that she made an honest mistake. BlueRobe (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

100 Homes Condemned?

6PM TV News report on Channel 9 in Sydney said there was an area where the ground had "been soaked by water and sewage" (Soil liquefaction?) and as a result 100 houses had been condemned. All the details I have at the moment. Googled for a source, but no result so may be bogus. This Otago Daily Times story mentions Kaiapoi, but not 100 houses. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is related: 'They're going to bulldoze the whole street'. It doesn't confirm any houses have definitely been condemned, though, let alone 100. --Avenue (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A few more details emerging here: Residents evacuated from Bexley. At one point the article talks about 60 homes in the affected subdivision, but elsewhere it mentions 150 homes in the area. The ones being evacuated (some 30 at present?) are "regarded as unsalvageable". --Avenue (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like what I saw/heard on TV. "reclaimed land", "Most homes and sections are covered in deep layers of sandy silt and houses have lifted, cracked and sunk". Sounds like Soil liquefaction, but I am not a Geologist. See 1964 Niigata earthquake for examples of entire apartment buildings that have tilted at extreme angles through liquefaction. Wonder how long before the media latches onto this new buzz word and starts pointing blaming fingers? 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They were talking about liquefaction on last nights TV news as a factor in the damage (TV1, but it seems like TV3 also referred to it) - there are quite a few articles mentioning it around too.Grutness...wha? 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there you are, I suppose. Not being covered in such detail here in Oz, or I'm not paying attention to the news.
Who allowed building on reclaimed land in a quake-prone country may become the next level of the story. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The same nitwits who built things like the national museum on reclaimed land next to an even more active fault... Grutness...wha? 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Collective insanity like that doesn't bother me quite as much as allowing developers to get rich selling such homes to families and retirees. Hopefully the people responsible will be exposed in due course. --Avenue (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on number to date "Already, 431 homes have been identified as likely to be demolished but that number is expected to grow." Stuff.co.nz --Inny Binny (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not specifically on 'reclaimed land' but the the council and mayor are now saying 'we told you so' and mentioning they tried to stop some of the houses being built but lost in court [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Role of social media?

This is the first time that social media like Twitter, Twitpic, Flickr and YouTube have been used to such an extent in a major event in New Zealand. Not only that but some of the authorities & news outlets were very poor in their initial use of this. Some mention should be made of the role it has played in the communications around the earthquake? CatsPyjamasNZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 9:21 am, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Maybe, but finding reliable sources might be tricky. There's this, which is detailed, but I don't think it's an RS.

Here are a few reliable ones: [6][7][8]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's also the use of social media to spread (and admitedly dispel) malicious rumours like #Westfield Riccarton Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is reference to social media in the article, it should also mention the Canterbury University "clean-up squad" which has been helping with silt clearance. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This story covers the social media aspect extensively, even noting the development of this wikipedia article. It's on stuff, so we might need a webcite archive. dramatic (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Heey - If we add that do you think they'll write an article saying that wikipedia added an article of theirs about the wikipedia article to the article they wrote about? :) Grutness...wha? 12:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (sensing a recursion problem building here)

PS - so that's what Jolisa's up to these days... Grutness...wha?

Media coverage

For me that section is something wrong. Virtually every bigger quake or any disaster is been covered in medie. That's what media are for, not worthy to mention. It might be worthy to mention if the media would have not covered it. Therefor I think we should ommit this section. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that much of the detail there is unnecessary. A brief summary of the extent of the coverage might be enough, e.g. that there was widespread international coverage, and special national broadcasts replacing scheduled domestic programming. There has also been some commentary about the contrast between TVNZ's and TV3's coverage, which we could report on: TV3 anchor lets rip online at coverage. --Avenue (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why single out Newstalk ZB? They weren't even local through the aftermath, yet Morefm and The Breeze were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.253.26 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly question but...

...shouldn't the "Casualties and damage" section mention the casualties somewhere? With the excepotion of a section saying there weren't many, it seems to be almost entirely about the damage. There should at least be some mention of the type of injuries sustained by the two seriously injured people, surely! Grutness...wha? 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've copied this information down from the lead section. A bit more detail might not go amiss, if anyone feels like expanding it. --Avenue (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Soil liquefaction

Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to include a section on the possible long-term effects that may result from soil liquefaction due to the Canterbury earthquake?

Apparently, if soil liquefaction is extensive enough it can lead to the demolition of great chunks of the business and residential landscape. Perhaps someone skilled in Geology can provide some insight into this. BlueRobe (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that in 80 years time Christchurch will be having tourism based on its extensive early 2010-2020-era architecture (much like "Art Deco capital" Napier")? Grutness...wha? 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to waffle-on like John Campbell on one of his sensationalised sermons about otherwise irrelevant crap, but I think you might have a point there. There are signs (i.e. endless examples of serious soil liquefaction on the television news tonight) that there are fundamental instability problems with large chunks of land in, and around, Christchurch. While the need for a substantial program of rebuilding is already obvious, the relocation of some industrial and residential areas is becoming a very real possibility. BlueRobe (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some semi-public email information that most of the damage occurred in the coastal area south east off the CBD even though it is further from the epicentre. This is due to high water table, and the resulting liquiffaction. I don't have RS for this. If people saw it, this should be in the article. The damage in Christchurch section is poorly written. Babies are not damage. - BorisG (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That sub section is headed "Effects in Christchurch", and babies are not the only non-damage effect we've reported. I've made the encompassing section title more inclusive.

The 100 Homes Condemned? section above includes some stories about liquefaction damage. This poster from before the quake is interesting, and some summaries of liquefaction damage have appeared in the media, e.g. [9], [10]. --Avenue (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreshock

Is it worth mentioning the possibility of the foreshock helping reduce casualties? The foreshock woke people up, allowing them more time to react to the main quake. It takes time to realize what's going on when one first wakes up. With the horror stories of people dodging bricks by split-seconds, it's not hard to believe that they could have easily have been crushed had they not been woken up 5 seconds in advance. I'm not sure how to summarize that in a way that would make it not feel out of place in the article though... --Megatronacepticon (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

what you are saying is reasonable but is WP:OR. You need to find a source to back it up. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source saying people were given advance warning by the foreshock,[11] but it says nothing directly about this reducing casualties. --Avenue (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It does explain why I woke up during the quake from a dream about earthquakes thinking "here we go again". Grutness...wha? 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What foreshock? GNS has made no mention of a foreshock. Are you confusing foreshock (a separate preliminary event) with primary wave (the faster-travelling compression wave, often described as a "felt sound")? It is the secondary waves which do the destructive shaking dramatic (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the SMH story I linked to above? We are not confusing the two concepts, although the shocks were so close together that this initially made it more difficult for the scientists to sort out what happened. GNS scientists are quoted in the SMH story, and I recall Geonet did have a page discussing it on their site for a while, but some of their press releases have now disappeared from their news index page. This seems unprofessional to me. --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

An important point that I'm sure will have plenty of references available in time - there's more than one TV report with someone pointing out the bricks on their pillow, and the point was raised in the first reports. Possibly a lot more people would have fallen over and hurt themselves or been hit by a wall or something sharp, I know it was getting pretty difficult to walk after a few seconds. On the other hand for this morning's big aftershock I was up and under the doorframe from a deep sleep well before the power went out (now familiar click from the meter board), I don't usually move that fast! --Adx (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

haiti earthquake

at the start of the year on january 24th there was a 7.0 magnatude earthquake with around 52 aftershocks. 230,000 people died, 300,000 had been injured and 1,000,000 made homeless. on the 4th of september there was a 7.1 magnatude earthquake hit canterbury with around 200 aftershocks so far. no one died from the earthquake and 3 people got put into hospital. why were there so much damage in haiti when then canterbury quake was bigger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.151.51 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See the section "Relative lack of casualties" in the article. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot of aftershocks by depth and time

I've created a plot of the aftershocks from freely available GeoNet data (and freely available software R). Is this worthy of inclusion? Feel free to suggest modifications (or modify it yourself; I'll add the source code when I figure out how)... Tayste (edits) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Great! I will add it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the aftershocks seem to fall into two bands of depth at about 5 and 10 km - is that an artefact of rounding in the figures used? Grutness...wha? 05:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this plot is worth the space it takes up, as it doesn't say a lot to me. Okay, it shows there have been few deep quakes, and the only large deep quakes occurred early on, but that doesn't seem very significant. If it is, this needs to be explained somewhere, preferably in the caption. You can see that aftershocks are gradually tailing off, but it doesn't exactly jump out; there must be better ways of showing that. If this is one of the main messages the plot is intended to convey, this should again be explained, ideally in the caption. I think the geographic distribution would probably be more interesting to most readers, e.g. as shown here. There is a nice animation here that also shows depth and size. --Avenue (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a good case. I will remove it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A map showing the locations of the epicentres might be more useful, especially as some of the seem to be very close to the city. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst this link doesn't lend itself for inclusion as a graphic, it shows in a rather interesting way the geographic distribution of all the aftershocks, as well as their depths and intensities. An incredibly clever piece of work. Schwede66 01:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement?

These 2 edits

“ and many buildings were made of hand-made non-reinforced concrete which is extremely volnurable to seismic damage ”

seem unsupported by the reference for this paragraph. This is what the Time article actually says about this subject:

“ The concrete blocks used to construct buildings in the capital are often handmade, and are of wildly varying quality. "In Haiti a block is maybe an eighth of the weight of a concrete block that you'd buy in the U.S.," says Peter Haas, the executive director of the Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group (AIDG), an NGO that has worked on buildings in Haiti. "You end up providing buildings quickly and cheaply but at great risk." ”

No direct mention of "volnurable[sic] to seismic damage" — 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note - there's a bunch of nice info under the section "Financial Exposure" (the second portion about the EQC payouts) but it would be very nice is some supporting refs and sources were added in as well Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

Just making a note here that I added New Zealand to the title so that people don't think it was Canterbury, England. But it might be a better idea to find a shorter title that distinguishes it sufficiently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real grounds for confusion, unless Canterbury, England has had an earthquake this year that I'm not aware of. The article's first sentence specifies that we are talking about an earthquake in New Zealand. --Avenue (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it was a bit surprising to see the article title and think that England just had an earthquake that I was unaware about. I think SV's change was a good one, though perhaps something without as many commas could be used for the article title? NW (Talk) 00:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it for the same reason. I saw it on someone's watchlist and briefly thought Canterbury, England, had had an earthquake. It seems unfair to New Zealand that people have that reaction, but it can't be helped.

I tried it without the comma too, but it looked odd; the comma is strictly speaking correct grammatically, though lots of people tend to leave them out there. But I don't mind either way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since a lot of the media is referring to it as the Christchurch earthquake, perhaps that would be a way around the problem? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Both Canterbury, Christchuch and Darfield are all ambiguous. The disambiguating elements here are the date and the earthquake. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stuart: there is no ambiguity in "2010 Canterbury earthquake" (unless another Canterbury has a notable earthquake this year). The current title is cumbersome. Should September 11 attacks be renamed September 11 attacks, USA? Tayste (edits) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see the momentary confusion (and isn't it a weird mental image?) but I really don't see any reason to add "New Zealand" in the title, to be honest. Most place names are ambiguous to some form or another, and we don't usually seem to clarify the placenames even in cases where the "other" name is much more prominent - the 1989 Newcastle earthquake, for example. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The media seems to be calling this the Christchurch earthquake. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia I haven't actually heard it called anything else. sonia♫ 01:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the new article name. I also do not support this article being moved without prior discussion, as this is quite obviously controversial. I propose to reinstate the previous name: 2010 Canterbury earthquake

There's been an earlier discussion whether it should have 'Christchurch' in the article name, and the conclusion was that it would be wrong, as it wasn't centred there, and the effects are obviously over all of Canterbury. Schwede66 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The new article title reads very awkward... change it back to the original title or 2010 Christchurch earthquake, that is not as ambiguous as Canterbury or Darfield. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Back to original please. sonia♫ 02:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If there were an earthquake in London, Ontario, we would not call it the 2010 London earthquake, for obvious reasons. The same reasoning applies to Canterbury. It's an ancient, well-known city, an international tourist destination, which is why we call the article about it simply Canterbury. Therefore, if that name appears in the title here, it must be disambiguated. Personally I'd prefer to see it called the 2010 Christchurch earthquake. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the long term it may make sense to split the article between the geologic event (using whatever name the scientific community come to a consensus on) and the human effects (using whatever name the popular press come to a consensus on). This can't happen until the scientific community comes to a consensus, which typically takes a couple of weeks. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest "2010 Canterbury(N.Z.) earthquake" or is that not per MOS? On the ambiguity, it throws me a little to see Bexley, as there is a Bexley, New South Wales(and UK and USA).
• Please keep in mind that changing the title makes the "page view statistics" harder to follow, as each title gets its' own chart. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury earthquake and Christchurch earthquake are used roughly equally - GNS uses Canterbury. It's a bit like 1931 Hawke's Bay eathquake and 1931 Napier Earthquake. Plus, when was the last time there was an earthquake anywhere near Canterbury, UK? I think we should go with either back to 2010 Canterbury earthquake, or to 2010 Christchurch earthquake. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are earthquakes near Canterbury, UK all the time, just not felt / notable ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also prefer 2010 Canterbury earthquake. Shall we open up a proper WP:RM discussion? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I favour leaving it. As it's still being actively discussed in the media the choice between Canterbury earthquake and Christchurch earthquake is likely to become more rather than less clear over time. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the moved title as it just looks wrong. I think it is the second comma. Makes it look like a list that would be read "Canterbury, New Zealand and Earthquake". I would be against calling it simply the Christchurch earthquake as the damage is affecting the entire region. How about the 2010 Waitaha earthquake? 124.197.30.44 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

'Waitaha' makes it sound like it only affected the iwi; it is not a place name. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How would anyone expect to find it at the title you've suggested? sonia♫ 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Two people have mentioned not liking the second comma. We could easily get rid of that while we're deciding on a better name. I only added the second comma because I recall there was a fuss about September 11, 2001 attacks not having a comma after 2001, which would have been correct grammatically but which looked strange. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there happens to be an earthquake in Canterbury, UK this year, this name is entirely unambiguous. Disambiguation is for actual ambiguity (i.e. two articles with the same name) not a potential ambiguity. Besides, who says that Canterbury in the UK is the main use of the term Canterbury anyway. I am not a Kiwi but I would consider Canterbury in NZ to be more notable than UK Canterbury anyway. Unless the article is moved back, or a name that avoids the awkward ", New Zealand," is found, I would be looking towards WP:RM. The current name is appalling and quite frankly Northern Hemispheric-biased. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree! I thought that 2010 Canterbury earthquake was fine when it was first created, if it were to have a different name I would rather 2010 Canterbury region earthquake then 2010 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquake. Bidgee (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, I suggest that you check the history. The page was not created with the name 2010 Canterbury earthquake Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The original name was 2010 New Zealand earthquake, moved on September 3. [12] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the article title of "2010 Canterbury region earthquake" and not the creation article itself. Bidgee (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(after 4 ecs - one with myself!) If so ("Canterbury region") it should be Region with a capital R (as in Canterbury Region). But personally I didn't see any real problem with the undabbed name. Articles on events like this aren't normally disambiguated for place name if there's only one place in the year that has them: We have articles such as 2009 Victoria earthquakes, for instance, with no disambiguation of which Victoria it is (I don't recall protests from people in British Columbia or the Seychelles about that). And we also have undabbed article titles of 2006 Mendoza earthquake, 2005 Birmingham tornado, Evansville Tornado of November 2005, Santiago Fire, and - strangest of all from a dabbing point of view - Southwest floods of 2006 and 2007 Island Fire. I know that WP:OTHERTHINGS isn't a strong argument, but don't see why this one can't also simply be at 2010 Canterbury earthquake. BTW, I love the mental image conjured up by 2007 Tabasco flood! Grutness...wha? 09:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the argument only to disambiguate if there's just one place in the year that had the event, then 2010 New Zealand earthquake was fine, with the added benefit of making clear to international readers what's being discussed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And it makes as much sense as renaming the 1906 San Francisco earthquake the 1906 United States earthquake - i.e. none. 2010 Canterbury earthquake is neither too specific, nor too vague, and we should move it back to that title. --Avenue (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, New Zealand's had plenty of earthquakes in 2010 - only one of them's got an article, that's all. Hawke's Bay had one yesterday (5.1, near Porongahau, IIRC). And few sources (if any) outside Wikipedia have called the Canterbury one the "2010 New Zealand earthquake". Grutness...wha? 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC) - PS, here's an oddity. We have April 1998 Birmingham tornado and 2005 Birmingham tornado, about different places called Birmingham! Grutness...wha?

Unless there is a major earthquake in Canterbury, UK before the end of the year, the title should go back to 2010 Canterbury earthquake. Internal links will generally have context in them to imply the earthquake is in New Zealand. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As it's clear there's no consensus for 2010 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquake, I've undone my earlier move, with apologies that I rushed in. So we're now back to 2010 Canterbury earthquake. Perhaps if there's still disagreement, we could hold a more organized straw poll laying out the options. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Demolition of damaged buildings

There's lots of demolition taking place now - does it warrant a separate section? - Gobeirne (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. yes, it probably should. Not sure exactly where though - possibly as a subsection under relief efforts? Grutness...wha? 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of that sort of stuff would be best in a Architecture of Christchurch article. Mind you we don't even have an Architecture of New Zealand (currently a redir). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)