Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016

Let's start with intensity

Depth is fairly meaningless to the bulk of our readers. Intensity information conveys much more information. Intensity information is available right on the USGS website and it uses the Mercalli intensity scale. Please follow the two examples. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, until now we have the following definition for the list: Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in damage and/or casualties, or are notable for some other reason. It means that we have two main criteria:

• A. The magnitude (with a current threshold above 6.0)
• B. The damage and/or casualties: generally eartquakes are included only when there are noticeable building destruction, deaths, injured.

The Mercalli intensity scale quantifies the effects of an earthquake on the Earth's surface, humans, objects of nature, and man-made structures. We could have some ways to consider introducing the Mercalli intensity scale into the article:

• 1. Adding a new criteria in the list definition 'Mercalli intensity scale above a certain threshold' (for example above VI). In that case, the next question would be 'Does it substitute to another one?'
• 2. Indicating the Mercalli intensity scale for all earthquakes that qualifies to the current criteria.

For the point 1., first thing that comes to my mind is that Mercalli intensity scale is linked to the existing criteria (B) on damage. On one hand, impacting earthquakes for humans activities are already included in the list because of this criteria B. On the other hand, we have a template Template:Earthquakes in 2016 that summarizes the most impactful earthquakes. Those earthquakes have got their specific page with a lot of supplementary information.

For the point 2., I'm concerned we add many information about 'Not Felt' earthquakes as most of them happen:

• in uninhabited places,
• in some places where earthquakes are recurring and information is not even filled by populations,
• in places where Internet information collection is poor.
• Moreover the maximum Mercalli intensity scale may be dependant of only 1 testimony.

Given all that, I think we could also keep the current qualification criteria and discuss a different structure of the earthquake's display: inside a month we could rank by Mercalli intensity scale instead of by date. Though we would loose the timeline. I'm not convinced and I think we should maybe put an example here with real data to see how it looks like and if it makes sense. Other suggestions are welcome. In the meantime, I would suggest not to add the Mercalli intensity scale as there is no consensus yet and as this information may seem duplicate with the damage and casualties description. Wykx 10:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, I'm afraid I don't understand your actions. Your English isn't quite up to par, so I'm having difficulty with some of your statements as well. You've removed the intensity information and appear to be actively arguing to exclude it from these lists. This is not a good move. These are lists of earthquakes and intensity information is probably the most relevent that a person could add. Excluding it denies the reader the ability to identify meaningful events in the list in a standardized and simple way. Intensity provides more to the reader than magnitude and depth combined. Not including intensity information from a list of earthquakes would probably be the most unintelligent and egregious move in a WP article I've ever experienced. So what's up with the demand for some long-winded discussion to include it? Dawnseeker2000 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was not clear enough, I just corrected at least one of my sentences where one word was missing. I'm not against putting a Mercalli intensity scale information but I'm wondering for which earthquakes and on what criteria? Your primary objection was that the page was too long, so adding one more information isn't a solution. So I suppose that you suggest to remove depth completely, right? Wykx 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the length right now. Let's only focus on the issue of intensity. Do I suggest removing depth information? Maybe. What do you think that it adds? What does it demonstrate to the readers? What I don't want is a one-line entry with magnitude, location from nearest city, depth, and intensity. I'll use the northeast India earthquake as an example of what I would not want to see:

• A magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck India 29 km (18 mi) west of Imphal on January 3 at a depth of 55.0 km (34.2 mi) with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VII (Very strong).

Don't you think that it looks too busy? There's too many pieces of information to read at once. That's the reason that I took out the depth yesterday and replaced it with the intensity. So again, maybe on the depth, but I want to hear what you have to say about my two questions. Dawnseeker2000 21:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Depth is a parameter, together with intensity, that enables to understand the potential of an earthquake to affect or not.

Firstly, I'm open to add the MMI for large earthquakes in tables (I have already added it in the 'By death toll' and 'By magnitude' tables - tell me if you disapprove and I'll revert it).

Secondly, With a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe) is manageable. It may feel redundant with the information that is already provided hereafter => At least 11 people were killed (six in India and five in Bangladesh), 200 others were injured and a large number of buildings were damaged. So do we really have to add it in the text? If so, do we want to add this information even for the 'Not felt' events? Wykx 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to quote you here. You said that together with intensity, having depth information enables a reader "to "understand the potential of an earthquake". Let me ask you this: If a reader has the intensity of the event in front of them, how do they gain any additional clarity by having the depth? What's the process?

Also, since we're listing earthquakes, it makes sense to present intensity information for all events, not just large events. Readers will get a much clearer picture of the effects with that detail and since every entry has magnitude, every entry should also have intensity. There's no reason exclude it. I hope that you'll begin to understand that. I have worked on quite a few of our articles and lists and they're just not complete without it. I would never have imagined that someone would want to fight me on this. Please answer my query. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

An earthquake of 6.0 at a depth of 5 km may have the same effect as an earthquake of 7.0 at a depth of 500 km.

I can understand. Wykx 09:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question and you're missing the point: Let's say that we compile a list that includes the four variables (magnitude, location, depth, and intensity), just like the example. The reader sees the intensity as VII (Very strong), so what additional clarity do they gain by seeing that the depth was at 29km? Depth can give the reader some idea of what the shaking intensity might have been like. Having intensity detail tells them what it was in no uncertain terms. In my opinion, not having intensity information (for every event that it's available) would be a major oversight. It would be analogous to Car and Driver magazine reviewing a sports car and omitting its horsepower. So again, if we have intensity, depth is not relevant.

I'm giving you a reading assignment that might help you process what we're talking about. Please read 2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami. While you're reading it, imagine that there are no details in the article about intensity, and think about what the reader might assume the intensity to be with only magnitude and depth information. Then come back here and let me know if you still want readers of your list assuming what the affects of the listed shocks are. Dawnseeker2000 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Depths are as important as the location, as earth is in 3 dimensions!

Indeed, the effects can't be guessed. That's why we are describing the effects in the article when they are noticeable. For the 2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami it was important to describe the tsunami damages and the fact that intensity was disconnected with the damages. "For a typical Mw = 7.7 earthquake, shaking is usually clearly felt at this distance; however, this was not the case for the 17 July 2006 event." is an interesting sentence in the article.

Should I understand that we agree on intensity and that now we go beyond the title by discussing depth? Wykx 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You're on board with adding intensity then? Dawnseeker2000 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we can try some months and check how it goes. Wykx 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK great. I suppose we should talk the format. Quite a few of the entries are one-liners, so if we add intensity, it could make for a long and hart-to-read sentence with lots of figures. We could break it up into two sentences, but it might be nice to be able to keep the one-sentence format. That's the reason that I dropped the depth before. Dawnseeker2000 00:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on the format Wykx? Dawnseeker2000 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would favor a single sentence but I have no objection for two. Wykx 09:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect request

Earthquakes in 2016 to List of earthquakes in 2016. I have requested/created it in articles for creation or the like, please finish the adding process.--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 1st edit:--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the North Korean Earthquake notable?

Because the other nuclear tests with all of them with a magnitude with 4.0 and above are not notable in the list of earthquakes in 2006,2009 and 2013 etc. --Planecrashexpert (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit. The 2013 nuclear test yielded the same result as the 2016 test, but it's not in the list of earthquakes in 2013 article

Indeed, we could wonder if we really have to include it. The biggest earthquake triggered by a US nuclear explosion was much bigger (magnitude 6.9) [1] Moreover USGS qualifies it as Nuclear Explosion and not Earthquake. Thus I propose to remove it. Wykx 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYFI for the Northeast India event

Thanks for your comment ThE~fUtUrE~2014. It's good to hear you chime in on this, and thanks for all your help with the list :)

In response, I would say that yes, the banner at the top of the page shows VIII [2], but if you look closely at the DYFI details for that event, you won't find a specific entry of VIII. There are several orange circles near the epicenter with several independent reporters in those cities that reported a maximum of VII. It makes sense to put this one at VII because Shakemap data and the PAGER system also have it pinned at VII (and that's what twenty people on the ground had to say about it). Dawnseeker2000 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: @ThE~fUtUrE~2014: Actually there is an answer at VIII (you can display it in the 'Intensity vs. Distance' tab). The values displayed in the 'DFYI Responses' are averages of all the responses at a defined location. So it shows how MMI could be sensitive to a single answer. Should we use the maximum of average answers for each location (VII in this example) or the global maximum (VIII in this example)? USGS uses VIII. Wykx 09:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what tricks they use with DYFI, there are the two other USGS products that state VII. What we dont want to do is get into a habit of overstating the intensity. Dawnseeker2000 15:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Pager is an estimation of the number of fatalities calculated with the density of population and vulnerability of local structures to shakings. This is not relevant with MMI.

From [3] "ShakeMaps are automatic computer generated maps that have not necessarily been checked by human oversight. Because the input data is raw and unchecked, the maps may contain errors. The maps are preliminary in nature and will be updated as data arrives from distributed sources... Ground-motions and intensities can vary greatly over small distances, so these maps are only approximate; at small scales and away from data points, they may be unreliable. • The instrumental intensity map is derived from ground-motions recorded by seismographs and represents Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) that are likely to have been associated with the ground-motions. Unlike conventional MMI, the estimated intensities are not based directly on observations of earthquake effects on people or structures." so it is not factual but predictions. Distributed stations are well distributed in California but not everywhere. Wykx 18:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, I think that I've been engaged in "conversation" with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. Your statements leave me no choice but to come to this conclusion. Please just continue to add Mercalli intensity to each entry – this is not a "trial run". Now that we've started, there's no reason to go backwards. It's a scale that was designed for measuring the effects of an earthquake. I wasted a ridiculous amount of time talking about this with you and you're still, for unknown reasons, being combative. See ya, Dawnseeker2000 19:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mercalli intensity relevance

The recent earthquake in Ambelau island illustrates how Mercalli intensity is not fully relevant. The earthquake injured eight people and damaged 120 houses while the shock had a maximum Mercalli intensity (MMI) of I ("Not felt"). This is probably because of the lack of reports in this region. I have seen some users using the instrumental intensity for some earthquakes (based on calculation) instead of the MMI (IV - Light in this case) which is also underestimating the damages. I think that the text describing the effects (injuries and damages) is more relevant. The recent addition of MMI (on which we agreed to have a test period last week) has quickly demonstrated its foreseen limits. Therefore I propose not to keep it. Wykx 23:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, dropping intensity detail altogether would be going backwards, but this situation does present a situation. In this case, we can omit the USGS value for intensity until a more appropriate value is presented. Other sources for intensity exist when damaging events occur. Don't forget that this event just happened and sometimes reliable evaluations take some time. Dawnseeker2000 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I realize that I didn't go through a proper training on how to best use the different USGS products and the different intensity values that are given. So, for the shock in Indonesia on Ambelau Island: The USGS gives two values for intensity. The one you're using is the DYFI value, which is I (Not felt). I wouldn't go with that because it's probably not representative of the actual shaking that occurred. I would choose the Shakemap intensity of IV (Light) because it's a bit more reasonable considering the damage and injuries. On that Island, they almost certainly don't have Internet connections, so the person that reported the DYFI intensity was in a larger city that's nowhere near the epicenter. Also, you need to consider what kinds of structures that people are living in. My guess is that they're using bamboo or maybe even non-engineered wooden or unreinforced brick houses to live in. It's completely reasonable that some of these could have seen partial or complete collapse with the light shaking that an intensity IV shock would have delivered. I'd just up it to IV and call it good. Dawnseeker2000 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

One other thing: Don't misinterpret what I said about waiting for a more reliable estimation of the intensity to come along. What I mean by that is that I absolutely trust the USGS products, but it's preferable to use the report that's written when a seismologist goes on site and observes the affects first hand. Those kinds of reports take a long time though, and are not available for most the events that we're listing, so using DYFI and Shakemap is fine to fall back on for what we're doing. Dawnseeker2000 00:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If an information is inaccurate, it would be better not to put it in WP and wait for the correct sourced information as per WP:NOR. The shake maps receive a grading from A (very good) to F (bad) for its accuracy. Shakes map with intensity calculated under VI are not even graded. You're right that when an event has been reviewed by a seismologist, description is more accurate. For example earthquake in Sorong in September 2015 has been reviewed with this description At least 62 people injured, 260 houses damaged and power outages occurred in Kabupaten Sorong. Felt (V) at Sorong; (IV) in Kabupaten Maybrat and in the Kepulauan Rajaampat; (III) at Manokwari. but the MMI for this event was at VI and the ShakeMap was calculated at VI. I propose to add the information on MMI only once events have been reviewed by seismologists. Wykx 10:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, please sit down, be quiet, and follow my lead. I seriously have to consider that you really should not be editing WP at all. That's how bad you are, and you're really not helping here. Dawnseeker2000 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:NPA, this is your second personal attack, then I open a WP:RFC. Wykx 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my statement: you're making WP worse. Dawnseeker2000 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Mercalli intensity be indicated?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Mercalli intensity be indicated? Mercalli intensity proved to be irrelevant in some cases and duplicate of existing text information on damages/casualties. Moreover values to be put on the page are always challenged because with multiple sources and unreliable until a certain period of time. Wykx 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – intensity information is vital and should be included in a list of earthquakes because magnitude alone is not sufficient to describe the effects. Intensity detail (usually given in Mercalli, MSK, or Shindo) is a standardized way to characterize the effects of an earthquake. Omitting it would be unwise. Dawnseeker2000 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - intensity is redundant with the text describing damages/casualties ; isn't reliable unless it is revised by a seismologist ; is challenged by editors (sometimes using ShakeMap value which is a pre-calculated value and which is different from Mercalli intensity, sometimes arbitrary decreasing values because it is considered over-rated) ; isn't provided in area without full Internet access ; may change based on only 1 testimony among 100 thus accuracy is biaised. It may be factual and verified only after revision by a seismologist (which is never the case for ShakeMaps when Mercally intensity is under VI, as mentioned on the USGS site).Wykx 21:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment – Let me try to clarify a little bit. The reason we're here is that Wykx doesn't understand the various earthquake shaking products that are offered by the USGS. What he's saying is that the Shakemap product is different from Mercalli intensty. That's incorrect. Shakemaps are about intensity; the Mercalli intensity is shown at the bottom of each map. Did you feel it? is another USGS product, and because it's a Web 2.0 thing where anyone with an Internet connection can submit a report. The values for DYFI and Shakemap are often different, and that's confusing the other editor, but it often takes just a moment to choose the most appropriate value. For instance, I often choose Shakemap in undeveloped countries (because of villagers' lack of Internet access makes DYFI useless compared the Shakemap product, which is very good (but can sometimes overshoot a bit)) and when they're both close, I simply go with the most conservative value, as I don't think we should be overstating the effects of an EQ. Dawnseeker2000 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Date	M	MMI
2006-07-17	7.7	IV (Light)
1920-06-21	4.9	VIII (Severe)

Comment – I think I should take this a step further by explaining that DYFI and Shakemap both have their place. Shakemaps are automatically-generated by a very robust algorithm that was developed by the USGS. These values are very accurate for a computer-based system (don't let Wykx tell you otherwise – I have no confidence in any of his ideas). Where there are lots of citizens that report DYFI intensities and we're able to compare them with Shakemap values, they're often quite close. Like I said, Shakemap tends to overestimate a little bit, and in that situation, DYFI comes in very handy. If dozens of people reported an intensity of VII and Shakemap said VIII, we'd definitely go with the lower value. This is simple.

Now, why do we need intensity detail in a list of earthquakes anyway? I hope this side-by-side comparison will make it clear, and I think it will. Consider the following events. One was in Indonesia and the other in California. Dawnseeker2000 22:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I don't oppose MMI, I proposed to use only MMI reviewed by a seismologist to avoid misinterpretation done as WP:OR for each earthquake by each user. In any case, if ShakeMaps are used, they shouldn't be labelled as Maximum Mercalli intensity but rather as Intrumental intensity. But they are also a calculation not based on actual data. And we have a lot of examples where Shakemaps and DYFI values are very different, the latest one being today [4]. Wykx 22:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting choice as an example - the DYFI map for that earthquake shows that there were no responses (which in some parts of the world is likely to happen - here there is mostly sea and only a small population on land), so that goes down as 'not felt' (I) on the DYFI. In contrast the shake map, which is pretty much an isoseismal map, uses all data sources - instrumental observations, government agency and news reports and DYFI responses - in this case you would obviously use the shake map estimate rather than the DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the Maximum Mercalli intensity doesn't make sense in that case. If ShakeMap is used it should be qualified as Intrumental intensity and not Maximum Mercalli intensity. The problem that would still remain is that ShakeMaps receive a grading for their uncertainty and that this particular ShakeMap didn't even received a grading because the two nearest stations have not felt the event (see uncertainty and station lists sheets on USGS site). In that case, calculation is done from the peak acceleration. USGS says: For moderate to large events, the pattern of peak ground acceleration is typically quite complicated, with extreme variability over distances of a few km. This is attributed to the small scale geological differences near the sites that can significantly change the high-frequency acceleration amplitude and waveform character. Although distance to the causative fault clearly dominates the pattern, there are often exceptions, due to local focussing and amplification. This makes interpolation of ground motions at one site to a nearby neighbor somewhat risky. Wykx 11:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The USGS distinguish between shake maps that are purely instrumental and those that aren't - see this example for the 2016 Northeast India earthquake, which is called 'intensity' rather than 'instrumental intensity' (see this for an example of one labelled 'instrumental intensity') and it is clearly coloured in terms of MMI - I don't understand why you're against it being described as such. Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When you compare the two examples you gave, one is based on the current version of USGS website, the other one is based on previous archived version. You can check this is similar for all earthquakes. On the current site, USGS changed the sheet name from Intrumental intensity to Intensity (probably for space reason because there is much more information than before) but when you click on the explanation link [5] you still got the complete name Rapid Instrumental Intensity Maps and on the graphic Shakemap also it is instrumental intensity. Having said that, I'm not against giving the MMI once it has been reviewed by a seismologist. I can imagine it will be soon the case for this quake. Putting information based on assumptions on which value will be retained is WP:OR. Wykx 12:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that now. However, I don't see anything wrong with using the initial estimate, as long as we update it, if and when there is a better source available. Mikenorton (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And what value should be used? DYFI or ShakeMap? On a choice based on which criteria? And what name should be used? Your feedback is appreciated. Wykx 13:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would use the shakemap, as that's always available, even in areas of low population density. It may not be perfect, but it is produced using a well-defined methodology. Note that the final version of the shakemap for the 2016 Northeast India event incorporates the DYFI data (click on the Stationlist tab). Looking at the individual DYFI responses, the highest listed was VII, so I'm not sure why the USGS page still gives VIII for the maximum DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I can agree with that. Let's see if this is a shared point of view.

DYFI responses are incorporated in the ShakeMap with an average of the DYFI collected at each geographical point. Then the maximum average is reported in the ShakeMap summary value. That's why Maximum Mercalli Intensity based on DYFI is at VIII but the highest average collected for all the stations is at VII. What name should be used? Would Maximum intensity be sufficient (maybe a bit blurry but always valid)? Wykx 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maximum intensity is fine, but the value is on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. Presumably if the VIII observation on DYFI was balanced against several others giving a VII for the same location, then the software just uses the average value - the values quoted in the DYFI responses are not whole numbers. Mikenorton (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, for example, in this case you have a 6,2 and a 7,8 reported which gives a maximum DYFI of VIII and an average used for ShakeMap of VII. Wykx 13:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The maximum perceived intensity is an important parameter - in the short term the USGS shake map is generally the best source available. For more major events the USGS continuously updates the shake map as more data comes in - I've seen up to version 10. The DYFI is good where there are a lot of responses, but in general I think that the shake map is the way to go. Mikenorton (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here's what I'm talking about – Wykx is not working out as a contributor to the lists of earthquakes. His egregious lack of understanding can be easily shown here. The other day we had a M5.5 shock on on the remote island of Ambelau. This part of the world is highly-undeveloped, with no telecommunications infrastructure. Said another way: DYFI values would not be appropriate for earthquakes there. So why does Wyks repeatedly choose the DYFI value over the Shakemap value? ([6] [7] [8]) What he's telling our readers are that an intensity I shock caused damage to homes on the island. This is not consistent with the effects of intensity I. The two-word descriptor from the USGS for that value is Not felt, which just means that in some special circumstances someone might feel it, like people at the top of a high-rise building, but the majority of people would not. The Shakemap value for that M5.5 event is IV (Light) which I can imagine would be sufficient to cause very primitive bamboo or mud homes to collapse (even partially) and injure some people. News reports indicate that people were injured, so Intensity I doesn't make sense. I'll say it again, Wyks should work in some other area or leave WP completely per WP:COMPETENCE. Dawnseeker2000 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dawnseeker, i agree about the intensity being removed, but it's no reason to harass him, e.g: Saying to him that he is making wikipedia worse--Planecrashexpert (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
Thank you for your inputs. Based on the previous comments and because ShakeMap is partly updated by USGS based on average values of DYFI, could we agree to:
- systematically refer to the ShakeMap value;
- call it maximum intensity?
Which for example for [9] with a DYFI at III and a ShakeMap at VII would give :

• A magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck Indonesia 8 km (5.0 mi) east of the Talaud Islands, North Sulawesi on January 11 at a depth of 20.8 km (12.9 mi). The shock had a maximum intensity of VII (Very strong).

• Support - I'm happy with that - I've just been keeping an eye on the evolution of the shakemap for the M7.1 Alaska event mentioned below DYFI is at VII, the shakemap started at IV (version 1, presumably based on a few station observations) and is now at VI (version 3, after incorporating two station observations from an airbase), but still not including the DYFI - I expect that it will soon be updated to include the DYFI. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if when you look at the details of the DYFI, the maximum average is at VI and in that regard it's likely that (provided no new values are added in the meantime in the DYFI) the ShakeMap will stay at VI even after incorporating the DYFI values. Wykx 13:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DYFI have now been consolidated into the ShakeMap: with the new DYFI responses, we have a grand maximum at 7.2 corresponding to VII for DYFI and the maximum average for ShakeMap at geocoded station 11 of 6.6 which has been rounded at VII. That makes sense. Wykx 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article protection

This page has been fully protected until 24 January per a complaint of edit warring at WP:AN3. If you want to make a change during the period of protection, and believe that consensus supports it, use {{Edit fully-protected}} here on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2016

 Done

The magnitude of this earthquake has been downgraded from 6.0 to 5.8 as per [10] which doesn't qualify anymore for this page.

The request is to remove:

1/ 14th line of the source:

Location map~|Earth|mark = Yellow pog.svg|lat_deg = -21.471|lon_deg = 176.211

2/ Just before the Reference section:

• A magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck offshore of Fiji 171 km (106 mi) east of Ceva-i-Ra on January 18 at a depth of 14.8 km (9.2 mi). The shock had a maximum Mercalli intensity of III (Weak).

Wykx 12:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

7.1 in Alaska

Please update the article to show a 7.1 in Alaska on January 24th. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10004gqp#general_summary Juneau Mike (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)  Done

Anyone who added the 6.0 earthquake near Papua New Guinea?

Someone needs to --Planecrashexpert (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The USGS [11] have this as 5.8 now, so I don't think that it qualifies. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC:comments

I was notified last night of the request for comments on this talk page. After completing my research, I see that the request has already been closed. Talk about arriving late to the party! I didn't want my research to go to waste since I know nothing about earthquakes and I tried my darndest to get educated to help weigh in on this topic. Here are my points-

The USGS does a very good job of pointing out that the Mercalli scale is purely subjective. Anyone reading the description on their site gets a pretty good feeling for that. Our Wikipedia article on the scale does not convey that very well. I am a big proponent of including relevant data for our readers. You never know what questions they need answered and, hopefully, by following our links they can educate themselves on the different scales used to describe earthquakes and make their own decisions on how important the data is rather than we, as editors/authors, making that decision for them. That being said, my recommendation would have been to include the Mercalli data in the earthquake list, but to do a serious re-write of the Mercalli Wikipedia page so that the subjective nature of the scale is pointed out in the first paragraph along the same lines that the USGS site does it. That being said, I feel that the discussion between Wykx and Mikenorton was very productive and convinced me they had made a good decision and that it shoudl stand.

After reviewing previous posts on this article, including edit summaries and reverts, if I were an administrator I would impose sanctions on Dawnseeker2000 for repeated violations of Wikipedia:Civility including personal attacks on the talk page and in edit summaries directed towards Wykx. I would also caution Dawnseeker2000 that questioning another editor's competency is borderline Wikipedia:OUTING as any response to prove competency by an editor could divulge personal information. Proofs of competency are not a requirement for editing articles on Wikipedia. I would also commend Wykx for not responding to any of these attacks as is evidenced on the talk page and in edit summaries.

I hope my comments were usefull to the editors on this talk page and that you will move forward with strong, intelligent discussions on how material should be presented to our readership. StarHOG (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

April Guatemala quake

You forgot to add it--193.163.223.128 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Should a "Current" tag be added or not?

Information about casualties from the quake in Ecuador can change a few times a day. So, to reflect that, should the tag indicating this article documents a current event be added? But, most of the events in this article are no longer current. SlowJog (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for a single information in this article. Wykx (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why there is no second? in "By magnitude"

in the section «By magnitude», because there is no second place if it is assumed if the first two (Indonesia and Ecuador) are in the first place and following it (Russia) is the third.
Where the hell is the second? --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

↳ In response of: @Wykx:

There is no second there are two first ex-aequo. Look at 2015's List_of_earthquakes_in_2015#By_magnitude for another example with more quakes listed. Wykx (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Table

The table "Number of earthquakes worldwide for 2006–2016" needs to be updated. The column for 2016 has fewer earthquakes than the sum of the number of earthquakes by month. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Details about hours between two quakes

About the Myanmar quake, is a remark like " just a few hours after the italian earthquake" necessary? I think not, knowing that date is already mentioned and it could applicable to many many quakes of this list. Wykx (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this is not worth commenting on - chance does that all the time. I've removed that bit. Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's NZ quake

A 7.1 magnitude quake has struck off New Zealand. (BBC) Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

nereju earthquake

add--193.163.223.128 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to add.Wykx (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

it was rare, 'strongly felt', no injuries/deaths, no damage. [12] --193.163.223.128 (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then it doesn't fit the criteria Wykx (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this report which says minor damage occurred and two people were injured.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Thank You. Can someone verify whether it should be added? I can't, for unexplained/weird reasons...--193.163.223.128 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This article in Romanian [13] explains one man had a fracture after jumping from his window and one old woman was injured in her home. Plus some bricks falled (very minor damages). We may add it. Wykx (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Which eq website should be used when determining the number of earthquakes in any given month/magnitude range?

If you know what I mean--193.163.223.128 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

USGS as mentioned at the beginning of the page. Wykx (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Chile 5.9 in November

Should it be added? USGS informs that it's significant.--193.163.223.128 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Most likely not. As far as I know, the quake apparently did not cause any damage or injuries. And as per the lead section of the article, "only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in damage and/or casualties, or are notable for some other reason".--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

nov 7.8 nz

2 6.0+ aftershocks not added to list yet, please, anyone do this? i cant, something's not right/working..—193.163.223.128 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

some1 plz fix the december infobox asap, i don't know how to--193.163.223.128 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - way too many closing curly brackets. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Now plz add 5.2 India to "largest magnitude", I don't know how to either (in December).--193.163.223.128 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)