Talk:1910 Taiwan earthquake

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intensity

@Quake1234: added the shakemap intensity a few days ago and @Dora the Axe-plorer: reverted. If I remember right, I have been following @Mikenorton:'s lead by allowing the use of shakemap data if a seismologist's intensity statement is unavailable. I mean, in this case especially, showing intensity VI is quite useful information in that it immediately dispels anyone's assumption that this was a high-intensity event.

This got me thinking about a potential modification to the MMI template. We could add some small text in parentheses (like simulation or shakemap) to instances where shakemap values are all we have to work with. I'll post at Template talk:MMI. Dawnseeker2000 00:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this earthquake, the NOAA source gives MMI=IX, although the original data appears to be from Nutalya et al (1985) and was on the Rossi-Forel scale. I'll reply on your proposal at the template talk pageMikenorton (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong url I had forgotten to correct. I duplicated the ref template and contents but didn't change the url so I wouldn't have to redo it again. My bad. This is the correct url. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my case that was just fitting in a quick response without checking thoroughly, so my bad too. I notice that Kanamori et al. (2012) give some information on the shaking intensity for this earthquake, including a copy of a map showing the distribution of "strong" ground motion (Figure D1 - located as a link in Appendix D). Mikenorton (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]