Jump to content

Talk:2010 Central Canada earthquake

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

Not in Ontario!

[edit]

US Geological Survey says the quake epicentre was near Lake Champlain, in the United States... http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100623/NEWS01/100623020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.199.114 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Twitter (and me), the earthquake was felt in Ontario, Northern New York, Quebec (Montreal), even Michigan, Delaware, and Cincinnati. --Morgan Sutherland (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"MAP 5.5 2010/06/23 17:41:42 45.866 -75.457 15.7 ONTARIO-QUEBEC BORDER REGION, CANADA" Source from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php, USGS science earthquake center .Arvindan T. 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can confirm feeling it in Southern Ontario. - K/W region just south of Toronto Stryder1975 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it here in Toronto, as did a few others here.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel it in Cabbagetown, though other people in the same building did. I did hear a noise that sounded like a piece of furniture falling over, and spent a couple of minutes looking around my apartment before deciding it was just one of those weird things. I have relatives in Sudbury who say they didn't feel it, and relatives in Blind River who say they did. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know when it's the middle of winter and there's like a super blast of air that rattles the windows, only you look outside the windows and there's no gusting; and it feels like a subway has just rumbled through, but you are in Rexdale? Kinda like that.  :-D  70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a resident of Ottawa who heard all the news, i would like to say that the epicentre was in fact in Buckingham, Quebec, and i am pretty sure that the magnitude was actually 5.6. Tomster14 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Newspaper

[edit]

I am checking with my uncle who is the head seismologist in Ottawa. I've been into the actual earthquake recording centre where he monitors the paper (yes, paper) earthquake readouts for eastern/central Canada. The only other source of this quake that would be relatively accurate is the USGS.Gnatbuzz (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps it would be a good idea to wait for definitive facts on the matter. After all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. The news *just* hit the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.187.78 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic

[edit]

This isn't really important. This article belongs in Wikinews. goffrie (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But it's here now, so it should probably stick around for a little bit until we are sure there is nothing of note. :-) --  timc  talk   18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the term "hit". More like "the only earthquake to cradle and gently rock Ontario in recent memory." It may be a small news item, but not really encyclopedic. I expect this afternoon's weather to be more noteworthy. --  timc  talk   18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only one. this is the 4th at least in the last 37 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.167.114 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So once every 10 years -- kindof notable, no? –xenotalk 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. And it's been covered in several reliable sources across the web (e.g. CBC, CTV, Vancouver Sun, FOX news, etc.) And its rareness (first since 1998) lends it some note. We'll have to wait for reactions and damages to truly gauge it's notability.--18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs)
Some said as much at the Help Desk here: There was a bit of an earthquake just now here in Toronto. Now what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is certainly not an issue here - so an easy keeper. Plenty of coverage from third party sources including CNN, MSNBC, etc. The article is written pretty much like the typical tornado outbreak with synopsis, damage, aftermath, etc. No reason so send it to AFD.JForget 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess it is notable enough. I guess I was annoyed that the article was spammed so much earlier. (FWIW, I do live in Ottawa and was affected by this quake) goffrie (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even in the absence of major damage I'd certainly think that an earthquake that essentially shuts down the national capital of a G8 country, and causes significant disruption to both of that country's largest cities, is likely to clear the bar in terms of notability, both because it's a rare occurence and because it affected so damn many people. A 5.0 in some remote area might not be notable, but when it hits the most densely populated region of a G8 country, it doesn't have to be nearly as destructive to be notable. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Canada?

[edit]

So, how far does Central Canada run? Does that mean that New York is in the Central U.S. too? Last time I checked, Quebec was in Eastern Canada. But I could be wrong. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there is an article on that. --  timc  talk   18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Central Canada (sometimes the Central provinces) is a region consisting of Canada's two largest and most populous provinces: Ontario and Quebec". –xenotalk 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true^ ... That was considered Central Canada in the late 1800s. It is not considered Central Canada until the Manitoba-Ontario border (where central time zone starts.)Tomster14 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the improper move Richard Yetalk 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat it. –xenotalk 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article name only reflect the location of the epicenter or should it reflect where it was felt as well? Because it was felt in New York state, even far west as Michigan and also Pennsylvania, but the epicentre was in Quebec? Heights(Want to talk?) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, to be honest. I've made a post at WT:QUAKE seeking opinion. –xenotalk 19:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Quebec, not Ontario and Eastern not Central

[edit]

Firts the epicentre was about 30 kilometers north of Buckingham in Quebec, not in Ontario (even if close to it)

Also Quebec (and Ontario btw) are in the eastern part of Canada, not central...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.251.170 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. –xenotalk 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The epicentre was in Quebec, but not a greatly populated populated area of it, so it was felt by much more people in Eastern OntarioTomster14 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bertha

[edit]

There have been several tweets nicknaming this Earth Quake "Big Bertha" http://twitter.com/_kludge

Also its been in the Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/earthquake-shakes-central-canada-us/article1614941/

And their is a Facebook Group aswell. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=104153226303451&v=app_2344061033#!/group.php?gid=104153226303451&v=info


I was going to Add it to the page, but its become locked?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandil (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources (not Globe and Mail showing a twitter feed)? –xenotalk 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Just twitter/facebook, how do you source a nickname...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandil (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reported by reliable sources. –xenotalk 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

[edit]

Could we give a shot at using pending changes instead of autoconfirm and see how this plays out? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but pending changes protection is currently being filtered through WP:PCQ. –xenotalk 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes would have been nice. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Perhaps this is an appropriate time to finally be bold and ignore a rule? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shalln't stand in your way or object, there were good-faith changes from IPs coming in along with the vandalism. If you do set PCP, probably best to note at WT:PCQ. –xenotalk 18:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Activated pending changes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How about a French version?

[edit]

As per my post in the French Wikipedia: How would I tip French speakers to the existence of an article that they might find relevant?.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you just did! –xenotalk 19:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish!   :-D  (same guy, different IP)205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is fr:Séisme_de_2010_au_Québec OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo!!  :-D  70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

I obviously don't want to move the article while it's under extremely high edit traffic, but I do want to note that whenever possible, earthquake articles on Wikipedia should be named as specifically as possible to the exact epicenter, rather than by regions as broad as "Central Canada". So the name here should be either "Outaouais earthquake" or "Val-des-Bois earthquake", rather than "Central Canada earthquake". Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Ottawa Valley" earthquake? That's where the fault-line runs. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's figure out the right name then make the move. –xenotalk 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or not. =) –xenotalk 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Val-des-bois is barely refered to in any sources though. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to 2010 Central Canada earthquake. –xenotalk 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too general and imprecise. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles should be precise, but still recognizable. The title "2010 Central Canada Earthquake" is unambiguous and imprecise, but easily recognized. The "2010 Quebec Earthquake" is better for precision, and still should be easily recognized. I support this title. "Val-des-Bois" isn't recognizable at all - I live in Ottawa and I don't know where it is. Richard Yetalk 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uncertainty is why I suggested waiting, but oh well. –xenotalk 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any objections to "Quebec" over "Val-des-bois"? I'll leave a message on the talk page of the moving user asking for input. Richard Yetalk 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most news sources name this as the "Central Canada", "Ontario/Quebec" earthquake. No one calls it the "Val-des-bois earthquake". I would recommend moving it back to "Central Canada earthquake" until a consensus forms on the name here. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, now someone should fix all those double redirects out there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too general and imprecise. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've moved it back to "2010 Central Canada Earthquake" until a suitable consensus forms on the talk page here.--Patar knight 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a requirement to tie itself to "what name is the media using for this?"; the media is going to use a far more general and imprecise name than our requirements as an encyclopedia would dictate. We do have a requirement to be as specific as we possibly can to the exact epicentre — which was not all of Central Canada or all of Quebec. And the recognizability of the name isn't relevant to the process, because we can always use redirects from any other possible titles. But at the same time, I'd point out that I began the discussion by pointing out that the page shouldn't be moved until things have settled down a bit; the only reason I subsequently did actually implement a page move is because another user did move it to a title which had a spelling error in it. I agree that we should wait and not move it right away; to minimize disruption we need to wait until things have calmed down. But I disagree that there's any compelling reason to use any title other than either Outaouais or Val-des-Bois, because there are easy ways around absolutely any substantive reason for choosing any other name. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. For the record as well, I only moved from "2010 Central Canada Earthquake" because of MOS and support whatever version consensus favours. –xenotalk 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is a last-resort guideline for cases that aren't already covered by a set naming convention, not an inviolable law. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't support your assertion (it says "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article"), and I never indicated I thought it was an inviolable law. –xenotalk 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section titled "Explicit conventions" makes quite clear that it is acceptable for specialized topics to have specific naming conventions that fall outside "always use the most common name", if there's a valid reason for it (such as imprecision, competing names, excessive ambiguity, etc.) Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." So if we come to an agreement that it will produce a clear benefit, then I support whatever consensus favours. But it's not a slam-dunk. –xenotalk 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the first point in the "Deciding an article title" section clearly stipulates that the title should be recognizable, and use names also used by reliable sources. Reliable sources do name Val-des-bois as the closest settlement to the earthquake, but they never call it the "Val-des-bois earthquake," always using "Central Canada earthquake" or "Ontario/Quebec Earthquake", with the former being more common. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is that there are still six months to go in 2010, and the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben is a seismically active zone. So we need, first and foremost, to choose a name that we're not going to have to revise for newfound ambiguity if there's another earthquake at Sheenboro or Kipawa or Rolphton, or a rockburst in Temagami, in September — it would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation to assume that there's not going to be another competing use for the "Central Canada earthquake" title before the end of the year. And secondly, as I've already pointed out, redirects mean that a user doesn't necessarily have to know the exact title of an article to find it just fine — there's no benefit to being overly imprecise when you can simply redirect the imprecise title to the more accurate one. And then if there is another earthquake, turning the redirect into a dab page would cause far less disruption and confusion than if we had to do a mass renaming project. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes some sense. So what name do you favour? –xenotalk 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For maximum precision, my first choice would still be Val-des-Bois. But I'd also support "Papineau" (the county), "Outaouais" (the region) or "Ottawa" (the closest internationally-famous city and the one that's generally getting the most coverage right now). But to me, anything broader or more generalized than "Ottawa" is being too vague and imprecise. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a request at the WP Earthquakes talk page; I agree that Val-de-Bois would appear to be the best choice. ceranthor 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stale?

[edit]

I missed out on the above debate, but I agree with Bearcat that "Central Canada" is far too vague. A few options I support are 2010 Val-des-Bois earthquake (if that is deemed to be the epicentre), 2010 Ottawa earthquake (many international sources (BBC, New York Times) name Ottawa), or 2010 Ontario-Quebec earthquake (a simplified version of the USGS's term (link)).

I'd be open to other options if they have sufficient reasoning, but "Central Canada" is at best "less often used than the names of the individual provinces" and at worst inaccurate and misleading. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer 2010 Ottawa earthquake or 2010 Ontario-Quebec earthquake over the current title or 2010 Val-des-Bois earthquake. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find "Val-des-Bois" too obscurely specific, and some of us find "Central Canada" or "Ontario-Quebec" too vaguely imprecise, then we may as well meet in the middle — "Ottawa" seems to be acceptable to almost everybody who's commented so far, so is there any objection to proceeding on the basis that "Ottawa" is emerging as the tentative consensus? Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ottawa. It's the nearest significant urban centre. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current tile is, imo, fine. Central Canada is a common moniker to describe the overarching region embracing ON and QC, and it was felt throughout much of the region; so, the title fits the scope of the event. The USGS characterises the quake as having occurred in the "Ontario-Quebec Border Region, Canada", while Natural Resources Canada indicates it occurred in the 'Ottawa-Montreal region' near Buckingham, QC. If the current title proves unpopular, a hyphenated one is preferred to just one with 'Ottawa' in it: indicating that alone in the title would imply that it occurred in Ontario, which it didn't. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was also felt well into the United States — so if we were to name it by that reasoning, we should be calling it the Ontario-Quebec-New York-Michigan-Pennsylvania-Massachusetts-Maine-Connecticut-North Carolina-Ohio earthquake. We don't name other earthquake articles by how widely they were felt; we name them as close as feasibly possible to the exact spot where the rock actually moved. So why should this one be any sort of exception?Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a limit to that argumentum ad infinitum - it simply is not about where it was felt, though that's a factor, but where it occured. Both government sources indicated above point out a binomial regional/border occurrence of the event. The current title seems to reflect a common name for the quake and is all inclusive, or variant, while the '2010 Ottawa earthquake' would not, and would also be inaccurate and misleading. If anything, the '2010 Buckingham earthquake' would be more precise. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Val-des-Bois would be more precise than Buckingham, since it wasn't actually in Buckingham either. But the point is that we have to find a balance between being recognizable but too absurdly overgeneralized (which "Central Canada" most certainly is) and being specific but too obscure (which "Val-des-Bois" might be.) Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Val-de-Bois IS too obscure, particularly since other locales are cited more frequently; noting Ottawa in the title is just plain insipid. I disagree that Central Canada is insufficient for current purposes, given previous sentence. Or, perhaps simply '2010 Quebec-Ontario border (region) earthquake' would suffice. What do major media outlets say? Generally, whatever is most common should prevail. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The epicentre of the earthquake did not encompass the entirety of both Ontario and Quebec, and the zone of experience went significantly beyond just Ontario and Quebec — so both "Quebec-Ontario" and "Central Canada" are titles that simply don't correspond to anything remotely significant about the earthquake. And furthermore, we have to choose a name that's specific enough that the chances are as close as feasibly possible to zero of us having to move the article three months from now because there turns out to be another earthquake that could legitimately compete for the exact same title. "Ontario-Quebec" and "Central Canada" both fail that criterion by more than a country mile. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which other notable earthquake has (yet) transpired in Central Canada in 2010? Anyhow, regarding naming in anticipation of another substantial earthquake in said region this year, you are rather dreaming up scenarios that may not come to pass. As well, noting it as the Ottawa earthquake also fails by a country mile - in fact, an online search does note Toronto in related titles more than Ottawa. So, in light of less satisfactory proposals, the status quo is not all that bad in the interim. Anyhow, I noted '2010 Quebec-Ontario border earthquake' (or '2010 Quebec-Ontario border region earthquake') as more a preference than anything presented to date: it is clear and unambiguous. Nonetheless, a poll may be in order. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about events need to always be named specifically enough that there's as little possibility as can be feasibly managed of another event transpiring in the future that may compete for the same title. That is, it's not my job to prove that another "Central Canada earthquake" will happen before the end of 2010; until 2010 is actually over, it merely needs to be possible that one could. To justify using this title, you would need to prove that another "Central Canada earthquake" will definitely not happen in 2010. All I've stated is that as long as the possibility still exists that another earthquake could happen, we need to choose a name that we won't have to move at a later date if that happens — you're the one making WP:CRYSTAL assertions that can't yet be proven, not me. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, merely stating in body text that an earthquake happened in a region is not the same thing as naming it; I have yet to see a single shred of even remotely-sourced evidence that the specific phrases "The Central Canada Earthquake" or "The Ontario-Quebec Earthquake" have been settled on as generally accepted proper names for the event. Merely describing where an event happened does not constitute naming it, if you can't prove that anybody has officially given it that exact name.
And looking at just some of the other earthquakes of 2010, we have Salta, Kaohsiung, Elâzığ, Pichilemu, Pico Rivera, Yushu and Kalgoorlie-Boulder. So it's clearly not true that we always privilege internationally recognizable but geographically vague regional names over "as close as possible to the exact epicentre" specificity, because not a single one of those would be named the way it is if we did. In other cases, there have been broader and less strictly specific names chosen, such as Baja California and Haiti, but even in those cases the broader name still encompasses a small and reasonably precise geographic region that doesn't even come close to having the wild disjunct of geographic proportion to the epicentre that Central Canada has to this one — the entire country of Haiti is smaller than the Outaouais region alone, let alone Ontario, Quebec or the combination of Ontario and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll maybe? –xenotalk 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

[edit]

"Far away from the tectonic plate's margin, the regional seismicity is defined by a series of geologic faults, formed over the last billion years by the processes of orogeny and subsequent erosion."

"Plate's margin" very vauge, doesn't say anything, you could put "Far away from a plate margin, the neareast being...." or "Located in the Grenville geologic province, hundreds of kilometers away from any plate boundary..."

"defined" poor choice of words, "controled" would be more accurate.

"formed over the last billion years by the processes of orogeny" date is vaugely correct, but really you could identify the orgeny as the Grenvillian orogeny, which has a specific date, which was procceded by the grenvillian accretion, also I do not know of any erosional processes that develop faults :S Might have exposed some faults generated deeper in the crust initially, but thats it. I do not recall the dates off the top of my head.

who was this written by honestly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.56.32 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At your service. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the point, I'm not sure what the nearest margin is. Carribean? Euarasian? African?.. I likewise don't know how erosion contributes to the fault development, but that's what USGS seem to imply. And you're welcome to edit yourself, you know :-) Óðinn ☭☆ talk 22:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By 'erosion' they may mean glaciation. Post-glacial rebound is still affecting this area, and stresses on the substrates happen more often in old seam lines, like what exists under the Ottawa Valley area. Radagast (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

earthquake also felt here in northern Ontario

[edit]

I felt it here in northern Ontario. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where it was felt

[edit]

This list is going to get huge if every city is listed. Can we limit it to Canadian Provinces and US States? Or at least remove the details from the lede? --Elliskev 02:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shake of Things to Come

[edit]

This talk page is now longer than Talk:1994 Northridge earthquake, which is the talk page for a relatively recent, relatively nearby earthquake that killed 72 people and injured 9000. I predict that within forty eight hours of this event the main article will also be longer. --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current events and contemporary personalities do very often attract far more attention on here than even more notable stuff that happened before the widespread adoption of the Internet — in part, they're much easier to source since all you have to do is grab links from news sites, whereas older events will very often require going to the library to dig up archived sources. The unfortunate corollary to this, however, is that it does present a distorted sense of notability at times — for example, the irritating notion that we would need or want a complete and comprehensive list of every single community on earth where there were any reports whatsoever of this quake being felt. We do need to give a little bit of thought to the long view of history here; what will matter in the long term is the effects it has or doesn't have on Ottawa, not the fact that somebody in Evansville, Illinois heard a plate or two rattle. But it's also very true that given where people choose to focus their energies, we're still much better at being a compendium of 21st-century water cooler trivia than we are at being a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid there's ever a volcanic eruption in Canada... the servers will go down! --Antigrandiose (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the alien invasion... Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be waiting... --Antigrandiose (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the finer details of this article will be cleaned up over the next few days. I think at this point there is little to add, and plenty to compress. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference, Antigrandiose, is that this earthquake occurred while Wikipedia was in existence and brimming with willing editors. The 1994 earthquake occurred... well... in 1994. The same can be seen when comparing Titanic (1997 film) and Avatar (2009 film). People (editors) like current events. — CIS (talk | stalk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As do news companies, who routinely block archival by the wayback machine and then delete news 2 weeks after its happened. Most of these sources will be dead by the end of the summer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...until I discovered the truth. The main article is now longer than the article about the guy who invented the slap bass playing technique. Nice to see you again, Floydian. -Antigrandiose (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged 1998 earthquake

[edit]

The Earthquake Canada's records don't have a 5.4 M event for the area in question - check the 1998 report The only thing that's close is the October 22 event, but it's only 4.1 M. If you look here, the only noticeable earthquake to affect the Eastern Canada in 1998 was the 1998 Pymatuning earthquake on September 25. That's entirely different area (Southern Great Lakes Seismic Zone). Thus, the claim should be removed. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the 4.4 on July 30, which is much closer geographically to this epicentre than the October 22 quake is. Nonetheless, I think there's a possibility that the source might have gotten a couple of distinct quakes confused. Kipawa 2000 and Cap-Rouge 1997 both got to 5.2, but obviously neither of them was in 1998. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted The Star regarding the October earthquake, and they were in fact referring to the following Sept 25 1998 earthquake: link. Of course, since our correspondance wasn't published, this info might not be usable until the source itself is updated. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for you efforts! The Star, in fact has changed their article: [1] So I'll go ahead and correct the lead. Though their article still has a technical error: Earthquake Canada sometimes uses the Mn magnitude scale, which isn't the same as Richter (Ml) or Mw. I'll convert everything to Mw using the USGS data for consistency. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 18:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50km vs. 60km

[edit]

Every source I've read (multiple newspapers in the GTA, National Post, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun) claim 60km north of Ottawa. Only the USGS claims 50, and it's an international source. I'd like it changed to 60 to be more accurate. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USGS says 56km NNE right now. --Elliskev 17:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Todays Globe and Mail says 60km (no link), Chronicle Herald "about 60",[2] Wall Street Journal says 40 miles (64 km),[3]. Should we calculate it using the GPS coordinates? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to the 56 stated by the USGS. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

WikiProject Earthquake has been attempting to come up with notability guidelines for earthquake articles on Wikipedia - the latest draft is here. Under these criteria, this earthquake would not count as notable and if it came to AfD, I would support deletion for consistency. I know that a lot of people felt it. but I think that the real test would be that, if it had happened ten years ago, would there be much to make an article out of? Since Wikipedia has been around, this has become more problematic as editors affected by such an event react instantly, and start writing. There have recently been a mass of articles about 2010 earthquakes of dubious notability, most of which have ended up at AfD. It was in response to this that the guidelines were drawn up. It has been suggested that there should be another criteria added - 'rare earthquakes that hit population centres'. I'm not enamoured of that idea, but would like to hear other views either here or on the WP Earthquakes talk page. I am concerned that this would in practice mean that articles about minor (in a global sense) earthquakes in the english-speaking world would be kept while other similar events (also affecting a population centre) would be deleted. Mikenorton (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who suggested that - as this is the first earthquake (that I know of?) that affected the General Toronto Area. Clearly is is a notable event for several million people who have never had the ground shake beneath their feet before. –xenotalk 18:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Xeno, I had meant to mention you - regarding people that have never felt the ground shake before, I see that as a news story, not something to add to an encyclopedia, but as I say that's my view and most of the contributions to the guidelines have been from people involved at AfD who are keen to make them as restrictive as possible - it would be good to get the views of those who think that the proposed guidelines are too tough as well, which is my main reason for starting this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but the "centre of the universe" card doesn't make a news story notable for an encylopedia. This belongs at wikinews, not here. Resolute 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD. There, I took the first step for everyone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and aren't you just proud of yourself? I've been through enough of these to know that WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored in favour of "OMGZ Keep! My newspaper had a story on this!" Resolute 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in fact, I am.
Any closing admin who knows the rules of the game will ignore useless votes over the arguments presented. If this is legitimately an article for Wikinews then arguing as such shouldn't be difficult. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Resolute 04:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody played any "centre of the universe" card. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the first earthquake that affected the Greater Toronto Area". Resolute 04:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between saying that Toronto exists and saying that it's the centre of the universe. If and when a 5.0 earthquake happens in Edmonton and Xeno argues that it should be deleted because it didn't happen in Toronto, then you might have a point — but simply stating that "happened in Toronto" is not mutually exclusive with notability doesn't constitute "centre of the universism". Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about the two concepts being "mutually exclusive" other than you? My argument is that the claim that this is notable because Toronto got a little shaken is invalid. Indeed, Xeno inadvertently proved my argument by failing to remember previous earthquakes that affected Toronto. If they are so easily forgotten, then where is the encyclopedic notabiliy? Its a news story that will pass from people's minds in a matter of days. Resolute 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not more notable because it hit Toronto than it would be if the same thing had hit Vancouver or Edmonton or Winnipeg instead, but it's not less either. The notability is the fact that several million people felt it, not what city those people happened to live in — an earthquake doesn't have to cause dramatic devastation to be notable; like any other topic, it merely has to be written about in the media sufficiently that the article qualifies as sourced. Some earthquakes in very rural areas might fail to meet that criterion, admittedly, but an earthquake that was felt by several million people in numerous urban areas across two countries would be notable whether Toronto was one of those cities or not. And by the way, I've lived in Toronto for 14 years now and have yet to meet a single person who actually thinks Toronto is "the centre of the universe". Since I spent the first 24 years of my life living in other places, I have a hypersensitive ear for that kind of thing — and it just ain't happening. Bearcat (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, Xeno, it's far from the first. People have short memories sometimes, but I distinctly remember the day or two of "ZOMG I never felt an earthquake before!" buzzing around TO that followed the 1998 Ohio quake...and the Sudbury rockburst of a year or two ago...and Kipawa... Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps a better thought to consider would be whether or not Earthquakes that happen in areas that aren't susceptible to them are notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other thought to consider is whether the amount of news coverage this receives makes it notable in comparison with those that occurred elsewhere. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bearcat. I had been looking around yesterday for examples of other earthquakes affecting GTA, but couldn't find any. –xenotalk 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epicenter map in infobox...

[edit]

...is off, as it puts the quake in Southern Ontario (near Cornwall?). Can we get that fixed, at least until there's an AfD...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Canada location map with one for Quebec, does that do the trick? Mikenorton (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming straw poll

[edit]

Now that the edit history of this article has more or less stabilized, it's probably time to have a formal straw poll to determine what should be the article's final name. The options that have been presented to date are as follows:

  1. Central Canada (general region)
  2. Ontario-Quebec (alternative name for same)
  3. Ottawa (nearest internationally-famous city)
  4. Quebec (province)
  5. Outaouais (administrative region)
  6. Papineau (county)
  7. Val-des-Bois (nearest settlement)

To summarize the debate that's taken place, it's essentially centred on the question of whether it's better to name it with an extremely broad geographic region such as "Central Canada" or to stick with the usual naming standard for earthquakes, which is to zoom in as close as feasibly possible to the exact spot at which the rock actually moved. Opposition to the latter has centred on the fact that the most specific names may be obscure to those not already somewhat familiar with the geography of the Ottawa-Gatineau region, while opposition to the former has centred on the fact that the names don't actually correspond to any notable fact about the earthquake (the epicentre did not encompass the entirety of both Ontario and Quebec at once, and the zone of actual felt experience extended well into the United States as well), as well as the desire to choose a name that runs as little chance as we can possibly manage of having to be moved at a later date.

It should also be noted that while some people appealed to "what is the media calling it?" as support for their position, in actual fact the media haven't really named it anything at all; they've merely stated in body text that an earthquake happened in some geographic region listed above, and then people have found an example that supported whatever name they already favoured, and then reified that into a proper name that was never actually applied by the source. There are in fact few to no media examples of any source using the exact phrase "Central Canada Earthquake" or "Ontario-Quebec Earthquake" as a name for it. And furthermore, many, many earthquake articles on Wikipedia are named in a manner that prioritizes geographic precision over a name that might be more internationally recognizable but is potentially too vague to be useful otherwise.

As well, non-winning names can always stay in place as redirects to the final title anyway. We could name it the "45.904°N, 75.497°W Earthquake" if we wanted to, and people would still be able to get to it by typing any name in the above list — so there simply isn't any need to guess at what name readers might be most likely to expect.

Please express preferences below, with reasoning. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I previously favoured 1, but Bearcat has convinced me that further precision is probably ideal. So, Ottawa or Val-des-Bois are probably better alternatives. –xenotalk 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preferences would be (first) Papineau then (second) Val-des-Bois. When compared to the existing articles for previous quakes in Ontario and Quebec, I think these two are the most comparable. PKT(alk) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice Val-des-bois, second choice Ottawa, third choice Central Canada or Ontario-Quebec (equal preference). If you're going to be precise, get it down to a single settlement; if you want to be less precise, choose a name that people will recognize. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First - Ontario-Quebec as its the main area involved and most internationally known: Second - Outaouais the name most from the region would be familiar with Moxy (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I asked for reasoning — a simple statement of preference isn't useful (and can be discounted or excluded) if you don't explain why it's your preference. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 1, and then either 3 or 4. Val-des-Bois is the closest settlement but its name is not well known so many people will not be able to identify that it happened in Canada until they click on the article to read it. Ottawa and Quebec is much more preferred. But to avoid picking one over another, Central Canada seems to be the best compromise. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st choice: #1 - Central Canada. 2nd choice: #2 alternate - Ontario-Quebec border. For reasons stated above, in particular, re #1: uniqueness of event and scope; re: #2: more precise, and terminology per USGS. 3rd/4th/5th choices: #6 - Papineau (localised enough), #5 - Outaouais, #7 - Val-de-Bois (too obscure). Totally reject Ottawa in the title; why not note Hull or Gatineau instead? 76.66.124.5 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does "Central Canada" or "Ontario-Quebec" bear any relation whatsoever to the "scope of the event"? And don't say "because it was felt across both provinces", because it was felt in at least 10 US states too — so if you're defining the scope of the event as where it was felt, that would require naming all of them in the title as well. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, it is not simply about the scope of the event: the USGS has referred to the earthquake using the term 'Ontario-Quebec border' (a preference), not 'Ontario-Quebec' -- so, again, get it right or don't bother commenting. And for an area (Central Canada) that is generally devoid of noticeable earthquakes, this is significant for the area in which it occurred. Anyhow, why should I repeat, and for whose benefit, yours? Really, you have warbled enough about this topic and seem unnecessarily fixated on particular commentary -- so, please be silent and let others comment. I am ending this thread. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, trust me, I'm not getting anything wrong; you specifically said in your comment immediately above that it was specifically about "the scope of the event". And I'm not a "fixated warbler", either — I'm a Wikipedia administrator, so getting involved in policy and procedure discussions like this, and pointing out when participants are using circular or fallacious reasoning, is part of my damn job on here. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A number of things were said above, so you seem to have gotten a few things wrong. You certainly don't act like an administrator. Anyhow, have fun with your job. That is it. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, I suppose I might take your disdain for my administration skills more seriously if you were a registered user with an established history of knowing how things actually work around here. But a cheap ad hominem coming from an anonymous IP who's only been around Wikipedia for a little more than a month? Not so much. I didn't "get anything wrong" in terms of replying exactly to your words exactly as they lay on this very page — so if I'm actually misunderstanding you, then you might want to try expressing what you really meant to say a little more clearly next time. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 1 until another earthquake occurs in Central Canada during this year. @IP: Hull is Gatineau now, that'd be like using Scarborough instead of Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and only choice - Val-des-Bois: this is how the Earthquakes Canada designated it (see the report [4]) Óðinn ☭☆ talk 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: Val-des-Bois, per Geological Survey of Canada as Óðinn pointed out. 2: Ottawa, per a number of international news articles. 3: Ontario-Quebec or Ontario-Quebec border, per USGS. The only one I strongly oppose is "Central Canada", which to me (and possibly readers) refers to a different area altogether. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if they define Central Canada by looking to the centre of a map of Canada =) –xenotalk 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: Val-des-Bois, per Geological Survey of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.136.242.1 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ontario-Québec - Is the one who sounds better Diego Grez (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a British Columbian used to various smaller quakes we never seem to give names to this discussion is a bit curious to me; the rarity of a quake in Central Canada is of course the reason for warranting an article. But I just wanted to note that quakes are not necessarily named for their epicentre, or for the zone of maximum damage; the most common name, "in my time" anyway, for the Alaska earthquake of 1964 was the Good Friday Earthquake, I don't know where that would redirect within Wikipedia, i.e. what it's commonly called nowadays. There's nothing in particular about June 23, unlike if the quake had happened on, say June 21 but moreso on Canada Day, in which case the name would be obvious. Central Canada Earthquake certainly works for me, that's how I'd describe if it I were bringing it up with someone; but maybe the Papineau Earthquake is more location specific and rolls off the tongue easier than Outouais Earthquake. Now, if Ottawa had been flattened, then "Great Ottawa Earthquake" would have been very suitable....my vote's for "Central Canada Quake"...either that or for the epicentre, Val-de-Bois Earthquake...as an aside, one wiki-name for a disaster-event that quite piques me but has stood for a while is the Hanukkah Eve Windstorm that flattened parts of Stanley Park; this is apparently a Seattle-originated term but I've never heard anyone in BC (other than another Wikipedian) use the term....Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favour no. 1: Central Canada. Even though it is a very broad and vague name, we have to consider that WP aims for a global readership, so this title would reflect that because international media only reported it as "earthquake in Canada" or "near Ottawa". If it must be narrowed down more, than it may as well be No. 7. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Central Canada earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Central Canada earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Central_Canada_earthquake&oldid=1218761982"