Talk:2010 Yushu earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

International reaction[edit]

This would be a good article in which we could create the precedent of NOT having one of those pointless "International reaction" sections in which platitudinous and predictable responses are made by the international community. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Ericoides (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah, the locusts have descended. Ericoides (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Lets keep this clean and include only actions and contributions. --Kslotte (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I added the following message as comment to keep it in order: "do not include international predictable condolence responses, include only actions and contributions". Comments and opinions? --Kslotte (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we keep some of the non-trivial ones: for example, the ones by the Pope and Hillary Clinton. SPat talk 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
But why is a the US secretary of state and the head of a tiny state in Italy more important than the Prime Minister or President of a major European nation? None of them are trivial, all will be reported so will have refs, so if Clinton and the Pope are added so will 20, or 40, other countries be. I think not.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add the reponses like with every major natural disaster. See Haiti, Chile, Sichuan articles. There seem to be precedent invovled Messages from world leader convey their response and whether they intend to contribute assitance. Maybe should be done in separete article like for the other tragedies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As references a suggest we keep one of a kind: 1. A country (happen to Bulgaria first added) 2. A political union (EU), 3. A spiritual leader (the Pope). --Kslotte (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No I think we should have responses of nations, but only world powers. We do not need trivial responses. Please keep French foregin minisster (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Heck. even the poland plane crash has a separate article. and the delete entry does not suggest delete the important messsages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with 76. The article exists, and even though it is an AFD, it still exists. So I do believe the galavanting person going around deleting the responses is not going with consensus, which here seems to be FOR leaving the responses. (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you sir. Yes I was quite pissed when someone above simple deleted my contributions without any discussion for some sort of a consensus beforehand. I will restore what I added and hopefully others can help with the editing to make it more professional and cleaner.
I think that the current response section is sufficient for now. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Although I think its needs some work to complete the quoting from world leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not needed. It's an unsightly mess at the moment, with a random collection of leaders and notable people, some unnamed, some unlinked, with numerous formatting and grammar errors. If other countries of similar importance are added it will be bigger than the rest of the article and overwhelm it. Wait until they actually send something.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Having predictable international responses violates WP:NOTNEWS. That's the reason why the Polish plane crash article is in AFD. We should include responses, but not such that are predictable condolence responses. --Kslotte (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How about we see if the Polish plane crash reponse article ends up getting entirely deleted?? I see lots of keeps and merges. If it does get edeleted we can discuss whether this sections belongs but otherwise I dont see why it should be removed apriori.

On second thought, the polish plane crash should not compared. Direct exampls should be the Haiti/Chile earthquates etc... and here the consensus is Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Haiti article has a section on the response, not the predictable messages of support from random notable people. So we should only the responses here - the Red Cross so far.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but see Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake. Notice the many quotes from world leaders. I dont see a problem if the sections is expanded and formatted properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My previous comment referred to the responses section before the international list was re-added, it now seems unnecessarily overblown. It's likely that almost every head of state or international organisation will send their condolences or offers of help, should we list them all? It's a sizeable proportion of the article already. I'm with Kslotte on this. Mikenorton (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem if we look at previous earthquake articles. Like I said earlier, if need be (too long) make a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
examples? I linked to the Haiti earthquake article above, it has no similar list.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but see Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake. Notice the many quotes from world leaders. I dont see a problem if the sections is expanded and formatted properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake has various messages and actions. It is fine as long as it is non-predictable condolence responses. Having 20+ countries with same message isn't very interesting. --Kslotte (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This should be restricted to only actions by countries which have offered some tangible assistance (equipment, personell, etc). Otherwise, there is little (other than population of the respective countries) to suggest anything. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed to UK English[edit]

Why would an article on a Chinese earthquake have its spelling changed from US English to UK English? It seems logical to me that any article not specifically on a British topic should remain in which ever form of the two it was begun. __meco (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I changed it because I first changed a few dates from US to UK format. When I made that edit[1] there were slightly more instances of UK dates (14 April) than US dates (April 14) in the article, so my edit satisfied the WP edict that the article should stay in the spelling style in which it was started. To make the whole thing internally consistent I changed ONE instance of center to centre. It's a grey (gray) area, but that was my rationale. Ericoides (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you watch enough CCTV, you should notice that many of the ethnic Chinese reporters in the English edition all learn British English. and most of the voice-over translations from the CPG that I have heard use British English. I don't know about the general populace, though... It would seem logical given that the US poses much more of a threat to PRC than does the UK, although the latter committed more imperialist crimes in China in the past. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

6.9 or 7.1?[edit]

If the Chinese say the magnitude is 6.9 whereas the USGS gives the figure 7.1, shouldn't we present both figures? __meco (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes we should, if they did. But they don't. USGS says 6.9. See here[2] (the ref I put in the article). Ericoides (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say, in principle, it is more sound to follow the chinese sources that the magnitude is 7.1 since China is closer to the epicentrum and is a civilized and scientific competent country. However, the real magnitude will be confirmed in due time so stick to whatever you think is ok...for now. But, don't be eurocentric or americacentric and think that usgs.gov is possessing the absolute truth. More info from Chinese government/Xinhua in english: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-04/14/c_13250818.htm [User:Yiwa] 08:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.128.82 (talk)
  • Ah I see, Meco got it the wrong way round. Thanks for the ref; I've added the 7.1 Xinhua claim and ref to the first sentence of the article. Ericoides (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling that the Chinese Seismological Bureau normally uses surface wave magnitude when it reports earthquakes, whereas the USGS routinely uses the moment magnitude scale, so the power of the quake may be the same, just a different way of measuring it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Depth 10 or 33 km?[edit]

The listed depth of 10 km probably comes from USGS information, but they don't claim this as measured depth but as an assumed standard depth. According to the China Earthquake Networks Center [3] the depth is about 33 km, with no indication whether this is measured or assumed depth. 82.72.107.186 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the USGS reports for the depth of the main shock and aftershocks initially started at 33 km, then as they got updated the information changed to 10 km. ~AH1(TCU) 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheesecake?[edit]

Is there some part of earthquake terminology I'm not familiar with when it says the maximum intensity of the quake was "cheesecake," linking to the article on a dessert? I'd remove it, but I'm not up on my earthquake terminology, and for all I know it's some scientific jargon, just linked to the wrong article. Cheers, C628 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And never mind. Cheers, C628 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Better map[edit]

Is there any other map we can use? I may be a stickler, but the map currently in use is quite poor. (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The map uses the Location Map for Qinghai, showing both the epicentre and the location of Gyêgu, where most of the damage is reported from. More labels can be added if desired. What else should it show? I will add a caption saying that it is a map of Qinghai region. Mikenorton (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Google satellite imagery is all copyrighted. It's probably zoomed out enough to work with Landsat imagery (Public Domain)
OpenStreetMap is all open licensed. The map of Gyêgu (yushi) has some stuff, but there's not many roads or features to show. Very remote. 'cycle map' terrain layer shows alls the mountains.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons has this map: File:Terremoto de Yushu de 2010.jpg ... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

naming[edit]

should it be at Qinghai or Yushu? obviously the former is much more well-known, but if the extent of damage was highly limited to this prefecture, then it should stay at Yushu. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the Qinghai Province is huge, and the populated area of the Yushu Prefecture hit by the quake is a long way from any other important population center in the province (over 500 km to Xining or Golmud), "Yushu" makes more sense, I think. Since the Yushu Prefecture itself is quite big (hundreds of km across), most of the damage probably happened within it. Vmenkov (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
but same thing with the earthquake that occurred nearly two years ago in Sichuan. It's not like much of the Sichuan Basin suffered major damage; however your point about the size of Yushu Prefecture makes sense. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Rima[edit]

Dunno much about the actual situation in China. Does the name of every place where none of the Chinese languages is the primary language have official corresponding Chinese characters? Like Rima, in most of the news coverage it was written as 日麻, but in a list of villages of Upper Laxiu township it was written as 日瑪. BTW, anyone know how to write Rima in any Tibetan transliteration system in Latin alphabet? Qrfqr (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that any official place in China has an official Chinese character name. Just like any official place in the US has an official English name, and any official place in Russia has a Cyrillic name. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, just about everything has a name transliterated into Chinese. Whether it's more appropriate to use that or the native name, however, is a separate question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

'Background' section[edit]

I just removed the 'Background' section as it was a verbatim copy of the USGS page and partly duplicated what was in the 'Geology' section. I know that there is no copyright problem here, but we don't normally use so much text word-for-word. I aim to expand the geology section using both the USGS and other sources. Mikenorton (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion??[edit]

okay this article is embarassingly short for a disaster of such a magnitude. are poeple thinking of expanding this article in a major fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'International aids' Section[edit]

In the 'International aids' section, you should either change "Republic of China" to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)" or simply "Taiwan". Otherwise most of your readers would be VERY confused. Marcopolo112233 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional links[edit]

I removed this from the main page because it's in Chinese (and this is an English encylopedia) and because it violates WP:EL, but in case we needed it for later, it's here. Colipon+(Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, "Additional source" is not "External link", so it does not violates WP:EL, these are two different things. Even though this is English wikipedia, the topic itself involves Chinese, so we can quote Chinese source, when the relevant info is available only in Chinese language. Arilang talk 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources can be foreign language, if that is the best source for the information. But general links whatever you call them should not be included if they are not accessible to most readers. If they really are sources then the information in them should be extracted and put in the article, and they should be made into references. Otherwise they are of little use, at least here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, some of these 'sources' are just blogs, not something that we'd call reliable around here. I notice Arilang has this habit in many other articles that he creates. I know this is done in good faith and you want to share these links with the world, but it is inappropriate. Please understand. Colipon+(Talk) 15:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks colipon for your comment. Well, rules are made by humans, be it wiki rules, or any other forms of rules, and rules can be changed if there is consensus of change, right? So you have read my user page and see that I have created many articles, well, I feel that there are still many more yet to be created, on China, that is.

And about "blogs", do you mean this blog?:凤凰卫视 冷暖人生 陈晓楠 Arilang talk 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese AV idol Sora Aoi's earthquake donations, and online netizen controversy[edit]

May be of relevance:

Regards, -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:2010Kyegundo.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:2010Kyegundo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Yushu 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Yushu 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)