Talk:2013 Bohol earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2013 Philippine earthquake)
Jump to: navigation, search

Aftershocks[edit]

Either the 200 plus must be all be logged OR all just over a certain mark, like greater than a 4.5 must be here. No other Earthquake article has this. I will fix, but will not get into edit warring. So, we need User:Kristijh to keep this up to the minute. Kennvido

Although I originally tried to keep the article up to date and with that list written in prose, Kristijh has insisted on having it as a repetitive, and boring list [1] Maybe someone tell xyr to stop? Having a mention that several aftershocks of magnitude +x have occurred may be waaaaaaay better than having every single +5.0 aftershock listed and in a very ugly way. Regards, Küñall (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 16:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


2013 Philippine earthquake2013 Bohol earthquake – More specific name as per precedent of other earthquake article titles. -- P 1 9 9   15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Epicenter[edit]

I am getting used to the news proclaiming something as stupid as "the epicenter was at a depth of x kilometers". But Wikipedia shouldn't distribute such nonsense. By definition, the epicenter is at the surface. 91.213.177.153 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is true. Kennvido (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Strength of Earthquake[edit]

Need we use a comparison with an atomic bomb (in particular, the one dropped on Japan) to describe the strength of the earthquake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.235.128 (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the info is true, it is kinda sensationalistic. It would be good to have it removed. Küñall (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, it is WAY out of place, needs to be removed. Skycycle (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

New photo[edit]

Can someone update the intensity ShakeMap, since the one we have is the initial estimate at ~56km depth, later revised up to 20km and with a much larger intensity on Bohol - it can be found on the USGS website. Thanks in advance! Skycycle (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Here is the actual file - [2] Skycycle (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Corrected. Küñall (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional sections and expansion of the article[edit]

I have added new sections in the article. It requires expansion. Can you help me expand the article?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]


9.880°N, 124.117°E


112.198.77.176 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Which source for the magnitude is more accurate?[edit]

United States Geological Survey and most international sources say 7.1 and PHIVOLCS says 7.2 Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There will always be different calculations (different scales also) for magnitude so one way to approach it is to capitalize on the "problem" by finding multiple sources that are in agreement and build accuracy/trustworthiness that way. Dawnseeker2000 02:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Bohol earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


I will be reviewing this article. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be a quick fail. There are too many issues present for it to be considered for GAN in its present state. The nominator has only a few edits to the article and it appears that there was no effort made in preparation for the nomination. If wishing to continue with improving the article in an effort for GA status, please consider the following categories for improvement:

WP:V – With a very quick looking over, this article fails verifiability. There are several paragraphs without sources, a citation needed tag, and uncited facts in the lead.

WP:LEAD – The lead does not effectively preview the article and can not act as a standalone summary.

WP:PARAGRAPH - There are multiple short (one or two sentence) tidbits (can't really call them paragraphs) that should either be developed further or dropped altogether.

Sorry, it's too soon for a GA nomination on this one. Dawnseeker2000 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Bohol 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) 07:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)