Talk:Christchurch earthquake (disambiguation)

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

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as per alternate proposal. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

– I don't think there can be much doubt that the February earthquake is the WP:Primary Topic when it comes to these three earthquakes (loss of life, lots of media coverage etc). There are also about twice as many page views for the February earthquake when compared to the 2010 event, with significantly less for the one that occurred in June.February earthquake vies in August compared to 2010 earthquake views in August. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the June 2011 earthquake is out of the running for notability, but the 2010 earthquake had a larger magnitude than the February 2011 earthquake and did significant damage to property though not human life. I would agree with a rename of the February earthquake to 2011 Christchurch earthquake (or similar), but not to Christchurch earthquake because there are no other New Zealand earthquakes where the title does not include the year.-gadfium 05:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with gadfium - naming conventions for earthquakes is "[year] [location] earthquake",(e.g. 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake) - I would move the article to 2011 Christchurch earthquake to be consistent. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose As per the two previous editors, the year should be part of the article name, so we would have 2011 Christchurch earthquake, with Christchurch earthquake remaining as the disambiguation page. Regarding Gadfium's comment that the 2010 Canterbury earthquake had the larger magnitude, whilst that is so, it was also quite some distance away from Christchurch, and the resulting damage in Christchurch was much less compared to what we had the following February. So I suggest that the 22 February 2011 could well meet the WP:Primary Topic criteria, but we'd still have the year in the title. Schwede66 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What about renaming the February article 2011 Christchurch earthquake and then redirecting Christchurch earthquake to that article. A hat note could lead to this DAB page and to the 2010 one. Simply due to the scale, damage, loss of life and the long term effects it is having on Christchurch I believe most readers now and in the future would be looking for this Earthquake when they type in Christchurch Earthquake into the search box. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I support that suggestion. Schwede66 16:41, 9 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope of dab page[edit]

I wonder whether the dab page should also list the two other earthquakes that caused damage in Christchurch:

Who knows the rules for dab pages? Schwede66 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Would readers be likely to type in Christchurch earthquake when searching for these earthquakes? AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I suspect so, as they are best known for both having damaged the spire of ChristChurch Cathedral. Schwede66 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't do any harm then. I would put them at the bottom. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Put them in as:

That way it will be clear to passing editors why they're there. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks - I have used the latter suggestion in a modified form. Schwede66 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)