Talk:List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

Please help by adding any aftershocks over 4.0

per relevant talk page discussions on the main article ,it seems this was needed DarmaniLink (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Unverified statements

Where are the sources that say there were foreshocks? How do you know this ? In addition, you didn't cite any source that says that Elbistan earthquake was an aftershock. Kavas (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

USGS lists it as an aftershock DarmaniLink (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a source. Now the burden of proof to demonstrate it was not an aftershock is on you. And remember WP:NOR DarmaniLink (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone, I had a long day yesterday.

Anyway, the jury's still out on whether or not it was coulomb stress transfer (and therefore a seperate mainshock) or a separate aftershock.

Give it a while and see what happens. :) DarmaniLink (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → List of aftershocks of 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes – Elbistan wasn't an aftershock, and I see no reference for foreshocks. Kavas (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Increase map area

The map currently doesn't show the mag 6+ earthquake of February 20. I tried to increase the map area, and the earthquake was displayed in preview mode after that. However, once I had saved the edit, the map no longer showed it. Could someone please work on it so that all the relevant aftershocks are shown? Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done This has been done - thanks! Renerpho (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete and inaccurate table

The table is incomplete. It includes about 240 earthquakes, but the source lists 325 as of the time of the comment. Note that aftershocks are sometimes added with a delay of a few weeks, and the details (including magnitude and depth) are sometimes revised later. Considering this, I think the table may have to be redone from scratch. Renerpho (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

65 missing ones and I'm adding the remaining aftershocks. Thingofme (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

+20 aftershocks. I think this page needs to be periodically updated. Thingofme (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thingofme: Agreed. If I count correctly, the page currently lists 351 earthquakes, while the source includes 390 (as of the time of this comment). There have only been two aftershocks since your last comment, suggesting that almost 40 earlier events have been added over the past two days. Renerpho (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Now +60 aftershocks, and more has been added (may be reflecting the 1 6.0:10 5.0: 100 4.0 rule) Thingofme (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

470 aftershocks now, and I expect more to be added in the next few days or weeks. (That's not over yet). Thingofme (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Still 30 aftershocks (Feb 9-Feb 28) is missing from the database. Thingofme (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Foreshocks

There are no sources that I am aware of that describe the listed events as foreshocks. I think that this section should be removed, as it has been in the main article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

But what counts as foreshocks while there were a lot of earthquakes before the main event? Thingofme (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What counts as a foreshock is when they are identified as such by a seismologist in a reputable source that we can cite, otherwise it's just WP:OR. Mikenorton (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So there are no reliable sources to detect whether this is a foreshock or not? Thingofme (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

None that I've found, so unless you know of one, they should be removed from this article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikenorton@Thingofme: I'd just like to add that, for many of the aftershocks listed, there are no sources whether these actually were aftershocks or not. They were earthquakes in the same region as the main events, but that's not in question for the alleged foreshocks either.

The question is, what evidence do we require for something to be included in this list? If it's merely proximity in space and time then the foreshocks ought to stay. If it's being explicitly mentioned as a fore-/aftershock in a reliable source then almost the entire table ought to be removed (there are maybe a handful of aftershocks that have received independent media coverage). If it's a user confirming that each event happened along the same tectonic fault line as the main earthquake(s) then that's deep within WP:OR territory.

In any case, if we end up removing the foreshocks, please remember to change the source accordingly so that it no longer counts those (by changing the starting date to something close to the first large shock). Renerpho (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is to say, the table is user created content, and right now we apply a very simple criterion for what is included: Anything above magnitude 4.0 that happened between 30 January and 31 March 2023, somewhere in Anatolia, the eastern Mediterranean, or the Levant, and is recognized by USGS. The foreshocks definitely meet that criterion. Any change to that would require a source that does not require users to do original research. And I would argue that simply changing the starting date to 6 February 2023 is just as arbitrary as leaving it where it is. Renerpho (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd apply Occam's razor. Aftershocks are incredibly common. A small earthquake looking like an aftershock but not being causally related seems to be less common. On the contrary, foreshocks are rare and surprising. Daß Wölf 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, 70% of earthquakes of M>7 have foreshocks, but that also means that nearly a third don't, so we need citations to confirm that the ones specified here really are what we say. Aftershocks are always present for shallow (<70km) events and if we include a few that aren't strictly aftershocks in our list, I doubt that's a problem.Mikenorton (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

ISC links

Some aftershocks does not have any ISC links and it's hard to find one. Thingofme (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any point in including them. They link to an online bibliography maintained by ISC (extremely useful for updating articles), but these minor shocks will all be covered by the mainshocks' bibliography. Mikenorton (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Purpose and notability

It's hard to justify this article's existence as it's just an indiscriminate list of earthquakes close to the rupture zones of the two M>7 earthquakes on February 6. It's way too long I think, perhaps only M>5 might work, but I'm not even sure about that. There's nothing unusual about this particular set of aftershocks, so I question its notability, unless you can find sources that specifically talk about the aftershocks, I think that it would be better to replace it with a redirect back to the main article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The project only has two other lists of aftershocks for specific earthquakes, the list of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and the list of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake. Both of these articles are relatively short and have restrictive inclusion criteria - the 2011 one has 20 apart from the mainshock for M>7 or intensity > lower-6 shindo - the 2015 one lists 25 with a M≥5 magnitude cut-off. The notability of the latter article has been questioned on the talk page, referring to this RfC. Mikenorton (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could increase it to 5.0 and only count the aftershocks until 30 April, that's better. Thingofme (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Its a cool tidbit that shows a full list of aftershocks over 4.0, and it can be changed to 5.0.

Other articles have done this as well for other major earthquakes, so I thought this should be included.

List-class articles aren't meant to be read and digested. They're meant to be lists. The main article talks about aftershocks, this gives a timeline of notable aftershocks so you can get an idea of what they were going through, obviously, we can't say "by the bunching of aftershocks here this day was bad" in a more formal way as that would be original research but someone skimming this over with an IQ above room temperature in Celsius could come to a conclusion on their own, about the severity and frequency of aftershocks.

This doesn't hurt to have, and it serves a purpose for anyone curious, and there is precedent for lists like this. I see zero reason to even consider deleting this or even questioning its "justification for existence".

This one has strict inclusion criteria too. 4.0+.

If you think it needs more info, then please add more info. As you know, anyone can edit wikipedia. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If we mean 5.0+ or higher we only have 43 aftershocks (including the main earthquake). Thingofme (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Then lets leave it at 4.0+ DarmaniLink (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Only have 43 aftershocks" seems an odd way of looking at the currently unwieldy list. I still reckon that the article fails on notability grounds, so time to test this at AfD I think. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what do you propose we do with the information here after this is deleted?

This was made because there's nowhere to put this on the main article as it would be too large, therefore it was moved to its own article.

This is creating a pain in the ass for zero reason at all other than minimalism. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the article has been kept at AfD, although I don't agree with others' reading of NLIST, but that's how it is. Mikenorton (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I think this article should be deleted, It is too long and is not edited that often. It shows all the aftershocks with a magnitude 4.0 or higher, It should be changed to 5.0+ this page is 204,248 bytes making it the 4,662nd longest article on Wikipedia. Oddballslover (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD DarmaniLink (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick consensus check for 4.0+ vs 5.0+

I'm fine either way, with a slight bias towards 5.0+ due to how large this article has grown. This will require a large edit however, so I mainly want to see if anyone's against 5.0+ DarmaniLink (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Reduce to M≥5, which seemed to be the consensus at the AfD. It will still be a long list. The map would need updating too, to match. Mikenorton (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

5.0 is ok, only 43 aftershocks recorded, maybe some others like in Nepal. Thingofme (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)