Talk:2007 Solomon Islands earthquake

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earthquakes Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Melanesia: Solomon Islands Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Solomon Islands (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

That was fast. I only just got the warning email an hour ago.Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate

It looks like this page was created forty minutes after this page. It seems like both are referring to the same earthquake. I think the other could just redirect here. Any objections? Justen 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7.6, 8.0 & 8.1

I think there is a bit of confusion with this all now according to BoM and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center the Earthquake was measured at 8.1. Now by the USGS it was stated as 8.0, This is a very confusing matter. --An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7.6 corresponds to a MS (surface wave magnitude, surely underestimated due to the magnitude saturation effect), 8.1 corresponds to the moment magnitude given by the Harvard CMT project. 8.0 is also a moment magnitude given this time by usgs. The important thing to say is that the error associated to these measures of moment magnitude is surely larger than .1 andre 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Australian Geologist studying Solomon Islands

I would like to suggest that this URL be added to the external links. This is an interview with the head of the Australian National University Geology division, talking about their study of the Solomon Islands, the possibility of Tsunamis etc. It was done 14 months ago and is really quite amazing, if you are interested.

http://abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2005/1512824.htm#

198.142.40.20 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC) blucat[reply]

Japanese Patrol Boat?

It appears that a Japanese Patrol Boat was made visable due to the island rising up out of the water.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2434935.ece

Can we gets pics, more info added to the article?

--S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated Costs

Just wondering what "and damages are estimated in millions." is referring to currency-wise? Mangotrain 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Mangotrain. Probably in USD, which shows US-centrism. Sounds like a job for WP:CSB. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

This page really needs a serious update. It is no longer a truly current event (almost a month ago), and the statistics should be updated and stated as if they were final. All the "currentness" should be removed from the article, and statements about how many babies born since the earthquake should certainly be removed. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]