Jump to content

Talk:2015 Illapel earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note duplicate

[edit]

There's currently two Wikipedia articles for this event, the other is 2015 Chile earthquake. One ought to be merged into the other. Geogene (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some content in this old revision [1] that might be worth adding, particularly about tsunamis and teleseismic effects. Geogene (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shake map

[edit]

Here it is: [2] if anyone wants to upload it for an info-box image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added, thanks. --DarTar (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language Wikipedia article

[edit]

Right now our article records only a few aftershocks above 6 magnitude. The Spanish language Wikipedia article, however, lists several aftershocks above 7, giving a table with a precise list of times. Any chance we might incorporate some of that (apparently) better and more up-to-date sourcing from that article? I sense that the English language press is not covering this story as thoroughly. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distance between Sao Paolo and 31.570°S 71.654°W

[edit]

@SheriffIsInTown: Are you sure 3,442 km? Because Google Earth shows 2,620 km (or 1,600 miles) and it looks close to a great circle arc. The New York Times[3] made their mistake by giving a number similar to that in miles ("more than 2,100") rather than kilometers, but I don't see where your error comes from. But I can't fix it because of 3RR. Geogene (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we source the distance to Google Earth, with a link? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to it from Wolfram Alpha [4]. Geogene (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked on Google Maps Android app, the distance between Illapel and Sao Paolo and it came up 3,442 km so I thought NYT must be right since you did not show any source but said it was your guess while NYT is a reliable source. I am not sure how reliable is Wolfram Alpha. My calculation is from Illapel city to Sao Paolo state and not from epicenter so that might be the difference. NYT might be calculating as I did. Sheriff (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed. Was just writing you about the road distance thing, you would have to drive 3,400 km+++ over mountains with your lights and siren blaring!! I Love your User Page, BTW Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries

[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the 34 injuries? I haven't been able to find one, but I suspect that it might have come from a Spanish source. C628 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As none has been forthcoming, I have removed the mentions of injuries. C628 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

general map

[edit]

Why ist in that map the star offside from the elongated center? --Itu (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


And what does this map really depict? --Itu (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an isoseismal map, showing contours of equal shaking on the Mercalli intensity scale, which is produced by the USGS for any major earthquake these days, although they don't call it that. The epicentre (the star) isn't necessarily in the centre of such a map, although it's normally pretty close. I don't know how the offshore contours were calculated, as Mercalli intensity requires either ground observations of damage or readings from seismometers. Mikenorton (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first problem is that the Mercalli-scale is defined as subjective and empirically based on observation. So its impossible to get observation from the seaplace that fast and Mercalli-scale is not even defined for waters. So it makes sense not calling that Mercalli-data. Obviously there is same data calculated - not observed. --Itu (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map you're asking about isn't used in the article. I see that it is being used in other projects. You can turn those contours off by following the source link, clicking the drop-down menu in the upper right, and unchecking the 'ShakeMap MMI' layer. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

[edit]

Why is this one named after a small town, when all the other chile quakes are named "Chile+year" or month+year+chile? What are quakes actually referred to in Chile? I doubt the year+Chile is what its called there, which is the current convention that is rather vague as chile has thousands of quakes that can be felt every year. Ditto for other many other nations. What you get is a chronologic list of n quakes spanning myriad years but the naming ignores what is actually important about the quake. Can't we name them by how they are generally referred to in scientific literature? Doseiai2 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title came from this [5]. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my humble opinion about this subject. First of all, the current name 2015 Illapel earthquake is the best because a country can have many quakes in a year. I like the name personally as well. My other suggestion is that every thing on Wikipedia is derived from references, so we should base the name on the name which is being referred most in the sources. I did not myself see all the refs but if the refs ref the quake as 2015 Illapel Earthquake, then keep this name, if they refer it as 2015 Chile Earthquake, then we should change it to that or if something else then something else. Sheriff (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal inclination is to name it "2015 Chile earthquake," as "Chile" has much greater meaning to most of the world as "Illapel." Unfortunately there is absolutely no consistency to naming earthquake articles. C628 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the news sources in English are calling it the "Chile earthquake". But the Chile earthquake template would look silly if all the articles were of the format "YEAR Chile earthquake", and the shape of the country means that it matters a lot where, in Chile, the earthquake happened. Searches in Google Scholar look to me like seismologists aren't hung up on naming things, they seem to reference specific earthquakes by giving the date and magnitude and a general location, which may or may not be the country. Given all that, the question is, does this matter? We're not going to contaminate the literature by picking the wrong name, as we might if this were a species or something. Sometimes there's good reason to move things, and sometimes a move can't be avoided, but I don't see that here. Geogene (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at list of earthquakes in Chile, the only one in the list named in the form "year Chile earthquake" is the 2010 Chile earthquake and there was plenty of discussions about that. I'm not completely against such a move as Illapel is not well known internationally, but I see no strong reason to change. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the seismological community to agree on a name is in principle a good idea, but it will take a while and no-one may want to move it by that time. The name used by seismologists for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake is clearly "2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake" [6], but I haven't got round to proposing that move yet. Mikenorton (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how well Illapel is known internationally, if people do not know Illapel then they need to know it and this page would be one such carrier. This should not be the only driving force behind the name. The epicenter was near this town and when first news broke, every news channel mentioned about Illapel, most causalities and property damage was in Illapel as well. The earthquake jolted whole of South America, we can as well name it 2015 South America earthquake. Sheriff (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "2015 Illapel earthquake" prevails in the naming convention across all Wikipedia languages. It's not just an English styling. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 Illapel 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Illapel_earthquake&oldid=1196687374"