Talk:List of earthquakes in Canada

Earthquake last night

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100206/nb_earthquake_100206/20100206?hub=Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.177.32 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Approx 1:50 PM earthquake on June 23/2010

There was *just* one about 10 minutes ago, news says it was a 5.5 on the border of Ontario and Quebec. Felt across a very large area. I'm in Brantford, it's on the news in Toronto, it was felt in Stratford, etc. 76.10.148.116 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Others to include

the equivalent US page includes the Charlevoix 1663 and 1925 quakes, and the Vancouver Island quake, simply because they were felt in the United States though not IN the United States....on that same premise, shouldn't this page include the 1964 Good Friday earthquake (Alaska) and the 1812 New Madrid earthquake (in Louisiana Territory, today's Missouri, but felt in Toronto/York)??206.108.158.253 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, just because an earthquake's epicenter was in Canada does not mean the earthquake did not occur in the United States. The movement is the earthquake and the epicenter is where the earthquake originated from. Nevertheless, the 1662 and 1925 Charlevoix earthquakes and others DID occur in the United States and are stated as such on the Natural Resources Canada website. As for the others, I don't know. What really matters are reliable sources that state what places the earthquake was felt or occurred. BT (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to table format

I've changed the list to a table format and added locations and times and references for all the earthquakes. Only one didn't make it into the table the 1638 event of which Natural Resources Canada (see ref#1 in article) says "In some earthquake catalogs, the 11 June 1638 earthquake is associated with the Charlevoix region. This association is erroneous since this earthquake is thought to have occurred in New England, possibly near Boston or Plymouth, Massachusetts ". There are a couple of low magnitude events (<4.0) which should probably just redirect to here as there is virtually no information for them and they would fail a notability test I think. Mikenorton (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the table Mikenorton. There was a time I was going to change the list to a table while I was attempting to expand the list by collecting all earthquake data on the Natural Resources Canada, but I lost track of where I was so I decided not to expand it. Volcanoguy 07:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte Islands earthquake on 27/10/2012

I added it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.132.59 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Vague place names

Can someone please add more specificity to the place names? In which provinces are Hawkesbury, Miramachi, Anderson Island, Thurso.. etc.? Every entry, including the more "famous" places should be formatted: "Montreal, QC". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.27.27 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've linked six of them by using google earth - the original NRC Earthquake Database does not include any more information than shown previously in the list. I think that using internal wikilinks is the way to go. Mikenorton (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of significant frack-related quakes?

Note: discussion transferred from User talk:Hwy43.

Hello, all the country lists need to be focused on notable events only. Please create a new list for the fracking-related events. Your new list could be something like: List of fracking-related earthquakes in Canada or Something similar. Please consider that if every M3 or M4 event that gets added to the list just means a more crowded and less focused "main" list. It'll be too unwieldy in no time, Dawnseeker2000 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To aid my understanding, can you provide past consensus that supports this edit summary, particularly in regard to the "death, damages or injuries" aspect?

Also, please review these references that were provided — [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] — and advise how its how these quakes, with their national coverage, does not make these three quakes are not notable? In no way is there an expectation to now include all quakes of similar magnitude on this list, or include every frack-related event; just those that get widespread coverage and are therefore notable.

We have 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes on the list. The magnitude at 4.0 was less than two of the three you deleted, with no death, damages or injuries, and was not even felt. However, it not only remains on this list but also has its own article. Also, the list only includes one entry that explicitly mentions death, damages or injuries (see the comment in the table associated with the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake).

According to the news article above, two of these three quakes "are the strongest to be connected to fracking anywhere in the world." The first 4.4 quake induced significant regulatory changes for fracturing in Alberta. I believe these three are notable enough for inclusion in this list based on the above, and that their inclusion is not precedent setting for the unwieldy inclusion of all frack-related quakes of similar magnitude moving forward unless they achieve similar widespread coverage. There is no need to split this into a second child list at this time, especially since it would only be a list of three. Hwy43 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparing the fracking-related earthquakes to the Nazko earthquakes is absurd. A swarm of over 1,000 volcanic quakes vs. a few quakes caused by fracking. Laughable. The Nazko quakes are notable not because of their small size it's because they were of scientific interest. They were discussed in the scientific press at the time and in papers published afterwards. The quakes were also the first indication of historic magmatic activity in the Anahim Volcanic Belt. Volcanoguy 12:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, the point is "death, damages or injuries" is not exhaustive and are not the definitive prerequisites for notability. You have pointed out an entirely valid reason why the Nazko earthquake swarm is notable and worthy of inclusion in this list, just like how two of these are reportedly the world's highest magnitude man-made (fracking-related) quakes on record. What is absurd is that these notable events are being excluded because they are unconventional and not natural. In relation, these three quakes are among the highest magnitude of their own swarm of quakes as well, and have generated scientific interest (see sources above). No doubt I anticipate the swarm is less in numbers than the Nazko swarm, but significant nonetheless. Hwy43 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against including the fracking-related earthquakes in this list I just wanted to point out that the Nazko quakes have different reasons for being notable. Volcanoguy 03:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In terms of media coverage, I do not see a difference between the Nazko earthquakes with the recent fracking-related earthquakes. They are both notable for different reasons, but notable nonetheless. In fact, the fracking-related earthquakes may lead to significant policy changes, and thus would be considered among the most important earthquakes in Canada. It would be silly to exclude these quakes from this list due to their high social impact and large amount of secondary references readily available. Mattximus (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, major fracking quakes which receive significant coverage should be included. There are no specific inclusion criteria defined for this article. It doesn't matter why an earthquake is notable, just that it is notable. "Death, damages or injuries" are likely to result in significant coverage (hence notability) but as Hwy43 points out, that is not an exhaustive list. The Nazko quakes are notable for other reasons, as are some quakes due to (or blamed on) fracking. Meters (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:M now available

At the bottom of the table there is a very brief explanation of the magnitude scales used. I point out that Template:M, now available, could that, in the form of {{m|w|link=y}}. E.g., see the links for: M_w, M_L, M_s, and m_N.

Incidentally, the statement at the NRC FAQ that n is a form of M_L  is an oversimplification. It is actually a variant of the mb scale. Though I am a couple days short of writing up the text that is supposed to link to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

If you take a look at WP:SAL, you will see that list articles should be a list of things that either have their own articles or that could have, if anyone bothered to create them. This means that in general that all members of a list should be notable topics themselves. We already have notability guidelines for earthquakes and the inclusion criteria here should reflect that. Particularly note that notability is generally about the intensity of felt shaking rather than the magnitude, as this is what causes damage and casualties. Mikenorton (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Alex of Canada:, here is the reply that you requested:

You mentioned that deadly earthquakes in Canada are rare and that this list is "quite empty only including those". Yes, deadly earthquakes are fairly rare in Canada, but that doesn't mean we should list events simply because the list is on the short side. If we were to set a standard of listing lower intensity events the list would become too long and its ease of readability and usability would suffer. These lists get steady but minor traffic daily, and large spikes of views when a moderate or high intensity earthquake happens. When we get those viewers, they're looking for information on meaningful events, and that's what we should provide them. We shouldn't clutter the list with entries that lack substance.

We usually don't need to be concerned with magnitude 6 earthquakes unless:

• they occur in a populated area and the intensity is about VII (Very strong) or higher
• damage occurs and people are injured or killed

Once in a while we have lower intensity events that we can list either because of scientific interest or because of effects (once in a while intensity VI events can cause a surprising amount of losses)

That earthquakes are mentioned in the media does not establish notability. A lot of times when I see a snippet about a recent earthquake (even if it is not destructive) its effects will often be overstated. Early news stories often use terms like "strong earthquake rocks..." when that is just not the case. News outlets don't report earthquake intensity. Only magnitude. They want your clicks/views.

I have found that one way to be successful on WP is to find an expert in the subject and follow their lead. Dawnseeker2000 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely acknowledge what you guys are saying. I just think that the list will not get clogged adding 6+ magnitude earthquakes, as they only usually happen once a year or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex of Canada (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion, following on from various other discussions, I note that from 1693 to 1989 our list basically copies the list of Important Canadian Earthquakes from National Resources Canada, which is fine - if the NRC say they're important we can but agree. Then we have a single event in the 1990s, after which the list starts to be far more indiscriminate, with 13 listed in the last just over 17 years. It is this sort of imbalance that some sort of inclusion criteria could be used to address. Mikenorton (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So nothing happened off Vancouver Island since 2018, five years ago? I think not. This is not a list of earthquakes in Canada, it is a list of OLD earthquakes in Canada and current institutional ignorance. 2601:601:E01:39E0:E1B6:D6C9:EB63:8CBB (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)