Talk:Earthquake/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Okay, since noone else is going to do it, I guess the job's up to me.

General remarks

  • This article looks too short for such a broad topic. Compare this to Tropical cyclone when it was GA'd Granted, that was missing a bunch of citations, but you get the point. I will not fail this GA specifically for that, but I sugesst you send this through peer review. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright. —§unday b 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed. Those references were there before I came, but I'll try and add some later today. —§unday b 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

  • The External links section, IMO, is too long. Remove the irrelevant ones or integrate them into the text. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref no. 23 is an unreliable, self published source. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I notice that there is such thing as an unnatural earthquake. Perhaps this could have a section? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref no. 1 has some info not present in the article. Please include it. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Done. —§unday b 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "At the Earth's surface, earthquakes manifest themselves by a shaking and sometimes displacement of the ground." - sloppy. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed to At the Earth's surface, earthquakes manifest themselves by shaking and sometimes displacing the ground. —§unday b 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Earthquakes are caused mostly by rupture of geological faults, huge amounts of gas migration, mainly methane deep within the earth, but also by volcanic activity, landslides, mine blasts, and nuclear experiments." - unclear. Semicols may help, anmd that sentence could use a bit of a touch-up. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'd like to see a source for the gas migration origin of earthquakes, apart from Leonid F. Khilyuk, who on a quick search around seems the only one pushing this, but maybe I'm wrong. Mikenorton (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any real support in the literature for gas migration as a cause, so out it goes. Mikenorton (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally occurring earthquakes

  • This paragraph needs to be broken into at least three paragraphs. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It could also use a good copyedit. A casual reader may not understand sections of the text. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Like your mummyy eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H4Ckk33r (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


bjkkgyuijhvbnkfffffffffvkuyfv tf yfvtg tu jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjgtgy td bh

New section

I have just put the "earthquake fault types" section on the article. visit this website http://everythingyouneedtoknowabout2012.webs.com/ Feel free to tell me anything I need to put on this section on my talk page. Coolgyingman (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under fault types, it says reverse fault is both a reverse fault and a normal fault, it should be changed so it should say "normal faults occurwhere plates diverge" as opposed to" Reverse faults occur where plates diverge."

(Cwhit114 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

I've cleaned it up and hopefully made it clearer. There's no need for too much detail in this article IMO, better for people to follow the link to the main fault article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seism

I removed the term 'seism' from the lead because it does not appear to be much used generally instead of earthquake and almost never in scientific literature. If it was to be included, what about 'tremor' and 'temblor', which are probably more common? Mikenorton (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard of that term. I think I will add tremor or rupture (not sure if temblor is very common). ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I fixed a couple issues on this page due vandalism. My main language is not English and even when earthquakes are common on my country I am not an expert on that. Please anyone review this page. Thanks Mowattabr (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)mowattabr.

Warning signs

Removed unsourced list of "warning signs" which was in the wrong place. If it is to be re-added, a source is required and it would perhaps be better as a part of the "Preparation for earthquakes" section - or in earthquake prediction. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Section Required?

Very important information seems to be missing here - recommended course of action in case of earthquakes. The article on "Triangle of Life" is an orphan article. It can be linked from this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.69.194 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign my comment! Anagha (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A section regarding recommended courses of action in case of earthquakes could be in violation of policy if done poorly. But you're welcome to hash one out and see how it stands.-Localzuk(talk) 17:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
One trick is to avoid using the second-person. So don't say, "In case of earthquake, you should..." Instead, say something like, "authorities usually recommend that people..." An overview of typical advice would be more appropriate than giving the advice.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is undergoing a massive expansion so I think I'll include something among the lines of earthquake hazards, but that shouldn't be its own section. ceranthor 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add somewhere that on normal and reverse faults the bottom wall is the base wall and the top wall is the hanging wall 67.166.20.210 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of lede

The recent expansion of the lede has left it six paragraphs long, far longer than is suggested by WP:MOS. I'm unconvinced that this is an overall improvement, there is too much detail IMO, don't need different fault types in the intro for instance. If I get the time, I'll try to make it a bit leaner. Mikenorton (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Являюсь автором тем: 

   ядро земли и мониторинг землетрясений
 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=0

 cтроение земли

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2599

     Причиной землетрясения в Гаити явилось уменьшение угловой скорости Земли и соответствующая
       синхронизация астеносферы , генерирующей частоту F1=7.8Гц и верхней мантии , генерирующей
       частоту F2=14Гц.

http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?s=b9c55b123b123618ad2522406e02e94c&showtopic=49543&st=75 

     причины трагедии в Гаити в сообщении #86
     от автора  темы "Ядро Земли , мониторинг землетрясений".От Арсеньева Алексея.

Текущая тематика рассматривают Землю как вращающуюся массу со многими текущими степенями свободы 

гироскопа с точки зрения поведения электромагнитных полей вращающихся сфер генераций ,

наблюдаемых ввиде текущих данных. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.191.186 (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquakes away from plate boundaries

"...deformation is spread out a over a much larger area..." Please edit and delete the "a" before "over". Michael Failor (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, done! Mikenorton (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Possible cause of earthquake

The real cause of earthquakes is not yet understood. But scientists as Thomas Gold advocate that the earthquakes originate from migration of primordial gases such as helium, methane, nitrogen and hydrocarbons at great depths within the earth. Within the limits of lithospheric plates the intensity and occurrence of earthquakes are larger, probably due to closer communication between the mantle and crust. The migration of high pressure gases dissipate seismic energy through geological faults that can reach the surface and cause serious damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.9.108.15 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Most earthquakes can be directly linked to the rupture of known faults so their cause is well understood. We could do with knowing a lot more of course, particularly about deep-focus earthquakes, but the gas migration hypothesis has no real support amongst geophysicists. Mikenorton (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

volcanoes

does eruption of sills and dykes block the original eruption as magma after solidification forms rocks??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.211.134 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Мониторинг землетрясений , их причины , солнечно-земные связи , ядро Земли.

ядро земли и мониторинг землетрясений 

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2605&start=195
 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=0

cтроение земли 

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2599

солнечно-земные связи. http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=175 сообщение #198 и далее в авторской разработке от Арсеньева Алексея. Россия Приморский край г.Арсеньев Шевченко 3 86.102.35.158 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Induced seismicity

My feeling is that the language here is a little strong -- e.g. the attribution of the Australian quake to human causes is presented as fact, when in fact the citation itself (#26) is to a transcript of a radio news segment where two experts disagree about whether the cause can be identified. The language on the dedicated induced seismicity page is more guarded, which sets a better example I think.

My suggestion: Add "There is evidence to suggest that" before "The greatest earthquake in Australia's history was also...". 130.123.96.23 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Agreed. The citations on the 1989_Newcastle_earthquake article seem to indicate that the mining was probably unrelated, given the depth, location and seismo-geological history of the Newcastle area. 124.171.239.145 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shambler

Shambler redirects here. Possibly because Shamber -> Quake and Quake -> Earthquake? Whatever the reason, this doesn't make much sense... 92.0.33.165 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't, changed redirect to point to Quake (video game). Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An important discussion about origin of earthquakes

I propose to include in the main article studies on the possible causes of earthquakes or rather about the true origin of these events. Are extremely important characterization of precursory phenomena, as are the studies and monitoring that will allow them to save lives and not only study the signatures of seismic waves. By studying only the mechanics of seismic waves, the bullet has been fired and can not be stop it, but if we understand better the Earth's interior, especially on the chemistry of earthquakes is likely we can save many lives in areas of greatest risk.

As stressed by the scientist Thomas Gold, earthquakes are caused by the migration of primordial gases within the earth, especially methane. Gases such as helium, nitrogen and radon may be present. The monitoring of radon emanations in areas at risk, as was the case of Aquila earthquake, in Italy was one example of how we can save lives studying phenomena precursors and we must take it as a good example.

Also the study of methane clouds from satellites, the behavior of animals such as frogs and various aquatic or terrestrial animals with sensitive skin or poweful nose that could realize variations that humans do not feel. Therefore, to study the chemistry of earthquakes (methane, helium, nitrogen, radon) and animal behavior in the areas of seismic risk is something precious to mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.182.196 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Any mention of the migration of methane as a cause of earthquakes will need to be backed by reliable sources, as far as I know this is definitely a fringe view. Mikenorton (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you are wrong, please, see links below and read it all.
I am well aware of Thomas Gold's ideas but to include them in this article would be giving them undue weight, he is more a or less a lone voice suggesting that movement of methane is a major cause of earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Induced seismicity

"The greatest earthquake in Australia's history was also induced by humanity, through coal mining. The city of Newcastle was built over a large sector of coal mining areas. The earthquake was spawned from a fault which reactivated due to the millions of tonnes of rock removed in the mining process.[29]"

This is an unproven hypothesis and should be treated as such. The activated fault was deep whilst the fault reactivation associated with mining is most often restricted to the immediate vicinity of the mine and related to destressing of the surrounding strata. Numerous Australian experts have spoken out against the conclusions drawn in the paper by Dr Klose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.145.48.99 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Too true, there has been no conclusive scientific evidence ever presented for this pseudoscience. I find it disturbing the article presents this as the sole cause for the Sichuan earthquake, almost as though someone is pressing an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.11.51 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What we need then is sources that clearly state that these events were not induced. I think that the argument that they were induced is stronger for the Newcastle quake than the Sichuan quake, I suspect that this latter idea is a somewhat 'fringe' view. However, we need to have the sources or we can't change what's there now. I tried searching for any informed comments opposing Klose's arguments, but could fine none. Mikenorton (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
While I cannot judge the sources for the popular article "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake" by Alexis Madrigal (June 4, 2008) at wired.com, there at least five suggested man-made causes. The link is here XXX://YYY.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/ [change the XXX and YYY for http and www, respectively]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preferences (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake sequence image

Do you know about an earthquake sequencing image of the whole World similar to the EC-EU-enlargement animation? I think it would show vividly how occurances of earthquakes are dispersed on the time scale. A time resolution of months would suffice. Sae1962 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Buitrungthong, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Buitrungthong (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC) geologic fault by Bui Trung Thông

Not done: Could you be more specific about exactly how you want the article edited? Thanks, — Bility (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

War vs Earthquakes

Anyone care to gather data on the phenomenon of Earthquakes around the same time as Wars? Is there any correlation between the collateral damage that bombs create and the increased presence of Earthquakes immediately there after?

It's a bunch of data farming and I don't have the time but it would be interesting to see a graph of Natural Disasters and Wars. Another reason to advocate peace!?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.23.252 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Put the bong down....174.71.82.103Niyaa , Kennedy ,AND Briana were here <3 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


The sentence, "In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the USGS." contains a minor typo, 'though this probably a' should be either 'though this probably is a' or 'though this is probably a'. Amsler (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Amsler(talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (EST)


in the section "tsunami" there is a little error:

In the open ocean the distance between wave crests can surpass 100 kilometers (62 miles per hour),

should read: ..(62 miles),...


Raymondweber (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done: You are correct, thank you! --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the seismometer's result was written on the seismograph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.149.60 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add Astronomical Alignments as the cause of M6+ seismicity.

Ramsesthe2 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich's abstract:

I here demonstrate empirically my georesonator concept in which tidally induced magnification of Earth masses' resonance causes seismicity. To that end, I show that all strong (~M6+) earthquakes of 2010 occurred during the Earth's long (t>3 day) astronomical alignments within our solar system. I then show that the same holds true for all very strong (~M8+) earthquakes of the decade of 2000s. Finally, the strongest (M8.6+) earthquakes of the past century are shown to have occurred during the Earth's multiple long alignments, whereas half of the high-strongest (M9+) ones occurred during the Full Moon. I used the comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin), as it has been adding to robustness in terms of very strong seismicity since 2007 (in terms of strongest seismicity: since 1965). The Elenin will continue intensifying the Earth's very strong seismicity until August-October, 2011. Approximate forecast of earthquakes based on my discoveries is feasible. This demonstration proves my hyperresonator concept, arrived at earlier as a mathematical-physical solution to the most general extension of the georesonator concept possible.

Paper is here:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2036.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsesthe2 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of WP:FRINGE, a single paper published who knows where is insufficient to support inclusion in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The data is easily verifiable using Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Orbit diagram (available in the below link)
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=elenin;orb=1;cov=1;log=0;cad=1#cad Ramsesthe2 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't do WP:OR to verify someone's paper. We wait until secondary sources report on it. Vsmith (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)earthquakes are often statred by heat problems. after earthquakes the groung has cracks in it and it takes a while to recover the damage it tKES bout 3 years.

earthquake is the shaking of earth which influence by volcano the highest degree of an earthquake is 9.1 it happen in 1961 in north Carolina in the united state it kills about 7,00 254 people in that day according to history i just want to know if an earthquake happen to a country which has high rate sun could it kill many people and i want to know the highest of it all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enintr (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Major earthquakes are a result of movement on faults and have nothing to do with volcanoes. The most powerful earthquake known was the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile at 9.5, while the most deadly was probably the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake in China, killing an estimated 830,000 people. I don't really understand the rest of your question such as "high rate sun", could you clarify it? Mikenorton (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center link in external links

EMSC link, as the information website in the Euro Med zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanthiCSEM (talk • contribs) 07:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times Q & A resource

Recent reversions

I have recently reverted the addition of images by User:CES1596 on two occasions. The images were File:Farallon Plate.jpg and File:GRACE globe animation.gif. In my view neither if these images is sufficiently relevant to earthquakes to be included, but maybe I'm missing something. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Both removals appear to be warranted. The images, though scientifically interesting, don't seem to bear specifically on the topic of this article. They certainly aren't of direct enough relevance to appear in the article's introduction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Proposal to add the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center link in external links

EMSC link, as the information website in the Euro Med zone? Sorry I did not get any answer. Could you please add our website?

Thanks for your patience, I meant to check this one out earlier. It looks very useful, so I've added it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Earthquakes - General Information

Earthquake impacts are many and varied, ranging from minor structural damage to a few buildings to complete devastation over huge areas. At their most powerful, earthquakes are capable of annihilating major urban centres and severely disrupting the social and economic fabric of nations. As a consequence, the range of earthquake phenomena and impacts are of concern to a broad spectrum of professions including insurance, construction, engineering, land-use planning, and disaster management.


In recent years, large earthquakes have caused two of the most costly natural disasters of all time - the 1994 Northridge quake in southern California, and the Kobe earthquake that rocked Japan in 1995. This last event resulted in over six thousand deaths and economic losses estimated at around 100 billion US dollars. Such devastation and loss can be significantly mitigated through advance assessment of seismic hazard and risk and the implementation of appropriate land-use, construction codes, and emergency plans. Together such initiatives can substantially reduce the level of death and injury, dramatically diminish the economic impact, and limit the exposure of insurance companies.

ABUHC seismologists, structural geologists and earthquake engineers can provide esearch-led expertise and advice on the complete range of phenomena related to seismic hazard and risk. Current research focuses on the use of geological fault-slip data to construct better seismic risk maps; seismic hazard in the South China region, earthquake mechanisms, building vulnerability in regions of relatively low to moderate seismicity, the seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete building populations, and human loss estimation in earthquakes. Consultancies have addressed seismic hazard and risk in Israel, Peru, Iceland, the Caribbean and China.


Bansalparth (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, this is all original research unless you can provide sources, however it seems much of this is already covered throughout the article anyway--Jac16888 Talk 14:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Seismic scales and other means of measurements

The blabber about measuring seismic effects in the introductory part of the article is inappropriate and misleading.

For example, the statement "Earthquakes are measured using observations from seismometers." is only partially correct. Earthquakes are also measured by visual observations and then comparing them against intensity scales. See explanation on the USGS page: "After the occurrence of widely-felt earthquakes, the Geological Survey mails questionnaires to postmasters in the disturbed area requesting the information so that intensity values can be assigned."

Then there is a wordy discussion about "most common" scales and how they are applied. It implies that only modified Mercalli scale and the moment magnitude scale are used by the scientific community throughout the world. Nothing could be further from the truth since a wide range of scales is currently employed worldwide. There is a separate article on seismic scales that is dedicated exclusively to this subject. The section Measuring and locating earthquakes would be a more appropriate place for such discussion and should have a link to the Seismic scale article.

And stuff like that is simply naive if not imbecile: "The largest earthquakes in historic times have been of magnitude slightly over 9, although there is no limit to the possible magnitude." What is that, a high-school dropout logic? Most certainly there were earthquakes larger than mag 9 in Earth's history. The humans did not record those earthquakes because the human civilization simply didn't exist when those quakes happened. And yes, there is a limit to the possible magnitude - it is defined by the total amount of energy stored in the Earth, which has not been yet precisely measured.

"The most recent large earthquake of magnitude 9.0 or larger was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan in 2011 (as of March 2011), and it was the largest Japanese earthquake since records began. This is more like a news than an example. The 2011 Japan earthquake was not historically largest, nor most devastating. Therefore its value as an exemplar is questionable.

"Intensity of shaking is measured on the modified Mercalli scale." Not true. There are other intensity scales that are actively used.

"The shallower an earthquake, the more damage to structures it causes, all else being equal." Misleading. The degree of damages to man-made objects is influenced by a complex web of numerous factors with the depth of the seismic source being just one of many such factors.

I suggest replacing that:

"Earthquakes are measured using observations from seismometers. The moment magnitude is the most common scale on which earthquakes larger than approximately 5 are reported for the entire globe. The more numerous earthquakes smaller than magnitude 5 reported by national seismological observatories are measured mostly on the local magnitude scale, also referred to as the Richter scale. These two scales are numerically similar over their range of validity. Magnitude 3 or lower earthquakes are mostly almost imperceptible and magnitude 7 and over potentially cause serious damage over large areas, depending on their depth. The largest earthquakes in historic times have been of magnitude slightly over 9, although there is no limit to the possible magnitude. The most recent large earthquake of magnitude 9.0 or larger was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan in 2011 (as of March 2011), and it was the largest Japanese earthquake since records began. Intensity of shaking is measured on the modified Mercalli scale. The shallower an earthquake, the more damage to structures it causes, all else being equal."

with this:

Earthquakes are measured using a number of techniques ranging from visual observation of earthquake effects to analyzing data recorded by seismometers. Based on the assessment of information received, each earthquake is then assigned values according to the appropriate seismic scales.

The remaining sentences should be deleted. See reasons above. 76.197.181.206 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that it the article should be clearer on how the size of earthquakes is measured, magnitude and intensity being very different animals and that it belongs in the 'Measuring and locating' section as you suggest rather than in the lede. I'll make the change when I've come up with an expansion to that section, but I won't complain if someone else gets there first.
The upper limit to magnitude is the largest fault surface that we can possibly imagine rupturing in the present plate configuration and that probably means less than 10, but I'll see if I can find a source for that. Mikenorton (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Major earthquakes increasing or decreasing

"the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this is probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).[34] Alternatively, some scientists suggest that the recent increase in major earthquakes"

Make up your mind. 190.140.144.18 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've added a 'citation needed' tag for the decrease and tweaked the language of the increase claim (which is rather better supported by the sources). Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Strike slip maximum magnitude contradiction?

In two places the text about strike slip fault earthquakes notes that these kinds of earthquakes max out at about magnitude 8. However, the recent earthquake near Indonesia was magnitude 8.6, roughly 8 times larger than magnitude 8.0. Now the text is ambiguous in that magnitude 8 could be taken as meaning anywhere in the 8.0 to <9.0 range, but I didn't take it that way and probably others won't either. I do not know enough about these kinds of earthquakes to know if the size of this recent strike slip earthquake is a shock to geologists or is the existing article text just wrong (or a little bit wrong). SoylentPurple (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we need to rewrite that section - the magnitude was a shock to seismologists [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe should. It would be nice to have an interpretation to refer to, other than just calculating http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php that it was 8 times the energy release of an m8.0, that even the 8.2 aftershock was twice an 8.0. The 2004 Quake was about m9.1-9.3, 9.2 would be 8 times an m8.6. I haven't found anything but secondhand press paraphrases while they're apparently studying this, but Japanese scientists at least must now be researching how mega-thrust quakes may be followed by these extra-large strike-slip ones ″nearby″. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.156.161 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to wait a few months (maybe several months) until the first scientific papers (or at least conference abstracts) start to appear, unless it's covered by something like New Scientist in the interim. Mikenorton (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fault lines

Can it be mentioned that "most earthquakes occur near fault lines, however the presence or absence of earthquakes does not necessarily indicate that an earthquake will occur there.Fault lines and earthquakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.143.14 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking and the link that you've given (which I took out of the ref template so that it could be seen) isn't in my view very useful - it's written by someone who doesn't appear to know much about earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommended deletion of "Tidal forces" section

There is a one-line section here, Earthquake#Tidal forces, which links to a section at Earthquake prediction#Tidal forces. The latter is likely to be deleted soon, and I would suggest that the section here also should be deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012

It would be nice to add another external link (to the external links section) for an excellent near real-time earthquake map app. For example, the moderator can add:

ObservableDeveloper (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Not done. It looks like you're trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. (editors see the user's contribs for other similar requests) RudolfRed (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Earthquakes

An earthquake is caused when two transform boundaries rub against each other. This is caused by a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes can also be known as a quake, tremor or temblor. Earthquakes are measured on the Richter Scale by a seismograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenani Koren (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Earthquakes

An earthquake is caused when two transform boundaries rub against each other. This is caused by a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes can also be known as a quake, tremor or temblor. Earthquakes are measured on the Richter Scale by a seismograph.

Earthquakes can cause great damage or not be felt at all (Earthquakes that can not be felt are known of because the seismographs can feel them) depending on where they are on the Richter Scale.

The earthquake of largest magnitude occurred in Chile on the 22nd of May, 1960 and had a magnitude of 9.5. Most earthquakes occur along the edge of the oceanic and continental plates. The earth's crust is made up of several pieces, called plates. The plates under the oceans are called oceanic plates and the rest which are under the land surface are continental plates. The plates are moved around by the motion of a deeper part of the earth (the mantle) that lies underneath the crust. These plates are always bumping into each other, pulling away from each other, or past each other. The plates usually move at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. Earthquakes usually occur where two plates are running into each other or sliding past each other. Earthquakes mostly occur in places where there is a Fault Line. Plates under the Earth's surface move and push against each other. Some of these places are:

South America North America Japan New Zealand Africa Philippines India Caribbean Haiti


Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state and one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Alaska experiences a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year, and a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake on average every 14 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenani Koren (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitivity?

There is a lot said about animals knowing when seismic events are supposed to happen, but what strength is needed to for humans to feel them? What's minimum magnitude? Apparently in the UK there are up to a 100 tremors-a-year but just about all of them are never noticed by the British population. Has any research done on what the threshold level is for humans? Or is that just a geologist secret?86.147.56.32 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The perception of earthquakes relates to the seismic intensity as measured on scales such as the Mercalli intensity scale, not magnitude. Intensity II shaking can be detected by a few people who are awake and at rest. This amount of shaking equates to a ground acceleration of about 0.0017 to 0.014 of g [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

adding another picture??

The tectonic plates.

i think this could have room for another picture--Venajaguardian (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Mythology and religion

In christian tradition/eschatology, earthquakes are considered as one of the "sign of the end of times" or of the "second coming of Christ" (see End of times, Matthew-24:7, Mark-13:8). They generally expect the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes to be greater and greater (which is of course contradicted by scientific evidence). The article is locked, but I'm posting this here for an editor to consider adding. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

hej vi keder os så ha en god dag alle sammen ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poulnarskæg (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's now been almost 6 months. Any taker? Why is this article still protected if noone's in charge to improve it? Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Types Of Earthquakes

There are two main types of earthquakes: Natural and Man-made. Naturally occurring (tectonic) earthquakes occur along tectonic plate lines (fault lines) while man-made earthquakes are always related to explosions detonated by man.

Tectonic earthquakes will occur anywhere there is sufficient stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane. Plate boundaries move past each other smoothly and aseismically if there are no irregularities or asperities along the boundary that increase the frictional resistance; however, most boundaries do have such asperities that lead to stick-slip behavior. Once the boundary has locked, continued relative motion between the plates leads to increasing stress and stored strain energy around the fault surface. The energy increases until the stress breaks through the asperity, suddenly allowing sliding over the plate and releasing the stored energy. This energy is released as a combination of radiated elastic strain seismic waves, frictional heating, and cracking of the rock, which all adds up to an earthquake. This process is called the elastic rebound theory. It is estimated that only 10 percent or less of an earthquake’s total energy is radiated as seismic energy. Most of the earthquake’s energy is used to power the fracture growth or is converted into heat generated by friction.

Occasionally, naturally occurring earthquakes happen away from fault lines. When plate boundaries occur in continental lithosphere, deformation is spread out over a much larger area than the plate boundary, so earthquakes occur away from the plate boundary and are related to strains developed within the broader zone of deformation caused by major irregularities in the fault trace. Also, all tectonic plates have internal stress fields caused by their interactions with neighboring plates and sedimentary loading or unloading. These stresses may be sufficient to cause failure along existing fault planes, giving rise to intraplate earthquakes.

The other type of earthquake is the artificial or man-made quake. This type of quake has been felt all over the world after the detonation of a nuclear weapon. There is very little actual data that is readily available on this type of quake, but, of the two types of of earthquakes it is the only type that can be easily predicted and controlled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas1903 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Mikenorton (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to add the following external link for calculating earthquake energy equivalencies

Note that the site is managed by a NASA engineer who manages an amateur seismograph setup in his basement. This is not being requested for promotion. The calculator provides useful comparisons between earthquake magnitude and common energy sources.

Tranders (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Tim Anderson

Please Add the category "Types Of Earthquakes"

Please Add the category "Types Of Earthquakes" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_earthquake The page says it is an orphan. So, you can introduce it to its parents.

Thank You. We love Wikipedia and its sister projects. Mridul942 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - but others may revert it. Your request was confusing, as Types of earthquake (singular, only a capital T) is not a category at all, but a list in article-space. - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not one word of prevention

Mention somewhere in the article if anybody has ever thought of ways to prevent earthquakes, e.g., by inducing little ones to relieve stress, etc. Jidanni (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not mentioned, because it isn't done as far as I know (happy to be proved wrong), probably for the reasons mentioned here - basically no-one wants to trigger a major earthquake while trying to release stress by inducing a small one, a real ethical minefield. Mikenorton (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Well then mention that! Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) P.S., it says a limit has been reached so one cannot read that book.

A hypotheses (i.e. stored elastic strain energy) is being stated as if it were a Fact which it is not.

This statment in the article:

"Tectonic earthquakes occur anywhere in the earth where there is sufficient stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane."

should have the word "hypothetically" added:

"...anywhere in the earth where _Hypothetically_ there is sufficient stored elastic strain..."

No one has proven the statement to be true as originally written and therefore the added word is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.43 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The association between most earthquakes and the release of tectonically-generated strain energy along faults is universally accepted by seismologists. Strain is routinely measured (often in terms of uplift or subsidence) in areas where large faults are locked, in an attempt to better forecast (not predict) future earthquakes. I've added a citation to that paragraph to a recent book, which explains this in more detail. Mikenorton (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

to avoid disasters, new technologies

in order to protect the existing buildings, monuments (churchs, nuclear power plant ....) it is a way tested near Grenoble (France) : a grid of holes around the target. The digs cancel quake

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Different statistics

I was about to add the following about statistical frequency, but they differ so much from the article, I am reluctant. Walter Mooney, a seismologist with the US Geological survey is quoted as saying "14 to 17 magnitude 7 on earth every year." See Presler, Margaret Webb (14 April 2010). "More earthquakes than usual? Not really". KidsPost. Washington Post: Washington Post. pp. C10.

What should I do with this information? (No obscenities please!  :). Student7 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The article, referencing this USGS web-page, says "The USGS estimates that, since 1900, there have been an average of 18 major earthquakes (magnitude 7.0-7.9) and one great earthquake (magnitude 8.0 or greater) per year, and that this average has been relatively stable.[16] In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, although this is thought likely to be a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the USGS." I'm not sure how that differs significantly from the numbers you quote. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I misread it. The article is "close enough". Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a problem with the statistics listed - per USGS [1], the number of magnitude 7-7.9 quakes annually should not be 18 as stated in the article, but 15. 2601:B:9F01:1BA6:69C1:B88E:D94D:3B9D (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Intro 05.2015

The first sentence of the introduction seemed to me to by wholly opaque. It said, in difficult to understand terms, that earthquakes are the sudden release of energy deep in the earth. How is the energy released? Where does the energy come from? Why is the energy released? Finally this said nothing about suddeness, violence, nor destruction. Perhaps the energy is released slowly over a day or two. The intro missed the point entirely: What is an earthquake? The first paragraph did not describe an earthquake at all. So I rewrote to first sentence, and paragraph, to say what an earthquake is. Then say what causes them. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015

Hello,

I noticed the following inaccurate statement in paragraph 7. 

"An 8.6 magnitude earthquake releases the same amount of energy as 10,000 atomic bombs that were used in World War II."

Humanity didn't use 10,000 atomic bombs during WW2, just 2.

Thanks,

Jason Knight 132.3.9.78 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's some bad wording. I've fixed it now. Thanks for being observant! Dustin (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

El Salvador?

Is there a reason most of the images in this article are of El Salvador?

Especially the Shallow-focus and deep-focus earthquakes section, which has three consecutive photographs of El Salvador.

As of now, the article contains 13 photographs, of which 5 are of El Salvador. As far as I know, El Salvador is a common place for minor earthquakes, but definitely not the most earthquake-prone region in the world. Even if it was an earthquake-prone region, I still think that we should diversify the image locations a bit.

--Oeoi (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the excessive El Salvador images. Dawnseeker2000 16:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, it doesn't matter which regions of the world, the images belong to. If they are related to the subject and they pertain to the sections being discussed then they should be left alone unless we have a better replacement for them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a good call. Keeping the articles balanced, with regard to the text and images, is important. Dawnseeker2000 17:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent revisions and edits

I added information about the Coping, Rumination and Posttraumatic Growth in People Affected by an Earthquake because it was a study performed on 394 adults who experienced the February 27, 2010 earthquake in Chile, and there were no previous specific impacts of earthquakes on humans listed. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26820425 Marykatherineloos (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

This was interesting to find out. I'm sorry to say I removed that addition, mostly because it was very obscure; I'd never heard of posttraumatic growth before, and what you wrote was difficult to understand. It also may be too detailed for an overview article like this one.— Gorthian (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I added information about the Rapid Estimation of Earthquake Magnitude from the Arrival Time of the Peak High‐Frequency Amplitude because researchers proposed a way to measure the magnitude of an earthquake. Link: http://www.bssaonline.org/content/106/1/232.abstract Marykatherineloos (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

This sentence was plagiarized with no citation: "An earthquake (also known as a quake, tremor or temblor) is the perceptible shaking of the surface of the Earth, resulting from the sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves." I cited the sentence, and then additionally edited it. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/natural_disasters/earthquake Marykatherineloos (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

Thank you! I like your rewrite. Where was it plagiarized from?
It wasn't plagiarized, the bbc source added was actually based on this article (as it makes clear) - I've restored the original text. Mikenorton (talk)
Oh, and when you start a new section on a talk page, it should go at the bottom of the page instead of the top. The easiest way is to click on "New Section" at the top of the page. — Gorthian (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

I would like highlight the recent earthquake prediction approach based on Planetary Gravity Vectors. This work has produced a possibility to make a prediction for any future dates, and one can also check its accuracy over the past events.

In this regard i want to add few lines in the EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION sub heading.

THANKS Jeganathanc (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If this ever appears in a peer-reviewed journal and the seismological community takes notice, then it should first be added to the earthquake prediction page, but only if that happens, which from past experience is highly unlikely. Mikenorton (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction vs forecasting

Hello,

Over at the page on EQ prediction, there's been a discussion that some editors would like to see a separate article on EQ forecasting. Accordingly, I've created the new article. Here, I've provided links to the new article, and sources justifying the distinction between the two fields of study.

I would welcome any comments or feedback about the appropriateness of the new organizing structure. JerryRussell (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

2602:302:D195:93A0:4994:D9EA:C54:589 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Eathquakes are cool.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit "tremor" out please

An earthquake isn't a tremor, that is a malaprop of temblor. Tremor is a medical term and not a shaking of the earth.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.1.186 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The word "tremor" is used for many things, not just medical symptoms. Most dictionaries include "a small earthquake" as one of the accepted meanings. See [3], [4], [5], and [6], for example. — Gorthian (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

distinct-LACK of Chinese content

self-explanitory - why has chinese content been removed from this page?

they have some of the OLDest examples of enginneering in regards to it, and should not be being removed by anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

122.160.50.43 (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Re web pages as sources

@Florimell1919:

Regarding your recent edit (here) on the definition of "earthquake": I appreciate your intent to "reflect a more scientific perspective", but it should be noted (by everyone!) that most of what is found on web pages, including various national geological authorities, is not that "scientific". Even when written by experts, they are writing for a "mass" audience with generally no scientific sophistication. The lack of author attribution is a strong indication that the source is not fully reliable, and quite likely dumbed-down.

The best kind of sources for such material are secondary sources such as college-level textbooks and professional encyclopedias. Several of the latter are available on-line (Google is your friend).

I also point out (for all) that urls are not citations. It is not sufficient to merely point where something may be found on the Web. A citation should describe the source, saying who the material is attributed to, when, etc., as well as where it might be found. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earthquake/Archive_2&oldid=1136685688"