Jump to content

Talk:1989 Newcastle earthquake/Archive 1

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

Untitled

147 schools were damaged in the Newcastle earthquake and that ment that children were unable to attend school.earthquakes cannot be predicted- although scientists are working on it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.204.160 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Early article says 13 deaths, later says 14? Newcastle page also says 13? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.205.201.12 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of disputed tag

Looking over the page history, it's clear that on a number of occasions, vandals have indiscriminately changed facts on this page (number of dead, magnitude of earthquake, etc). For example, the number of dead cited in the lead was incorrect until I just changed it. While some vandalism has been properly reverted, I'm concerned there may still be errors lurking in this page. I don't have time to check everything right now, so I've added the {{disputed}} tag. –Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the facts presented in the article and ensuring that they are all the same as stated in credible references I've deleted the {{disputed}} tag. I've also added some references and external links that back them up to avoid confusion. --AussieLegend 12:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxymoron?

"Another three people were crushed to death under collapsed awnings on Beaumont Street, Hamilton, an inner-city suburb of Newcastle"

An "Inner-city suburb"? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.54.96.187 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really. A suburb that is less than 500 metres from the CBD is clearly an inner city suburb. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, but "suburb" has a different meaning in Australia and other parts of the world – see Suburb#Etymology and usage. The present usage is unambiguous and appropriate for an article on an Australian topic. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done 1 & 2 fixed, 3 deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues with USGS map

Original image
USGS image

The recently added "different" map,[13] which was also added in March,[14] is generally inferior to the map that has been in the article for years. It's of much lower resolution than the original map and is generally unhelpful. All you effectively see is a coloured blob around Newcastle, with a lot of detail that is impossible to read in the Newcastle area. While Raymond Terrace and Singleton are marked, that's the extent of the information that is useful. The original image contains a far larger number of labelled locations with the approximate effect at locations as far afield as Coffs Harbour to the north an Albury to the south. Neither map is very good in close, it's the detail further away from Newcastle where the original image wins. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've read your statement, but am off to work in a few minutes. I can reply later today. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Before you leave, please respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and revert your last edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The kind of detail your map is trying to convey would be best done in a table. If there is source for that kind of material, it would absolutely be more accurate to list the locations and an associated intensity than what is on that map, which is not even from a seismological organization. It's a user generated map, and that is a solid reason to go with the USGS version. Dawnseeker2000 15:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
What sort of table would be as effective as the image is in displaying the extent and isn't your image trying to convey the same sort of information? The original image is merely, as you stated in an edit summary, an overview, and it's based on information from Geoscience Australia, which is a quite valid source. In fact it's based on 3 Australian government websites and one university website. The USGS image is far too small, poor resolution and contains far too much whitespace. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
SVG ShakeMap

I don't have any more energy to do this. It's baffling that you'd want to keep a user-drawn map when a more aesthetically-pleasing map has been provided by an organization. Dawnseeker2000 15:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There are not rules on how much whitespace is allowable, and you have to consider that the USGS takes advantage of a global seismic network and has received widespread recognition for its research. I also strongly disagree that the ShakeMap "is generally inferior" to the current map. That map gives no indication of the actual elevation and is just a flat map, while it zooms out more, it makes it appear as though intensities just rapidly change along the the lines of contrast, which is misleading and is not as good at representing the MMIs as a gradient is. The USGS varient also contains a much more specific table (the box at the bottom with the MMI colors and associated information such as shaking, PGA, etc.) than the PNG image. The only argument which I think might be of consideration is that it ismore difficult to read the text of the USGS ShakeMap than of the user-created PNG. I have mostly countered this issue by creating File:1989 Newcastle earthquake ShakeMap.svg, and while there is some overlap of the circles with the word "Newcastle", enough of the letters can be directly seen that it is extremely obvious what it reads, which covers the main issue. Dustin (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The whitespace contributes to reduction of the size of the actual image, which is so small that there is virtually no useful detail, making the image have little encyclopaedic value. At best it is decorative. The relief in the map actually degrades its usefulness further, with transition between the colours being far more vague because of the additional colouring added by the relief. For example, the image being used shows the strength as "Strong" in Sydney whereas it's impossible to tell in the USGS map. According to the image in the article, it's also "Strong" around Port Stephens, whereas it's not in the USGS map. Based on the available sources, including the Geoscience Australia map (which also uses lines), the USGS map is wrong. Given that it's an Australian earthquake I'd argue that the Australian government sources are authoritative. The table at the bottom of the USGS image an be easily converted to a wikitable. It doesn't need to be in the image. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your point about the gradient is invalid as having direct comparison is unhelpful and lies to readers by acting as though there is a fine line between intensities. Also, if text is an issue, you should note that it an SVG and I can easily increase the size and/or remove the circles (which represent stations) if necessary. You may as well say every earthquake worldwide should stop using ShakeMaps in articles, and I guarantee that you are in the minority if you think everyone is going to agree with that. Regarding thumbnails, both files are bad at those scales (except for maybe the word "Newcastle"), and with the presentation of MediaViewer, that point holds no water as this file does not have a limit to its scalability, so I would consider that point invalid as well. Dustin (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should contact Geoscience Australia and tell them their map is wrong, since it also uses lines. I understand what you're saying but the map is an overview and I doubt anyone would be silly enough to think that intensities suddenly change. For the record, topographic maps use lines to represent elevations, usually in tens of feet or metres even though elevations are usually gradual and nobody has a problem understanding that. The USGS map simply doesn't provide sufficient detail where it should and too much detail where it shouldn't. Remember, Wikipedia articles are not written for seismologists, they're written for the general reader. Please note, I'm not saying that "every earthquake worldwide should stop using ShakeMaps in articles". As a general priciple we always should use the best image available for any article. If the best image is a shakemap then that's what we should use. In this article, it's not the best. Of course, if you can create a version with better defined colouring and more cities and towns so the average reader can ge a better idea of the extent of the effect of the quake, and correct the errors, then there might be reason to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No amateur isoseismal maps

And who is the author of this high resolution map? A well known seismologist?

My only goal here for the last couple of years has been to improve earthquake articles, and with this statement, to improve this specific earthquake article. The file (File:1989_Newcastle_earthquake_map.png) is the only one of its kind on commons and in use on an earthquake article in Wikipedia. It appears to (by the looks of their uploads on commons) be done by someone who has done some map making, but the file is not acceptable for use on Wikimedia projects. Drawing isoseismal maps is a specialty skill, and unless the contributor Bidgee is a seismologist or geologist, we have to use the USGS map or nothing at all. It appears there were sources for the content of the map, but the isoseismal lines on the map were drawn by the map maker and contributor but regardless of the type of sources available, we cannot have an amateur isoseismal map in a WP article (apparently it’s OK to have OR files on commons).

I've checked in with that user on commons and commended him for the effort (it is a well done map, though I think the USGS version is much more appealing). Hadn’t heard anything yet, but if it turns out that Bidgee is a qualified seismologist, I’ll shut my pie hole and leave this alone. If not, the file can't be allowed to stay in the article because an amateur drew the lines. Wikipedia is not the place to draw up one's own isoseismal maps. No one has said anything for the last six years because they just didn’t consider the consequences and probably thought that yeah, anyone can do that, and that the file has been in use on this article for years is not a reason to keep it. We are not doing any readers favors by leaving it in the article. I had noticed it a while back (say less than a year ago) and am now taking action. The USGS version is a proper intensity map that is superior (drawn by computers) to this amateur job. That it was drawn by computers doesn't make it superior; that it wasn't drawn by (what is most likely) an amateur does.

This is distracting me from what I really love doing in WP — content creation — and I really only have enough energy for that so I’m not going to come back with any response. I’ve made my statement and maybe someone else down the road (that sees the same flaw and does have the energy for going toe-to-toe) can pick this back up. I’m only here to improve WP earthquake articles, but I just think this is going to fall on deaf ears, so I’d rather continue improving (other articles).

That reminds me. I did look for some more sources for this article (a couple of journals that I lean on heavily, especially for very detailed intensity information) but didn’t find any. This is what I was thinking about the table. I’ve used those in other articles (1872 North Cascades earthquake, 1892 Laguna Salada earthquake) to list specific intensities at certain locations and it works well that way. If we were to remove the amateur isoseismal map and replace it with the USGS version (which is less specific and more of a general overview) a table would be one way to get back that kind of precision that he was aiming for. Dawnseeker2000 01:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the image was based on data from Geoscience Australia, which is an authoritative source, 2 other Australian government websites and one university website. I wasn't privy to the original creation but the presentation appears to have been based on a similar map at the GA website. However, Bidgee's image is of significantly better quality than the GA image, retaining the same information presented there but containing significantly more reference points. 33 cities and towns are shown in the main zone, compared to 5 on the USGS image. I really don't see how anyone could credibly argue that the USGS image is better than the image currently being used, since the image being used is better than the official Australian government map. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A few points, though the first one is the biggest reason for changing the article.
1) The argument that the image being used is "better than the official Australian government map", when your main justification for the image's accuracy is that official map, is precisely the problem. This map is user-generated, combining multiple sources with no real indication of what information came from where or how it was assimilated. The methodology is ambiguous and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedic setting.
2) As to the reference points, many people use the topography in the USGS shakemaps as a spatial reference. I, personally, am more familiar with the geology and topography of Australia than with the arrangement of the smaller towns and cities. Slapping more towns onto a map does not automatically make it better.
3) Regarding the debate between the categorical ('banded') display and the USGS map's gradient display: most people (including most adults) have to be taught to read a topographic map. The idea that the property of interest is continuous rather than abruptly changing at the lines is something many people fail to internalize without a fair amount of practice (we read some studies on this when I was teaching intro geology, but I would need some time to dig up a proper reference). This is why organizations such as the USGS have taken advantage of modern computing power to render maps with continuous color gradients. The only reason to categorize the data is for practical government or insurance purposes, where response is distributed in a categorical fashion (e.g., only occupants of homes where shaking exceeded Mercali VI are eligible for some type of aide).
4) The Australian Government map referenced by Bidgee is quite old (In fact, it is no longer available through any online AG resource that I can find. The time machine reference from AussieLegend is to a general project page that does not discuss this earthquake at all). Modern AG maps (to my knowledge) do not use isoseismal contours, but rather project circles of given radii and color-code the specific data points [1].
5) The idea that the AG map is better than the USGS one simply because it is Australian is absurd. Since the nuclear test ban treaty, global seismic networks have been equally accessible to all nations. In addition, most western, (and just about all English-speaking) countries share (or just make public) the data from regional networks and specially funded projects. The 'did-you-feel-it' style surveys may be somewhat more accessible from within a given country, but even those data have been widely shared over time. The USGS and AG are using the same data to make these maps. The USGS just released theirs more recently, and therefore made more modern processing and display choices.
Conclusion: Everyone other than AussieLegend seems to be in favor of switching to the USGS map, particularly for the sake of consistency with all other such maps used by wikipedia articles. If a citeable methodology can be found for the map made by Bidgee, we might consider including both images, since some people seem to benefit from an alternative method of displaying the data.Elriana (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dent, Vic; Burbidge, David; Love, David; Collins, Clive. "Towards Automatic Generation of Isoseismal Maps - a Preliminary Schema using Recent Geoscience Australia Data" (PDF).
  1. The map is based on multiple official sources, primarily the Geoscience Australia map. In fact the map is effectively just a redrawn version of that map with better detail. The claim that the map combines "multiple sources with no real indication of what information came from where" is specious at best. The sources are all identified and the map can be compared to the Geoscience Australia map for comparison of accuracy.
  2. Wikipedia caters for all readers, not just self proclaimed experts in the field, who really shouldn't be using content on Wikipedia as a primary source. Wikipedia is very clearly only a tertiary source. Most people reading a tertiary source are more likely to be familiar with locations of towns and cities than geology and topography of a place.
  3. I think you're reading far too much into the bands. I doubt there are many people who don't understand that there is a slight overlap, which is impossible to read in the USGS map anyway, as it is far too vague and lacking detail, as previously explained. In any case, the official map uses bands so your argument lacks validity.
  4. That the image is old does not change the validity of the data. The Geoscience Australia map was from a page published 18 years after the earthquake. The 1989 earthquake hasn't happened again since then, so the data hasn't changed. The USGS map is not that much younger anyway. Bidgee's image is only 5 months older than the USGS map so the "old" argument really doesn't fly.
  5. It was not claimed that the Geoscience Australia map is "better than the USGS one simply because it is Australian". It is better because it shows far more detail at a better resolution than the USGS map (1.11km/px vs 2.01km/px), covers a much wider area, and caters for far more of our readers than does the USGS map, which is designed for a specific and very limited demographic. That limited demographic probably only requires the scant 80 km × 140 km (50 mi × 87 mi) earthquake coverage provided by the USGS map but, for the general reader, the 600 km × 650 km (373 mi × 404 mi) of earthquake coverage provided by Bidgee's map is far more useful. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


When I had a look at seismometer coverage of Au, back in 1980, the only serious local 3D instruments were paid for by the CIA and used to monitor nuclear testing. Instrument stations were manned by various universities. The only seismograph the Aus government funded was the crude ex-Japanese Army 2D instrument kept at the Rabaul observatory. (It was captured by the Australian Army in 1945 and rebuilt by a Rabaul volunteer in 1968.) As I understand the 89 quake prompted Au government to begin funding for a local array of seismometers. Any GA maps of the 89 quake will be based on USGS data.14.202.191.34 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

All well and good but your claims are completely unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1989 Newcastle 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) 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1989_Newcastle_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=1118241229"