Talk:2016 southern Taiwan earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 southern Taiwan earthquake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving 2016 southern Taiwan earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 February 2016.

Wikipedia

Earthquakes Mid‑importance

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

Taiwan Low‑importance

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

Disaster management Low‑importance

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TA2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

As this has gone forward and back a few times, it seems worth discussing here before any more changes are made. The current title is based on proximity to the epicentre, with the alternative, 2016 Tainan earthquake being based as I understand it on the most used name in sources. It's a little early to be talking about a common name I think, but I have no particular objection to either. This is not a matter of urgency. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quake struck at the same distance of both cities. I would then favor the most common name, which has been choosen by the media because there were more destructions in Tainan. Wykx (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common name for the earthquake, so a description is needed that confirms the timeframe and location. As all the damage lised in the article (as of 6 February) related to the city of Tainen, that is the best location to describe. The timeframe of 2016 is suitable, as our own documentation suggests there are articles about Taiwan earthquakes less than once a year. So I would support 2016 Tainan earthquake. Jolly Ω Janner 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no common name for the earthquake, then using the epicenter, Kaohsiung, as the title is preferable. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is a common name (google request on 2016 Kaohsiung earthquake => 106,000 ; on 2016 Tainan earthquake => 8,150,000). Secondly, the epicenter was at same distance of Kaohsiung and Tainan. Endly, most of the destruction/victims were in Tainan. That's why I support 2016 Tainan earthquake. Wykx (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most common name used in referral to disaster is Taiwan earthquake. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I prefer use of epicenter in name if common name not used. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spirit Ethanol. And the epicenter was in Kaohsiung, not at same distance of Kaohsiung and Tainan. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should probably go by the common name; based on epicenter, there isn't much of an argument for naming it after either Tainan or Kaohsiung, given that it's roughly equidistant from both (though the article on the 1935 article does use the name of two cities: 1935 Hsinchu-Taichung earthquake). Oversteek (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Kaohsiung article, the city was merged with the county in 2010 (forming a special municipality) and now includes the area of the epicentre. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local Naming is often very different from English, it should be included in the article, I went ahead and did just that. Additionally, Taiwan uses Minguo calendar and historically, regal calendars. I also do not like using a year and country for a quake name, as we all know there are thousands if not millions of quakes in a given year per nation, just not all are considered noteworthy to ordinary people but may be of use to science for study. Nevertheless the year and country name seem most easy to associate with for people far removed from the incident. Actually this is for any quake, so wikipedia should support hashing for crossreferencing.#quake.Doseiai2 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date

It would be great if we would stay up to date checking on the news for additional info. NutShell of a Peanut (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm trying to keep updating it (several times a day) at least on the number of death, any gov new rescue efforts, any damage found etc. Chongkian (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Reactions" vs. "Aftermath"

It may be because I haven't done much editing of Wikipedia lately, but I'm not quite sure what the difference is between the "Reactions" section and the "Aftermath" one. If I had to guess, the "Reactions" section is what people and organizations said (and offered, Mainland China's TAO support, for instance), while the "Aftermath" section is what people and the environment did (aftershocks, rescues, etc.). Am I right? I want to double-check before I reorganize those two sections.

Thanks. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 20:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me the aftermath is the longer term impact of the earthquake, which would include something like investigations into possible violations of building codes. I wouldn't put aftershocks and details of rescue work in such a section. I'm not convinced that 'Reactions' is the right name for the rest - 'Humanitarian response' would I think be better for what's there now. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that there are actually many overlappings in those terms & acts (aftermath, reaction, investigation, donation, etc). As more new news coming in, we need to rearrange the article section once in a while to make all things consistent & sequential, yet minimize any trivial things & focus on the important ones. But at this moment I think the most important one is just to get & write all of the important updated data to fill in the article. Once this event is over (including all of the aftermath, building construction investigation, any violation, any long-term amendment in terms of building planning in Taiwan due to this toppled building in Tainan etc), then things will be easier to reorganize this article to make it look really good article (e.g. write the reaction sections, rescue sections, aftermath sections, long-term section etc - depending on those info availability later from news or website). But at this time, just focus on getting the latest data first & write it to the article. (please stop about the Kaohsing/Tainan earthquake title renaming :( that's the least important thing to do right now) Chongkian (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donation amount

I know there is quite some history between China and Taiwan. Is there any significance for the donation amount from the Red Cross of China of $303, 030 (303030)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.104.11.30 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source it was retrieved from (Focus Taiwan) doesn't expand upon it. If you find any reliable, published sources which discuss the donation in greater detail, please let us know. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 22:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that any relations or interaction between Taiwan and Mainland China (Cross-strait relations) has always been important since 60-70 years ago, so any interaction between the two is indeed something to talk about. Besides, the PRC's Taiwan Affairs Office and Premier Li Keqiang have given their early statement & offer help, and have also sent their rescue team to Tainan to help with the rescue efforts as well on Saturday. Chongkian (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates of collapsed building

I couldn't find the exact location of the collapsed building anywhere in the news, nor pictures of it before it collapsed, so I hunted it down on google street view. Not sure where the right place to add the coordinates would be, but I thought it might be of interest to wikipedians. 23°00′20″N 120°15′37″E / 23.005433°N 120.2603917°E / 23.005433; 120.2603917 Ejewel (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that important, but I guess we can include it in line... epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one found it very informative. I used your provided coordinates to get a Google street view "Before" shot. Comparing it with the collapse is both informative .... and disturbing. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Kaohsiung earthquake → 2016 Taiwan earthquake – Common name used to refer to quake in media. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As per sources in the article, the quake is most commonly referred as "Taiwan earthquake" thus article should be moved to that "2016 Taiwan earthquake" name space hence WP:COMMONNAME with second choice being "2016 Tainan earthquake". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved: I was bold and moved the page, as few/no news headlines used the term Kaohsiung earthquake to refer to this event. If the consensus in this discussion changes, feel free to move it back. But this seems like a pretty obvious move. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yeah, this seems obvious. Of course, if there's a subsequent earthquake in Taiwan, the media will have a different name for this. But no need to differentiate this event from hypothetical future disasters. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to WikiNews

A link to the corresponding page on WikiNews was added by Agastya Chandrakant. I reverted this as I didn't see what the point of such a link was. The same user reinstated the link and left a message at my talk page, justifying inclusion with reference to Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects. In reply I have pointed out that the guideline says that it "encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers". I dispute that this link is in any way useful to readers of this article. Comments? Mikenorton (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mikenorton and don't see a need for this link on the same grounds he mentioned above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying so, I can also say that how is this Wikipedia article helpful to anyone? Is it? Might be, might not be. But yes, this news affects to the people of Chinese Tapei (Taiwan) and people living near that geographical location. It helps me, and yes, it does others by knowing about the event reading the report.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news article does not add any value over what's already in this article, you might want to do it the other way around, add a link to this article in the news article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a bad idea. See, in the turn of events, Wikipedia can copy Wikinews; but Wikinews copying text from Wikipedia is plaigraism. I don't know why you don't see the use.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown meant a link that's all, not text. One very good reason for not having a link is that the WikiNews item is poorly written and contains out-of-date information. Give an example of something that is not currently in the article that someone would find useful in the WikiNews page. Mikenorton (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a very poor arguement. You know, we can not edit the news article after 24 hours of publication. Moreover, facts do not ceases to be facts, news ceases to be news. In the encyclopedia, you can update it, and also you can copy word to word from Wikinews. I hope you understand the difference between news and an encyclopedia article.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the difference, but you have failed to make any argument as to why a link to WikiNews would be "useful to our readers" to quote the guideline again. Without such a justification the link should be removed. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2016 Taiwan earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160214085405/http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Search-for-Taiwan-quake-victims-ends-with-death-toll-at-116 to http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Search-for-Taiwan-quake-victims-ends-with-death-toll-at-116

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I explained how Taiwan is prone to earthquakes due to its location, and detailed how rescuers were careful not to further collapse the rubble to avoid trapping survivors. I also added links to the Wikipedia articles "Ring of Fire", "Meinong District", and "Professional Negligence" TA2016 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2016 Southern Taiwan earthquake TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Taiwan earthquake → 2016 Tainan earthquake – The impact of this earthquake is rather local. Szqecs (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: Given your input in another RM, I believe you would find this reasonable? Szqecs (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using something more specific than "Taiwan" is not a bad idea as Taiwan is not all that small (it has a large population, the majority of which is not typically affected in a typical earthquake) and has quite a few Wiki-notable earthquakes, often more than one per year. However, in this case, there is the issue that the epicenter of the quake was in Meinong, Kaohsiung, but the most severe damage was in Tainan. Chinese Wikipedia calls it "2016 Meinong, Kaohsiung, earthquake" 2016年高雄美濃地震 while many other interwikis use "2016 Kaohsiung earthquake" (e.g. Động đất Cao Hùng 2016). Japanese uses "2016 Southern Taiwan earthquake" (2016年台湾南部地震) a title in line with the 2010 Central Canada earthquake which was on the Quebec–Ontario border. — AjaxSmack 04:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the existing name, although the suggested 2016 Southern Taiwan earthquake sidesteps the issue of the epicentre versus greatest damage - I would have no objection to that if the consensus is to make it more specific. Mikenorton (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving the title to something more specific too. Preferably Tainan, but I am also fine with Southern Taiwan. Alex Shih (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.