Talk:2017 Chiapas earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Chiapas 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 2017 Chiapas earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 September 2017.

Wikipedia

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath 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.

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.

Guatemala Low‑importance

	Guatemala portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guatemala, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guatemala 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.GuatemalaWikipedia:WikiProject GuatemalaTemplate:WikiProject GuatemalaGuatemala articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Mexico may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Strength Review

Strength of the Quake has been reviewed as 8.1 to 8.2, down from 8.4 by the SSN. --189.177.49.11 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a comprehensive collection of estimated magnitudes, and about every technical parameter one could want, see this from the ISC. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump the gun

http://www.tsunami.gov/

Tsunami warnings have not been issued as of 5:24 UTC, only threats — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgThomas (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tsunami warning was issued for surrounding areas, including parts of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicuragua, Panama, and Honduras.^[1]

^Removed text, re-add when warnings are issued please SgThomas (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "M 8.0 - 96km SW of Pijijiapan, Mexico". United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

Picture

Can someone please change the lead picture to this? https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ahv0#shakemap Alex of Canada (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may pick the JPG and load it up --Itu (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was still on commons ... --Itu (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the USGS actually changed the map. Can someone please fix again? Alex of Canada (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex of Canada, you can upload the actual map with this "Upload a new version of this file" link. --Itu (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a century?

The opening paragraph claims it was the strongest earthquake in Mexico in a century, then in the very next sentence says the only recorded bigger one was 230 years ago. While technically true (it was also the strongest earthquake in Mexico this week), this is greatly misleading for most readers. That the press says so is no excuse — things are not any more true just because you provide many references. -KiloByte (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "in a century" figure was a direct quote from President Nieto, and has been noted as such in the lead. Technically the 1787 earthquake's magnitude was only an estimate, and depending on what the actual magnitude of this one is (USGS says 8.1, SSN says 8.2), this could be equal to the 1932 Jailsco earthquake or larger than it. Sounder Bruce 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should said: "the strongest since the intensity began to be measured", or something similar ;) Equinoxe 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Since when is the President of Mexico – or for that matter, any President – authoritative for any technical details of an earthquake? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relief map

Currently, the earthquake infobox is using a relief map that shows historic Mesoamerica and no modern boundaries. I believe this has been done because when File:Mexico relief location map.jpg, the usual earthquakes in Mexico location map, is used the earthquake symbol goes beyond the bottom of the map. Not sure what the best solution is here... possibly 1) another relief map of Mexico that extends further south, 2) a smaller earthquake symbol, or 3) a new relief map of Mesoamerica showing modern boundaries? I don't believe the current map outlining a historic region makes any sense, but it might be the best option in the short-term. --NoGhost (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I have no solution. If it were a deliberate choice, it is a very odd choice to depict a vaguely defined, cultural–historical region, instead of a map showing modern political country or subnational boundaries. Holy (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200 injured

--86.52.62.218 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershocks table

Someone made up a beautiful table of aftershocks, but it took up way too much screen space, so I lobotomized it - took out the dates (I thought people could figure out that the night was progressing), took out a mostly unused Notes column and made one a reference. I'm mostly satisfied with this much-deflated version now (though I am tempted to take out the mile conversions and turn south-southwest into SSW, if an excuse presents itself), except.. now I don't understand it.

The text says there were 12 aftershocks in an hour or something like 337 in a day. The table shows 12 in a day and 6 in the first hour. So how were the aftershocks to show selected? Wnt (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning

https://www.google.com.co/search?q=mexico+earthquake+lightning&oq=mexico+earthquake+lightning&aqs=chrome..69i57.18024j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-co&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

next one 2017-09-19

right now --Itu (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, article already online: 2017 Puebla earthquake --Itu (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New citation templates

In several instances where material from the USGS ANSS Comprehensive Catalog (such as this) has been cited to "USGS" or "usgs.gov" using a generic {cite web} I have replaced that generic usaage with the new, specialized {{cite anss}} and {{short-anss}} templates. The former provides a more precise attribution in a standard full citation format, which should be easier to use. The latter provides a "short-cite" similar to a Harv template which avoids the complications of using a named-ref. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershocks: inconsistent

In the Aftershocks section I see that 32 aftershocks are listed. However, the USGS-ANSS search url to which that is cited turns up 46 events. And the "Visit Nearby Seismicity" option at the ANSS page for this event has 41 aftershocks. This is not consistent (and poorly cited!), and raises a question: when using the ANSS or ISC (or other?) search functions to identify aftershocks, what parameters of location, magnitude, and time should be used?

Location can be quite arbitrary. Strictly speaking, a subsequent earthquake would be considered an aftershock only if it was in the stress field of the intiial quake, but I don't see that we have any of determining that. Magnitude is also a bit arbitrary, but a fairly "round" number can be picked that balances several considerations (such as: just how notable are these aftershocks?). The time range could be however long it takes the aftershocks to fade below the magnitude limit. (See Omori's law.) But while three weeks – the ANSS default – would suffice for Chiapas, the 2015 Nepal earthquake had substantial (M 5.0+) aftershocks two months out.

Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "M 8.0 - 96km SW of Pijijiapan, Mexico". United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[1]