Talk:Richter scale/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Actually example of a 4.5

I just corrected what appears to be a topological error over on [2006 Tajikistan earthquake]. According to the references on the page and another one I found in researching the earthquake the 2006 Tajikistan earthquake was a 5.5 not a 4.5 earthquake.http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=36713

As such it is probably wise we chose a different 4.5 earthquake to be representative on the scale.Donhoraldo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PEPCON fuel plant explosion

The article for the PEPCON fuel plant explosion states that it was equivalent to a 2.7 kiloton explosion (total for all explosions), not 2.7 tons as stated in the table here. From the massive shock wave, I can only assume the former figure is the more correct. It made a quake measuring up to 3.5, but this article is talking about equivalent enegry release not size of the actual quake. I'll leave it to someone else to verify and fix. --Adx (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Determined from" is weak (the Richter scale is "determined from" M_L)

For a simple minded reader attempting to nail down the interpretation of "Richter magnitude", "determined from" seems to be maddeningly imprecise.

Could we have "the Richter scale, M_L, is determined from the logarithm according to this exact precise equation following the colon:" or something of that nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.164.12 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Death toll usually over 100,000"

This "average earthquake effect" for a 10.0+ magnitude earthquake has no reference. Moreover, that same magnitude was, according to the table, "never recorded". It seems misleading to use "usually" in the context of an event that has never been recorded, as it implies that this event has already happened, maybe even more than once. Perhaps this is an estimate? ("Average death toll estimated to be over 100,000"? or something of the sort..)

I checked reference [18], which seems to be the basis of this claim, and did not find any mention of such a number. Please, can someone either post the reference, change the wording, or remove it completely?

Jadhachem (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. I'd removed it before, but hadn't noticed that it was re-added. Dawnseeker2000 03:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Table comparing earthquakes to nuclear yields is way out of whack

For example, it lists the Oklahoma City Bombing as being equivalent to 2.7 kilotons of TNT. Timothy McVeigh may have conceivably packed enough ANFO into his rental truck to equate 2.7 tons of TNT but not 2.7 thousand tons of it—because that's what a kiloton, a thousand tons. If he had blown up a device of that magnitude, he would have taken out all of downtown OKC, not just one building. Not to be facetious, but he would also have collapsed the truck's suspension long before he got there—imagine a Ryder truck laden with 5.4 million pounds of anything. It's because of things like this that Wikipedia is the butt of so many jokes.Wfgiuliano (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

After checking Oklahoma City bombing I've moved it to 3.0, which seems much more plausible. There's still a mismatch between the yield of his carbomb and the seismic energy but much less and explainable by the very approximate measure of the earthquake magnitude and the fact that only part of the explosion had a seismic effect.

Earthquake magnitude -0.2

Is there such thing as earthquake magnitude -0.2? How can a negative earthquake magnitude be real?

112.198.90.25 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The instruments used have become more sensitive, so now it is possible to detect earthquakes that are smaller than the orginal value for 0. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/502877/Richter-scale Therizinosaurian (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Units for displacement

The formulae towards the bottom of the page could be tidied up. "A" is used for both seismometer displacement and ground-displacement, which caused me some major confusion. Similarly, D is used for distance sometimes, and capital-delta elsewhere, although they both mean the same thing (except when delta is in degrees, not km). Astro-Kitten (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of examples

Examples were present for several years and potentially informative, but appear to have been removed wholesale without any discussion by Dawnseeker2000. Whatever their weaknesses, this removal seems more like vandalism than editing to me. AlanS1951 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How dare you. You're rather ignorant. Dawnseeker2000 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support removal of the table - it attracts constant expansion and contains a deal of OR. Mikenorton (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't be an asshole, Dawnseeker. Argyriou (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My response was appropriate. To call an established user's effort to improve the encyclopedia "vandalism" by removing unsourced material that has strayed from the topic is ridiculous, just like your statement. Dawnseeker2000 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Really a log10 scale??

If a magnitude 0 earthquake on the Richter scale means a maximal total displacement of 1 micrometer 100 km from the epicenter and that this displacement scales exponentially with a base of 10 for every magnitude unit, like it says in the article, then an earthquake of magnitude 8 would mean a maximal displacement of 100 m !! That cannot be true, can it? More importantly, a quake of magnitude 8.9 like it happened already within the past centuries, that would mean a max. displacement of almost 1 km ! Now that most certainly cannot be true. Ideas, anyone? --Felix Tritschler (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons the Moment magnitude scale was developed. The instrument response isn't terribly accurate above about M_L 6.5 or 7. Read the "development" and "details" sections of this article. Also, slip of tens of meters isn't unheard of in the very largest earthquakes, but it also happens over so much larger an area that the instrument response doesn't scale directly - the movement happens over a longer time, and larger movements are damped more. Argyriou (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

TNT equivalents

Are the given values really useful? TNT equivalent is mostly used when discussing explosions registered by seismographs. When the media reports the "TNT equivalent", it's not the equivalent amount of Radiated seismic energy, but the much larger amount of TNT that would cause such a seismic event. And those numbers are based on the assumption that the explosion of 1 kTon TNT causes a tremor of 4.0 magnitude. (Of course such numbers are based on assumptions about seismic efficiency, and the real explosion may have been be much larger or smaller.) That seems to be the "normal" usage of TNT equivalent in relation to seismic magnitude.

a magnitude 1.0 earthquake is roughly equivalent to the energy release from an explosion of about 70 pounds of TNT (a mid-sized construction site blast), a magnitude 2.0 earthquake is similar to an explosion of 1 metric ton of TNT, and a magnitude 4.0 earthquake is approximately equivalent to the energy release from an explosion of 1,000 tons of TNT (a small nuclear blast).

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2008/08_02_21.html

Corresponding values can be found on: http://www.english.ucla.edu/all-faculty/335-kelly-kiloton-index-of-earthquake-moment-magnitudes

Also, the given examples are not consistently placed: some explosions are placed with their corresponding seismic magnitude, others with their corresponding explosive force. The PEPCON explosion was about 30 times more powerful than the explosion at Chernobyl, but the table suggests that Chernobyl was the largest of the two. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

An important secondary source on development no longer exists

The block quote from Richter himself in the Development section is linked to a secondary source that has ceased to exist. This is unfortunate, since the quote bears directly on the many discussions on how the scale is actually defined. The only source for the same material I have found is the Caltech Oral History project, but citing that directly smacks of OR. FWIW, here is the link to the primary source: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C Brian Hill (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude template?

I am looking to see if there is any interest in a template for formatting and tracking use of "M". Please see discussion at Talk:Seismic_scale#On_formatting_M. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

5.0 is 10 times larger than 4.0

In the article, it states that: "an earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times larger than one that measures 4.0".

I believe this is grammatically incorrect and consequently misleading. Instead, it should state: "an earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times as large as one that measures 4.0.

Ten times larger is equal to eleven times as large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk Lewis (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I can certainly see where you're coming from (you're treating it as equivilent to a percentage increase: "100% bigger" means "the same again", i.e. 2x the size; so 200% bigger = 3x the size; 1000% bigger = 11x etc), so by the same principle, "one times larger" would mean 2x as large and "ten times larger" would mean eleven times as large. But I've never actually seen anyone use "one times larger" to mean "100% more" (in fact I've never seen anyone use "one times larger" at all). And I'm pretty sure whenever I have seen someone use "n times larger" they mean "n times the size", not "n+1 times the size". Wardog (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ten times larger" means 10x. A "1000% increase", however, means 11x. Argyriou (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that the question is grammatical, not arithmetic. It means the right thing, but is it the right way to say it? Gah4 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would change the word measures to 'calculates to' or 'has', since it is not an actual measurement but a derived number on the scale from measurements Dave mathews86 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in text

Quote: an earthquake that registers 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times that of an earthquake that registered 4.0, and thus corresponds to a release of energy 31.6 times that released by the lesser earthquake

The energy goes like the square of the amplitude, and the square of 10 is 100, not 31.6. There is something wrong. Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Regarding earthquake energy: the so-called "Richter" scale compares the intensity (shaking) of an earthquake as felt at a given location, relative to other earthquakes; that's what is scaled exponentially. The total energy released by an earthquake is seismic moment, which is scaled on the moment magnitude scale. Somewhere not too far out of reach I have some sources on this stuff, if anyone is interested. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

USGS has a decent explanation of the 32x energy increase https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php Dave mathews86 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Earthquake Richter Scale.jpg

I agree that the top image is tacky and looks more like an impact PowerPoint slide than an encyclopedia figure. Many recent textbooks have very good figures that illustrate how frequency, damage, energy equivalents (even manmade events and volcanic), etc. change with magnitude. Is it possible to include one of those? Your table is at least a cleaner approach than the current figure. Dave mathews86 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(Experiment, in case anyone else disagrees with the concept of text as images)

Richter scale of earthquake energy
Each level is 10 times stronger than the previous level

	Description	Occurence	In Population	Movement
1	Small	Daily	Every minute	Small
2	Small	Daily	Every hour	Small
3	Small	Daily	Every day	Small
4	Small	Daily	Every week	Moderate sudden
5	Moderate	Monthly	Every 10 years	Strong sudden
6	Moderate	Monthly	Every 30 years	Strong sudden
7	Major	Monthly	Every 50 years	Severe sudden
8	Great	Yearly	Every 100 years	Very severe
9	Great	Yearly	Every 300 years	Very severe
10	Super	Rarely	Every 1000 years	Extreme

—suzukaze (t・c) 04:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Approx. # of quakes per year, globally.

Mag.	Class.	#
M = 8	Great	1
M = 7	Major	15
M = 6	Large	134
M = 5	Moderate	1319
M = 4	Small	~13,000

The figure is an interesting approach, but my initial reaction is that it doesn't work, on multiple grounds. E.g., the "occurence" rate (surely you meant "occurrence") is vague, doesn't clearly state the parameters (like, where?), even implies a regularity (every day) that is not correct. In this regard I think a simple table (adjacent) works better. The "population" column needs explanation. The "movement" column is intriguing, as I would expect something about the amount of movement (or offset), which can be roughly scaled with magnitude. But "sudden" suggests a rate or acceleration, such as intensity of shaking felt at a given location (which involves local factors) in terms of 'g' (acceleration).

Does the graph make sense

I am having trouble interpreting the user generated graphic [[Image:Earthquake_severity.jpg|thumb|| ]]. Sure. there is a correlation between magnitude and deaths or damage costs. But the graph has jumps in scale (top axis), seemingly arbitrary "Venn diagram" circles rating disruption/disaster/catastrophe, and how do you use the minutes-to-years axis? I love visual representations of data, but this seems to obscure any underlying information. Can you help me interpret or improve. @Webber: --Lucas559 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples

I have removed the recently added "1.93 M" example of the recent bombing in Turkey as being unuseful. It seems to me the basis for adding it is more on the basis of seeming au courant with current events, without adding any thing of value to the article. It is not the kind of thing with which the vast majority of readers would have any experience, and the effects of blast in open area air is not really comparable with the release of the same energy underground. And most certainly, terrorist bombings are not rated on the basis of Richter magnitude, nor is earthquake intensity rated on the basis of the number killed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Table two

using the formula: M = 2/3 log w/w0 where w0 = 15 grams of TNT, it gives the all values correctly (checked) except line final. it should be corrected to 12.5
100 Teraton TNT = 10^20 grams, so M = 2/3 log (10^20 / 15) = 12.549272
some certified examples:
w = 50 megatons = 5*10^13 grams, M = 2/3 log (5*10^13 / 15) = 8.34858583 (true)
w' = 9.5 metric tons = 9.5*10^6 grams, M = 2/3 log (9.5*10^6 / 15) = 3.867754897 (true)
w" = 480 kg = 4.8*10^5 grams, M = 2/3 log (4.8*10^5 / 15) = 3.00343332 (true)
w‴ = 800 megatons = 8*10^14 grams, M = 2/3 log (8*10^14 / 15) = 9.151332485 (true)
Tabascofernandez (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent copy-edits

I see several problems with your edits (which I am about to revert, per WP:BRD). E.g., replacing "As measured with a seismometer" with "As an example" rather misses the key point: that basis of "Richter's" scale is as measured on a seismometer. (I.e., there is no physical basis other than the measurement on a particular seismograph.)

As to "moment magnitude" being currently used by the USGS: well, yes, it is indeed used currently. But that carries a sense of "perhaps not in the future", which is totally misleading. And implies that "Richter's" scale – really the M_L scale – is not used, which is false. But the key fact that the "Richter magnitude" the newspapers (public generally) refer to is really M_L really does belong in the lead. That qualifiying that to "in the United States" and "used by the USGS" is parochial: I agree. But the fix is not to downgrade this key information, but to remove the qualification.

But that section is so buggered up (not your fault!) it should be enitrely re-written. (Which I might do myself. Easier than having to explain the various aspects.)

Shoving those two lines into a sub-section, with no other related content at that level (i.e., parallel subsections) is rather skewed. Likewise with splitting the "Richter magnitudes" section into "Magnitudes" and a "Richter" sub-section. What is the point of that? Are you confusing "Magnitudes" with magnitude scales? Are you thinking of adding other kinds of "magnitudes" (or magnitude scales)?

I think "Energy release" is a potentially viable section, but that is not the same as "Energy release equivalents". Which, at any rate, I am planning to remove (as previously mentioned).

I do not see what needs to be fixed with the picture. Inserting an expilict break in the caption is really unnecessary.

Finally: Richter did not "base" his scale on the astronomical scale of brightness. He incorporated the concept of a logarithmic scale.

The article probably should have a total rewrite. If you (or anyone else?) want to take it on I can point you to some sources. Otherwise I may get to it in a month or so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm an editor, not a scientist, so I will be happy to look at your new version "in a month or so." Cheers! Just let me know when you need a checkup! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand (that's who we're writing for). Tnx again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is always the challenge: "simple enough ... to understand", but also accurately conveying real (and interesting) information that doesn't mislead. It's not really so hard, but (sigh) many editors don't seem willing to make the effort. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The never ending story about the wrong and useless use of the richter scale

discussed there. --Itu (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Re Gutenberg as co-inventor

IP 140.112.54.158 please note the following.

If you have not yet read WP:BRD (describing how Reverts are to be followed by DISCUSSION, not by repeated addition of disputed material) please read it now.

After you have read about BRD you will understand: you should not revert a reversion. Come to Talk and Discuss. (Edit summaries are NOT a proper discussion.)

Continuing: when I initially reverted your Bold edit (re Gutenberg as co-inventor) I explained (here): "Please don't add Gutenberg without an authoritative source that says he was a co-inventor." To which you responded (in your edit summary): "It says so in the begging of the "Development" section and in Beno Gutenberg page."

Please note: First, that something is said somewhere is of no significance or effect here. You have to point to where that something is said, which we do by citing sources.

Second: we do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Each article has to do its own citation of outside sources.

Third: you do need to check any sources you cite. Don't take some other editor's word that the source supports the material; check the source yourself. And if you check the USGS page cited for that paragraph at "Development" you might notice that Gutenberg is mentioned only once, in connection with a different scale. So: even the the sources you allude to do not support your edit asserting Gutenberg as a co-inventor of the so-called "Richter scale".

I will be reverting (again) your edit. I strongly suggest you leave it be. Even if you come up with an incontrovertible source supporting "Gutenberg as co-inventor of the 'Richter' scale" – which, to judge by my reading of literature, is simply not the case – discuss it here first. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Page 137 of this biographical memoir on Gutenberg, cited in his Wikipedia biography, argues for a larger contribution by Gutenberg. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you are conflating Richter's individual effort in devising the M_L  scale with his collaboration with Gutenberg on magnitudes generally, and specifically in devising the M_s  scale. Your source does not argue "for a larger contribution by Gutenberg"; it only says: "Gutenberg had an important influence on Richter's publication in 1935 of the local magnitude scale." [Emphasis added.] Of course Gutenberg "had an influence" on Richter – they were close colleagues. Also having influence on him, and explicitly credited by him for a suggestion and prior work, are H. O. Wood, Maxwell Allen, and Kiyoo Wadati. None of whom worked with him on devising the Local scale, and none of whom are deem a co-inventor. Gutenberg is mentioned several times, but only for his data.

The bottom line is that Richter was the sole author of the paper that first presented what became the "Local" ("Richter") scale, and is so credited by reliable sources. That hundreds (?) of unreliable web pages credit Gutenberg as a co-inventor of the Local magnitude scale, without attribution to a reliable source, is of no consequence for us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. To be honest, I didn't have the time to look closely at the issue - just thought I'd make sure you'd seen this source. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, I had not seen that particular source. But being the sole author of the original paper is, I think, pretty compelling. And I have seen enough material to be pretty certain there were no notable challenges, like perhaps a dispute about credit. I've "quartered" that topic well enough to be pretty confident there aren't any elephants in view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the rude reversion. I am not famaliar with the rule about reversion. It is nice to put the controversy to open discussion. I found an interview with Charles Richter. Richter said:[1]

I refrained from attaching my personal name to it for a number of years... this somewhat underrates Gutenberg's part in developing it for further use...

According to the interview, it is Beno Gutenberg to suggest the logarithmic form in the definition of Richter magnitude scale. Also in another interview[2] (the same source that be cited in the end of the section "Development"), Richter said:

Incidentally, the usual designation of the magnitude scale to my name does less that justice to the great part that Dr. Gutenberg played in extending the scale to apply to earthquakes in all parts of the world.

I think it is fair to recognize Gutenberg as one of the contributors.140.112.54.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Does not matter. The criterion for stating that Gutenberg was a co-inventor is NOT what you (or us generally) think is fair, but WHAT THE SOURCES STATE. This has been explained to you, but as you seem to be deaf I feel I must repeat this: we go by WHAT THE SOURCES STATE.

As has been explained above (are you blind as well as deaf?): 1) Richter was (and remains) the sole author of the paper that presented his "magnitude" scale, which makes a strong case for being the sole inventor; 2) Richter did not credit (in the paper) Gutenberg as a contributor, though he did credit others; and 3) there is no indication that there has been any question of disputed, or even unfair, attribution.

Your behaviour here has not been of impartial consideration of some point to the end of improving the article; it is the pursuit of a particular point. That violates one of our core policies, that of WP:Neutral point of view. Your continuance in that mode, of a point that cannot be verified, your rejection (or ignoring) of input, your failure to "get the point", is tendentious. All of which are elements of WP:disruptive editing. Please note: disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Please take a deep breath. At the moment it is your behavior that is problematic. You are threatening this IP editor and making ad hominem attacks because they had the temerity to discuss this issue, as you requested. And why is an interview with Richter not a source? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My comments on apparent deafness and blindness are not "of the man", but of the evident behavior. I have no objection to discussion (nor even temerity), except that this discussion is getting tendentious. Nor have I denied your source, or anything it actually says, or what Richter actually says, or even the proposition that Gutenberg had an influence. However, none of that says that Gutenberg's contributions made him a co-inventor. What is the basis for saying otherwise? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clarified, I did not state Gutenberg as a co-inventor, but "... developed by Richter and Gutenberg." Richter first INVENTED it only for earthquakes in southern California. Later, Gutenberg and Richter DEVELOPED it further for earthquakes in whole world. [3] Finally, stop calling others blind or deaf which violates WP:NPA 140.112.54.158 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you grasp the concept that Richter "first INVENTED" the so-called "Richter scale". But that is not what the edit you desire says. You want to say that Richter and Gutenberg were co-developers. But you (and the article, in its current form) completely overlook that only one of them INVENTED the "magnitude" scale. In leaving out that significant fact you imply that they were equal contributors, and even equal INVENTORS, from the first. However, that is factually untrue. Sure, the lede uses the weasely qualification of "in the 1930s", which (it could be argued) brings in the four Gerlands Beiträge papers. But that leaves out the significant revisions in the 1950s. And the beginning of the "Development" section, that you explicitly reference, specifically pins this co-equal "development" to 1935, when Richter's paper presented the "magnitude" scale for the first time. The subsequent development of ML can be attributed to Gutenberg and Richter together, but it was RICHTER, and Richter alone, that "first INVENTED" it. To leave that out (what a lawyer would call "omission of a material fact") and imply – as you do — that Gutenberg was a co-inventor is historical revisionism, and a fraud upon the reader.

The article is very poorly written (embarrassingly so), and (not surprisingly) very poorly researched. It needs a major rewrite. Which I will start on when I get some time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have started a re-write. Haven't decided just how far I will go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Logarithmic base

Am I wrong, or isn't the Richter scale having a base of the sqr(1000). This makes a magnitude difference of 2 , a 1000 times more or less energy released. (Depending on perspective of comparing two earthquakes) Aside of the history part, I think we should explain the differences better (without removing the formulas). Boeing720 (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Base" is not the correct concept here. It's more a matter of the scaling being logarithmic. The reference point (datum) is the amplitude observed at 100 km from a magnitude 3 quake on a Wood-Anderson seismograph (with other caveats), as explained in the article. For sure that could be explained better. Even less well explained is that the energy scales at about 10^1.5 times the amplitude. I have tried to explain this better at Seismic_magnitude_scales#"Richter" magnitude scale, but this article is such a mess I am not even tempted to try. (There is more important work to do.) To do it properly would require some study of seismology. If you want tackle this article I would be pleased to offer some pointers. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I get what you tell me here, and I might well have expressed myself clumsy. I was only referring to the math and comparing, totally regardless of how earthquakes are measured. A difference of 1 in this scale is "a square-root of 1000" stronger or weaker, I have to presume. (Which is a logarithmic base I've never encountered before, I've actually never seen other bases than e and 10 in usable formulas before, and I found that part especially interesting) What I meant was just "sqr(1000)" (and preferably written with the commonly used symbol for square roots) is better than "31.6" , mathematically. Nothing more than that. For physics and technology related to this article, I'm not the right man. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That each unit of all earthquake magnitude scales is nearly numerically equal to "sqr(1000)" (and I quite understand the nomenclature) is probably a mere incidental, as I don't recall ever hearing or seeing "square root of 1000" in this context. It is a historical reality that Richter was measuring amplitude of shaking, which is logarithmic. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Just like I never have doubted your knowledge, I hope you too can see that I'm aware of for instance waves, amplitudes and frequencies (or the inverse of frequency, wave length etc).

What I mean is that we use the approximate number 31.6 instead of the exact math expression sqr(1000). I'm not questioning any of the methods used for measuring earthquakes. However all logarithms are based on one exact number, which in this case must be sqr(1000) [and can be mathematically written with an exponent (or power) instead, like sqr(x) = x^(1/2)].

It's about this sentence only: "Thus, a difference in magnitude of 1.0 is equivalent to a factor of 31.6...." which I think could be changed to "Thus, a difference in magnitude of 1.0 is equivalent to a factor of sqr(1000)....." but preferably with the commonly used sqr symbol used instead. We do not use 2.71 but e, nor 3.14 but pi and I think this is somewhat similar. Sqr(1000) is exact, 31.6 is an approximation. Boeing720 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I do recognize that you are cognizant of the math, but, as I said before, in my (somewhat limited) exposure to the math of seismology I don't recall seeing or hearing the relationship described (in any form) as "square root of 1000". And for majority of readers that is a useless exactness of an unknown quantity, whereas "31.6" is an immediately graspable quantity.

While a more precise form is suitable for more technical readers, in such cases we should go with the formulation found in the authoritative sources. And again, I don't recall seeing "sqr(1000)".

As I said in the preceding section, I consider the article very poorly written, and could use a major rewrite. But for the sentence in question, and considering the intended audience, I think "31.6" is better than "sqr(1000)". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Intro changes

@J. Johnson: Regarding this edit, in what way do you feel that my changes were incorrect? I have to say it's very frustrating to be told that my work was incorrect and shouldn't be changed back, but also to very explicitly not be given a reason why, or even which part of it is disputed. I feel that the resulting version has neutrality issues which should be addressed immediately, but without any rationale I can't make or propose any changes which you might find acceptable. A more cynical editor might read it as a way to get one's preferred version to stay up for longer without having to discuss it, perhaps in the hope that in the meantime other editors will lose interest. I take your edit summary at face value, though, that you simply didn't have enough time to explain, so I haven't reverted this revert, and I await your comments. -- Beland (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

And I'm running late today, and will probably take tomorrow off, but I will get to back you on this. Will also take a longer look. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for waiting.

Any issues the article currently has have been there for quite a while without any problem or remark, and I do not see that anything has suddenly become so urgent that a few days more or less makes any significant difference. I don't know which of your changes you consider a neutrality issue (perhaps regarding "name correctness"?); you'll have to point those out and perhaps explain why you think they are not neutral.

There are various points that could use critical consideration. (Or re-consideration – I have been over much of this before.) Your recent edits are a useful sample, so I hope you don't mind if we focus on those.

I don't know how much background you have in seismology so I will point out: there is no such thing as a "Richter magnitude scale". As explained in the article, Richter developed the first magnitude scale, which they simply called "magnitude scale", symbol "M". Later it was renamed the "Local magnitude scale", symbol "ML" or "M_L". "Richter magnitude scale" is a term of the media, applied indiscriminately and incorrectly by some to all reported magnitudes.

Because the term is generally used in the broader sense of "earthquake magnitude scale" (not specifically Richter's orignal scale) I think it is quite likely many (most?) readers will arrive at this article more interested in the broader topic. Therefore the {about} link to seismic magnitude scales is fully warranted. I think the link to the article on Richter is also useful, but that can be considered.

While the article's title might more properly be "Richter" magnitude scale (or some such), it is unlikely that is what readers search for. An argument might be made that the article might more properly be named "Richter scale", but I don't think it is important enough to bother with.

On the other hand, once the reader arrives at the lede it should be immediately made clear that all these appellations are informal, not having the same authority of (say) "moment magnitude scale", which is the real name of a real scale. The MOS says use of "so-called" should (as I think I said in one of my edit summaries) be considered carefully. It has been considered, and I believe the use is warranted.

You also objected (in this edit summary) to "tak[ing] a position on which name is correct", referring to "more accurately" text. However, this is not a matter of "which name" for something. Formally, there is not such thing as a "Richter magnitude scale". Informally it is often used (mistakenly) to refer to the "Local magnitude scale", and more often is just a generic reference to magnitude scales. This is explained at some length in Hough 2007, as cited in the previous note.

Re the "refers to the original" language: it is incorrect to state that any of these terms "is a" seismic magnitude scale, because, quite simply, they are not. They only refer to the original "magnitude scale", or to the the general concept of magnitude scales.

On the correlation of numeric values: again, the "especially for smaller earthquakes" is simply not correct. Most scales are adjusted to correspond in the mid range (around M 6), then diverge rapidly above that. They also diverge at the low end, but the problem there is some scales Aare not practical. See figure 4 in Kanmori 1983, and (even better) figure 3.70a (Utsu's diagram) in Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013 (NMSOP-2 Ch3 ).

I am inclined to agree that "ML" should be displayed in a subscripted form. Not for parallelism with M_w , but for general consistency. However, that broaches a deeper issue of how to do that, which I am going to raise as a separate discussion.

Cheers. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This article appears to be about the earthquake magnitude scale defined by Richter in 1935. What is the common name (following WP:COMMONNAME) for that scale? I don't hear "Richter magnitude scale" in the press, only "Richter scale" and certainly not "local magnitude scale". By my reading, the article contradicts the claim that there is "no such thing" as the "Richter magnitude scale"; it says that this name usually refers to the 1935 scale. It seems that before other similar scales were invented, that name was unambiguous and certainly the common name. All else being equal, terms used in the popular press are just as "real" as scientific names, and Wikipedia has to be neutral and not say that the "real" name of an idea is the scientific one, or label the popular name "so-called". In this case (and many cases) all things are not exactly equal, and the scientific names are less ambiguous. If you think "Richter scale" has become too muddled of a term to be considered to usually refer to any one thing, then I would propose turning Richter scale into a disambiguation page, and renaming this article to local magnitude scale. Based on what I see in dictionaries and press coverage and Encyclopedia Britannica's entry [4], I believe the current claim of the article that "Richter scale" usually refers to the 1935 scale, but is sometimes used in press coverage as a catchall for all similar scales. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's quite cumbersome to distinguish between the name for a thing and the thing. For example, in earthquake we don't say things like "Earthquake is the name for the shaking of the surface of the Earth"; we say "An earthquake is the shaking of the surface of the Earth..." That said, we should definitely make clear the nature of the different names when they are heterogeneous like this, like we do on say J.K. Rowling, where actually the first bold phrase is the legal name but not the common one and not the title of the article. I'll do a rearrangement and see how we like it. -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Richter doesn't redirect here, so I'm not sure how someone interested in Charles Richter would have ended up here. His name is linked from the first paragraph, so in the interest of highlighting the much more important clarification about the different scales, I'll drop the link to his biography from the hatnote, making it a single instead of a double disambiguation. -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine.

Your statement that "terms used in the popular press are just as "real" as scientific names" needs a finer consideration. In the sense of "such terms are used", sure, "just as 'real'". But that does not make them accurate or legitimate. And as a matter of fact earthquake magnitude scales do have official names and symbols, as adopted by seismologists (particularly, the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth´s Interior (IASPEI) of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; see Information Sheet IS 3.3 Information Sheet IS 3.2 ["off by one" error. :-0 ]), and incorporated into standard seismological practice (see the NMSOP). There is no law that says you have to use these names, but if you said an earthquake hit "6" on "Chuck's Quakey-Shakey Scale" it would be a bit of a mystery of just what you meant, and an impediment to accurate communication of information. So while we can use terms or phrases like "the magnitude scale developed by Richter", or "Richter's magnitude scale", to refer to Richter's original 1935 scale, terms are not necessarily names, and there is no magnitude scale with the name of "Richter magnitude scale". For what is is worth, the "official" and standard name for the scale originally developed by Richter is Local magnitude scale (M_L ).

As to being a disambiguation page: in regard of "Richter scale", etc., I think we are have to deal with readers who, if told "Richter's original magnitude scale" is this way, "other magnitude scales" that way, etc., would be flummoxed, in not understanding just what all those choices are.

And yes, by that same consideration much of this article is currently too technical (as well as poorly written), and ought to be rewritten. Which I would love to do someday, but no time at present. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If lots of people call the 1935 scale (or the MMS scale or both) "Richter scale", then it's a name, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by any particular organization. And I do hear "Richter scale" used all the time in the press as a name. "Legitimacy" is a matter of opinion on which Wikipedia is neutral. "Official" is more objective as long as there's no particular controversy about which authorities proclaim official names of things. Accuracy and specificity and unambiguity are certainly not present in all names. For example, "Jack" is very ambiguous, but just being ambiguous or informal or partial not the legal name of a person doesn't mean it's not a name.

Bringing this back to the specific articles in question, neither names like Richter scale nor non-name terms like the original earthquake magnitude scale have quote marks in them, so I don't see why these quote marks would be conforming to Wikipedia house style. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(I'll note that in its public glossary, the USGS uses "Richter scale" and "Richter magnitude scale" interchangeably as the name of the 1935 scale. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have rolled backed your "Intro" changes, particularly because of the "Richter" to "Local" change: this is not the local magnitude scale article.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, or didn't explain enough? At any rate, it seems you don't understand certain points. In particular: although Richter's original scale was referred to simply as the "magnitude scale" (and I use quotes because without use of capitals or italics it would be unclear as to the precise phrase I am referring to), and was later called "local magnitude", and although the modern "Local magnitude scale" is derived from Richter's original scale, it is not the same as the 1935 scale. (There have been subsequent revisions.)

And please note that the USGS does not "use" (as you said) "Richter scale" for reporting earthquake magnitudes. Its inclusion in the glossary is a sop to the many readers that have picked it up from the mass media. You might note they actually describe it rather generally, as roughly applicable to all magnitude scales.

More on this later (I'm out of time for today). Please refrain from such Bold editing until we actually have some agreement on how to proceed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that the USGS uses the term "Richter scale" for reporting earthquake magnitudes, just that this is a name they use for the original scale. The citation is to their glossary; if you look at an earthquake report like this one you'll see the specific scale that's used is reported in technical notation (in this case M_d ). They have a FAQ page specifically addressing the question Moment magnitude, Richter scale - what are the different magnitude scales, and why are there so many? That pages does not use "Richter scale" or similar to describe any scale other than M_L , and has distinct names for the others and does not lump them all under the same term. About the original 1935 scale it says: "The idea of a logarithmic earthquake magnitude scale was first developed by Charles Richter in the 1930's for measuring the size of earthquakes occurring in southern California using relatively high-frequency data from nearby seismograph stations. This magnitude scale was referred to as ML, with the L standing for local. This is what was to eventually become known as the Richter magnitude." They do not use quotation marks. Do you see quote marks used in any other reputable general-audience sources that might justify this revert?

Before I clobbered it, the intro did say that the 1935 scale was "revised and renamed". Your latest comment makes me question whether dropping that was too hasty, but looking at this more carefully has only left me with more questions about whether the article should have made this claim in the first place. Though the article has detailed equations, it does not say anything about the original formula being different than the modern M_L  formula. You said in your above comments that the "official" and standard name for the scale originally developed by Richter is Local magnitude scale which sounds to me like that's saying there were in fact no changes other than the name, if by "originally" you mean the 1935 scale. Local magnitude scale does redirect here, so if it is in any substantial way different than the equations listed, that should be explained to readers who might be relying on the article to interpret a magnitude reported as M_L . If the "revisions" are simply reformulations that express the same numeric input-output relationships in a different way, (like the different formulations of Maxwell's equations, or using different letters, or writing Newton's laws in English or equations instead of the original Latin) then I would treat the name as applying to the relationship and not the particular notation used, and drop the name distinction. A difference in notation could be explained in the article, but would mostly only be of historical interest (which is great; I love the history of science!). If there were more substantial revisions (like that would actually change the calculated magnitude for a given earthquake), then retaining "magnitude scale" vs "local magnitude scale" would be more appropriate, though it would be unclear which "Richter scale" refers to. I was unable to find any relevant sources in a quick web search (not surprising for technical theories of this age) so if you have any insight or sources on the "revisions", that would be very helpful.

In the meantime, I have made some edits retaining the "magnitude scale" vs "local magnitude scale" but eliminating any potentially judgemental language surrounding name alternatives, and restoring clarifications that your comments didn't dispute which apparently got swept up in the revert. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I regret there is no easy way to take out your questionable edits without losing the laudable ones, but I do not feel like picking through them individually. As long as you continue to edit ahead of where we have consensus I will consider mass rollbacks a valid option. I would suggest refraining from such bold content editing until we have sorted this out. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than the missing info about what revisions may have occurred to the 1935 scale, I'm happy with the current intro. -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not as displeasing as it was, but not yet perfect. (E.g.: "strength" is ambiguous here, is often taken as strength of shaking, so seismologists prefer "size", but the meaning of that is not clear to non-seismologists.) I don't know what kind of relevant sources you were seeking, but I strongly recommend the NMSOP-2 and IS 3.2 (per links above, as revised). Technical, but not all that hard, and essential for understanding what we would explain.

Regarding later developments: the source you should read is Hutton & Boore 1987. (In addition to MNSOP Chapter 3!)You should also read Chung & Bernreuter 1980. Citations in the article.

By the way, please be more careful about previewing before saving. Your last edit raised some big red error messages where you used {{M|o}} instead of {{M|0}} (that should be a zero).

Also: I try to respond (to edits and comments) when I can, but that is not always right away; lack of response should not taken as assent. To avoid complications, please try to not run too far ahead of the discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't intending on reading any of those or adding any more info; I was just here to correct the obvious problems. -- Beland (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

On the method of formatting labels

The {{M}} template was created to provide an easy way of generating accurate and consistent magnitude labels in Wikipedia. (Accuracy and consistency are issues because WP editors often try to emulate what they see in their sources, which differ in various aspects.) {M} also tweaks the labels in certain cases so that characters that may be ambiguous in some fonts are displayed clearly, and tracks usage. I generally encourage use of {M} as the preferred method so that we have consistent and accurate display of labels.

Exceptions where explicit formating might be used include cases not handled by {M} (rare), where some aspect of the label itself is being discussed, and in formulas. (Possibly other cases, but I don't recall them.) I believe most instances (including my own) of formatting magnitudes explicitly with <sub> either predate the availability of {M}, or arise from old habit.

With due regard for possible exceptions, I am wondering if we should endorse the {{M}} template as the preferred method for displaying magnitude labels, and proceed to replace all explicit formatting of magnitude labels with the templated form.

Comments? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, once I noticed it existed I've been using {{M}} everywhere possible. -- Beland (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I am asking whether 1) we should endorse use of the template as the preferred form for the article (not just our personal preference), and if so then 2) convert other forms (such as use of <sub>) with the templated form. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, anywhere "M" is used in notation reporting an earthquake magnitude or naming a scale (and not including when being used in larger mathematical formulas), in any article, my personal preference would be to change over to the template markup. -- Beland (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I added this suggestion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes#Guidelines, if anyone is still looking there. -- Beland (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your personal preference, as well as my personal preference, is to use {M}, including (my second point) converting from other forms. But the question is: do we want to establish this as the form (style) expected in this article from all editors, regardless of anyone's personal preference?

By the way, note that we also have uses of <math> markup for formatting outside of equations. That definitely should be replaced (<math> markup can cause display problems).

Also, watch for possible cases – most likely in the lead – where explicit formatting is used deliberately to show a form used in a source that is not obtainable from {M}. I think I have seen some, but don't remember where. (Might even be my own work!) At any rate, any such cases should be noted for a deeper look. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already said yes twice, and added the suggestion to use {{M}} to the guideline for all earthquake articles, so...yes?

I just converted all the math-markup M instances in this article outside of equations to use the template. Feel free to correct any oopsies. -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Though as you may have noted, TM objects to template usage in titles in citations, and has removed the templating. I see our options as: 1) Try explicit formatting, and see if that raises an objection. 2) Go back to <math> markup (yuck). 3) Accept "ML" (etc.) as a suitable replacement for M_L  in titles.

On the use of {M}: Please note the difference between use {M} as our personal preference, and use of {M} a requirement of this article. I take your comment as assent for asserting the latter. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, citations are already using templates so nesting them isn't necessarily going to work. I updated the recommendation for WikiProject Earthquakes to use subscripts for inside citations.

Yes, I was expressing my personal preference for what Wikipedia should do, not my personal preference for my personal writing or something else. I don't know why we're splitting hairs on this, because there has never been any disagreement. -- Beland (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Such "split hairs" are exactly the kind of misunderstanding that lead to confusion and disagreements. But we're clear on this now, so fine.

I don't know if the problem with citations is simply inclusion of any template within cs1/2 code, or something more specific. I think it would be useful to conduct some experiments to find out. E.g., trying {{sub}}. I'm actually a bit surprised that <math> is accepted; possibly that is screened. In which case one wonders why templates can't be also screened. (Aside from the purely personal preferences of TM.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I would assume that parsing of the outer templates is confused by the inner templates; it's a common problem with templates. But feel free to play around. I have no particular intention of further editing on this. -- Beland (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So you are just passing through? Hell, I was hoping you might stick around to help rewrite this. (I think it needs to be split into two articles.) Oh, well, there's no particular hurry for that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)