Jump to content

Talk:Seismic magnitude scales/Archive 1

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

ISC event # ?

@Dawnseeker2000: Check out the "ISC #" in the table I've added at Seismic scale#Mw. It links to the ISC Catalog's event number, which is the most comprehensive and most authoritative spec sheet you can get on an earthquake. What do you think about having that as a standard feature in the various lists? (Well, for the period covered, which I think is since 1900.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That is nice having the beach ball in there. Also interesting that it's a composite listing that includes text from the USGS. I actually wasn't even aware of this presentation (just been getting the newest version of the catalog in spreadsheet form each January). I have grown to trust and rely on them quite a bit. It could definitely be an option, but there still might be occasions when their catalog isn't the best option to use. In the country lists I have made effort to try not to overuse one source more than another (or just use as much variation as possible) so using ISC could provide another option to the mix. Dawnseeker2000 03:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the ISC catalog (and bulletin) isn't for all cases (such as older historical events). But for all modern events it is, as the documentation says, the final archive and most authoritative source. (Even the USGS says this, somewhere on their website.) There should be no hesitation for referencing the ISC in all pertinent cases: it simply is the reliable source for earthquake data. The main, and nearly only alternatives, are the USGS PDE and 30-day catalogs. The only case I see for citing a newspaper or any kind of mass media for a magnitude is where it is not the magnitude per se that is of interest, but something about the reporting. (Like, perhaps, a claim of a M 10 earthquake.) Not even for initial reports, because, aside from the initial on-scene "hey, we just got rocked big time", where do you think the mass media gets this information? From the PDE! Which, in just a day or so, is posted on... the ISC.
Anyway, I'm thinking the ISC event number would be a good standard datum. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Just as I clicked on [Save] I remembered: the ISC would like credit for use of their data. I have not yet worked out a handy way of doing that. If you're going to be citing them perhaps we can experiment with some ways of doing that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Refimprove tag? And a split?

@Mikenorton:: I was planning on leaving the {refimprove} tag in, as it still applies to the intensity scale portion. I'm also thinking of splitting the article into Seismic scale (intensity) and Seismic scale (magnitude), with the tag going to the former. There is more that could be said about intensity scales, and originally I thought both classes could be handled in the same article. But now I feel they are different enough justify separate articles. One problem: I think both will need the same clarification of their difference, and there might be some objection at the duplication of material. What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, added back in a refimprove section template. Mikenorton (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Attention page watchers (all 32 of you, and especially the 8 who have recently visited): I am planning to split this article, as described above. This article would be retained for the first section ("Earthquake magnitude and ground-shaking intensity"), and then point to the new articles. Perhaps Seismic magnitude scales and Seismic intensity scales. (Seems to me we have some rule against plurals, but I keep coming back to that; it just seems more natural, more proper.) Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have checked WP:PLURALS, and per "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" the plural form seems acceptable. In particular: "Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title ...." There being no stated objections, I am about to proceed with renaming and a split. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The split is done. This article is now focusing on magnitude scales (with more work forthcoming). If you are interested in intensity scales add Seismic intensity scales to your watchlist. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fill" as ground motion amplifier?

The article states that "soft soil (such as fill) can amplify seismic waves". User:Argyriou changed "fill" to "bay mud", stating that "fill is not the culprit in amplification".

I don't know if "culprit is quite the right word to use here. But it seems quite clear that fill (of all kinds, and often on top of "bay mud") is strongly associated with amplification. (I don't have a source right at hand, but I believe I can support that, if necessary.) While "bay mud" seems a valid instance of "soft soil", I think that is too narrow, and that usage rather whitewashes "fill" (such as neighborhoods are built on) as being a significant factor in strong ground motion hazard. Still, I am open to any better formulations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, fill does not amplify seismic motion unless it's very thick or saturated and very loose, though the wrong sorts of fill will liquefy or slide in an earthquake, which can be more damaging than the shaking alone. Amplification is caused by thick layers of very soft soils, as explained in the Seismic site effects article. (Also see https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/soiltype/ and https://pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakehazards/site-effects ) "Fill" is much too broad a term - most engineered fills, and lots of crappy ones, will not amplify seismic motions more than nearby native soils. In general, only hydraulic fills which remain saturated will cause noticeable seismic amplification. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I can see "fill" as being (in a certain sense) too broad. It also doesn't cover other soft soils, such as alluvium, but then it wasn't intended as a definition, just as an example. However, I still find "bay mud" too narrow. Can we find a better example? Or could we go with something like "such as certain types of fill"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Amplification mostly happens in soft natural soils, and not all alluvial soils are soft. The main problem with fill in an earthquake is that strong ground shaking can do bad things to the structure of the fill, making damage at the surface worse, and that fills placed a long time ago on shorelines tends to be on soils which amplify shaking, so the shaking is stronger under those fills. Since the sentence gives "fill" as an (misleading) example, using "Bay Mud" as an (correct) example seems a good way to go. Since I'm not clear whether it's called Bay Mud most places it occurs, it may be better to say "soft estuarine deposits" or "unconsolidated sediments". Argyriou (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm still not happy with bay mud. That hydrologists and geoengineers use it in a fairly-well defined way notwithstanding, it comes across to me – and I suspect most readers — as an ordinary, generic term referring to ordinary mud in "the bay". But that is not the point of concern in regard of seismic hazard, which is generally of structures (etc.) built on fill (type generally unspecified), possibly on top of "bay mud". Which is not to say that all fill presents increased seismic hazard, but that is the kind of site where this increased hazard is typically found. (That the true "culprit" is some underlying "bay mud" is fine point I don't recall seeing on any kind of hazard or planning maps.)
So: would "such as certain kinds of fill" be acceptable for you? In theory we could add a link, but I haven't seen anything I would want to link to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seismic magnitude scales. 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) 17:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Body wave magnitude

@Rhadow: While I think (perhaps both of us?) that building Body wave magnitude up to a full article would be preferable, lacking that I agree with redirecting it here. However, I don't believe those two paragraphs are appropriate here for this article. The approach I have taken here is to provide a largely non-technical summary of multiple scales suitable for a general audience; the details should be in that topic's main article. So I am going to remove them; I hope that will be okay with you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Rhadow (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seismic scales: not singular

@A876: Re your renaming of this page (and related pages) from the plural form to the singular form. That is incorrect.

The "generally accepted standard" pertinent here is found at WP:PLURALS, which starts: "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles". But! "Exceptions exist". Notably: articles on groups or classes of specific things. Particular examples:

  • Topics like Maxwell's equations ("The topic is naturally the system of equations...."),
  • "Articles on particular language groups, as opposed to individual languages", and
  • "Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance."

The latter is especially apt, as that is precisely the situation we have here. There are around two dozen earthquake magnitude scales in use (or have been used, and remain in the historical record), with about ten used (so far) on WP. Only five of those scales have their own articles. This article covers "multiple distinct instances" for which separate articles would be inappropriate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The long-standing plural titles [Seismic scales], [Seismic magnitude scales], and [Seismic intensity scales] were either sensible, or an old, unnecessary inconsistency that didn't exceed enough editors' annoyance threshold to provoke renaming (until I made them singular).
I thought there would be no reasonable objection. Maybe I got it wrong. (We're trying Bold-DISCUSS-Revert for these edits.)
Singular article titles (and plural category names) are the norm. Articles having singular titles, such as [dog] (about dogs), [cat], etc., might discomfort many, but they are the norm, and accepted by most after a little thought.
(Ironically, many articles create dissonance when their first (bolded) and subsequent mentions of the title are plural. [Animal] begins "Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals ...." Of course, such articles should not be renamed, nor should they be contorted to make the first mention singular.)
Many articles are "exceptions" – they necessarily and correctly have plural titles.
I'm pondering the official guidelines to see whether they decisively inform this case, and for patterns in similar cases. Several factors or tests could help decide.
-- The rest here is "draft". A more-methodical breakdown will be added. --
A singular title sometimes sounds "forced" when the noun has modifiers.
Simple tests might involve whether one can comfortably place "the", "a", "which", or "one of the" before the term.
Possibly similar cases – articles with singular titles:
Possibly similar cases – articles with plural titles:
More cases: [Language], but [Romance languages] (established). Consider [Sign language], but [Vietnamese sign languages] (similar rule). But: not [Sign languages].
(Again, not decided; still looking for similar cases and comparing their sense to this case.) - A876 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The accepted standard here is WP:PLURALS, and there is a pertinent example. Is that not clear? Or is there some deeper reason why you resist the plural form? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion, perhaps you could take a few minutes to restore the original names? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
As you are apparently way too busy to attend to this little detail I have restored the previous names myself. You're welcome. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"The accepted standard here" is "singular, except ...". Where you see "clear" that this is one of those exceptions, I still see a "close call". I find your certainty and adamancy puzzling. If you've thought about it, roll with it. It can rest on either side of the Great Divide. Maybe someday I'll WP:RM#CM, but only if I've built a case that WP is a better encyclopedia if this article title is NOT an exception – without coming to agree with you on the way. The "pertinent example" is close; it might or might not be "apt". Other possible examples and counterexamples turn up occasionally; I collect them when I notice. Most seem correct; a few seem dubious. Sign language seems close to your case - although it discusses the concept of "sign language[s]", doesn't it go on to distinguish among multiple distinct instances? But it doesn't tempt anyone to create an inappropriately large number of short articles. (And that case is tangled – one could say the exception used for [Romance languages] applies, except that many sign languages evolved in isolation (with or without influence of whatever the local language happened to be), so they are not a "language family".) - A876 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In your stream of consciousness I don't see that you have presented any case or argument why these articles should be singular (i.e., one of the exceptions allowd by WP:PLURALS). For a fact, you seem uncertain about it (a "close call"), and it appears that your renaming was more impulsive than truly deliberative. My certainty on the matter arises from having considered the matter. I don't claim that my considerations were complete or perfect, and no matter how certain I may feel about my result I don't reject the possibility of "'tain't so". Nonetheless, I think my position is more firmly founded than your position, which seems to be: maybe not an exception?
On a more specific point: the Sign language article does not describe individual, or even classes of, sign languages (except incidentally); it is about the concept of "sign language", generally and in the abstract, covering aspects common to sign languages generally. The article here, though covering some shared aspects, does distinguish specific scales, and treats them individually.
You seem to be interpreting this "multiple distinct instances" exception as applying only if the only alternative is to "create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance." Or perhaps only if someone is tempted to do so? Well, any tempation to create individiual articles here is quickly quenched by the realization that full articles on even just the main scales would be daunting, with much overlap, and some of the scales, not rising to a level of notability, would lack an article. But in theory, yes, that is an alternative (whether anyone is tempted or not), just not a practicable one. As to what constitutes an "inappropriately large number": your mileage may vary, but I say that even two could be "inappropriately large". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seismic_magnitude_scales/Archive_1&oldid=1129009648"