Talk:List of earthquakes in 2023

Inclusion criteria yet again

I have just removed an earthquake in Pakistan whose only claim for inclusion is the presence of damage. The cited source only mentions that some mud houses were damaged, it includes nothing to suggest that this damage was significant. We should I think only include events for which the sources clearly support significant damage. Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Elbistan earthquake deaths

Now I found a source saying that 924 people died in Elbistan, which I added to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake article. Another source in that article said that "3 buildings collapsed in the mainshock and over 2,000 others in the Mw7.6 aftershock in Elbistan". Although we don't know exactly, and they might be attributed to the mainshock for simplicity purposes, I think they should be attributed to the aftershock becuase of the stuff I just explained. I almost added the 924 dead to the aftershock, but I don't need you to fix my troubles again because nobody deserves that, only me. What do you guys think? Quake1234 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume that the turkish agencies give combined numbers for the 7.8 Quake along the Dead-Sea-Transform-Fault/East Anatolian Fault and the 7.7 at the Cardak-Sürgü-Fault. Since locally, Areas of Destruction overlap. And clearly the 7.7 was triggered by the 7.8.

Though mentoning the second Quakes deaths in the article makes sense.But it doesn´t raise the cummulated Deathtoll of the Year since these Deaths are already included with the death Toll of the 7.8.

Here its clear, that its a combined death toll. https://www.afad.gov.tr/kahramanmarasta-meydana-gelen-depremler-hk-36 185.13.31.131 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

@Quake1234 The sources for the Mw 7.5 event does not distinguish casualties from the Mw 7.8. How did you calculate 1,126 deaths? It seems like you're misrepresenting sources and making assumptions. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If you go on notes you will find the calculated numbers used for the death toll Quake1234 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Quake1234 OBV I've read that. I even looked at the sources; some of they do not verify that those deaths were attributed to the second M7. This source by DHA does not explicitly state all 924 deaths were because of that one single event. These sources (1, 2) also do not verify claims in the description. Only Türkiye Gazetesi actually verifies at least 4 dead from the second M7; then again the description gives 11 deaths. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all figures from the second M7 because the death toll of 53K would've included deaths from all earthquakes and its immediate aftershocks. Since there's no way of distinguishing between each events, they should not be treated as separate. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Greenvale earthquake" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2023 Greenvale earthquake has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29 § 2023 Greenvale earthquake until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

October earthquakes

Look at 2023 Herat earthquakes. The depths differ from what mentioned here. Aminabzz (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Road damage

not really sure if the quakes in Costa Rica are notable for it to be included in this page, there wasn't any significant building damage there but it is in the roads per the sources I found [1] [2] Filipinohere (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We need to define what road means in the source context. The source fortunately had an image which shows it was a paved one and not some dirt/gravel type.

It appears to just be cracks on the road which isn't significant damage. Shouldn't be included into the list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Long page

so if ever that the Post-expand include size would be surpassed again, I will devise a new rule that we will remove some unnecessary info, copyedit others and remove unnecessary citations. Filipinohere (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Some places are overlinked. Also a probable need to check overlink in country names. Borgenland (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should also tighten up on the inclusion criteria. There is a tendency to try to find sources that justify adding an event to the list rather than considering whether it really belongs here. I note that looking at page sizes using the "Page size" tool (with size of the reference sections) since 2017 are: 2018 860 kB (363 kB), 2019 932 kB (403 kB), 2020 877 kB (387 kB), 2021 1315 kB (664 kB), 2022 1462 kB (835 kB) and 2023 1600 kB (1002 kB). This suggest that up to 2020, the page sizes were roughly constant, but since then they're expanding year on year. There are certainly far too many citations, but there are also more earthquakes listed - totals are 2018 - 211, 2019 - 225, 2020 - 217, 2021 - 299, 2022 - 268 and 2023 - 289. Again the number of events listed was fairly constant up to 2020. Mikenorton (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I did manage to free up some text by shortening impact summaries. However the last few citations have errors because the post expand include size has returned. For earthquakes with their own articles, I think the page itself should be cited rather than have citations from that page copied onto here. We could also remove less significant tremors. We may even have to limit the earthquakes to only those that have caused injuries and/or deaths. If you're reading this, try and do something because citations are important for pages like this. You don't need to care about the templates. Quake1234 (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideas to fix the Post-expand include size error

As mentioned in the above section "Long page", the page has too much in store, to the point where citations and some templates don't load properly. Here are some ideas listed below. I want to try these now, but I want to see if you guys agree with me first, as it will make the page look noticeably different from previous years.

1. For pages with articles, earthquakes with articles will simply have "Main article: 2023 X earthquake" instead of a simple analysis of the event. Doing this will free up a lot of space, especially when earthquakes with pages have a lot of info in this article.

2. Extremely simplified descriptions; instead of something like "1 killed, 30 others injured, 95 houses destroyed and 556 others damaged", it will be something like "1 death, 30 injuries, 95 collapsed houses and 556 damaged houses". We should also change words to shorter versions that mean the same thing; for example "houses" will be replaced by "homes".

3. Citations; citations will have only a bit of info (title, url, publisher, date, etc), instead of adding arhive-urls to working pages and other unexplained stuff.

If you agree on at least one reason, give that reason a Support, and if you disagree on at least one reason, give that reason an Oppose. Quake1234 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I support reason 3 because archive urls will actually only help if the url is dead. Also I noticed that one thing that makes the page so long is Persian and Arabic language articles that when copied into clipboard like this [3] and this [4] is so long that it makes page longer. Filipinohere (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The most obvious thing is to tighten up the criteria for inclusion, as I mentioned in the previous section. I just remove an earthquake from Turkey where the cited source described the damage as cracks in the walls of three buildings - this is not significant damage in my view. The two injured people had falls on stairs but as the source says "It was stated that the health conditions of the injured citizens did not have any serious adverse effects" - so only minior injuries. We should be only including events which have significant impact I think in terms of significant damage to either buildings or people. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, the obvious first step is to get rid of all the flag icons. Those add little to no information to the article (the names of the countries are right next to them in every case), and every single one is a template that loads an image. Removing the flag templates will do more for the size of the page than tightening up prose or removing citation template parameters. They're just decorative. Folly Mox (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Results of running the WP:PROSESIZE gadget:

• HTML document size: 1607 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 865 B
• References (including all HTML code): 978 kB
• Wiki text: 353 kB
• Prose size (text only): 453 B (73 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 121 kB

Subbing out the URL-escaped elements for the Farsi and Arabic sources (of which there are what? like twelve out of 730?) won't save that much space: four bytes per glyph to make the reader's browser perform the conversion, plus any bot that touches the citation later will put it back how it is now. Removing the archives to live sources might help a bit (they'll still be there to readd if the link goes dead). Removing |access-date= in cases where |access-date= archive-date might also save a bit of space.

Having never edited this article (I saw it reported at the Teahouse or something), my first choice is still to remove the flags, but thought the data above might be helpful. Folly Mox (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should strictly exclude below 6.0 quakes unless someone really dies or a notable structure (one with a wiki article) is destroyed. Borgenland (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that 1) we should only keep magnitude 6.0 earthquakes or lower that causes only injuries or many collapsed buildings, or 2) if an earthquake in the list already has its own article, make it like this format: "see: "2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake" since it would just a waste of time if readers were to read every info that is already in the page (it means that I agree to User:Quake1234's suggestion). Filipinohere (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How about setting minimums for numbers of injured? Like ten probably. Borgenland (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification. Will this also be a precedent for previous years? Borgenland (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

it depends. Because in my observation in the previous years, the description section of each year has (mostly) only at least one citation each. Filipinohere (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't that happy when Mike removed some eqs listed because of lack of "significantness" based on his standards, but he still has a point though. Filipinohere (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the removals could be added back now that the article has been significantly trimmed. Borgenland (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer not. We need some sort of criteria for inclusion in these list by year articles, currently at the head of the article it states "Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in significant damage and/or casualties." In terms of what counts as "signifcant damage", I would say collapsed buildings (preferably more than one) or other types of serious damage, would count, but not cracks in walls, dislodged roof tiles or similar. For "casualties" I would include any deaths or serious injuries but not minor injuries, panic attacks etc. As an example, I removed an earthquake from Indonesia in February where the cited source showed that the damage to the school consisted of a few dislodged ceiling panels and the injured pupil was treated for her minor injury by her teachers, I don't see this event as having a significant impact based on that. We could reword the section to say "unless they result in a significant impact due to major damage, deaths or serious injuries." This would remove relatively few earthquakes, although help with article size but would keep the more notable ones less than M6. Regarding flags, I would be happy to see them all go as they are redundant - each event has the country named anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree except for the flags, Personally I get to identify countries quicker with them and helps me distinguish between earthquakes in the middle of the ocean. Borgenland (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Earthquake in noto, Japan

We have an earthquake in Noto, Ishikawa and all Hokuriku areas. Judging by the magnitude, this is definitely Notable. Help is requested. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

wait I’m and idiot let me post this in 2024 ty AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGammsh article has been created 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)