Talk:Earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Geology Top‑importance

Talk:Earthquake is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In major section 'Effects' subsection 'Human impact' bullet point 'Damage to critical infrastructure' sub bullet point is 'Water, power, swear and gas interruption'. 'swear' should be 'sewer'. 98.184.24.73 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dawnseeker2000 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In today's Concise Crossword in the Sunday Times (which is published in the UK) the word 'seism' is given as the answer to the clue 'earthquake'. Hence I would like to be able to edit the first line of Wikipedia's page 'Earthquake' to read "... also called a quake, tremor, seism or temblor". However the page is semi-protected so I'm not allowed to do that edit. Could that edit please be done by someone who already has permission to do edits to Wikipedia's 'Earthquake' page? Or could I be given permission to do that edit, please? Anameisbutaname^Talk 09:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having discovered I'm an auto-confirmed user, I was able to add'seism' to the first line. Two sources confirm this usage: the UK's Sunday Times Concise Crossword gives it as the answer to the clue "Earthquake" and the DanWord website, which gives answers to crossword clues, states it as an answer in their results for the clue "Earthquake - crossword puzzle clues & answers".

Anameisbutaname^Talk 12:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that it's common enough to be included. Crosswords often use obscure words, so I'm not sure that helps. I've always been unsure about "temblor" as well, which is not in general global use. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. There is a separate Wikipedia page for 'Temblor'. It is headed "Temblor may refer to:" and goes on to include "Temblor, another name for earthquake". 'Temblor' is listed in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary as having been in use as a synonym for earthquake since 1896. As Webster's is an American English dictionary, I think "temblor" probably should stay in the 'Earthquake' page of Wikipedia. However Webster's doesn't show 'seism' as a separate word, only as the prefix "seism-", so I think you're right and I'll now remove it from the text of the article. Anameisbutaname^Talk 14:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware that "temblor" has widespread usage in the US, just not most other places. I've not objected to it being in the opening sentence before, so I'll continue to live with it. Mikenorton (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says, the "occurence" section of the article is difficult for those who are not experts or enthusiasts to understand. These concepts should be explained more thoroughly, and technical language shouldn't be used more than strictly necessary in my opinion. I don't have anything to say one way or the other about the accuracy of the content, as I'm not an expert. 98.113.136.162 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Simple Wikipedia/Earthquake. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I'm responsible for large parts of that section and you're almost certainly right. At the time, as I recall, accuracy was the most important thing. I would be very happy to work with any other editors to improve the too technical parts. Mikenorton (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no explanation of how earthquakes can occur away from the tectonic fault lines. Seems like this article should have at least a mention of intraplate earthquakes? 75.80.55.152 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly should be a mention, although virtually all earthquakes are caused by movement along tectonic faults, just not necessarily along tectonic plate boundaries. Any rewrite should include this. Mikenorton (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]