Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 274: Line 274:
{{requested move/dated|2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes}}
{{requested move/dated|2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes}}


[[:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake]] → {{no redirect|2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes}} – Two earthquakes hit the region. [[User:Ayıntaplı|Ayıntaplı]] ([[User talk:Ayıntaplı|talk]]) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
[[:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake]] → {{no redirect|2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes}} – There is no consensus on the status of the 7.5 magnitude earthquake as an aftershock or a full on second earthquake. Per [[aftershock]]'s definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the title wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. [[User:Ayıntaplı|Ayıntaplı]] ([[User talk:Ayıntaplı|talk]]) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. The article was already moved after the second earthquake hit, it shouldn't have been moved back. [[User:Betseg|Betseg]] ([[User talk:Betseg|talk]]) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. The article was already moved after the second earthquake hit, it shouldn't have been moved back. [[User:Betseg|Betseg]] ([[User talk:Betseg|talk]]) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
* <del>'''Support''' as it is plural earthquakes and this article is about 2 technically different but close earthquakes.</del> '''Oppose''' as there was only one mainshock
* <del>'''Support''' as it is plural earthquakes and this article is about 2 technically different but close earthquakes.</del> '''Oppose''' as there was only one mainshock

Revision as of 03:05, 7 February 2023

Title

@User:Dubstar44 can you not move the page without a discussion??? Not so abruptly please when it's in the midst of editing. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title 2

The article 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes is named as such because there were strong earthquakes in Iran and Turkey. Until notably strong earthquakes hit Syria, I suggest moving this article back to 2023 Gaziantep earthquake. Betseg (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also if we keep this title, Syria should be the first one because it is alphabetically the first. Betseg (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's heavy damage in Syria per RS, "Gaziantep earthquake" is not a proper title anymore. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquakes are generally named after the locatíon of the epicenter, not where the damage is. ansh.666 04:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Wikipedia title is merely descriptive, for navigation and easing searches. I recommend starting a discussion if you don't like the title. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have examples of articles like that? Also, you recommend starting a discussion? This is the discussion. And any opinions on my alphabetic suggestion? Betseg (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to add a move discussion tag to notify relevant parties. I'm developing the article so my comments will come once the article is a bit more stable Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1999 earthquake which I lived through, Sakarya and other cities were also affected yet it's named after where the epicenter of the earthquake was, not where the "damage" was since it depends on lots of things including the buildings and quality of those buildings in that specific place. Though it seems like you're trying to "argue to be an a hole" instead of "arguing to find the right" as typically seen in wiki talk pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%C4%B0zmit_earthquake 88.230.177.82 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:SNOW, as this RM has an extremely low chance of succeeding. Opposers mostly brought up the fact that this has also affected Syria, and while the nominator did suggest the alternate option 2023 Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, consensus has emerged that this is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, there is precedent of earthquakes affecting multiple countries to be called 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake and 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes. If anyone would like to start a discussion about a different title, feel free to start another RM, but I would recommend waiting some time due to the high amount of editing. Remember, There is no deadline, these discussions don't have to take place now. Thanks. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → 2023 Gaziantep earthquake – To fit with other earthquake articles on Wikipedia, the title should be the epicenter, not where damage is. (see Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Title 2 for previous discussion) Betseg (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My support was before the second earthquake, the epicenter of which was further north in Kahramanmaraş, so this move would not be representative of the disaster. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to figure out if there is indeed a pattern here, because for example 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes mentions both countries where the damage occurred, whereas if it were to be named after the epicenter it should have been 2020 Khoy earthquake. On the other hand, Betseg suggests here that "Syria" could be included in the title only if there has been excessive damage. I would have no problem naming it after the epicenter, but I think people who have worked on naming such pages need to chime in to draw a clear picture of what our guidelines say. Keivan.fTalk 06:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative — 2023 Nurdağı earthquake, as Nurdağı is the true epicenter. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the epicenter is near a village in the Şehitkamil district of the province of Gaziantep. There seems to be a lack of consensus on the epicenter, but in either case it is in the same district but either midway between Nurdağı and Gaziantep or closer to Gaziantep. Ayıntaplı (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The impact in Syria appears to be greater than in Turkey, the current title makes sense. The naming of earthquake articles is pretty varied and there are plenty of examples of earthquakes spanning borders such as the 1906 Ecuador–Colombia earthquake and the 1958 Ecuador–Colombia earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per @Betseg's comment. The article name should only include the epicenter, not the different countries or the entire country as these countries were not affected by the earthquake entirely with all of their cities. We should also note that the common naming for the earthquake can be decided more definitely after more news and articles are published. Regards,
Harald the Bard (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As can be seen from news and articles, another earthquake hit the area and many cities near Kahramanmaraş (Hatay, Gaziantep, etc.) are affected. Many countries near the Southeast Region of Turkey (Syria, Lebanon, Armenia, etc.) are also affected. If the article name should include country names, then it should include other countries too, or it should include all the cities hit by the earthquake. Including only the epicenter would be a safe solution before a common name can actually appear in media and reports. It is just so early to name the article properly. My condolences to all my brethren in Turkey, I can't help myself to say something about it. Harald the Bard (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per @Mikenorton DarmaniLink (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know really, like how the 2022 Michoacán earthquake is named that despite severe damage also occuring in Colima and Jalisco, I think it should be moved, but as the epicentre's in Turkey and Syria is actually more devastated, It could either be called "2023 southern Turkey earthquake" or simply keep it as the Turkey and Syria earthquake
Quake1234 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the aforementioned reason RedBreaddd (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per @Dora the Axe-plorer NikolaiVektovich (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although the epicentre was in Gaziantep, its impact goes way beyond that. Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 48hr moratorium Right now most of the headlines read something like, Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria (Turkey is first in all of the instances I've noticed). If you get a TL;DR you'd know the name "Gaziantep". But, I don't think the name is well known yet, maybe soon. Right now 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake is a good placeholder name. Let us wait until media coverage settles on something. This is a bit premature to decide on a permanent name for this article. For the sake of editing convenience, let's not keep moving the page back and forth and revisit the name in 2 days. --nafSadh did say 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The epicenter info is to be touched upon in the article but, the title doesn't necessarily have to named after the epicentre. Especially, considering the widespread devastation in both Syria and Türkiye. The current title is apt and to the purpose.
StarkReport (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - the article name should be descriptive, general, easy to understand, easy to search.

For the rest of the world, this earthquake is Turkey earthquake or Syrian earthquake, or simply Turkey & Syria earthquake. It's not Gaziantep, or Nordegi earthquake. For example the article "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake", its not rename to 2004 Aceh earthquake, although 200k or more casualties in Aceh. Keep think global, as this wikipedia is for international community. @NnAs (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The epicenter of the earthquake is in Turkey. Earthquakes are named after where their epicenter is, not after which countries they had an effect on. It should be named the 2023 Turkey Earthquake RedBreaddd (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the earthquake hit Turkey, Egypt, and the Levantine region. There’s no reason to change it’s name Syphenta (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support — The place where the earthquake happend should be in the article title, the earthquake was affected in many countries. However, all of them should not be written in the article name like a list. Werg57 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - an hour ago I probably would have supported it. However, with an earthquake nearly as strong, that close in both time and place, suggests that the primary incident (the earthquakes) isn't over yet. And being that close to the Syrian border, it's quite likely that some of the individual quakes will be across the border. Animal lover |666| 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Animal lover above Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to the name change due to its range exceeding the Gaziantep region and many earthquake are still coming as waves ..So till all these events are yet to be finish,then only it is appropriate to name it..Now it will leads to unneccessary confliction a and confusions.. Spbvj (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As previous mentioned by other contributors, that the effects of this earthquake are beyond Gaziantep and I would oppose changing the name. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit mixed on this one. Normal convention is the locality of the epicenter as the place name in an earthquake article - other "X-Y" country articles are all either literally on a border, offshore, or a group of earthquakes straddling a border (which I don't think this one has yet?), so they don't really provide precedent here. On the other hand, the media coverage tends to use either Turkey or some form of Turkey-Syria (with only the Guardian using "Syria and Turkey" in that order as far as I can see) so WP:COMMONNAME may apply there despite the massive loss of precision. In any case, we can wait for a bit to see if nature clarifies itself, which is kind of morbid, but ehh. ansh.666 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, I did briefly check the USGS map, and it does have one earthquake on the southern side of the border, but obviously that's original research and I can't really know if it's related or not just from looking at a map. ansh.666 17:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per @Jurisdicta's comment. Captain Almighty Nutz (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, both countries were equally effected so the title should reflect this. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Both countries were heavily impacted. The current title is appropriate.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does not "Turkey–Syria earthquakes" semantically mean that earthquakes took place both in Turkey and Syria? However, earthquakes happened in Turkey only. The casualties and death toll in both countries are still rising and we do not know which country is more affected by the quakes. The impact of the earthquakes on Syria is huge and it is the greatest disaster in Syria's history as far as I could follow. Yet, the title "Turkey–Syria" is misleading in my opinion. In terms of the coverage of the areas affected by the earthquake, if we would mention the places affected in the title, all other places should be included if we follow this line of argument. The article should be renamed and I do not support moving the article to "Gaziantep earthquake" because another earthquake happened in Kahramanmaraş too. In Turkish Wikipedia, the article is titled as "2023 Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes". Maybe, this titling could be better. Or another option can be considered. Nonetheless, "Turkey–Syria earthquakes" is semantically problematic I believe.--Narsilien (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nythar, I admit that the earthquakes affected both Turkey and Syria. If it is not clear enough, I can stress it here as well. The reason why the title should be changed to the epicenters' (indeed, because there is not only one earthquake but two earthquakes with two epicenters, both are in Turkey and lots of aftershocks affecting 10 cities all across southeastern Anatolia) location is this article is about the earthquakes themselves. The places and countries affected by the earthquake can be stated and relevant information can be given under a subheading. As the common naming standard in English Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias, the location's name is mentioned in the title. For example, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami mentions Tohoku, and does not state the Pacific Ocean though the epicenter is in the ocean. The closest identifiable location was preferred here. Another example is 2011 Van earthquakes, which again happened in Turkey and was named after the city of Van. The earthquakes in Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş happened on the East Anatolian Fault and this fault line is in Turkey in its totality. Syria is not the only place affected by the earthquake. Therefore, my suggestion is that the title should indicate the epicenters, per the most common naming conventions in English Wikipedia. I hope this clarified.--Narsilien (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narsilien, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami took place as a result of an earthquake off the coast of Sumatra. For some reason, the article is not titled "2004 Sumatra earthquake". There are also many earthquake articles with titles that include the entire country, including the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, and the June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, even though it struck only the southeast, and Afghanistan is a large country. I think the only unprecedented thing here is the inclusion of two countries (Turkey and Syria) in the title. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nythar, I think there is an inconsistency concerning the naming the article titles. Since Haiti and Nepal are relatively small countries, naming the article with these countries is understandable. If we follow the general coverage in media, titling the article "2023 Turkey earthquake" is plausible. For adding Syria to the article as well, as I stated above, since naming the article with two countries apply to the cases took place right on the border or a series of earthquakes happened in both countries - and for Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, this is not the case - I do not think that it is logical because the earthquake did not happen in Syria; I mean, all the epicenters are in Turkey. Yes, Syria was also affected very badly. But if we take the influence into account, then we should rename 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake as "İzmir earthquake" because as the introduction of the article states, " Although Samos was closest to the epicentre, it was the Turkish city İzmir, 70 km (43 mi) northeast that was heavily affected—more than 700 residential and commercial structures were seriously damaged or destroyed. One hundred and seventeen people died in İzmir Province while an additional 1,034 were injured." Thence, for today's example, we may follow the "2022 Afghanistan earthquake" example.--Narsilien (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the earthquake had an epicenter on Turkish soil, however the impact has been great on the two countries, and the present title is the most descriptive of the situation. Both countries have been affected in a great extent and the proposed title would give the impression that it was centered around Gaziantep (even as far as Adana there are reports of damage).NikosLikomitros (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strongest earthquake in recorded history in Turkey?

According to List of earthquakes in Turkey, the 1668 North Anatolia earthquake was 8 on an (unspecified) scale, and according to 1668 North Anatolia earthquake it was 7.8 - 8.0 M_s. Also, according to the list, the 557 Constantinople earthquake was X (intense). Does this invalidate the statement in the lead,

With a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent) and a magnitude of 7.8 Mww, it is tied with the 1939 Erzincan earthquake as the strongest earthquake to hit Turkey in recorded history.

? Nø (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have a Richter scale for these earlier earthquakes, it and the 1939 earthquake are the strongest recorded. We can add a statement about other earthquakes which are believed to be at least as strong, but they are not "recorded" in the same way Animal lover |666| 11:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it actually means instrumentally recorded, as there were no seismometers in 1668. C messier (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right; the intention is to say it is the strongest scientifically recorded. However, saying it is the strongest "in recorded history" is false. I'll amend (unless it's already been done.) Nø (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least these are the strongest in the history of the Turkish Republic. Borgenland (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for preventing vandalism

This is to inform administrators to take some important protection levels for preventing ip vandalismin high level... Spbvj (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

request it on WP:RPPI if you want. If you think protection is appropriate, then you can make a request. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some one should take responsible to update in a specific time order (eg:for every one hour or two.)Or bot should be embed to prevent vandalism.. Spbvj (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is necessary yet as the amount of vandalizism is low and it is being quickly reverted Chidgk1 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did you revert ... It is better to prevent vandalism than correcting it for 'n' no.of times... Only for suggestion..No offense!! Spbvj (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be protection. For now, autoconfirmed would probably be the best. Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 1200 killed

Earthquake Kills More Than 1,200 in Turkey and Syria (The NYT). Source - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/05/world/turkey-earthquake. M.Karelin (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now 1300 more dead... Spbvj (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nature of earthquakes that the numbers keep going up. We're only 10 hours after the event. Animal lover |666| 11:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock epicenters ?

Can the table of aftershocks have their epicenters added to the chart? Especially the 7.5 -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7.5

According to the BBC the 7.5 isn't an aftershock, it's a separate new earthquake near Ekinozu, outside of the Gaziantep region -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days until the seties of earthquakes is over, then it will be easier to figure out what's what. Experts are undoubtedly doing their best, but it's too early to be sure Animal lover |666| 12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's on a different but connected fault as far as I can tell. Probable a case of triggering as a result of coulomb stress transfer, but that speculation will have to wait for sources to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see the BBC is not claiming that it isn't an aftershock, just quoting unnamed officials who say so.
This NBC article quotes a seismologist saying that it is an aftershock, and gives reasoning. That seems more authoritative to me. Armouredduck (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Location articles

Please remember to update the history sections of the location articles on any major damages suffered, as that would be significant occurrences in the history of those locations -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of The Article Should be Rewritten

After the separate earthquake happened, some edits were made; however, parts of the article should be modified and restructured to make it less confusing. Some parts mention the two earthquakes whereas others only contain info about the first, which makes it confusing and somewhat misleading. Mathdotrandom (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make the change you want to see. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: What I meant was how the article was written before the second earthquake; the article was structured to include info about a single earthquake and the aftershocks that would follow it. The addition of the second earthquake made the article more difficult to follow with its current structure. The article should be restructured; I wasn't just talking about simple edits that would fix the confusing parts. Mathdotrandom (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Category:Buildings damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami exists; should we make something similar for this event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD C messier (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Get started on the article, add some damaged buildings and some sources to support it and it might take off. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Should Be Mentioned

Shouldn't Palestinian or, at least, Palestinian territories be mentioned? Especially since Palestine is recognised by some affected countries. FunLater (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

find a reliable source that states that palestine was affected and it can be added
It is obvious given every single nation around it was affected by the shocks but its the nature of wikipedia DarmaniLink (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate wikipages should be created -suggestion

Based on epicentres it should be named and these two earthquakes are should be linked to this main page...Only suggestion to prevent confusion... Spbvj (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on upcoming earthquakes it is useful to differentiate from one to another earthquake waves..Or otherwise subheadings are useful in describing each earthquake to prevent many pages creating related to same topics.. Spbvj (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is too early to tell if these two earthquakes will be mentioned together in future sources or seperately. I reluctantly predict that they will be mentioned together as a double earthquake or swarm; they are in the same tectonic region and only hours apart and thus it will be really difficult to differenciate the effects of each one (something like the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes). C messier (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is too early to tell if these two earthquakes will be mentioned together in future sources or seperately." It really isn't. Two articles would be ridiculous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a difference between the geology incidence and the resulting humanitarian catastrophy here. I very much doubt that e.g. numbers of dead, injured and homeless as result of the quakes will be split between the two incidents in the sources. Thus, keep together as one article. Nø (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all of media these two "major" earthquakes are covered together, so this is one disaster event, not two. Until there is a consensus in the media to cover them separately (which is unlikely), we should stick to one article. -- nafSadh did say 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False precision

Please avoid false precision such as "1,797 dead, 6,893 injured", which I have just replaced in the infobox with "over 1,700 dead, over 6,800 injured". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly User:Quake1234 keeps restoring a falsely-precise figure, without taking up my invitation to discuss here, apparently in the mistaken belief that being a able to cite a single, dated source is somehow adequate in a tragic case of this scale. They claim that "an exact number is used in the sources", when, in fact, sources differ; and are changing rapidly. Furthermore, their own citation has the title ""Death toll exceeds 1,700 as second quake strikes Turkey", and in its body says (emphasis mine) "At least 1,700 people are believed to have died after two earthquakes struck Turkey and Syria. The confirmed death toll from this morning's earthquake in Turkey has now risen to 1,014, the head of the country's Disaster and Emergency Management Authority has said. The death toll in Syria now stands at 783,". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Quake1234: Using such a value is a violation of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Specifically, the MOS states that "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context". That means that while the precise value is appropriate to the context, it is not stable and thus shouldn't be used here. NoahTalk 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An exact number, when reported to represent something real, may be used. However, while there are almost certainly people who died and their deaths are still unknown, even exact numbers reported don't represent anything real; it's merely a snapshot of what's known. Even if we had some magical ability to get the current number of known dead at any given time, by the time we publish it the numbers will have gone up. We should only use rounded numbers for that reason until the rescue attempts are over. And this should apply to all earthquakes, everywhere in the world. Animal lover |666| 13:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could say i am sorry hundreds of times to you. I would normally not be up with using rounded numbers, but since you said you're using them temporarily, I guess I could forgive you Quake1234 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job on this article. It was just this one thing that we have complete uncertainty on and anything we write should reflect that until any reasonable uncertainty can be eliminated DarmaniLink (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 per @Animal lover 666
We should be using rounded numbers until the dust settles otherwise we'll just end up in an edit scramble every time a higher number comes out and only update every 100 "milestone" from there. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


We're back to:

  • Over 1,498 dead with over 8,533 injured in Turkey
  • Over 810 dead with over 2,000 injured in Syria
  • Total: Over 2,308 dead with over 10,533 injured

This looks stupid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round to the nearest 100 until the dust settles. Anyone disagree? I'm gonna make that change and if you disagree and think it should be done any other way, lets discuss it DarmaniLink (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, round down to the previous 100. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: someone should edit {{rounddown}} to enable decimal separator which currently used here in the infobox. Hddty (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it but once all the final counts are known and settled I would like to have precise numbers and would rather not risk this becoming a permanent solution any more than it already is.
I didn't know this existed or i would have used it at the start which would have been better than mentally rounding everything down so we could remove the final tallies.
@Quake1234 If you want to add precise numbers every time new ones come out and {rounddown|number|-2} on all of them, then remove the templates after a few days, you got the green light. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're back to false precision, again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a rounddown with auto formatting so all you have to do is drop the number in and wikipedia does the rest of the magic. If anyone tries to change it again, please change it back and tell them to go to the talk page to make their case for keeping the precision while tolls are rising. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As you may know, many editors despise the list-formated "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. It should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Direct quotes from pandering politicians are unencyclopedic and sourcing must be better than Twitter--which is primary. This article should also give more WP:WEIGHT to actual help provided by other countries, such as search teams, than to political mouthings. Abductive (reasoning) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD DarmaniLink (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flag salad reaction, esp condolences, is larger that the other sections that actually matter. Removing would be great. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've already trimmed all the routine condolences; leaving just the offers of aid. Once we know what aid is actually sent, we can update and rewrite accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for this, lets only have actual aid that was sent and any canned condolences omitted until we can rewrite it into a proper section DarmaniLink (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third earthquake

According to this, there have been a third earthquake. Is this an aftershock or a separate one? --Universal Life (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 7.5 appears to have ruptured a different fault; this 6.0 earthquake is an aftershock of that. It's covered in the #Aftershocks section. I suggest renaming that to "Earthquake sequence" instead to cover all events. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EW

This is editwarring by User:Quake1234. Even the es says this: "most IBs have this ..." is not a base for correct physical notation. (First revert did not even es at all). Article now needlessly inconsistent state. The {{M}}/doc was not even checked. DePiep (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you talk like a robot or something? Quake1234 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The strict format for magnitudes is e.g. Mw  7.5, but it's not used that strictly in my experience. It's not something to edit war over and Quake 1234, don't snipe at another editor who's making a fair point. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock table

The aftershock table is already too long. I suggest that we trim it to include only M5+ shocks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Portal:Kurdistan

Should we add Portal:Kurdistan to here? The hardest hit regions were southeastern Turkey and northwestern Syria, which have a Kurdish majority. 208.127.190.114 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what we should be discussing, but no. This was not the practice in past articles of earthquakes that were clearly within the Kurdish-majority region, such as Talk:2011 Van earthquakes. Plus, the region is not simply "Kurdish-majority," and south-central Turkey and northwestern Syria aren't even so, with many other ethnicities dominating much of it, especially the closer vicinity of the epicenter. We may discuss this later, though, but I am totally against this during these troublesome times. Kurdish victims aren't thinking about Kurdistan, let alone millions of non-Kurds. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop referencing the Dutch "planetary alignment" guy in this article.

He is not a "researcher", and he's most certainly not a scientist. 107.15.254.76 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be mentioned as a trivial info. We can also add critical sources for balance. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be mentioned as a trivial info, see WP:FRINGE. Betseg (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake or Earthquakes?

This article specifically mentions both earthquakes that occurred but currently the name of the article uses singular currently, is there a reason for the change? Side note: Should the Earthquake Sequence box be made collapsible? CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be plural, IMO. But in the RM above, I've suggested a moratorium on move for now. Whether we settle on Turkey-Syria or Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş, we should use plural.
RE: Sequence box -- yes we should make it collapsible. -- nafSadh did say 00:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be plural. Two earthquakes hit the area. Bedivere (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafsadh: Just a heads-up, there is a new request to change it to earthquakes. Renerpho (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2023

2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes – There is no consensus on the status of the 7.5 magnitude earthquake as an aftershock or a full on second earthquake. Per aftershock's definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the title wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The article was already moved after the second earthquake hit, it shouldn't have been moved back. Betseg (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is plural earthquakes and this article is about 2 technically different but close earthquakes. Oppose as there was only one mainshock
DarmaniLink (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for procedural reasons. (Was going to ask for a procedural close, but there is already a vote to move.) Regardless of the outcome, I propose a 7 day moratorium on future RM requests so that things can settle. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V: Agreed regarding the moratorium (after this RM). However, as has been pointed out, the previous RM probably should never have happened, so not allowing this one to go through would be unfair. Renerpho (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renerpho: I don't exactly see where there is a comment regarding the prior RM should not have happened, but there are a decent number of comments so I am likely missing it. Regardless, I do think that this discussion should continue. The only way I would have requested the procedural close was if no one else had voted in support. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V: Betseg a few lines up said that "it shouldn't have been moved back". I interpreted that as saying the RM should not have happened. If I misunderstood that comment then I apologize. Renerpho (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renerpho: Oh, now I get it. Two separate users moved the article to "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes" despite the first RM being ongoing. Moves like that should not occur during an RM, so both moves were reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I already voted to make this move (instead of the proposed one) in the previous move request. Renerpho (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC):Change to oppose: As has been pointed out below by Hurricane Noah, usgs.gov has changed their stance and are now calling this an aftershock. Hence, the article title should remain singular. Renerpho (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell is this discussion even needed? Why insist on stupid bureaucracy in the case of making a noun plural? Just move the damn article and be done with it. NoahTalk 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: Is there is a reason why you moved this in the first place when the prior title was perfectly fine? NoahTalk 02:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Whether the second earthquake was an aftershock or not isn't completely obvious. That's the only reason I see why the question (maybe) should be discussed. I don't agree with it (this were two earthquakes), but you could argue either way. Renerpho (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
appears the sources have changed their mind.
@Ayıntaplı, Betseg, DarmaniLink, Renerpho, SilentResident, and Estar8806:Oppose per [1] which states the 7.5 was an aftershock. NoahTalk 02:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, I change my vote to oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose as well. Renerpho (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per aftershock's definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the title wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether it occurred on the same fault as a result of the prior quake or on an entirely different fault. The latter case is when it would be earthquakes plural. NoahTalk 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other large earthquakes are typically referred to only by their mainshock, even though there's always aftershocks. You wouldn't want the 2010 haiti earthquake or the 2011 earthquake to be called the "earthquakes".
If a scientific consensus that they were 2 seperate mainshocks comes out, i'll support. If there's only 1 mainshock, I'll oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah and DarmaniLink:, "The intensity of the quake was earlier revised by AFAD from magnitude 7.4 to 7.7. Another 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck [...]"[2] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that source has been updated, it is outdated. NoahTalk 03:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the prior RM caused a bit of a disruption. There were moves made during the first RM to the proposed title of this second RM that were reverted for obvious reasons. A third move to the proposed title might be seen as disruptive and against policy, even if it is after the first RM had closed, so that is likely why another RM happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am against initiating too many RMs in such a short time, but there was an almost identical earthquake of 7,7 happening after the one of 7,8, (or 7.6 and 7.7 respectively, depending the sources) bringing further destruction and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Considering this fact, it is not WP:UNDUE to have this reflected on the article title. Quite the opposite. It is safe to say that the RM this time the RM should be endorsed because it is based on indisputable facts: there wasn't a single major earthquake but two. Also, Super Goku V's motion for a short moratorium on RM requests should be considered.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why was it changed back to 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake in the first place? It should be changed back to 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquakes due to there being multiple quakes. Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Idontknowlol7: (move request still ongoing - please do not rename pages that are undergoing requested moves - was the box at the top of the article unclear???) Since the two moves were made during the first RM, they were reverted. The template on the article says Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first Requested Move discussion was ongoing at the time of the two moves to "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes." Both of these moves were reverted by a different user with the edit summary, "(move request still ongoing - please do not rename pages that are undergoing requested moves - was the box at the top of the article unclear???). When a Requested Move discussion is occurring, there is a template placed at the top of the article where it is visible to anyone who tries to move the article. The template says, "Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed." The general reason for such a warning is because moving the article during a Requested Move discussion can be disruptive to the discussion. That was why it was changed back to "2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake" --Super Goku V (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Turkey–Syria_earthquakes&oldid=1137926603"