Wikipedia talk:Notability (earthquakes)

Expand definition and use

Maybe it would help if we formally change how we are using this. I have been placing links to this guideline in the footers of our lists for a few years, and have considered modifying the wording to also include applying the principles to lists, but didn't want to make the first move. Dawnseeker2000 15:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We've come into a bit of resistance with the current efforts to improve the lists, and while I've been unofficially linking to and using this guideline in an attempt to restrict what types of events are placed into the lists, I think we would be in a much better position if we added content here that showed the accepted stance from this WikiProject on what is and what isn't expected for the lists. Consider this response (that I did not respond to) when I was refining the list for Canadian shocks. It would be great if you or MikeNorton wants to take a stab at it. Dawnseeker2000 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions

This guideline has rather lost touch with the discussions that occurred before it was created in its current form (now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes/Archive 1). With that in mind, I'm copying those discussions into this page. Mikenorton (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I see recently that there have been lots of earthquake articles (mainly for 2010 events) sent to WP:AfD for deletion. Is there a general notability policy for earthquakes agreed by this project? Compare with WP:AIRCRASH that setup guidelines on what is/isn't notable for plane crashes. Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC) There has been a tendency for editors to start articles on every earthquake that makes the news, however small and however little damage is caused. In the lists of earthquakes there has been a recent attempt to define notability for the global lists such as List of 21st century earthquakes in an attempt to avoid overlong articles including very minor events. However, criteria for notability as far as earthquake articles on Wikipedia generally is concerned has not been attempted to my knowledge. However, as it seems like a reasonable idea, I'll start by proposing the following as criteria for notability. Deaths attributable directly to the earthquake - not one heart attack that might have been caused by the 'quake Magnitude (on whatever scale is available) greater than 5.0 or intensity greater than VI on the Mercalli intensity scale or European Macroseismic Scale, or 5.0 on the Shindo scale Largest earthquake within a country/state for a long time (more than 100 years?) Of scientific interest - several papers published after the event This was pretty much off the top of my head, I'll spend some time looking through some of the articles that we do have to see how well that matches - I'll also keep an eye on AfD. Anyone have other ideas, things I've missed out etc.? Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Looks decent for a start. We should definitely note that there are exceptions, take for example the 2007 Nazko earthquakes. ceranthor 11:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I would have thought that the 2007 Nazco 'quakes matched my fourth suggested criterion, of scientific interest, but you're right such criteria can only be a guideline. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC) (ec)Having looked at the AfD discussion for 2010 Arica earthquake I might have to rethink the magnitude/intensity perhaps increase minimum magnitude to 7.0 as destructive quakes will always have intensities greater than VI but mag 7+ events are sufficiently rare to make an earthquake notable IMO, even if the felt intensity in populated areas is less than VI. Mikenorton (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I'd agree with what has been said above. Generally magnitude 7.0+ for earthquakes in the 'usual places' like Tonga, Indonesia, Japan that cause no lasting effects. Magnitude 5+ for the rarer earthquakes that are widely felt, eg. earthquakes in UK, eastern US etc. Quakes that cause multiple deaths are automatically notable, injuries or damage alone are not necessarily a reason for inclusion. Some different criteria may need to be drawn up for US earthquakes, as a widely felt 6.0+ in such a place as California would get a lot of coverage in english sources and may be expected to be covered here. RapidR (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Draw some boundaries (a) There are 18 quakes annually in the 7.0-7.9 range, vs. 120 in the 6.0-6.9, and hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of lesser magnitude. For the sake of notability, let's have a "Wikter scale" of sorts. I think that any quake of 7.0 or above would be inherently notable, with the understanding that early and aftershocks would be combined into the main article. I also think that any quake that causes a fatality, regardless of magnitude, should be presumed notable. (b) There is a good deal of interest in where the earthquakes happen, rather than when they happen, and that the creation of "Earthquakes in _______" pages should be strongly encouraged, with each page identifying the known faults and giving room for a table (preferably a sortable table) that has room to list date, local time, magnitude and epicenter GPS information that is currently in the infoboxes). In the long run, some local pages could be merged into larger ones; others could be split if needed. Mandsford 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC) not all earthquakes over 7.0 are notable. There are some that happen at a depth of 100+ km and on the surface feel like a mag. 3.0 ...--DAI (Δ) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I agree that not every earthquake over 7 is inherently or even remotely notable. I think that Mikenorton's criteria above are sufficient. ceranthor 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Well, one of my criteria was mag >7 :), however it should be possible to write them so that common sense is involved e.g. 'Earthquakes of magnitude > 7.0, excluding deep focus events', although note that the first of the 2002 Hindu Kush earthquakes had a focal depth of 256 km (although that would be included anyway because of the 166 death toll). Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Earlier this morning, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The May 2010 Puerto Rico Earthquake and it seems clear to me that other similar pages (say 2010 Istok earthquake or 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake) really fall under WP:NOTNEWS and should be either deleted or redirected to the relevant article on the seismic region. It makes sense to set some threshold of either magnitude or resulting damage to avoid this. Merging some content into articles on, say, a precise fault line is also a good way to avoid complaints from editors who start these articles. Pichpich (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Searching for, say 2010 earthquake reveals a whole lot of completely unnotable, WP:NOTNEWS earthquakes. 2010 Indonesia earthquake is a disambiguation page to three of them, then there's 2010 Calama earthquake, the 2010 Ryukyu Islands earthquake where "the only damage was a few pipes", the expansive 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake article which is about a 4.4 earthquake (in California? that's like Tuesday) with minor damage to some gas station and other unrelated highway damage, there's 2010 China-Russia-North Korea earthquake which has speculation about nuclear tests, the April 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake with no casualties or major damage, the 2010 Mindoro earthquake with no damage or casualties, the 2010 New Mexico earthquake of magnitude 4.3 (I've slept through worse than that)... There really needs to be some emphasis lasting impact or scientific notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC) More articles that should be put to AfD (collectively) 2010 Salta earthquake, 2010 Bering Sea earthquakes, 2010 Huasco earthquake, 2010 Cuba earthquake, 2010 Spain earthquake, 2010 Drake Passage earthquake, 2010 Southeast Taiwan earthquake, the list goes on and on...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not a member of Wikiproject Earthquake but I thought I'd comment here anyway. I don't think magnitude by itself should justify notability. An earthquake of magnitude 7.0+ might possibly be notable but generally that would be due to the deaths and structural damage it would cause. I don't know if Mikenorton's magnitude criterion is individually applicable (i.e., if an earthquake satisfies that particular criterion then it is notable), but if it is, I disagree with that. The scientific interest and deaths attributable should be applied individually, though perhaps the death part should be refined more. Some minor earthquakes cause 1 or 2 deaths, I would not consider them notable. And finally, the "largest earthquake for a long time" criterion should be done away with IMO, as that is not an enduring claim to notability. Aditya Ex Machina 11:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with that. What do we do when the "record" is surpassed by a larger, though similarly non-notable quake? Or when it turns out that it really wasn't a benchmark of any sort? Better that we encourage an alternative to "fill out the form and cross your fingers" approach. One of the arguments in favor of keeping the 2009 Germany earthquake had been that at 3.3 it had been "the biggest since 1955", although it turned out that there have been larger ones as high as a 5.9; Again, I'm hoping that the trend will be to set sensible standards for notability and that persons will channel the information about lesser events to an article about the location, where they can be viewed in perspective. As an example of an article that minor events can be mentioned at, I created Earthquakes in Germany (for some reason, I'm thinking of a tune from The Producers) as an example of how there are better alternatives to the practice of calling each news item a special event. That's one that needs some work, but it's a start. Mandsford 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC) See a few sections down for an updated version of my suggestion for notability guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I applaud you folks for trying to set some standards. This has gotten completely out of hand, especially since the Haiti earthquake produced a flood of me-too-ism. Believe it or not, a 2.7-magnitude quake was recently retained after this AfD discussion. One problem is that people perceive a need to document any tremor they feel. Maybe we could put a notice at the earthquake template, suggesting that instead of Wikipedia they could record their experience here: Did you feel it? I also applaud you for trying to set objective criteria, based on magnitude and extent of damage and such, but I think the criteria can be much simpler, less technical, and more closely related to WP:GNG. I propose: in order to qualify for an article, a quake must receive 1) coverage other than mere listing on seismic reporting websites, 2) coverage outside of its immediate geographic area, maybe specifying that there has to be international coverage, and 3) continued coverage beyond the initial, same-day reporting that it occurred. Qualifying coverage could be either in reliable media sources or scientific papers. If the quake fails those criteria, delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I can see where most articles would be kept under those criteria. The big problem that I see is trying to minimize the number of articles that would have to be deleted in the first place. I'd rather people consider, based on some guidelines that spell out what's notable and what's not, whether an event needs its own page in the first place. At the moment, someone hears about a non-damage event and it is mentioned in the course of the international news (Reuters, AP, CNN, Fox, BBC, etc), which would satisfy criteria #1 and #2. Many (if not most) of these are cranked out almost as soon as the event is reported, and one could rationalize it with "it just might get continued coverage", after which we go through the deletion process as we do now. I recognize that we're all brainstorming here, but ultimately, I think that the reason we need minimum objective standards is to give people an idea about what should justify its own page, and what should be mentioned elsewhere. Mandsford 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) That's a good point. It would be better to head off the articles before they are written, rather than have to go through the AfD process. Could I suggest that while you are at it, you also establish some criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion? For example, that any earthquake of less than a specified magnitude can be presumed non-notable and can be speedied? --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I think that the criteria we've established are a great start. Mikenorton and I have a lot of experience with creating, improving, and maintaining earthquake articles. Maybe we could try to weigh in a bit more in these discussions to give other editors an idea of what's notable and what's not - if it's not immediately obvious from the criteria. Sound good? I'd appreciate others' thoughts. ceranthor 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I've come here to look for EQ notability criteria. There's obviously some interest in earthquakes and Christchurch these days, especially after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In writing an article about the one church in central Christchurch that survived the 2011 event, I uncovered an interesting reason for this and it's documented in the article. By what I read above, it would appear that the 5 June 1869 would probably not meet notability criteria, but if anybody thought that it would stack up, let me know and I might start an article. Schwede66 20:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC) There is a slightly newer version of the proposed criteria a few sections down. In fact I think that the 1869 Christchurch earthquake does meet them because it reached an intensity of VIII on the Mercalli intensity scale and it is referred to in several scientific papers (from googlescholar search). Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the quick reply. The cited reference cites an intensity of 7, but you refer to 8. Can you please elaborate? Schwede66 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I picked the 8 up from my GS search, but from a paper that I don't have full access to. I'm just heading off for a field-trip for a few days, if I don't get back to you after that, feel free to give me a nudge. Mikenorton (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've created a user page at User:Mikenorton/Earthquake_notability_guidelines taking into account the responses above, although it remains my take on it for now. Feel free to edit it, if you have any changes you want to make, although a comment here would be good. It currently states: Notability guidelines for earthquake articles on Wikipedia The following list of criteria are intended to provide guidelines to help establish the notability of earthquake articles on Wikipedia, although they should not replace common sense. To be considered notable an earthquake would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed below Magnitude greater than 7.0 Most 7+ earthquakes should meet additional criteria, although the largest will be notable solely because of their magnitude Deep focus earthquakes of this magnitude are not necessarily notable A swarm of events may be notable even if the individual events do not meet the magnitude or intensity criteria Intensity of VII or greater on the Mercalli scale or European Macroseismic Scale, or 6.0 or greater on the Shindo scale Deaths attributable directly to the earthquake (including any related tsunami) - i.e. not one heart attack that might have been caused by the 'quake Of scientific interest - discussed in the scientific press at the time and in papers published afterwards Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e.countries rather than counties) For some historical earthquakes, the interpretation put on them at the time e.g. a warning from god, and the effects it had on religious thought and philosophy, may make them notable despite not meeting any of the other criteria Note that being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability, particularly if the news reports are only on during the few days immediately after the event Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) As I mentioned above, I don't think magnitude should be a criterion by itself. Aditya Ex Machina 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) You may well be right Aditya, probably need to change the introduction to something like, To be considered notable an earthquake would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed below and in the magnitude section add a note, Most 7+ earthquakes should meet additional criteria, although the largest will be notable solely because of their magnitude. The last bit is to cover events like the 1965 Rat Islands earthquake, which produced virtually no damage at all but is one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded. Mikenorton (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Note:There is now an updated version at the head of this section. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC) We could ask for a third opinion or ask members of Wikiproject Earthquake to leave a comment here. This isn't an active talk page. Aditya Ex Machina 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) This notability guidelines is total bullshit. Threre is no way I would agree with this. Minor earthquakes can be notable as well, even ones that have not been felt. Even if its a little-known earthquake, it may be notable in a particular area. I find notibility guidelines are very opinionative. This is also unsuitable for users that are against notability. BT (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC) BT, I was hoping for something a little more constructive than being told that my work thus far is 'total bullshit'. I'm not saying that these guidelines are either necessarily good or definitive, but there appears to be a genuine need for them (as expressed in the posts in sections above here). Apparently you think that any earthquake, no matter how insignificant could have an article here. Over that we will have to disagree. Anyway it doesn't really matter whether you agree or not, if the community decides to use these guidelines (to some extent they already are), then articles will be kept or deleted at least partly on that basis. Note though that these are guidelines and as it says at the top of them "they should not replace common sense". Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I believe BT is referring to earthquakes like the 2007 Nazko earthquakes, which didn't cause damage but allowed for scientific advancement. Perhaps we could expand the historical earthquake criterion to include earthquakes like that? ceranthor 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I had those particular earthquakes in mind when I drafted the bit that says "A swarm of events may be notable even if the individual events do not meet the magnitude or intensity criteria" - also they would meet the "Of scientific interest" part, so that article would clearly meet the guidelines. There is obviously a balance between making the guidelines completely comprehensive although several pages long (and therefore ignored by everybody) and too brief to have any flexibility. I expect and hope that the guidelines will evolve. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I was not referring to your work Mikenorton. It's just that in certain areas earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or around there are generally considered large in areas that normally have magnitude 1.0 or 2.0 or do not frequently have earthquakes. The 2010 Central Canada earthquake is an example, as well as the 2000 Kipawa earthquake. According to Natural Resources Canada, the magnitude 5.2 2000 Kipawa earthquake was one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000. Earthquakes are also meaningful for detecting the movement of fault lines, magma, rifts, etc. BT (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification BT, I understand your point, but I don't think that 'being one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000' should qualify as indicating notability. I have included a criterion about unusually large earthquakes in areas of low seismicity, although there appears to be plenty of opposition to having that in at all. If the Central Canada event was say the largest for more than 50 years in the Central Canada area, I would think that probably would qualify. That earthquake is most likely to meet the 'of scientific interest' criterion, I reckon. Scientific papers will be written about it I have no doubt. The final test of notability of an earthquake (or anything else for that matter) is whether most editors on Wikipedia think that it is notable - the guidelines can only ever be a basis for discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Generally those guidelines look reasonable to me, some might be notable for some other reason = eg manmade, allowed prediction of volcanic eruption, or caused a major concert cancellation (even if the quake in itself was small).EdwardLane (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, hence the comment about common sense :). Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I've now created a sub-page of the project page and added a link under the guidelines section of the page, so that people know where to find it. Remember that these are what they say they are - 'guidlelines' not hard and fast rules. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting discussions. After pondering on this I am thinking we should more closely follow WP:NEVENTS, with specific considerations re earthquakes. I'm working something up, and (depending on how much sleep I really need to get) hope to post it in a few days. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to that. It would be good if we managed to get this adopted as an official guideline, although that will not be a quick process, requiring an RFC, following a WP:PROPOSAL to establish them as such. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And just in time for your Christmas holiday! Because of the size (oops, did I do that again? :-) I have posted my proposed guidelines at Draft:Notability (earthquakes) 2. But we can have the discussion here (won't have to merge Talk if this is accepted). Enjoy! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mikenorton and Dawnseeker2000: Comments? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am looking at it, but have been a bit short of time over the festive period. I will respond soon - thanks for putting in the effort. Mikenorton (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm shocked at how much effort was put into this. I will have some things to say, but need some time to process first. We need this badly. There is a lot of nuance with what is acceptable content, and the sooner we eduacate general editors, the better. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Dawnseeker2000 03:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Just shows what can be done with deep focus and a modicum of beer. :-)

I was winging it a little bit on the specific guidelines; some of those may need tuning. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait on Mikenorton to post first (and will be sipping my beer tea in the meantime). Dawnseeker2000 04:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well? I would especially like any criticism (and/or approval) from you two before I advertise it more broadly. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you're on fire with Wikipedia these days. Me? Not so much, and I don't know about Mikenorton, but give him some time. Thus is important. I will have comments but they can come later, and thanks again for taking the initiative. Dawnseeker2000 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A mixture of getting distracted on other things and actually doing some research has kept me from looking at this properly. It is probably a good idea to base it around an existing guideline in the way that you have - I didn't even read an existing guideline when I came up with the original. It was mainly based off the results of a series of AfD nominations at the time, plus the immediate feedback from other editors. Your version is much more thoroughly worked through and I find myself in agreement with almost all of it. As I find myself saying way too often these days, it's about "enduring notability". I suggest that to be most useful we propose it as a full guideline, which should certainly provide plenty of feedback, even if it's only to find that most editors think that it would be better as just an essay. I find, however, that now that the current "guidelines" have been labelled as "just an essay", other editors think that they can safely be ignored. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. ("Actually doing some research" sounds interesting.)

If my draft is largely acceptable perhaps there would be no objection if I copy it in over what you had? At which point we can advertise this more widely for feedback, which is the next step in working up to "guideline" status.

I wouldn't sweat the "essay" status: that's just the initial stage. We can't claim "guideline" status until the proper criteria are met. But then there is some leverage beyond "that's just what you say". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with it replacing the existing one. Mikenorton (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's in, and I'll start posting notices. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

MSM coverage

Coverage in the media most definitely should be enough to substantiate notability so long as it rises to the level of significant coverage. Doing otherwise means editors for themselves deciding what is notable and not notable based on what earthquakes they think are "big enough". Yes, this does mean covering 4.0 Richter earthquakes in the UK simply because earthquakes very rarely occur there and so when even a small one happens they are news. FOARP (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "most definitely" about it, as your "so long as it rises to the level of significant coverage" is a very significant caveat, with an extremely low probability. I have yet to see any M 4 earthquake with anywhere near that level of significance. Even if such a quake was significant for triggering some calamity, it is hard to see just what else might be said such a quake that would warrant its own article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at WP:NOTNEWS, the requirement is for "enduring notability", which means coverage long after the event happened, not just for the few days afterwards. Mikenorton (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Even in the quake-starved UK it is doubtful how much of the public remembers any of the dozen or so M 5+ quakes that have occurred there in the past century. Another way of looking at "enduring notability" is that Wikipedia is based on history, not on ephemeral current events. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/Features/2019/09/23/the-earthquake-that-shook-the-black-country-in-2002/ EuroAgurbash (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The long term coverage has to be a bit more than a single local newspaper. Mikenorton (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit (2019)

@MarkH21: I appreciate your attention here, but would like some clarification of this edit this edit, and how those changes are needed "to make it true!". In the first place, I don't see how "any space and time bounds" – as you put it — gives "a set of earthquakes ...." My view is that the bounds do not "give" (produce?) a set of earthquakes, but that a bounded set of earthquakes is the premise. But please advise if that is incorrect.

Second: is it really necessary to explicitly specify a non-empty set ("so long as there was at least one earthquake")? If we were to be that pedantic it could be argued that the plural "earthquakes" specifies "more than one", so this qualification is not necessary. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I think you may have linked the wrong diff, but the edit was just to make it a logically correct assertion because an empty ordered set doesn’t have a largest element!

Re 1) Given bounds, you have the uniquely associated bounded set of earthquakes occurring within those bounds. So once you specify bounds, there is a bounded set of earthquakes and that can be the only one we are talking about! So that’s what I mean by the bounds giving a bounded set.

Re 2) It may be pedantic, but it’s logically necessary! Otherwise the statement is just false (even if in a silly way). The plural doesn’t imply more than one, because you can have a set of 0 earthquakes (and such a statement usually includes singleton sets as well). :)

Of course, this is not terribly important and if it bothers you, feel free to remove my changes! — MarkH21 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, you're correct, I meant this edit. (Close!) Okay, I can see the "set of earthquakes" as including the null set, but I think that, for general use, that is too pedantic. It could also be argued that for an ordered set there needs to be at least two earthquakes, but again: too pedantic!

I believe our difference on the first point is that you are looking at this as "a bounds criterion applied over a domain of earthquakes 'gives' (defines) a bounded set of earthquakes", while I start with "given a bounded set of earthquakes". I think we don't need that (incomplete) elaboration. Though, frankly, I am not entirely happy with my formulation, as the concept of a bounded set might be beyond the average WP editor. I'll give this some contemplation tonight. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A set can be ordered even if it has one or no elements... it would just be a very simple ordering (Example 3 here)! But again, it may be too pedantic in general. That's just my mathematician's input.

Right, that is how I rephrased it because I thought it was more clear than the original "time and space bounded set of earthquakes" to which I would have added hyphens ("time- and space-bounded"). Plus the preceding language is only giving the bounds, not explicitly the set! So the given set is implicitly being given by the bounds (e.g. 1906 to now). But again, this is not an important distinction in this context! — MarkH21 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)