Talk:2008 Market Rasen earthquake

Aftershock

There are no sources to say that an aftershock is likely. I believe a spokesperson on sky news said it was unlikely so im not sure why thats in there as I cannot see anything on the webpages that are mentioned. 90.199.93.157 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a USGS spokesman said it was highly unlikely an aftershock would occurSilent52 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen to Radio 5 LIve and you will hear "experts" saying that aftershocks ARE likely. Indeed, one has already been reported! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.146.159 (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There will certainly be an aftershock sequence, and earthquakes of this size in britain have always been followed by aftershocks, depends how much stress was released in the main shock to what size aftershocks we can expect. RapidR (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what someone said on Radio 4. There was a 1.3R aftershock. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I added that bit about an aftershock being likely. I was listening to Radio Derby and they were interviewing a USGS spokesman who said to expect one. Couldn't do a proper source so I just added it so readers might be ready for it.--Santahul (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Aww, I lost the article naming game :'(

I think "2008 Lincolnshire earthquake" is currently the most appropriate name - it matches with the "2007 Kent earthquake" and the "2002 Dudley earthquake". The final name of the article will of course be decided by the common name the media applies... - Zephyris _Talk 02:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a bit of a fight over the title wasn't there... But yes, this one seems best for now. – Steel 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I reverted anyone, I think there were about 3 people trying to merge the various articles at the same time... glad it was sorted OK in the end. Vl'hurg ^talk 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

it should be the market rasen earthquake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalkenbrenner (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thats where the epicenter was, I started one called '2008 Market Rasen earthquake' but re-directed it here, cause this is the one everyone is using Chris as I am Chris (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the BBC are now saying Market Rasen Earthquake on there website, should the article name be changed now? Chris as I am Chris (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And Sky News are showing it as Market Rasen too Chris as I am Chris (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Times says "according to the British Geological Survey, was centred on the village of Holton cum Beckering, about 15 miles northeast of Lincoln." here. I think stick to 'Lincolnshire' which is accurate in a way 'Market Rasen' is not; Market Rasen is 6 miles north of the epicentre. TerriersFan (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW 2008 West Lindsey earthquake is also accurate. TerriersFan (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:Recentism applies. We need a name which will be used by people in the future. Will people remember the place name ? I don't think so. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Strength

We need to be consistent about the strength. List of earthquakes in the United Kingdom sources it at 4.9 and the BBC reports 5.1 here. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things difficult, [1] says it was 5.0. – Steel 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Estimates currently include 4.7, 4.9 5.0 and 5.1. A more accurate assessment requires significant human imput and will (hopefully ) come soon. - Zephyris _Talk 02:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

According to a geologist working on the earthquake from USGS they will be updating the info on there site to 5.3 strength Chris as I am Chris (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The BGS quoted magnitude (5.2), will be the most accurate as they have monitoring stations all over the country and near the epicentre, whereas the USGS 'estimates' the magnitude from the small amount of data they will have from seismographs around the world. RapidR (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the closest monitoring will be most accurate, ie. BGS>French Commission on Atomic Energy>Mediterranean>USGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyris (talk • contribs) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to be seismologically accurate does anyone have the MMS (Moment Magnitude Scale) of the earthquake? The Richter scale is used for measuring the size of the shockwaves whereas the strengh/power of the earthquake is measured by MMS. Archimedesuk (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

British English

We should use British English as a UK event. So 'defence' rather than 'defense' is correct. TerriersFan (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno how to use wiki properly yet, can somebody explain what Mjroots is trying to tell me to do :S (Stevebatsford (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

When you edit an article, there's a little box (just above 'Save page') in which you are supposed to 'briefly describe the changes you have made'. It just helps people see at a glance what's being done to the article (such as when viewing the article's history). Hope that helps Vl'hurg ^talk 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Horse-shit in the Sun

Anyone think that link to this alleged newspaper's article should be removed? 8-ft long crack in the ground, spouting smoke & flames - yeah, right. Maybe if a gas main got fractured, but this sounds like they've been spoofed. There are proper news sources to quote. 03:04, 27 February 2008

I agree - give me 5 mins without an edit conflict and I'll replace it! TerriersFan (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They're still a news source, there's no reason to remove the article as although being slightly absurd they are a credible news sourceSilent52 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say The Sun is an incredible news source! :-p Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I do think that it would be doing people a service to keep incorrect and unreliable news reports in a clearly separate section so that it give people the oportunity, in future, to determine the credibility of various sources. I think this is a sensible way of exposing misinformation. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Significance?

As an average person from California, where earthquakes between 4.7 and 5.4 on the Richter Scale happen occasionally on a regular basis, can someone add how it is far more significant there in Britain? I am concerned that a Wikipedian from the States might try to nominate this for deletion with a WP:OTHERSTUFF reason and cite something like this deletion discussion or this discussion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that it is the largest earthquake to affect the UK since 1984. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An Afd would fail. National news reports, irrespective of how insignificant an item, confer notability. This policy is proving problematic on the entertainment/celebrity article side of Wikipedia, where minor issues are blow out of all proportion. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The earthquake was quite strong. The epicentre was in Lincolnshire but I felt it quite noticeably here in Hertfordshire while having a late night cup of tea and Wikipedia/channel-hopping session ;-). I checked BBC News Online and Ceefax afterwards, and the BBC noted that the 'quake was significant within about half an hour of the tremor occurring. IMO, therefore, this event is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Andrew (My talk) 09:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sky News had blanket coverage for three hours or so after it happened. Definitely notable. Vashti (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a bull crap quake. Us Brits over reacting as usual! Panic on the streets of Lincoln etc etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.60.198 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was exciting, so i felt that the coverage on the news was fine. We dont usually get quakes, so therefore there was indeed a lot of relavence. The fact that you looked it up and 'contributed' here is evidence that you had some interest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.90.75 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanket coverage on Sky News means nothing, as they're always desperate for 'breaking news' to cover like this. However, I don't think we have to worry about this subject not being notable; it was an unusual event for Britain. So much so that it never occurred to me that it was an earthquake until I came online; I just thought my room was collapsing around me! 130.88.140.50 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Local News sources

I see the majority of sources so far are international sources. This is not a bad thing in itself, but as time goes on and this event fades from being headline news, the local news sources will continue to report in greater detail. These would include BBC Lincolnshire, BBC Humberside and the Lincolnshire Echo newspaper. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Epicentre

Just a query. The intro says that the epicentre was Holton cum Beckering. In the Location section it says the epicentre was 4km above Market Rasen. However, Holton cum Beckering is directly south of Market Rasen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.235.168 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know; confusing isn't it? It is also put at east of Market Rasen here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, on reflection, we should stick to the BGS location. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Plugging the lat &long. (53.386 -0.347) into streetmap gives [2]. So Holton cum Beckering is definately wrong. The government 1:2,500 MAGIC mapping service [3] with the Administrative areas template would give the parish, but it's down for maintenance until 07:00 tommorrow. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The preliminary report (53.39 -0.35) is 0.679848 km away [4]. The OS Grid (509900,389000) is 0.781025 km away [5]. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The location Market Rasen is wrong. All BGS co-ords are in Middle Rasen. [6], [7] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found todays co-ords from the BGS main page [8] and they are 53.42, -0.35 which gives [9] which is Osgodby Civil Parish (CP). 3.85km north of Market Rasen. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest report gives 53.404, -0.331 which is Middle Rasen Parish [ http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/opener.htm?startTopic=magadminareas&xygridref=510944,391013&startScale=50000] 1.9km N of Market Rasen -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mix of edit text and inline references hard to read

I was going to edit but the edit text was so hard to read I gave up. Should we change the inline reference format to the way it's done here [10], for example which I think is more readable ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

Back on the day of the earthquake there were not only news articles reporting on an elderly man who injured his leg when his chimney collapsed but this was noted in the text (with one of said articles as a citation). This has now disappeared, yet the lead text & infobox remain unchanged. Now call me cynical (or even just plain silly, as I have no source to prove it obviously) but at the time I was a bit skeptical over the legitimacy of two news pieces both reporting on near-identical injuries to two people, one the 19-year old mentioned in the article and the other to the 60-year old who's no longer there. Anyone know if the story of the latter man was true? It having been taken out makes me think it may have just been a misunderstanding in reports or something. Cheers! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cause

The earthquake was not caused by postglacial rebound (it might play a minor role in earthquakes in western Scotland). The earthquake was caused by (as with most NW European intraplate earthquakes) a horizontal tectonic stress field and local mantle conditions; a vice like compression caused by a combination of North Atlantic Ridge push forces and African plate compression (waining Alpine orogeny) and hot buoyant upper mantle. See: Firth & Stewart (2000)[11] and Bott & Bott (2004)[12] --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :(, the postglacial rebound article suggests that this is a major cause of North European earthquakes, typically around magnitude 5. It does mention general complex plate tension, but I think that article may need some clarification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyris (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. The info I added to the article reflects current European research. I had a look at the postglacial rebound article and it appears to be written from a US perspective, their science regarding Neogene uplift and tectonics is in its infancy.

We now believe that the mountains of NW Europe are as young as the Alps. They sprang up in the last ca. 20 million years and the ongoing tectonism is a remnant of that "Neogene Uplift" event. The exact mechanism is debated, but consensus appears to be focusing on a complex interplay between distant regional stress fields and something weird affecting the mantle, which caused a reduction in density and increased buoyancy (here is one idea [13]). If anyone questions European Neogene uplift and tectonics, just remind them that there are mountains in Scotland and Scandinavia etc., far away from any plate boundary. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Why have we got a nondescript picture of a road "not far from the epicentre", taken last year? Do people think we need this? Vashti (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen where it occurred ? Is it an accurate reflection ? Yes. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image should come out; it doesn't show anything about the earthquake - for example the damage caused. TerriersFan (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The damage was negligible and was proably more due to structurally unsafe buildings. You'd need to excersize balance - ~99% of buildings were unaffected. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if you'd gone out with a GPS and a camera, and taken a picture of exactly where the BGS tell us the epicentre is, this year, it wouldn't be all that relevant. A map of the UK with the epicentre marked is a lot more relevant and useful, and we have one. Vashti (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Official BGS name

The British Geological Survey appears to have officially named the 2008 Lincolnshire Earthquake, the "Market Rasen Earthquake"[14]. This reflects standard practice of naming notable UK earthquakes after the closest population center to the epicentre. The page should be edited to reflect the BGS's official name. If there are more earthquakes at the same location, near Market Rasen, it will be renamed the Market Rasen Earthquake Swarm. Earthquake swarms are the exception in the UK. --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can you confirm this with BGS, if it's true then I'll support WP adoption of the standard. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both if that is what they say. El.Bastardo (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

10 years later, it is still the Market Rasen earthquake to the BGS. https://twitter.com/BritGeoSurvey/status/964895700059267073 Lacunae (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Incrrectly dated ref

This report is actually dated 29 February and appears to be the latest released. The article ref date is wrong. [15] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Seems to use a lot of secondary news sources, needs some fact checking against BGS info.

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/recent_events/uk_special/market_rasen_27022008.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed the article on behalf of WikiProject Lincolnshire to give it a B/Mid, I was impressed with the layout, content and number of sources, the content was well written and suitable for a student at college level or above and was very comprehensive. I feel, though If there was a level between C and B I would have chosen that because it is slightly to short for a B but I feel a C is far to less. 95jb14 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Lincolnshire

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2008%2F02%2F27%2Fnquake227.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309224139/http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/reports/market_rasen_27022008/market_rasen_27022008_intro.htm to http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/reports/market_rasen_27022008/market_rasen_27022008_intro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Article name (again)

This earthquake is known as the Market Rasen earthquake by the BGS [16] and the BBC [17]. 2008 England earthquake is used by nobody at all except us. I'm moving this to the common name as suggested further up this page. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

---

2008 England earthquake → 2008 Market Rasen earthquake – This is the common name for this earthquake as used by the British Geological Survey, the BBC and in scholarly articles Mikenorton (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• The suggested title was previously merged to 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the edit history of 2008 Market Rasen earthquake currently shows 08:49, 27 February 2008‎ Dhartung (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (42 bytes) (-6,764)‎ . . (material merged to 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake), and as a result there is significant edit history at the target, which should be preserved. The merged article was later moved to 2008 England earthquake, see below. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Category "Earthquakes in the United Kingdom" shows all other earthquakes to have localised names of some sort. The "England" in the title should be changed to something more local. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The page history of 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake shows 00:56, 22 October 2017‎ Buttons0603 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (54 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (Buttons0603 moved page 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake to 2008 England earthquake: Earthquake was felt over a much wider area than just Lincolnshire - from Hampshire north to Newcastle, and the only serious injury occurred in Sheffield (South York...) Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.