Talk:2009 Sumatra earthquakes

Update

I just update on the page. The countries affected are Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. PTSimuTrans

Rename

:The following discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section. The result was rename --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article to "2009 Padang earthquake". What do you all think? --Bejnar (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree, considering Padang is where most of the damage/casualty reports are coming from. Also, based on how serious this one is becoming I'd also suggest perhaps deleting August 2009 Sumatra earthquake because that occurred in the same area and only resulted in some minor injuries (perhaps add a mention of it in this article) and then have 2009 Sumatra earthquake redirecting to here. RapidR (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've split part of what has been written into a background section. Maybe the August quake could be merged into that? As for the re-name I'd possibly hold for a while because as it is only very early, we don't know how many other areas are affected other than Padang --Daviessimo (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree too. 2009 Sumatra Earthquake is too Generic to specify. If another instances of Earthquake happened in near time, then a new wiki page will face difficulties to add in. Killerserv^Talk 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the article should not be renamed. The earthquake actually happened closer to Pariaman than Padang. (Caniago (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Another earthquake happened in Jambi, Sumatra so it should be renamed with "September 2009 Sumatra earthquakes" -Dre.comandante (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been two earthquakes, one in Sept and one in Oct, for simplicity why not call it 2009 Sumatra earthquakes. Myk60640Myk60640 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aftershocks are generally logged under the major quake, see, for example, 2009 Crete earthquake and 2009 Gulf of California earthquake. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we know that the second quake was an aftershock? If it was a separate earthquake, I think this article should be split, for instance into September 2009 Sumatra earthquake and October 2009 Sumatra earthquake. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is there really a consensus here in favour of this move? RapidR and Killerserv agreed with the proposal, but I had my doubts and Caniago and Myk60640 favoured another name. I don't see a consensus, either in numbers or in the weight of the arguments. Another problem is that the person who closed the discussion and moved the article is also the nominator, Bejnar (talk · contribs). Is it really appropriate for the nominator to close a discussion when there is no WP:SNOW consensus? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards agreeing with those who oppose the move. It is certainly inappropriate for the nominator to move the article without consensus. This should be reversed. Poor form indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 Sumatra earthquake is better than 2009 Padang earthquake. It's not just Padang. Further, I'd recommend either September 2009 Sumatran earthquake or '2009 Sumatran earthquake (until there is another that is notable enough in Sumatra in 2009). --Merbabu (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, it may be best to delete August 2009 Sumatra earthquake since it didn't cause any deaths, and then rename this to 2009 Sumatra earthquake. RapidR (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no concensus to move this article to "2009 Padang earthquake" so I have moved it back to a semi-reasonable name, "2009 Sumatra earthquakes". I am not opposed to it being called "2009 Sumatra earthquake", but I am very strongly opposed to having Padang in the title. There is nothing ambigous about calling it "2009 Sumatra earthquake", since we don't have any other articles about Sumatran earthquakes in 2009. (Caniago (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

What about the August 2009 Sumatra earthquake? RapidR (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it should be named as scientific sources are handling it and not anything what seems semi-reasonable. Considering the USGS, it should be 2009 South Sumatra earthquake. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own naming policies, we don't follow USGS or any other organisation. (Caniago (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Tsunami Warning/Watch

I just changed the line saying tsunami warning to watch. I know that the mainstream media reports that a tsunami warning was issued, but this is completely false. As you can also see in this official message: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/messages/indian/2009/indian.2009.09.30.102622.txt , it was a tsunami watch which was issued, not a warning. That's a big difference. Just because the media says so, doesn't make it a fact. (213.10.57.8)

Aftershock or not?

In the rename discussion above, one editor has said that aftershocks are usually included in the article about the main earthquake. But are we certain that the second earthquake near Sumatra was actually an aftershock of the first? In the lead itself, we say that "[i]t is not yet clear whether the two events are related". If it's not clear that the second earthquake was an aftershock of the first, shouldn't we treat them as two separate earthquakes? And as such, shouldn't the two earthquakes have their own articles for the time being? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the nature of the second event, it's unlikely that the second earthquake is an aftershock (OR warning). However, it may have been triggered by the first event. Hopefully, the relationship between them will become clearer. A separate article may be a good idea, but the second one should get at least a mention here IMO. Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the second quake of M6.6 was not an aftershock as it occurred on a different fault with a different mechanism to the first quake. I've not seen of any injuries or damage specifically attributed to this second quake so currently it would be unnecessary for it to have its own article. RapidR (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The USGS told BNO News (here: http://news.bnonews.com/w5f5) that it was indeed not an aftershock since they are located too far from each other. (Michael2- (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Mikenorton's suggestion. Arjuno (talk 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, technically they may be different events - but it's far better from a readability and continuity point of view to have them together in one article. Sure, state clearly that they are separate events and not aftershocks, but what good for the reader is served by having them on two pages? And let's be honest - how much of an article are we really going to develop from the second quake that (I understand) caused no injuries or damage? There's enough in common (similar time and location) for readers to benefit from them being together. --Merbabu (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 Sumatra earthquakes. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EDIS-7WSKEP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/messages/indian/2009/indian.2009.09.30.102622.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesias-sumatra-island-shaken-by-76-earthquake/332690
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707234559/https://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/Reconnaissance/10-SP01/10-SP01.pdf to http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/Reconnaissance/10-SP01/10-SP01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005011730/http://www.antara.co.id:80/en/news/1254379555/padang-airport-reopened-for-commercial-flights to http://www.antara.co.id/en/news/1254379555/padang-airport-reopened-for-commercial-flights
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/_on_re_as/as_indonesia_earthquake
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/maindocs/4484E4459395354488257643000452BD?opendocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsworld.php?id=444148
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/20091003150834/Article/index_html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/10/03/more-countries-pledge-aid-quake-victims.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8285409.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Sumatra earthquakes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015095022/http://www.antara.co.id/en/news/1255472809/number-of-fatalities-in-w-sumatra-quake-now-1-115 to http://www.antara.co.id/en/news/1255472809/number-of-fatalities-in-w-sumatra-quake-now-1-115
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004235046/http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009mfaf.php to http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009mfaf.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717032815/http://web.thestarmobile.com/news.jsp?article=102626&page=2 to http://web.thestarmobile.com/news.jsp?article=102626&page=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.malaysiainsider.net/index.php/opinion/hafiznoorshams/39167-a-chance-to-demonstrate-malaysian-goodwill
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608114348/http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/20091022_Landolt_transcript.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/20091022_Landolt_transcript.pdf

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) 14:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)