Talk:2013 Lushan earthquake

References

Please write all titles of references in English even you are citing Chinese webpages.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timerrunnning (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

thats not what the rules say. dont do it! --109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, all of the titles should be in Chinese; however, any source that uses Chinese should use these parameters |language= and |trans_title=. Ryan Vesey 14:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputed name

The name wikipedia using now is not an official name yet. In China's media the name has changed into Lushan Earthquake because it was in Lushan County. However,we should have enough redirections now. Timerrunnning (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The title isn't necessarily translation of the official name in Chinese. For example, 2008 Sichuan earthquake is known as Wenchuan earthquake (汶川大地震) in Chinese but the previous one is frequently used by media. --Makecat 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Chinese official source tends use the place name where the disaster happened as the official name. But the title here are preferred so as to indicate the area which has been significantly affected. Since not only the Lushan County is affected, the current title is more illustrative and accurate, like the one for 2008 Sichuan earthquake.Wo.luren (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says,

[I]n the same province heavily impacted by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

- Based on that alone, it would make sense to title the article 2013 Sichuan Earthquake. I'm very knowledgeable with Wikipedia naming conventions, to the point where I know exactly what to type when looking up a current event article. I entered 2013 Sichuan earthquake, only to be redirected, yet see that it contradicts the article on an earthquake that hit the very same region five years ago. Another relevant example is the 2011 Yunnan earthquake. Again, the title refers to the epicenter's PROVINCE, not the direct epicenter. KirkCliff2 (Letters to the Editor) 08:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no set convention, actually. Nonetheless I think it would be wisest to wait until after the media calms down over the earthquake to formally decide on a name. ceranthor 12:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A basic Google search in Chinese for Ya'an Earthquake (雅安地震) returns (as of 6:05am April 22, Beijing time) 965,000 hits. A search for Lushan Earthquake (庐山地震) returns 1.76 million. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now it seems we have a valid reason for supporting the move to 2013 Lushan earthquake per WP:COMMONNAME. I've gone ahead and proceeded with the move. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It is totally incorrect. 1. First, Philg88 used a incorrect Chinese character for Lushan. It should be 芦山 but not 庐山. 庐山 (Mount Lu) is a well-known mountain and tourist site in China, while there was a significant conference (Lushan Conference) in the history of Chinese communist party about half a century ago. 2. It will give you about 1,980,000 results when searching for Ya'an Earthquake (雅安地震), while the search of Lushan Earthquake (芦山地震) gives you about 1,310,000 results. 3. I am a Chinese. I know what Chinese source tends to name this earthquake. Although last time Chinese media and Chinese people normally called it Wenchuan earthquake for the 2008 earthquake. But this time almost all media and people would like to call this earthquake as Ya'an earthquke. Technically speaking, the Chinese name for 2008 earthquake might be incorrect based on the area it affected. The 2008 earthquake had a massive impact on a much larger area, even resulting in hundreds of deaths in other province (Gansu and Shaanxi Province) (province > city/prefecture > county), but not only a Wenchuan County.Wo.luren (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for using the wrong character (it was very early in the morning :)). Even so, I still thing Lushan is valid on the basis that it is a subdivision of Ya'an and therefore defines the location more precisely. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Chinese article is currently titled at 雅安地震 (Ya'an earthquake), but uses 芦山地震 (Lushan earthquiake) as the main/first title, while also using the more specific 雅安芦山地震 (Ya'an, Lushan earthquake). If we see that Chinese sources clearly favor one title over the other, then we can move it, but until then, it is unresolved since both titles are mentioned around the same number of times per Google search results. I think you guys should resolve it at the Chinese WP first, then continue the discussion here when you know which title is the more common name. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the implicit skipping over of English-language media sources. The incessant "China quake" even sounds offensively like "Chinaman". Definitely a situation in which WP:NOTNEWS should strongly override. GotR ^Talk 05:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Where are we on the disputed name? I lean towards Lushan earthquake myself, but want to go with the most commonly used name. I'd like to see this resolved quickly if possible. Jusdafax 19:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Might take a few weeks, since it seems like the move discussion on the Chinese WP is still unresolved. We'll move the page back to Ya'an earthquake if the discussion is closed with no consensus to move to Lushan earthquake. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Lushan 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234135/http://www.scmz.gov.cn/InfoDetail.asp?ID=12210 to http://www.scmz.gov.cn/InfoDetail.asp?ID=12210

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) 10:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)