Template talk:Earthquake magnitude/Archive 1

Archive 1

Any objection to repurposing this template?

Would anyone here have any insurmountable objection if I "repurpose" this template? This template currently does only one small, insignificant thing: produce the character "ṃ" (a.k.a. the "small letter m with dot below"). It is a trivial usage, better done with the HTML encoding ṃ, or (for those who don't keep that encoding at hand) with {{dotbelow|m}}. On the other hand, there is a need for a template that consistently generates, identifies, and tracks use of different earthquake magnitude scales, commonly denoted by "M". Such a template I am preparing, but it needs to be named "M" or practically no one will be able to recall its name. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Investigation shows that, on the English Wikipedia, this template is used in no articles (two prior uses being incorrect, and have been corrected), no categories, and only two templates (which were copied from the French Wikipedia). On the User and User_Talk pages there are 31 instances, largely on banned or inactive users. There are 236 instances in File space, which a sampling shows to be for obtaining the "ṃ" character. Any problem with these can be fixed by replacing with the actual character, or a code.

On the basis that this template currently has no significant use or usage, and changing it will create no significant breakage, and that there is another need for this exact name, I will be proceeding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Shaping up!

@Dawnseeker2000: Thought I would warn you that I am near to rolling out a new version with some significant differences in display formatting. Most notably, I am dumping (except for two or three minor cases) the use of {abbr} (that created the dotted underline) in favor of regular wikilinks to pertinent articles. (The wikilinks are enabled by adding a |link=y parameter.) I have also italicized the first letter of the label, though I am not yet completely convinced this is a good idea. I may open a discussion on that, and on the format of subscripted part, in the near future. I am also wondering about having a parameter indicating which catalog is used in verifying the magnitude. Conceivably several magnitudes might be given, reflecting different scales and/or catalogs. I would welcome any thoughts you have on any of this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I used the current version during a spree when creating some lists last year, but that activity has waned quite a bit (trying to get back into article creation, but it's difficult right now with some major life stresses still going on). As far as formatting goes (have seen the comments on italics) I'm not sure which way we should go with that. The usage of italics that I've seen is varied, and there may be a case for using it, but I'm mostly just concerned that we do it uniformly. A quick look at the latest BSSA issue shows more italics than not. The catalog parameter is something that I've never considered, but that could be something that could simplify things around here.

Most of the events' magnitudes in the Cali list are copied from the articles, which use a variety of sources, but I've been favoring the ISC-GEM list because it's trusted and is used as a source by the USGS. The NEIC's "preliminary" determination of epicenters parametric catalog is called just that because they concede that the ISC catalog is the pre-eminent catalog. I don't know how the new template could work but it may have potential, but I don't necessarily think we should base our lists on one catalog alone. There are only about 20 entries left in the Cali list that don't have a dedicated article (and use Stover & Coffman for all parameters (the USGS used to cite them on their stand alone earthquake web pages, but those have mostly gone away in favor of the new website)) and I'm picking those off somewhat regularly by creating new articles with the varied sources. Oftentimes, especially in the older events, multiple sources are used. Looking specifically at the 1898 Mare Island event: You wouldn't want to toss out Sue Hough's or T. Toppozada's analysis of how they arrived at their presented magnitude because that encyclopedic material makes up a good portion of the article. Dawnseeker2000 01:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Major error

Today, the documentation says & shows:

• {{M|w|6.1}} → M_w 6.1

This is an error: the correct quantity equation is: M_w = 6.1. The "=" sign is missing. (In a sentence, writing "M_w is 6.1" is OK too). -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hardly a "major" error, and very much a questioned issue. For anyone passing by, this arises from a discussion at Talk:Seismic_scale#Approach:_treat_as_physical_quantity_symbol, and it would be best keep it there.

Re the current editing spat: same thing, same place. DePeip: none of your editing here was discussed here, and such discussion as we have had atTalk:Seismic scale is NOT resolved to the point that you should presume to proceed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

All details aside: it is an error. The physical quantity must be written "M_w = 6.1" (the =-sign must be in there), per ISO and SI. The rest is distraction. Also, J. Johnson, your responses are touching WP:PA, WP:BF, WP:CIVIL trespassing without being helpful or improving. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Two points.

1. Your assertion of an error, without pointing to any applicable WP policy, guidance, etc., is just your personal opinion. Likewise your extended comments at Talk:Seismic scale, where (up until your most recent augmentation there, which I have not yet had time to study, and no one else has commented on) you have not cited or provided any basis or authority for your opinion other than to chant "SI! SI! ISO!".

2. How are your comments helpful? Your "touching" seems to be an insinuation, an attempt to impute something derogatory without actually saying it outright. Do you deny it? Allow me to remind you (again) that, per WP:AVOIDYOU: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." (Please stop doing that.)

Your link to WP:BF ("Accusing others of bad faith") is ironic. I quote:

Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute.

These kinds of comments and insinuations do nothing to further the changes you want. But they do have a counter-effect: whereas I was previously rather agnostic on what you wanted, I am becoming less inclined to view them favorably. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

re without pointing to any applicable WP policy, ...: I did write "The physical quantity must be written "M_w = 6.1" (the =-sign must be in there), per ISO and SI". How is that not defining enough? First you accuse me of "chanting" SI and ISO, then you conclude that is my personal opinion???

re 2: you keep distracting from my point simply by not reading it (as point 1 here proves; also, just read my OP here and check your answer: no response to the content). Why do you introduce derogative chanting when I do actually source my point? I'll list diffs on your talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DePiep, you went ahead and changed quite a few articles to suit your preferred style while the conversation here had broken down. That's kind of odd timing, and we now have the problem of multiple styles in the articles. It's fine if you have an idea about changing something, but it's preferred to have every article unified with respect to style. Dawnseeker2000 02:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, I used the style as provided & documented by this template (created by J. Johnson). Note that the error I pointed to here (see OP) is still in there. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This section is effectively closed as DePiep is under a one-year topic ban. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanek

The template recognises Vanek (V), but it is not in the doc table and the category does not exist: Category:M_V.

{{M|V|link=y}} → [Template:M used with invalid code 'V'. See documentation.]

Should V be made complete or be removed? -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. After all your massive, questionable changes you finally deign to consult. A bit late, now?

"Vanek" is not advertised in the table because I have not double-checked on it. For now, leave it alone. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused category

Category:M (0) is created as one of the Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale (48). However, it is not used (not addressed) from the template. I suggest we delete the category. (the current irrelevant page will be gone in a few days). -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not used (not addressed) from the template"? I believe it was intended as the parent category for all of the M_* subcategories.

What "current irrelevant page" are you referring to? And if you have any idea of blowing off any pages I would strongly advise to chill. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"(not addressed) from the template" is: the template does not call (add) this category in any situation. It is not mentioned in the template internal code. No article will ever be in there (not meaning: currently empty).

"current irrelevant page": yesterday, a page was categorised here that was unrelated to earthquakes. I undid that categorisation, but that takes time to be visible (categorisation delay). Today it is gone, and so that remark can be ignored. (the category is empty and so can be deleted). -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, sure: delete that category. Thank you for asking. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

M-dot is confusing

As I am understanding it, I find the M-dot option confusing (or ambiguous). First, I assume the dot is a template-specific option (not used as such in the sources).

The option gives:

• {{M|.|link=y}} → M

So clearly meaning & linking to the well-defined M_w . However, the comment in the code Table says: "dot: implicit Mw, sometimes implicit Ms". That could be the different M_s then! This allows the template user to (unintentionally) use the wrong meaning. Let's search to remove this ambiguity/error.

It looks to me that this is to cover that the source (as in: RS) writes an unspecified magnitude (no subscript), but the context makes clear what the subscript (magnitude scale) actually is. In those cases, we should mark this a maintenance task M_? (task: re-research the source, and add the proper code=magnitude scale w or s: solved). If the source & context is not clear in this, we at WP can not add a subscript either, right? That would be assuming (like OR).

This is separate from the new option {{M|magnitude|link=y}}  → magnitude option (I recently added), which is to mention the generic "Magnitude", for example in the Table header (is not an error, no maintenance job, and is not categorised, see [1]).

Proposal: 1. Remove the option M-dot completely from the template, 2. Use M_? for unclear or yet-unclear specification, 3. Maintenance job: revisit the source to solve, or write in the article like "magnitude scale uncertain, probably ...". (added:) The intended effect is that we do not use unspecified M magnitudes in articles. (Today, in Category:M_w (54 P) there are no articles using this M-dot like {{M|.}})

Comments? -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely do not remove "M-dot".

The "dot" code (".") is where Mw is implicit, but not explicitly specified, such as in USGS press releases. For all that the reader sees, it is "moment magnitude scale", but we understand that the source did not exactly specify "Mw". It gets the editor off of the dilemma of either "I can't say Mw because the source doesn't say so", or "I'll just pretend I saw it". It also allows for cases where a source uses "M" implicitly meaning Ms, where it would be an error for us to specify Ms because the source doesn't say that. "M-dot" allows for such a possibility, without making the error of asserting Mw. We give the user "Mw" as the most likely case, but "dot" allows that the source did not actually say that. This is entirely separate from the use of "?", where it unknown which scale was used, or there is some indication of an error. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you remove or strike your commanding opening line? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Could, but not so inclined. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Generic magnitude" and tables

Dawnseeker2000: I'm starting to look at how to best clean up the template; the easiest option is to revert back to the last clean version. One problem is that DePiep, having implemented his version of an uncategorized "generic magnitude", then used it in those 30 earthquake lists he edited on 9 July, which would then cause an error. The simplest way of fixing that is to just revert his edit on each list. (Most of them are still current.)

But this does raise three questions. First, should the template accommodate a "generic" magnitude? I am inclined to think not: the template is about scales, and if in some discussion magnitude is being discussed generically – that is, without regard to any specific scale – there is no need to invoke the template. I think the exception would be if it is desired to use "M" with wikilink (and a tooltip?) to something explaining "earthquake magnitude". Which I am dubious about.

Second is the specification of magnitude and magnitude scales in the lists (tables). You currently have the magnitude value and the magnitude scale in separate columns. I think these should be combined into a single column, with the template used to specify both value and scale.

The third question regards a suitable column header. I think "Mag." is the best label; the question is how to explain it. Conventional practice is to explain table headers in the notes at the bottom of the table, but this is a detail unfamiliar to many WP editors. "Mag." could also be wikilinked to Earthquake magnitude, which redirects to Seismic scale. (Which is not entirely suitable, as the latter 1) also covers intensity, and 2) is not about magnitude as such, but magnitude scales.) Given some such suitable anchor it could be incorporated into a Template:M option as a convenience to editors. But as I said above, I am dubious about this. I'm thinking it would be best to have "Mag." wikilinked to Earthquake#Magnitude (which needs some improvement), just as "MMI" is wikilinked to Mercalli intensity scale.

What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just finished some work on Earthquake#Magnitude. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey J. Johnson, I'm just seeing this now. For some reason I did not get a ping. I think most of the suggestions are OK. Excluding a generic magnitude is probably a good idea. The work that you've done with this is a giant leap forward as far as improving definitions and including something generic doesn't really fit in. Let me ponder some of the other items. Dawnseeker2000 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! And sorry about the ping failure; I was just suspecting that I hadn't done that right. Anyway, I'm getting ready to restore the template. And, for the duration, something to temporarily handle the "generic magnitudes" so that the tables don't get messed up. But we do need to fix those.

Speaking of which, and lacking any better place to discuss lists of earthquakes collectively: I believe the Europeans don't use the MMI intensity scale anymore, but use the EMS. So that might warrant a separate column. Or there could be a single "Intensity" column, with the expectation that each value identifies the scale used. (Which then suggests a use for an intensity scale template, but I'm not ready to do that.) Perhaps we should raise the question of a standardized format for "Lists of earthquakes" at the Earthquake project page. Though I think I'd like to polish this template a littl e bit more before raising that discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: So how about this for a column header: | Mag. |. At about 70 chrs and using an obscure template I don't see many editors (any?) adding this to a table of earthquakes, but it seems useful enough to be worthwhile. So even though it's an aberrant use of the template, I'm tempted ("templated", right) to throw it in as a special case.

My position on all of these changes has less to do with what we do than that we do it with consistency, and in that light, I don't think it's necessary right now that we revert DePiep's contributions. For now, let's shoot for less work, not more. Whatever we settle on as for as formatting goes can be done relatively easily, but let's just make sure that we are completely settled on the decision before we do it. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of input in this right now (Elriana amd Mikenorton might be good to ping about this before we call it said and done).

Using "Mag" as the column header is fine. It's an improvement over using "M" because it will without doubt be more recognized and familiar by the majority of readers. I was looking for its use by professionals but haven't found anything yet. If I have anything to say on its use it might be style-related.

Joining the magnitude and magnitude type columns was a good change also. It's one less column heading that we need to be concerned about. The way that I'd done is was to not even label the type column so that again reduces another source of uncertainty for the readers and any potential reviewers. Dawnseeker2000 16:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the reasons for discussion is to get things right from the first, and not have to backup. I think I will put in the "mag" option. (But with tracking.)

The particular issue I'm antsy about is italicization. I'm perhaps slightly against it, but have left it in for now as it is easier to remove it than to put it back it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been concerned with that also. It was the reason for this post after his sweeping changes. As far as our sources go, its use looks to be a preference of specific publishers. In other words, certain journals favor it and some don't. Slightly more use it than not, but I don't think it's necessary for us to follow suit. For now, I prefer to stay on track to not use italics, and if we choose to do that, we could go through and undo some of DePeips changes. I would feel comfortable restoring the non-italicized scheme for uniformity. Dawnseeker2000 19:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is entirely a matter of style, not nomenclature, the issue being what style do we want to establish here. One consideration is when editors do not use the template, do they prefer italicized, or not? Some do, but perhaps because they think they should follow BSSA style, despite being a little extra trouble? Well, before I settle this I should raise it at MOS:NUM. Just in case someone has a strong opinion on the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've presented the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Formatting of earthquake magnitude scales. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I had to chase it around a bit, but it looks like I have the wikilinked "Mag." header working now. {{m|mag}} → Mag. As seen at List of earthquakes in California#Earthquakes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: Re those 30 or so lists where DePeip added his "magnitude" option: I think the the "mag" option is solid enough to replace it.. Any objection if I start going through those lists? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection. It's an improvement, so go ahead. I did the Vanuatu list yesterday (only have a couple of mobile devices right now). Dawnseeker2000 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And done. I think I've got all the lists he hit. If not, they'll show up in the 'deprecated' category the next time they get edited, and can be cleaned up then. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and applied the template to almost 250 articles, mainly days of the year entries and other lists, but I did not specifically load any of DePiep's changes. Can look at that later. This is probably the most coordinated effort we've had to get things unified so I let AWB tear it up for a few hours yesterday evening. Dawnseeker2000 01:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, look at you go! At this rate we can start thinking about the day when all earthquake magnitudes get checked against an authoritative catalog.

I would urge one point of caution: if the original editor didn't specify M_w , it might be better to lean towards use of the "dot" code ({{m|.}}). The display result is the same, but it's a different maintenance category, distinguishing between documented, and merely believed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

On scales and things.

@Ampuero: Perhaps you could help me here with a question or two. I am trying to get this template as tight as I can to set a high standard for the use of magnitude scales at Wikipedia. And I just read in Havskov and Ottemöller (2009) that they distinguish between "M_s" (small "s") and "M_S" (big "S"), using the former for the "classic" M_s surface-wave magnitude, and the latter for the IASPEI "Ms_BB" scale. Does anyone else do this? Or is that just their particular usage?

Second question: I want to recommend in the template documentation catalogs that editors should use to get authoritative earthquake data. The USGS NEIC and PDE, for sure, and the ISC. What other catalogs would you recommend to provide global scope, and accessible to non-experts? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, I wouldn't know if others use the notation M_S. Havskov was part of the IASPEI Working Group on Magnitude Measurements (http://iaspei.org/commissions/commission-on-seismological-observation-and-interpretation#04). I doubt a difference between M_s and M_S will ever need to be made here on Wikipedia. I would go for the generic M_s. I don't know of an established standard for magnitude notations in text. For a representative sample of notations in text and in catalog files, see page 11 of http://isc-mirror.iris.washington.edu/docs/papers/download/Summary_WG_recommendations_20130327.pdf

Regarding your second question, those are the global catalogs I would cite. Another notable catalog of global scope, but a bit different, is the Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog (http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html). It provides centroid information instead of hypocenter information, and is specialized in providing moment tensor solutions. Ampuero (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the GCMT catalog might be too specialized for general use here. Perhaps the others will be sufficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)