Talk:Earthquakes in New Zealand

message: As a New Zealander reading this right now I have never heard of the 'shaky isles'. (comment by 221.108.42.41 (talk), moved here from article)
:It strikes me as dated, and no longer common. I'll tone down the claim. There aren't many Google hits for the phrase, and there are more on Australian sites than on Kiwi ones. -- Avenue (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, my wife just forwarded to me an email from a friend of hers on North Island, including this: "I must admit I am finding it quite hard to concentrate. That last quake reminded me why we are sometimes referred to as 'the shaky isles' and this one really does reinforce that idea." --Thnidu (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaky Isles? 

message: There was a death-toll of 1 due to a man suffering a heart attack during the quake. Every time I add this, someone removes it. The 2007 Gisborne earthquake has a death-toll of 1, also due to a quake-induced heart attack. Why does it count for Gisborne but not Canterbury?--Megatronacepticon (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the Gisborne entry should be changed to zero too -- I've not seen anything attributing this death to the directly to the quake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.185.161 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think they both should say 1 death, perhaps with a footnote indicating this is uncertain. While in both cases it isn't absolutely clear that the death was caused by the quake, both deaths have been linked to the quake in news stories. --Avenue (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: There was a heart attack death linked to the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, too. --Avenue (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canterbury Quake death-toll 

message: To be more helpful to foreigners I don't suppose there could be a new section added next to the Location section or at the end of the table stating the major city and/or town affected by the earthquakes. Keep the regional locations as that's more precise. But I'll admit I know the major cities of NZ; not really the regions. So to me it's just a list of places I don't know eg. Canterbury (didn't know but do now) and Christchurch (know). I'll admit I don't know how it would be gathered or decided. But if it can be done it might be more helpful to some. My thoughts and well wishes are with New Zealand at the moment. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a similar thought and have changed the "Canterbury" text to "Christchurch" w/ appropriate link. The earthquake-name pages have already got redirects. --Thnidu (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am changing the 2010 quake back to Canterbury. It is commonly referred to by that name and was centred well outside Christchurch. The 2011 quake is different; I agree that Christchurch makes sense there. --Avenue (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me... especially since you live in NZ and would naturally be familiar with references to the 2010 quake from before this year's, unlike me in the USA. --Thnidu (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could a City/Town section be added to the table? 

message: Why is the building code referred to in the introduction. It is not of great importance. Nor is it correct. It is a cliche that New Zealand has very stringent building regulations. That is actually not true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building code 

message: The date formats on this page are only  using 3 letters for months. This seems contrary to MOS. Please correct me if I am wrong. I can see advantages in doing this for consistent text alignment in a table. - 220 of  Borg 18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a real mixture of formats and I went for something consistent. I then abbreviated it for table format reasons but have no objections if the long names get used for alignment with MOS. Schwede66 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not going to change it. Consistency is good.  The table looks good now. I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies. Only possibility I thought of was perhaps using numerals only, with leading zeros? YYYY-MM-DD format? That way it could sort on year, then months, then days; not days only as now.- 220 of  Borg 14:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Template:Dts. Schwede66 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table date formatting 

message: Date       	Location    	Region          	Magnitude	Depth	Latitude	Longitude	Fatalities	Further information
01 May 1917	Raoul Island	Kermadec Islands	8.6      	50 km	29.00°S 	177.00°W 	          	Felt throughout New Zealand
21 Oct 1986	Raoul Island	Kermadec Islands	8.8      	33 km	28.15°S 	176.29°W 	          	Felt throughout New Zealand
I'm far from an expert, but shouldn't an 8.8 earthquake have theoretically caused a sizable tsunami to hit the mainland and presumably other Pacific neighbours? Also, I cannot find any references for such an event and would assume that an event of that magnitude would have been heavily reported regardless of where it occurred. 
After a bit of searching, I learned that USGS does indeed have an earthquake listed in the area for that day, but they show it as 8.3, which seems more likely considering the lack of reports for it.
As for the 8.6, that seems similarly incongruious, and the sources I've found USGS for that measure it at 8.0.--119.224.106.237 (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to update the article. Please add the USGS references to those entries.-gadfium 20:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  8.8 earthquake in Raoul Island? 

message: Has been changed to mag 7.2. All the refs say 7.0. Is there a reliable source for the revision otherwise it probably should be returned to mag 7.0Andrewgprout (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 opunaki earthquake 

message: The one reference to 7.2 appears to be to raw data and I wonder how useful that really is considering how hard it is to find.  We don't know how this might have or may not have been adjusted.
This is the Reference - http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http://magma.geonet.org.nz/services/quake/kml/2.2/search?externalRef=3732830
This is against literally hundreds of official references to 7.0.  I am also unsure that rounding a logarithmic scale UP (or down for that matter) is a very sensible thing to do given its non equal nature.  Is there anyone from GNS or knows about this stuff that can advise.
Andrewgprout (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Opunaki  - Ok we have 7.0 vs 7.2 revision tag here.

message: I'm a bit confused by your edit summary: "Removed a couple for not being 'noteable' as sub heading defined - (not big or not felt/too deep)."  First up, you did not remove 'a couple' but four earthquakes. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by 'sub heading defined'. Thirdly, three of the four earthquakes you removed have existing articles and are thus, by Wikipedia definition, notable. And if they really are not notable then the avenue of establishing this is via AfD. Note that there is absolutely no problem with you putting your own articles up for deletion, as I note that you yourself started two of those supposedly non-notable articles. Once the articles get deleted, it is then appropriate to remove them from the list of notable earthquakes. With regards to the earthquake that you added with your edit, note that I did keep that one when I reverted the rest of your edit. Schwede66 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of non-notable earthquakes