Template talk:Infobox earthquake

message: I really don't see the reason to have an image description for a MAP. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: What about a couple of extra sections to the infobox. How bout the Coordinate details and the depth that the earthquake struck at? Both of these are already listed on any USGS earthquake report page. Nomadtales 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done, you read my thoughts :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some extra bits 

message: How the heck do I make the right column wider than the left one?  I want to do this so country names don't get wrapped. Lexicon (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns 

message: Is there a way to make the caption of this template more center? When being used it seems to shift right of some reason and makes the infobox longer. Black Tusk (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption problem 

message: I have added the hCalendar [[microformat}} to this template and  submitted this bot request:
:For pages using , convert dates (if after 1750AD) to use , and change coordinates display parameters to |display=inline,title as in this edit. The former will make the date appear in the template's hCalendar microformat; the latter will make the articles appear in Google Earth/ Maps mashups.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microformat and bot request 

message: Hello all. I added "map2" to allow for map templates to be used instead of images. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Map2

message: Beginning on Jan 20, User:Thumperward made a series of changes to this template that made all the bullseye maps disappear from all articles using the template. I reverted these changes given the high profiles of articles using these maps. The bulleye maps are still missing from many dozens of articles unless the code in each article is manually changed from Earthquake to Infobox earthquake. Abductive (reasoning) 16:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to template 

message: Can the template be altered so that it doesn't automatically put earthquake articles into this category? There are many such articles, most of them with pictures in the body of the page, so it really is unnecessary. See for instance discussion at Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Earthquake articles needing a picture 

message: This template needs a field for foreshocks. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreshocks 

message: The current location parameter defaults to the American spelling "Epicenter", which causes style inconsistencies for earthquake articles written in other variants of English ("Epicentre"). Any way to change this so that the user can choose between the spelling?
:.  will show "Epicentre". Same effect with . Intention: template should follow article WP:engvar spelling. -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AmE vs BrE, AuE, CanE spelling 

message: The German template :de:Vorlage:Infobox Erdbeben uses ISO region codes and long and lat in order to automatically provide a locator map.  e.g. :de:Erdbeben vor Sumatra 2012 is 
|Breitengrad        = 2.348
|Region-ISO         = XI
|Längengrad         = 93.072
XI brings in the locator map defined at :de:Vorlage:Info ISO-3166-2:XI.  Is "XI" in the region code spec?  I tihnk this would useful to add to our template..? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO region, long and lat 

message: Should be wikilinked in the infobox like this: Peak acceleration. Wikilinking of g is not right per WP:EGG. GregorB (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PGA parameter 

message: Tōkai earthquakes is using this template, but it seems to me that it's not semantically correct—it's a series of regularly occurring earthquakes, which makes the "date" field seem a little strange—shouldn't it be "frequency" or something? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regularly occurring earthquakes 

message: Eventually someone could install 2 different parameters one for UTC-date-time and another for the local-date-time. This would it make a bit harder for wikifants to always produce the popular wrong-mixing that will occur (at least) whenever the beloved date discrepancy allows it. Thanks for slightly reducing traditional Wikipedia Bullshits. --Itu (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate date-time fields 

message: There is a problem with date-time: all authoritative sources identify and index earthquakes (including aftershocks, and other seismic events) by their UTC date and time, but many editors use, and many readers expect, local date and time. As the infobox allows only one date and time, and without specification, we get both inconsistency in use, and ambiguity in expectation.  
To fix this I propose the following change: that the 'date' and 'time' parameters be replaced with , , and . These to be displayed as follows: 
  UTC timestamp:  1989-10-18 00:04:15
  Local date:     October 17, 1989
  Local time:     5:04:15 p.m. PDT
The Infobox also to be modified so that use of 'date' and 'time' default to local-date and local-time, and add the article to a maintenance category.  I anticipate this being done with other changes proposed in the next section.
Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks helpful. Every earthquake article should have UTC and local time, although for historical earthquakes once you get back to before the establishment of GMT, this can be a little trickier - see Talk:1835_Concepción_earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think pre-GMT is a problem, as given approximate local time and a location, the GMT equivalent is trivially determined; which is likely how it was handled in the one or two historical catalogs I can recall off-hand. Pre-Gregorian would be more of a problem, but for that we should just go with what the catalog says. (If two catalogs differ, then state, and cite, both.) Calling such derived times "UTC" is a bit of a stretch, but I think acceptable. For deeply historical cases, such as the 464 BC Sparta earthquake, I am inclined towards having a key word – "historical" – that would suppress the "UTC-timestamp" field entirely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Better yet (I think): I am going to add a "pre-1900" parameter, that defaults to "no". If set to "yes" the article gets added to a tracking category, and "utc-timestamp" becomes optional. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

text: To stop the earthquake date-time mess which i'm fighting until today this can of course be supported...  as i still suggested in September  --Itu (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to disambiguate date-time 

message: With reference to the preceding discussion, I keep finding articles that cover multiple events. In some cases there are two or three distinct and close shocks (e.g.: 1880 Luzon earthquakes}, in other cases they are more in the nature of a swarm of less distinct shocks. Despite the variations, all are cases of subjects with multiple events, and which special handling is needed. I'd like to create a category for tracking these, but am uncertain how it should be named. Any suggestions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: sequence, series, swarm,  or ..? 

message: I am unconvinced about adding "Consequence" to the infobox. I'm not sure that it's providing any extra information and at least one field "foreshocks" is definitely not a consequence. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequence 

message: As a result of a discussion over the "fault" parameter for the recent 2019 Albania earthquake, I think that it would be good to have a "plate boundary" field in the infobox for where that is known, even if the actual fault isn't. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The apparent intent of the "fault" parameter, as written, appears to be the field where you list the plates on "either side" of the fault (known or otherwise.) I'm not sure the infobox is entirely clear on this. Perhaps renameing so that it clearly reflects "plate(s) involved". I think "faults" isn't clear.Trilotat (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent, as I understand it, is to mention the named fault that moved during the earthquake, for instance,  in the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami, the fault was the Palu-Koro Fault. Some segments of plate boundaries have their own names, like the Sunda megathrust. What we lack is a parameter that describes the plate boundary involved for interplate earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

text: In the example given on the template page, the plate interface doesn't have a separate name, so you could use the plate boundary itself, but in say the 1906 San Francisco earthquake you would definitely use San Andreas Fault rather than Pacific–North American Plate boundary - all I'm suggesting is that where we have a named fault, that we have a parameter that allows us to add the plate boundary involved. Many intraplate earthquakes happen on named faults, so renaming to "plate boundary" would not be appropriate. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate boundary field? 

message: I think you should change label 20 from
USGS-ANSS
to
USGS-ANSS
WikipediaNeko (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes to label 20 

message: I've noticed a readability issue on article 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake. The two blocks in the intensity field of the infobox overlap, making the first one hard to read (the lower rectangle overlaps parts of the letters of the upper template). This issue comes from usage of template . Other articles use two  tags, which is not good wikitext, but it's readable. 
Here are the demos of these two solutions. I've also tried a single  tag and , and  with , but the same overlapping issue remains.
Are there any other ways to arrange  and  in the infobox? —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify  — for me, the font is Noto Sans. The capital letter "J" of JMA has a descender, which is covered by the lower rectangle in such a way that it's hard to distinguish it from a capital letter "I". —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping intensity boxes when two scales are used