Talk:Modified Mercalli intensity scale

message: The second sentence under the subhead on the article page needs to be reworked; it doesn't make sense as it stand.  Looks like perhaps something was copied incorrectly or incompletely.  
If this isn't the right place to put this comment, please let me know.  I'm a noob.
Cr8aAvatar (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence unclear

message: I was just looking through a book and found some rough Richter equivalents to these. If anyone thinks this might be appropriate, tell me and I will supply them (although I cannot edit tables myself, I don't have the knowledge.)Squid 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find this in the Romanian article: :ro:Scara Mercalli (and also the table syntax). Could you check if it corresponds with your sources? --Alex:Dan 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are grouped differently but roughly follow the same pattern. I'll get back to you soon... Squid 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richter Scale 

message: The scale chart is from Cambridge Encyclopedia. I own a 2006 version of this encyclopedia.-- Vintei  Talk  18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Actually it doesn't measure anything. It's not even a scale really. It's just a classification scheme where earthquakes are classified according to their perceived effects by people.
Two equally intense earthquakes may be classified on different categories (so called "degrees" here) depending on whether there were people and/or human constructions on the areas the earthquakes took place.
This is just a subjective classification scheme.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.177.42 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This scale doesn't measure intensity 

message: I've marked this term (bottom of article) 'citation needed' because I couldn't Google any references to this phrase, or to its assertion. The 'Calligraph scale' also doesn't appear on the Seismic scale page. (And don't know a better template.) I'm guessing the editor meant the old-fashioned pen-ink Kinemetrics seismometer?? Twang (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all mention of the Calligraph scale because I couldn't find anything on Google, other than mirrors of Wikipedia of this very article. The idea about the old-fashioned pen-ink Kinemetrics seismometer sounds inviting, but the article needs some kind of citation to even mention the Calligraph scale. Obankston (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Calligraph scale?

message: From a textbook I had at school a while back, the Mercalli scale had a level that was even higher than XII-Catastrophic. It was XIII-Cataclysmic, when the damage is so extensive that maps of the affected areas have to be redrawn from scratch.
Has this been abandoned, or was there just no real consensus about this extra level? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level XIII - Cataclysmic 

message: Can anyone please add how the intensity values are estimated for unpopulated areas as done by the PAGER system? --Thogo (Talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimation 

message: This is a very odd use of the word.  I'm assuming it means that the quake is only noted by measuring instruments.  Perhaps this should be explained?  24.21.175.70 (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumental? 

message: According to the Cambridge Encyclopedia, 1990, Owl Publishing House, the Mercalli scale (year 1956 iteration) includes four classes of buildings, A, B, C and D:
Class A buildings have well-designed construction, plaster and masonry, reinforced horizontally with steel rebar concrete. Buildings of this class are designed to resist external forces.
Class B buildings have well-designed construction, plaster and masonry. They are reinforced with steel rebar concrete but are not designed to resist external forces.
Class C buildings have mediocre-quality construction, plaster and masonry. The major weak points of these buildings are located at the corners of walls. These buildings are not reinforced with steel rebar concrete and are not designed to resist external forces.
Class D buildings have poor-quality construction with inferior material and little plaster. These buildings cannot resist external forces.
It further specifies that:
By intensity VI, Class D buildings start to develop visible cracks and fissures.
By intensity VII, Class D buildings are considerably damaged, some start to collapse. Class C buildings start to develop visible cracks and fissures.
By intensity VIII, Class C buildings are considerably damaged or are partially collapsed. Class B buildings suffer minor damages. Class A buildings remain intact.
By intensity IX, all Class D buildings are completely collapsed. Class C buildings are severely damaged or are entirely collapsed. Class B buildings suffer considerable damage. Foundations of all buildings are damaged.
--173.178.17.48 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classes of buildings and structures 

message: I've reverted the addition of casualties to the table of effects, because I cannot find a source that gives any such information. If anyone has a source for this, then they could be put back, suitably cited. Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of casualties to table 

message: I'm not sure why we have a table of earthquakes with casualties, magnitudes and intensities. It's not a historical analysis, or anything really, except a rather random set of earthquakes in no particular order. If no-one objects, I'll remove this section. Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good move; the article has several (more relevant) tables already. Dawnseeker2000  00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally removed it. It didn't add anything to the article. Next is that giant (and hideous) table in Richter magnitude scale. Dawnseeker2000  20:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical analysis section 

message: The magnitude/intensity comparison table in the Mercalli intensity scale#Modified Mercalli Intensity scale section makes it appear as though magnitude and intensity are directly comparable, when in reality, the magnitude (number) necessary for a certain intensity is frequently lower than the intensity (number) of the shaking it produces. An earthquake definitely doesn't need to have a magnitude of 7.0+ to produce intensity VIII shaking. Dustin (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitude to intensity table 

message: The strongest intensity I've ever seen listed for an earthquake is X. Are XI and XII even used? Have they ever been used? Alex of Canada (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the NOAA list of all earthquakes in their database with intensities of XI or XII. Mikenorton (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensities past X