Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami/Archive 1

message: Radio Australia  claims that the vibrations were felt as far as London. Is that true? Jam2k 14:03, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
:The British Geological Survey in Edinburgh picked up the tremors and it sent their measuring equipment of the scale.  I inserted that into this article, thinking it was rather interesting but I note that it has since been removed. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 21:26, 27 Dec 200
According to TV reports, it was felt in Lisbon, Portugal (www.meteo.pt)
oh really? didn't feel a thing here in kuala lumpur though. :)
:'Felt' in London, etc., by seismological recording instruments, not by people. - MPF 14:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: it seems to me that that is the australian (or indo/australian) and eurasian plates, not the phillipines plate as said in the article... at least according to the US Geological Survey (which may or may not define plates differently than others) - according to this map:
: http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.html
: http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/globe-plates.GIF
can someone who knows about this either explain why not or change the article to the correct plate names? thanks...
:I moved this post down from the top.
:Good catch!  That was embarrassing.  I just rewrote the section using what info is on the USGS page but it could do with a good going over by someone more knowledgeable than me.  And I'm not sure I made the whole sub-plate thing clear enough.  BanyanTree 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: which plates?

message: Some of the news here in Australia is saying it's 9.1 richters. [maestro] 07:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is reporting in moment magnitude scale, not Richter scale. The Richter scale is considered reliable between 2.0 and 6.0 as it tends to rate all big earthquakes as being roughly the same number.  Moment magnitude is accurate above 3.5.  USGS (and Australian Broadcasting Company) are still reporting 9.0 as of my last check.  BanyanTree 07:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  9.1? 

message: Anyone know how to edit :Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif to slow it down? - it cycles so fast you can't really see the detail very well. About half its current speed would be a lot better - MPF 18:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it works, but each cycle only lasts 2.5 seconds; it would look a lot better if each cycle lasted 5 seconds before repeating - MPF 19:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks; that's a lot better now! - MPF 19:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif

message: Reports are coming in from as far afield as Kenya and Mauritius... surely something of the wave must have hit Madagascar too, yet there's no mention of it here. Anyone know what damage, if anything, occurred there - and places like Diego Garcia, for that matter?
 Grutness|hello?  23:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find anything on google: last news report from madagascar was on 24th December.  However with many communications networks in the area down I don't think we're going to know the full cost of this even for some days yet. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 00:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: According to , "residents had seen no ill effects", whilst  says homes and businesses had been damaged. As for Diego Garcia, the only news items Google News is picking up mentions it solely as the nearest US military base to the area. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found something on Reuters AlertNet, which i added in.  Grutness|hello?  00:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might have been lost in the sudden run of vandalism experienced at this article this evening.  Can you check? -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 00:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was and I've put it back now. violet/riga (t) 00:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Madagascar?

message: Hi.  In the section regarding citizens of countries that were not struck by the tsunamis, the article reports that a Brazilian diplomat and her son died in Thailand.  Af of yet, however, the deaths have not been confimed either by the Brazilian Foreign Affairs Ministry or by the diplomat's family in Brazil.  Right now, the two ar officially listed as "missing".  I'll make the change in the article and, if and when said deaths are in fact confirmed, we can revert it back to the previous version.  Regards, Redux 04:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Death of diplomat and son have now been confirmed.  Someone had already altered the article to that effect, so I just improved the text (really no need to say "according to Brazilian authorities".  Was that some sort of "answer" to prevent reverting the data?  If some people actually took the time to read the talk page before editing the article, they'd know that that was the intention all along: only report the deaths once the Brazilian/Thai authorities confirmed them) and updated to reflect two other missing Brazilian nationals.  Regards, Redux 18:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Brazilian diplomat not confirmed yet 

message: Hi, I'm checking the Wikinews article as well and I have noted that it's not updated as often as this article is, especially the toll count. Maybe we can add a link to that page somewhere in the article to divert people there as well? Jam2k 19:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
:It's the first external link listed, though admittedly not prominent. BanyanTree 19:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Synchronizing with Wikinews

message: "The quake and the resulting tsunamis are being called the worst natural disaster in modern history, even though it was not the most deadly, because of the limited nature of the impact."
The last bit of that sentence used to read "because of the widespread nature...", after a re-wording I did a while ago. This was changed a while back to "limited nature". I changed it back to "widespread", and my edit was reverted as suspected vandalism (understandable, given the current state of affairs and the awkwardness of the sentence).
I was originally trying to say that the reason this is the worst natural disaster, despite not being the deadliest, is that the impact is widespread. I can see where people might misunderstand the sentence. I think the idea is worth expressing, although I'm at a bit of a loss for how to do so unambiguously.
The current sentence is, IMO, more subjective, as it simply says that the situation is the worst natural disaster.
uFu 21:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the vandal changed it to "limited" at 20:03.  Someone accidentally changed it back to "limited" during reversions, and I thought maybe they did this change intentionally out of confusion, so I switched to simpler wording.  But the original "widespread" wording is probably best. -- Curps 21:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd hesitate to call the change to "limited" vandalism -- the text was sufficiently ambiguous that the contributor may been well-intentioned. I'll make another attempt to put it back, and hope it doesn't get reverted (and hope it gets rewritten to remove the ambiguity!) -- uFu 21:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was definitely vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=8896329&oldid=8896319  -- Curps 21:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that guy. Okay, that's the last time I give someone the benefit of the doubt ;) -- uFu 21:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro