Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DePiep (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 10 July 2017 (→Major error: re: Dawnseeker2000: guess which style it is...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Earthquakes Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages). 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)

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}} →

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

• Template-Class WikiProject Earthquakes pages
• NA-importance WikiProject Earthquakes pages
• WikiProject Earthquakes articles