Talk:Earthquakes in New Zealand

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles

Earthquakes

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Earthquakes in New Zealand was copied or moved into List of earthquakes in Japan with this edit on 17 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Scope

Would be good to get geological detail, cultural responses, and building regs etc. How do NZ'ers respond to living in the "Shakey Isles".. that sort of stuff. Contributions, anyone? Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful refs to work in:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=184&objectid=10467678
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4349395a7693.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauri Gumdigger (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some paper refs that might be useful, if anyone has access:

G. A. Eiby (1967). An annotated list of New Zealand Earthquakes 1460-1965, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 11, 630-647
G. A. Eiby (1967). A Descriptive Catalogue of NZ Earthquakes: Part 1 - Shocks felt before the end of 1845, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 11, 16-40
G. A. Eiby (1972). A Descriptive Catalogue of NZ Earthquakes: Part 2 - Shocks felt from 1846 to 1854, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 11, 16-40

--Avenue (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought Civil Defence should be mentioned in the same section as EQC re: public information - living in Christchurch and from my understanding from university studies EQC mainly just does insurance and Civil Defence are the real public info/preparedness body through the Get Thru campaign etc. especially with regard to the Alpine Fault threat. Civil Defence certainly should not be left out of this article, they are of major relevance to it. Yours, Chris Wilson, Christchurch NZ.

Shaky Isles?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canterbury Quake death-toll

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There was a heart attack death linked to the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, too. --Avenue (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could a City/Town section be added to the table?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Building code

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)[reply]

Table date formatting

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)[reply]

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. Schwede 66 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have a look at Template:Dts. Schwede 66 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8.8 earthquake in Raoul Island?


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)[reply]

You are welcome to update the article. Please add the USGS references to those entries.-gadfium 20:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-

Hi there,

It was in the old database that the Earthquakes had those magnitudes, they we're based on Intensity, but however seismologist's have downgraded these Earthquakes to 8.3 and 8.0 respectively.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifled (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 opunaki earthquake

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)[reply]

Opunaki - Ok we have 7.0 vs 7.2 revision tag here.

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)[reply]

Hi there,

The reference given is by GeoNet in New Zealand, this is sort of a "database" GeoNet have to save Earthquakes which have occurred, very often Earthquakes are updated here and not on any of the pages GeoNet has to the public (this is common for most agencies, including USGS).

The link can be accessed by doing the following:

- Go to this link: http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3732830g.html - Then simply click the google maps link "marked with a red balloon"

Doing this will take you to the link given,

The Earthquake is actually 7.1, which I have updated on the article page. - Magnitudes are determined by a rounded number, so example "7.148" rounds to Magnitude 7.1, if it had of been "7.150" or higher, it would of been rounded to Magnitude 7.2

Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifled (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of non-notable earthquakes

@CrashesToAshes: 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. Schwede 66 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]