Talk:2005 Nias–Simeulue earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page necessity[edit]

Isn't it a bit early to be making a page on this? Nominating right now we dissolve it if no tsunami happens within 12 hours. We mentioned the 8.1 aftershock on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article, we can mention this 8.2 aftershock there too, unless it causes a similar tsunami, which seems unlikely. --Golbez 18:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Given the flaky and in some cases contradictory reports I have seen (and editing conflicts), lets give it a breather for about the time you suggest and wait for some canonical information on this event. What do you mean by dissolve?--ChrisJMoor 18:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mean merge relevant info into the other article, then delete this one. We have a few hours to see what hits Sri Lanka. --Golbez 18:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Let's leave it where it is, at least for now; having it does no harm. It's getting a lot of edits and having this content in a large article right now (when the servers are so slow) is a receipe for edit-conflicts and pagedoubling. If there's no disaster we can zip it into the prior article later. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course it was personal opinion - as are, I assume, all the statements on this page. 22:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with John Fader. Several quivalent pages being made at the same time reduce edit conflicts, plus the content can be merged into a bigger, better article later. As yet, there is no consensus on what the event is to be called, and people will use differing terms for it while searching, so lets leave it until the event ends and the information is complete (lets hope it does soon:D)--ChrisJMoor 18:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This story - as it breaks - should be written on the Wikinews site - then all the little facts can be transferred to WP after the facts are clear enough for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire, for that matter. - DAVODD 18:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
You say "should" when this is infact your recommendation, not a requirement of policy. No consensus has been achieved at wikipedia concerning deferring to Wikinews in this manner. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Upon consideration, I dont regret starting this article, so long as it carries the 'ongoing event' banner and has a link to the relevant wikinews article for the whole of the event duration. However, lets confine this discussion to personal talkpages and relevant talkpages on relevant articles, as this space is for discussing the event and article itself.--ChrisJMoor 21:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take it back. People dead; keep the article. --Golbez 19:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh so THAT's the litmus test. *Kat* 20:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Not quite, but I enjoy the tone of your comment. If it had done no damage and caused no deaths, then it would have been a pretty unnotable earthquake. What would your litmus test be? --Golbez 23:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
That does seem to be a litmus test. Take the December 23 2004 magnitude 8.1 earthquake that doesn't have a wiki page, caused no damage, and happened well out in an uninhabited island chain. Unless it causes death or major damage—or is otherwise notable beyond just being an earthquake—it doesn't result in a wiki article. In fact, that Dec 23rd quake isn't even on the Earthquake List page! --Random Chaos 23:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on what Rock Bandit says in the Aftershock section (below) about this being a seperate earthquake, it being a Mag 8.7, it being a "great earthquake" (the 2nd largest since 1965 (only December's was bigger)), and that it is in the top 10 largest earthquakes list at USGS it should stay as an article—even if it has minimal casualties and is later considered to be an aftershock. --Random Chaos 00:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current event reporting? Try Wikinews which is more flexible than Wikipedia for this type of story.[edit]

If you want to write about major world events and think an encyclopedia may not be the right venue for your news, head over to the wiki project for news — Wikinews. There you don't need to make everything scholarly or encyclopedic. You can write multiple stories on different aspects of this earthquake from the human perspective. - DAVODD 18:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip (and I see what you meanL:D). To be honest, I realised this only after seeding the article--ChrisJMoor 19:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, I dont regret starting this article at this time, as long as the article carries an 'ongoing event' banner and contains a link to the relevant wikinews article for the duration of the event. I suggest that we use our personal talkpages or other relevant talkpages to discuss this issue and reserve this talkpage for the matter at hand.--ChrisJMoor 21:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This earthquake has been revised to an 8.7, and there has just been another aftershock, a 6.7-- keep the article. --WikiFan04 13:51, 28 Mar 2005 (CST)
I also recommend sending this to WikiNews for now. I understand why you started it here. After all, we haven't had the option of WikiNews for all that long. But Wikipedia is not a good tool for reporting on current or on-going events. I strongly recommend that active development on the articles be done at WikiNews ([1] and the related stories). Bring the topic back to Wikipedia when the event is over.
As a side note, I do not believe that the magnitude of the earthquake and the fact that people have died is a relevant filter for the choice between Wikipedia and WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I happen to disagree; I think that Wikipedia articles for current events are able to be dynamic and comprehensive in a way the Wikinews articles are not and, because of journalistic form, annoy be. An encyclopedia article and a news story are two different things, and Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself about what Wikinews does and does not cover; doing so only hinders our efforts to make Wikipedia a comprehensive reference. Besides, look at 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and all its related pages - what we cover here and the level at which we cover it is very different from what Wikinews had. We aren't seeing to "report" breaking news; what we do here in Wikipedia, especially with current events, is synthesise reports from a number of sources into a coherent and informative whole. -- Seth Ilys 03:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Can this be from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake as currently stated in the article? As I heared expert on BBC that this is NOT the effect of aftershock of previous (2004) quake. Do we need to correct this? Oblivious 22:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have heard quotes from USGS saying it is an aftershock to the December 26th quake, and five minutes later hear one that says it isn't. Is there any definative word from USGS or is it every scientist for themselves right now? If it is the later we should indicate ambiguity about this on the article page. --Random Chaos 22:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, its not yet certain if this is an aftershock of previous one or not according to BBC and could have been a seperate major quake. --Oblivious 00:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This earthquake appears to have been expected (i.e., not an aftershock) according this this New Scientist article on March 16 and it seems to match the characteristics in the article. --RockBandit 00:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
It's still unclear; from the map at the USGS, it looks like a previously unruptured portion of the fault may have slipped. If so, it's not an aftershock, but a new main shock. I'm going to qualify the article a bit. Gwimpey 03:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
So why not remove "possibly a heavy aftershock from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" since we are not sure what is, as of now? --Oblivious 12:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at US Geological Survey writeup and blow up the map. It clearly shows that this is a new megathrust earthquake just south of the 2004 quake as the New Scientist article above predicted. I looked around some more and found this Sumatra earthquakes. It shows 3 adjacent megathrust earthquakes running south to north. In 1833 a magnitude 8.7 earthquake, in 1861 a magnitude 8.4 earthquake and in 2004 a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. This brings one to the northern end of the subduction zone. The current 2005 earthquake is a return to the portion of the subduction zone of the 1861 earthquake. An 8.7 earthquake is half the size of a 9.0 earthquake. The rupture length of the 2005 earthquake appears to be 400 - 600 km vs 1000 to 1200 km for the 2004 earthquake. Roughly a ratio of 1 to 2. Looking at 100 years of data Largest Earthquakes since 1900 one has to look to the 9th entry to find a non-megathrust earthquake at an 8.6 magnitude. Only entries 9 and 10 are non-megathrust earthquakes giving an upper limit on non-megathrust earthquakes of around magnitude 8.6. Thus a magnitude 8.7 earthquake is really on the edge of being a non-megathrust earthquake and is certainly not an aftershock.

Would you mind translating that into English, please?

OK! In the past 100 years there have only been 6 larger earthquakes. This is truly an enormous earthquake. The only mechanism in the region that could generate such an earthquake is a subduction zone fracture or rupture known as a megathrust earthquake. Also read samatra earthquake below NEWS ON THE EVENT. It is saying this was a subduction zone or megathrust earthquake in the same region as the 1861 earthquake which generated a significant tsunami.

I agree with this. But looking at the latest after shocks shows that they are moving southward. Could this be a sign that the 1833 felt is about to send off a 9.0 quake? This is my theory could this be a sign that the landmass is about ready to go under. You know after the 9.3 earth quake in Decemeber that some of the islands went down 20 or so feet. Could it be????

Seismogram link fixed[edit]

Corrcted the seismogram link to constant (calendar) URL, so it will be displaying the right data forever.

The utmost evil[edit]

Did the Satan himself cause the earthquake? The big tsunami one was during Christmas, this one was during Easter. If there will be another monster-8 earthquake during Pentecost, the world will really need to start thinking about the signs of end times.

Did you forget to take your tablets today?
Not Satan: It was caused when a herd of pink elephants collided with a flock of invisible unicorns. The world really needs to start thinking about getting rid of the gnomes. (The tricked the elephants into changing course and there are rumors about them having a pissing contest last december)
If so, Beezlebub needs a new Calendar (which is good, he's a bitch to shop for). The big earthquake was on Boxing Day (the day after Christmas), and this earthquake was on the 28th (one day after Easter). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
It is an eerie coincidence. But coincidence is all that it can be. Especially since Jesus wasn't born until March. (December 25th was chosen as the day Christains celebrate His birth because of its proximity to a Pagan holiday).*Kat* 02:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Toba Supervolcano going off the day after next Christian holiday[edit]

Maybe not. But there seems to be reason to perhaps monitor the area more closely now that the 4th and 7th largest earthquake has gone off in matter of months. Perhaps they are indicative precursors of an eruption ? In which case, going by the size of the quakes, this will be one very big eruption. [[2]]

After shocks are going off every day. Hunreds if not thousands so far. There is a few reports I'v read that said they are watching it much closer now. If this baby go's off it will cool the earth 21 degrees for decades. It will kill almost every human on this planet.

Awesome, then we need to step up the work on global warming, to help stave that off.

Earth quakes are going off like nuts. In it is all happening with in 50 to 150 miles of Toba. I think this a big sign that Toba is going to blow.

Seems the series of earthquakes have finally triggered volcanoes. Mt Tlang has now erupted. What are the odds this is the 1st of a series, which will include Toba Supervolcano ? Anybody bookmakers out there ?
79 volcanoes are now on alert [3]

Other aftershocks[edit]

There was a large ( >8 Richter) earthquake off Aceh on the weekend of 9/10 April.

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Sumatra earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]