Talk:2012 Gippsland earthquake

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2012 Gippsland earthquake is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename?[edit]

This earthquake didn't happen in Melbourne. How about Gippsland earthquake 2012 or Moe earthquake 2012?

Whatever, the word earthquake should not be capitalised. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name needs to be changed, plus the article needs to be overhauled a bit. I think it's notable enough to retain, but should be named something like 2012 Gippsland earthquake, or perhaps 2012 Latrobe Valley earthquake (Gippsland is probably more appropriate).Trex21 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Standard practice is to put the year first. Went with Gippsland instead of Moe or the Valley because I thought it would be more recognisable and more likely to be searched for. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete proposal[edit]

I'm removing my proposed delete based on the new info. A 5.3 is a world of difference from a 3.0 (5.0 is 100 times more powerful than a 3.0.) And, given that it's the biggest in the country in a century, etc, it seems like it's relatively notable. Not sure about the name change proposal, though. JoelWhy? talk 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just point out that the "biggest in the country in a century" is quite incorrect, it is likely the strongest in Victoria since 1982 (which was in a much more remote area), there have been many stronger quakes in the country, in fact there was a 5.7 in remote SA not too long ago...Trex21 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, I was just going by a message posted on my page. I really haven't looked into it. (And, I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years, so a 5.6 to me feels a bit like a small truck driving by my house. ;) )

biggest or one of[edit]

in the interests of not starting an edit-war, i'd like some consensus on whether it should be written as "the biggest", or "one of the biggest". I'd note that the article cited is probably jumping the gun a bit, at least two quakes since have been of at least similar magnitude, in 1969 (quoted as 5.6, not sure which scale) & 1982 (quoted as 5.4, again not sure which scale, I should probably check...) I'd prefer "one of the biggest", but I'm open to debate.Trex21 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it for the time being...Trex21 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about those people claiming different figures show us their sources HERE please. The source that gave us "biggest in over a century" was a clearly identified, normally well regarded source. Happy to see that claim changed if it's wrong, but we MUST have sources, not just unsourced claims on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i was a bit tired, couldn't really be bothered checking sources and crap last night. SEIS gives 5.4ML for Boolarra 1969, whereas GA gives it as 5.3ML [1]. GA has the Mount Hotham one in 1966 (which i'd forgotten about) [2] listed as 5.7ML. Wonnangatta is listed as 5.4ML [3]. I do note that the Moe quake was at a shallower depth than the others. The point i was attempting to make (not very well, apparently) is that calling it "the biggest in over a century" might be a bit of a stretch. Trex21 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstingly, in describing the aftershock last night, The Age is still claiming the original event was "the state's biggest earthquake in more than a century." HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]