| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Fukushima earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translationof福島県沖地震 (2021年) from the Japanese Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
|
 | It is requested that an imageorphotographof2021 Fukushima earthquakebeincluded in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search ToolorOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
Just a notice to editors that this article was nominated on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates on February 14, 2021. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This ShakeMap image is outdated as the USGS had revised the focal depth and intensity. Could someone upload a new image? Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done HurricaneEdgar 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find it a bit confusing to read and navigate a table of seismic intensities. I find it unnecessarily complicated. Anyone looking at a table is not going to immediately know where and how strong the earthquake was felt. I live in the SF Bay Area, and if I were to include a bunch of Bay Area towns that felt, say, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the list would not only get long but would also be difficult for readers outside the Bay Area to understand.
I think a map does a sufficient job at showing where an earthquake was felt and where damage occurred. Aasim (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just happened. Same place, basically the same strength. Add it to the existing article? Start a new article? https://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/ 130.87.88.117 (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone started an article: March 2021 Miyagi earthquake. 130.87.88.117 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three maps in the infobox. While I'm not saying any one of them is less important than the others, I think the editors working on this page should take a look at the articles in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles for inspiration, as this article has the potential to reach that level of quality at some point. All of those articles have a maximum of one map in the infobox and any intensity maps are placed within the relevant sections of the article-which for this article would be the Seismic intensity section. As discussed before, both the JMA and USGS scales should be used here, so its fine to include both maps, but within the article's body. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 01:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
