Talk:Huge explosions in Tianjin, China
Sources
edit- I first heard this on the BBC News channel. Green Giant (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Manual review
edit  |
Revision 3737115 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at (see signature).
Comments by reviewer: --SVTCobra 01:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 3737115 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at (see signature).
Comments by reviewer: --SVTCobra 01:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Richter
editTbh, I doubt it was the Richter scale. The Richter scale is rarely used anymore, although its name seems to be a successful meme because people who hear an official report of an earthquake's magnitude often seem to repeat it (usually incorrectly) as "magnitude on the Richter scale". --Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aye but I would be surprised if many people have even heard of MMS. I blame the media for continuing the popularity of the term, just like they love to say "percentage points" when there is no such thing. :) Green Giant (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like us to not get it wrong, though. Indeed, if the article passes beyond 24 hours since publication (which it will in about three hours) without being fixed, and we subsequently determine that it really wasn't the Richter scale after all, we'd have to issue a {{correction}}, which nobody likes to do (though we're proud that we do so when necessary, whereas mainstream media sites usually sweep their mistakes under the rug). --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well could we use "seismic scale" instead of "Richter scale"? There is a BBC article which says the first blast was magnitude 2.3 and the second 2.9, and it has some graphs as well (always reassures people). Green Giant (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: That seems reasonable. If you make that edit soon enough, I could review it ahead of the 24-hour horizon. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero:, done. Green Giant (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: That seems reasonable. If you make that edit soon enough, I could review it ahead of the 24-hour horizon. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well could we use "seismic scale" instead of "Richter scale"? There is a BBC article which says the first blast was magnitude 2.3 and the second 2.9, and it has some graphs as well (always reassures people). Green Giant (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like us to not get it wrong, though. Indeed, if the article passes beyond 24 hours since publication (which it will in about three hours) without being fixed, and we subsequently determine that it really wasn't the Richter scale after all, we'd have to issue a {{correction}}, which nobody likes to do (though we're proud that we do so when necessary, whereas mainstream media sites usually sweep their mistakes under the rug). --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)