Talk:April 2015 Nepal earthquake: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Earthquakes C‑class High‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nepal C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Geography C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2015.

A news item involving April 2015 Nepal earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 April 2015.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

Perhaps the image of an evacuation in Kolkata (in Eastern India) doesn't best describe the earthquake, which affected Nepal the most. Metanish (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as we have images available showing the devastation in Nepal, I am sure they will appear, but so far that image (or others very like it) is all we have [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Also the image has been moved down in the page which also makes sense. Originally it was the main image (at the time of this comment) Metanish (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely normal that images are not uploaded from the most affected areas to begin with - people have better things to do. Mikenorton (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add image of nepal Oikuchu (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being overrun with vandals who insist on putting unsourced information, as well as the notion that over 10,000 people were killed. I think it needs protection. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary at the moment. As long as there are enough eyes on the page we should be fine - most of the edits are not really vandalism. Mikenorton (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many eyes on it..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have also some changes over country 'China' which is constantly changed into 'Tibet'. Wykx (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton, "[not] necessary"? Really? I've just had to have a user blocked for disrupting this page with incorrect information (as well as making personal attacks against me). It is necessary, which is why someone just made the request. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been rather inaffective as we have now a whole mess of death estimates. I keep trying to clear it up, but the edit conflicts make this just about impossible. Mikenorton (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Well we have semi-protection, which followed a flurry of edits. Hopefully it won't be needed for too long. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Tibet I have received this message : "Tibet is not the same place as China. Tibet was stolen by China in 1950." which contradicts the list on List_of_sovereign_states Wykx (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel this is a minor quibble given the tragic nature of events, so it's pretty sad that some users are using this as an opportunity for violating WP:Advocacy. Given that Tibet is a political sub-unit of a sovereign country - China - and each of the other affected entities (India, Bangladesh, Nepal) are listed as whole countries, it is disingenuous to list Tibet as separate from China in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. As such all references to regions affected should simply state China unless someone wants to make it so that every reference to another country leads with the political sub-unit (state, province, district) affected. Lostromantic (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like people are editing this back to Tibet without explaining on the talk page. I recommend we fully lock the article and submit any violators to the admins. Lostromantic (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is here to right anything or push any advocacy. The earthquake has affected the Tibetan Autonomous Region which is a disputed region, hence I assumed good faith and undid the reversion to China [only to be met with a you will be reported to admins message]. Let consensus be reached and till then leave things as it is. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your good faith but since the article only lists other whole countries without any mention of their sovereignty disputes, then the Tibetan sovereignty dispute does not need to be highlighted in this article. Given that you are a stated supporter of Tibetan independence, further edits are a violation of WP:NPOV as well. Lostromantic (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. One userbox that I added six years on my userpage and you automatically assume that I make biased edits. thanks. Claps. Bashes head. Anyway. Do what you want. But also try and gain consensus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is putting wrong information on Wikipedia for their own benifit or to harm society must be block. Oikuchu (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to 2015 Nepal earthquake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is the updated aftershock map.

Metanish (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the map in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Metanish (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to 2015 Nepal earthquake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lopp899 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) I have been closely following this page for a few hours now, I just saw someone replaced 'China' and the PRC flag to 'Tibet' and its Tibetan flag on Death Toll table. It is fairly obvious why someone would do this. Tibet is not a independent entity whether some people like it or not. It is 'China' which suffered casualties in this event, not 'Tibet'. It is unacceptable to politicize such a tragic event and it should be changed back to 'China'.[reply]

Hello. I changed it back to Tibet. Someone changed it to China for no reason, so I changed it back. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not such a good idea to mention the death toll in 3-4 different places on the page while it is in active flux, unless it may be bulk edited? At the time of this comment, the toll in Nepal stands at 1457, with atleast one media outlet already saying it is over 1500^[1] (and speculation that it may go above 2000). Metanish (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the three places that you would expect - lead, infobox and the relevant section in the body of the article (+ table). When I last looked these were all consistent with each other. When updated sources come along we'll just have to try to maintain that consistency. Mikenorton (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the death toll table a death toll by number of people who died in each country, or by number of citizens of each state whose citizens were in the earthquake area? Though I added United States, then this currently one figure could be added to Nepal instead. -Mardus (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Humanitarian OSM Team has sprung to action map Kathmandu and surrounding area roads that can help relief teams. Mapping volunteers can go here for details. Also uploaded some high res streetmaps from osm to commons commons:Category:Street_maps_of_Nepal -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article says that the earthquake occurred at "6:12:26 UTC", while the quick facts column at the right shows "6:11:26 UTC". There's a minute difference between the two times. The link of the citation [2] (http://world.workercn.cn/63/201504/25/150425152814263.shtml) doesn't seem to contain any information regarding the earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay.C.S (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Akshay.C.S (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The time has been aligned with the USGS source. Dawnseeker2000 17:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point here, but should the title of the page and the title in the infobox match? I was going to make them match, but then thought there might be a perfectly good reason for the difference. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Dawnseeker2000 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to 2015 Nepal earthquake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Minor correction: the "Response" section says "On the day of the quake, the USA sent aid and unblocked USD million to assist with immediate needs." That should be 1 million, acording to the cited source, which says "Outre-Atlantique, les Etats-Unis ont envoyé des secours et débloqué un million de dollars." "Released" might also be a better translation for "débloqué" in this context, but that's less important. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be resolved. -Mardus (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't me; I just noted that the issue was resolved after trawling through the recent article edit history. -Mardus (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, a day or two ago. I hadn't seen this discussion, just noticed the missing number, checked the cited source, and filled it in. I'm glad to know how it happened, though, and doubly glad that there are (as usual) lots of good Wikipedians watching & taking care of things. --Thnidu (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "USD million": someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the page by deleting the values of the financial contributions. Re "débloqué": Thank you! When I translated it, I experienced a blank/fit of stupidity for some reason, & couldn't think of a better word. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are not actual photos, such as drawings, maps, etc., should be uploaded in PNG format and not in JPG/JPEG, because PNG is a lossless format and does not show artifacts of JPEG compression, most importantly in thumbnail form.

For example, I replaced File:2015 Nepal earthquake ShakeMap.jpg with File:2015 Nepal earthquake ShakeMap version 5.png (pictured) and removed some of the white space, while keeping the map centered. Although the original contains JPEG artifacts, which the PNG version might have retained at full size, then its thumbnail version does not show the artifacts, which allows for better legibility of small text in thumbnails, and a cleaner look.

Removal of superfluous white space (mostly in the margins) also contributes to better legibility of text, as it becomes slightly bigger in thumbnails. Allowing some white space is a good thing, if there is text around the main object, as in the given PNG version, because this white space allows for small text in the thumbnail to be noticed. -Mardus (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP vandal with a history of disruptive editing has made these disruptive edits: From a list of responding countries removed responses by China and Pakistan, modified U.S. contribution pledge from $1 mil to $100, changed India's contribution without updating references. I'd like the page to be protected from IP users and newly-registered users. -Mardus (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put up a warning on the talk page of the IP. If the IP persists, take it to WP:ANI. If other IPs continue, then I guess WP:RPP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Someone keeps removing all the contribution amounts—I have replaced them several times now, & am about to do it again. I’m not sure what to do about this, but it needs to be watched closely. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole host of international ones but there is nothing listed from Nepal itself. Surely local NGOs and government are doing more than the PR utter rubbish by states. Other than India (the big brother next door), the LOCAL initiatives should be here.120.62.24.228 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it. With a source. But please refrain from removing data within seonds of it being added. That is disruptive. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like all Wikipedia Reaction sections, what you see in the beginning is far different from what you'll see next week. More reactors, more exact quote, more flags. Not really worth edit-warring over in the early stages, unless maybe the warring is what always makes these drastically shrink, rather than knowing these start too big. In that case, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

I have been looking for precisely such information, to no avail. My impression is that the situation on the ground is still too chaotic to obtain a clear sense of the domestic response. (Local media & aid workers will have been impacted, after all). Additionally, the notion that Nepal might have mechanisms in place to respond to events on its own soil probably hasn’t occurred to Western media quite yet. Give them a day or so to see beyond the dominant narrative. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not asking for any original research here, but this earthquake had a significant impact on Mount Everest, with heavy avalanches. There were a fair number of deaths on Everest too, but deaths don't impact a mountains geology. Something to watch in the months ahead is whether or not there has been any change in Everest's trails, spine or peak height. Because of the high notability of these articles, any changes to related articles should be highly encyclopedic, and be well referenced. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me this possibility, but I'm sure any future change to Everest's elevation will be highly scrutinized if it's not supported by several quality sources. Talk:Mount Everest might be a good (or better) place to add this. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this earthquake occurred too far away to affect the elevation of Everest. Kathmandu, however, was raised between one-half and one meter. Catrachos (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racerx11 This is the talk page for discussing damage caused by the earthquake. The Mount Everest page has seen very modest changes, and the article is stable. Your comments about making any changes to the Everest page first being well sourced mirrors exactly what I said. Thanks for the agreement. :) Juneau Mike (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mr Fredinburg was sufficiently notable to be singled out for mention in the article in the context of an event in which many thousands died. Roundtheworld (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brief mention is fine since (1) he was the first American identified (from what I recall from sources) and (2) reliable sources mention it enough that a brief mention is probably warranted. Not a standalone article or anything, but I think a sentence is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fredinburg for those interested. 'KIA' at Everest Base Camp (South), unfortunately. 220 of ^Borg 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A singular mention in the avalanche section would be sufficient. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newby editor FlickTinyHDL (talk · contribs) has removed the "Total damage" section of the infobox twice now here, which also mucked up the info box, and here. No summaries, and they removed the second time after I specifically asked them for edit summaries, though they have used them in the past.
Can anyone see any reason for removing this? Should it be returned? 220 of ^Borg 06:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: I guess everyone is just on a frenzy to edit the article. A warning on the users talk page wouls be enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see "France" appear as an entry in the table of deaths and injuries. Then I realised that the table must be showing casualties by nationality, not by location. But surely most of the sources have reported casualties by location? Is any kind of explanation needed at the table? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now these have been casualties by location - the 3617 currently reported for Nepal is regardless of nationality. If we're going to have deaths by nationality, they need to be separate, but I would argue that it's too early to attempt such a breakdown. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a distinct table of Fatalities by Nationality (vs the existing Fatalities by Location table) would be useful, as more reports appear. Relabelling the current table might help reduce confusion. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that—the table was created while I was typing. Nice! Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This happened last night, I noticed USA appear on the table and undid it. Is it necessary to have a table with nationality breakdown> --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A separate table with breakdown by nationality (vs location) is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below, I suggested a distinct table for the Missing by nationality. Perhaps, instead, a Missing column (after Injuries?) could be added to the Casualties by nationality table? Or would this make the table too unwieldy? Thoughts? Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of high numbers of missing people are beginning to crop up in the media. For the most part, the individuals in question are foreign nationals who were visiting Nepal, but some are locals. Perhaps a Missing table (i.e., number by nationality) would be in order. What do people think of this idea? Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the important effect of earthquake is born of babies without parents. I added the mater in subtitle of social effect.Papeli44 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not currently clear if this is a "social effect" that is new, caused soley by the earthquake, or one which has been in existence for some time. Tne "airlift" of the surrogate babies and parents doesn't seem like a significant "social effect" for the area struck by the earthquake. Is it only Israelis who are involved? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infants airlifted out by Israel were offspring of Israeli (would-be) parents who were employing Nepalese surrogates; see, inter alia, The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/27/israel-evacuating-babies-surrogate-mothers-nepal-earthquake, and The Times of Israel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/nepal-surrogate-mothers-cleared-to-come-to-israel/

Reports of orphaned infants may yet appear, but I’ve not encountered any in the media. Stephanie Lahey (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to disentangle what may be an established Israeli route to surrogancy for same-sex couples, from the fact that this earthquake has, inevitably, produced more orphans. Maybe I'll just wait for tomorrow's headline in The Sun proclaiming "Gay Jews in Quake Baby Snatch Shocker" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is quite odd. Its emphasis, last I looked, was on gay couples! Why? I don't think it should be there at all.220 of ^Borg 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also (partly) duplicated in the "National responses" section for Israel. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed. Since the section entirely deals with Israel, shift whatever is not already there to the section on Israel. It otherwise serves little to no purpose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123:,@Stephanie Lahey:,@Rsrikanth05:, and @220 of Borg: What is your idea about this Israeli law:

Under Israeli law, only heterosexual couples can legally have children through surrogate mothers, meaning homosexual couples and single people often seek help overseas, said Roy Youldous of Tammuz, an Israeli firm offering surrogacy services.(Israel to airlift 25 babies born to surrogates out of Nepal)Papeli44 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It has no bearing on this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above subject can as social effect in Nepal that occurred after the earthquake. In fact, Israeli's homosexual couples kidnapped the babies. Because they can not to have baby according to Israel low (Many Israeli male couples have fathered children with the help of surrogate mothers in Nepal because surrogacy is illegal in Israel for same-sex couples.).Papeli44 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but I don't get the connection to the earthquake here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping the babies that their parents died in earthquake is one of earthquake effect and this is its connection to the article.Papeli44 (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a total conspiracy theory. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.Papeli44 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

§ Damage lists, among the heritage sites destroyed,

In Patan, the Char Narayan Mandir, the statue of Yog Narendra Malla, a pati inside Patan Durbar Square ...

pati was wikilinked. But the page is a DAB page, and none of the pages listed there made sense in this context. I unlinked it. Thnidu (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Maybe it's a use of Pati (title), but I can't see how to fit it in there. Anybody? --Thnidu (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Guide to Nepal describes "pati (open shelters)" [2]. Rmhermen (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last line of the Geology section reads, "Based on the study of the Main Frontal Thrust, on average a big earthquake occurs every 1000 years in the east Nepal region." The referenced article providing the 1,000 year interval is a technical discussion of "return period" for earthquakes, which is how often a particular section of fault ruptures, not how often one should expect a "big earthquake." That is my layman's reading of the article. A large earthquake for the region can be caused at different spots. The previous large earthquake affecting the Kathmandu valley was in 1934.

...four events of M6 or larger have occurred within 250 km of the April 25, 2015 earthquake over the past century. One, a M 6.9 earthquake in August 1988, 240 km to the southeast of the April 25 event, caused close to 1500 fatalities. The largest, an M 8.0 event known as the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake, occurred in a similar location to the 1988 event. It severely damaged Kathmandu, and is thought to have caused around 10,600 fatalities. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#general_summary

The figure I'm seeing for large earthquakes affecting the Kathmandu valley is 70-100 years, with shorter and longer intervals possible, although someone will have to document that better with references. Catrachos (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the line, which is based on the study "Return period of great Himalayan earthquakes in Eastern Nepal: evidence from the Patu and Bardibas strands of the Main Frontal Thrust" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.T23C2607B, the link can also be found over at the Wikipeda page for Nepal. Even though the study acknowledges poor constraints and is from 2013, the overall conclusion is related to great earthquakes. If someone find reference to better document and pin point the "figure", go ahead. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the study (version 2014, publication), added follow up study conclusions. prokaryotes (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the referenced article, and you are correct that the article discusses events of 9 to 12.5 m of slip with a return period of 1,000 years. That would be a much bigger earthquake than occurred on the 25th, no? Catrachos (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the following rather confusing: The India Meteorological Department (IMD) said two powerful quakes were registered in Nepal at 06:11 UTC and 06:45 UTC. The first quake measured 7.9 Mw and its epicenter was identified at a distance of 80 km to the northwest of the capital Kathmandu. The second earthquake was somewhat less powerful at 6.6 Mw. The seismic focus lay at a depth of 10 km (6.2 mi) below the earth's surface. Bharatpur was the nearest major city to the main earthquake, 53 km (33 mi) from the epicenter. The second earthquake occurred 81 km (50 mi) northwest of Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. Over thirty-five aftershocks of magnitude 4.5 Mw or greater occurred following the initial earthquake, including one of magnitude 6.6 Mw.[18] Surely the second earthquake should be considered an aftershock? Also, at the end of the section does including one of magnitude 6.6 Mw. refer to the second earthquake previously mentioned, in which case it should be including the one... or to the 6.7 aftershock the following day? Could someone try to make this a bit clearer? Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to list injuries in the two tables? The great majority of injuries will not be reported and thus I suspect that the figures presented are rather meaningless. Roundtheworld (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this is possible to update it in the first table but I think you're right, not in the second table. Wykx (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having an idividial subsection with == for each nation is stretching the table of contents and is mkaing the page a bit unreadible. I'm for reverting back to the old form. What do others have to say? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied the toc limit template with a value of 3, to reduce the size of the contents table. Mikenorton (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The T.O.C. looked quite ridiculous. I am also concerned that this article is turning into a mini United Nations where Wikipedians are competing to say how wonderful their own countries have been. There is far too much detail about the individual responses and, to my mind, insufficient information about the earthquake and its impact. The article will end up being unreadable, if it is not already. Perhaps we need a new article created called "Responses to the 2015 Nepal Earthquake"? Roundtheworld (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done, see Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Epic Genius (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The humanitarian response section is getting rather unwieldy and would greatly benefit being split into its own article, possibly Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake. All content within the International humanitarian response section would be placed in this new article with summaries highlighting major actions taken by states, NGOs, etc... be placed into the main article. Main focus should be summaries of major events, such as India's Operation Maitri and collective contributions by nations. A table could also be used to convey the most important info such as cash donations, humanitarian supplies, and other pertinent info (example: Typhoon Haiyan#International response). Wanted to bring up discussion here instead of just going ahead and doing it since this is such a highly viewed article at the current time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with the split; a table is still needed. Epic Genius (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on being bold on this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have also completed the humanitarian aid overview table just now. Epic Genius (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work—looks cleaner, & is much easier to navigate.Stephanie Lahey (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the table in this article only for governments now? Can NGO contributions be placed in the table or should they go into the new article? Nathan121212 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table is now almost as long as the text that was split off into a new article. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We really need some text in this section. Someone mostly blanked it and no one has updated it. There is currently no discussion in the article on Nepal casualties at all. Rmhermen (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was the article blanked? It can probably be retrieved. Epic Genius (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is way too long. It should probably be split, as it has approximately 20 paragraphs in that section. Epic Genius (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Indian response is the most important section besides the earthquake in itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, about the Indian response, though. Epic Genius (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I returned from Kathmandu yesterday. A so called "Indian response" was in fact a massive inflow of relatively small military transport aircrafts such as C-130 Hercules and Il-76 that blocked Kathmandu airport apron disabling access to it for other, larger commercial aircrafts including cargo aircrafts capable of providing more help due to their capacity. E.g. Polish B787 dreamliner with Polish rescue team was put on hold for 3 hours awaiting for a place to stand. One B777 Qatar Airways Cargo in fact managed to land but compare its 653 m3 cargo capacity to about 153 m3 of Indian C-130 Hercules with comparable wingspan (64.8 vs. 40.4 m).

I do not neglect Indian help but they should provide it in a form of civilian non military aircrafts. Not to mention evacuating Indian citizens form Kathmandu sitting on the floor shoulder to shoulder on the ramps of these crafts. There also was a lot of show-up in this Maitri Operation. E.g. Air India officers provided us with boarding passes for the flight that was supposed to take us from there on Sunday (Apr 26) even thought no commercial Air India airliner arrived this day. Therefore Many people spent two days at the airport awaiting evacuation.

What is more important however is that this article is about the earthquake not about involvement of other states in helping Nepali people. And not only India provided help.

This information does not fit to the preamble of this article. Guswen (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a 2 second long video on the article that basically doesn't show anything at all? Rerbun (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, removed. prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no citations and references to Nepali news agencies at all here.Foreign news agencies, mostly english and indian are cited here. The real picture can better be shown by nepalese agencies as it occured in Nepal.And most foreign agencies are using unauthentic data instead of Gov of Nepal. Kshetrysaugat (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshetrysaugat (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors here would be unable to read Nepalese, so they will naturally use English sources. If these are any English (or Nepalese) language sources from Nepal, such as newspapers, please suggest them. It may also be that the Nepalese Govt. may not be a reliable source. That may also apply to most sources this early after the event.220 of ^Borg 00:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Added "(or Nepalese)" to my post 220 of ^Borg 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also suggest that if Kshetrysaugat can read and understand Nepalese, and has access to reliable Nepalese language sources, it is perfectly legitimate to use those non-English sources in the English WP. The RS standards still apply, of course, but English language sources are not mandatory. Dcs002 (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just makes it easier for us majority(?) who are mono-lingual English speakers. 220 of ^Borg 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give up trying to improve the figures given for deaths and injuries (in the first paragraph, the infobox, and the main sections).

I thought putting 'over 6000' at the start was a reasonable compromise, because a) that number is absolutely confirmed by the Nepalese government, and b) it is true that it's a minimal value, and certainly will increase. I hoped that would be acceptable in the opening section, and that the body-text could provide more details, such as the Prime Minister declaring he thinks it will exceed 10,000.

However, people will continuously change the numbers, based on sources which Wikipedia certainly accepts as reliable - despite the fact that there are dozens of such sources, and few agree on the numbers.

I guess it will settle down with time.

For now, I'd think 'over 6000' or something is more meaningful than e.g. '6107' (changing hourly, depending on who you ask) or any other specific figure. But I don't see how that can be maintained, because people well-meaningly update it from reliable references.

It's got messy, because we have different totals and different soucrces in the start of the article, the infobox, and in the main section. Plus there are comments in the code about the reference, which don't make much sense to me. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@88.104.18.134: Concur, it's a pain in the a$$. My beef is well meaning edits that change the figures, (having recently reverted a multiple place change) that are both unexplained and don't provide new sources. They may be correct, but there is no way to tell them from vandalism, which IIRC has also occurred with ridiculous figures added, without a new or updated wp:RS. I added a hidden note that basically said, please don't change the injured figures without providing a new or updated source. Well meaning editors hear or read new figures and just 'dump them in, but leave the old sources in place. 220 of ^Borg 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a separate article on Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake.

Should we move the large table into there, and just have a short summary (in text) in this article? The exact details of the amounts/items sent are so many and varied, from such a range of sources, that I don't think it helps understanding within this article.

I suggest we move the entire table out, and try to write a few lines summarizing the fact that a great many nations have provided enormous support, both financial and physical. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be useful to have a table showing the death toll by state in India and Nepal? Like this:

Or would that clutter the article too much.

Information that can be used for the death toll in India by state is "As of 4:14 p.m. 27 April in India, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, confirmed that 56 people died in the state of Bihar, 12 in Uttar Pradesh, 3 in West Bengal and 1 in Rajasthan" Kutchkutch^talk 00:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concered about the data being hopelessly out-of-date, than anything else.

That's 4 days old, and even the Prime Minister thinks it's out by a factor of 100%.

Still, if you say 'as of' whatever date, I don't see any harm in it, but personally I'd think a couple of sentences listing them might be better than a table - unless there's too many? 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]