Talk:2017 Costa Rica earthquake

Comment re edit

@Mikenorton: I would point out that the "refs" (bad term!) you combined here were not "precisely duplicate" per WP:DUPCITE: one went to the "#executive" sub-section, while the other went to the "#dyfi" sub-page. Replacing the second note with a generic named-ref has thus lost useful information.

I would also point out that the page linked to is not "USGS" as such, but in the Comprehensive Catalog of the Advanced National Seismic System (hosted at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes). And I would suggest that the {{cite anss}} template better identifies that source, provides a more consistent display than the various ways different editors have adapted the generic {{cite web}} template, and is easier to use. Furthermore, {cite anss} works with the {{short-anss}} template, so that information not present on the main event page can be specifically linked to. (And also allows accessdate to be updated for a specific datum, without implying or requiring that all data from that source has been checked.)

If I get few extra moments I might add those templates as a demonstration. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair point about the separate citations - I should have checked exactly what was linked. However, you have to dig right down to the list of DYFI responses to confirm the observations from Panama and Nicaragua (shown as Honduras in error before I changed it). I may be wrong, but I've always assumed that those interested can navigate from the summary page.

I converted the "cite web" template to "cite anss", which looks good, thanks - I was dimly aware of its existence and I shall now aim to use it and convert other instances as I come across them, although I won't be changing to Harv style citations unless they are already in use on the page. Mikenorton (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Great! (That's why we spend so much verbiage on a barely notable article: the broader ramifications.)

As to in-source specification: as a matter of principle I think we should always have it, because I think a verifier shouldn't have to hunt for something. And I had an on-point experience just recently: the Shakemap intensity for an event wasn't on the main event page, so I started to tag it {cn}. Then I thought: oh, didn't I see a link to a separate Shakemap page? And sure enough, there it was. Not that it matters in this case, but getting the details right does promote confidence in the rest of the work.

I am going to add a {short-anss} to the magnitude, partly because when the ICS recalculates it (next year?) they may have a slightly different result, or use a different scale, so this will help clarify the state of affairs. But also to demonstrate the use of {short-anss} with {cite anss}. There is a bit of an issue with these, but take a look and tell me what you think.

Oh, and also to show an alternative to named-ref. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

More flexible than I realised - thanks for the tutorial - I'll start using the "short-anss" next time I need to be more specific (and I agree it's better to lead readers to as close as possible to the information they're after). Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)