[WikiEN-l] Tsunamis and disaster articles

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> The naming conventions page seems to be the best place to discuss it.

Yeah, I'll post there. Just one more post here...

> I'm with Ian that a rigid convention for naming these articles is
> unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive. Everything is caused by
> something else, and there are reasonable arguments for varying between
> 'earthquake' 'earthquake and tsunami' and 'tsunami' in article titles
> based on the circumstances each describe.

I've just remembered this example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_eruption_of_Nevado_del_Ruiz

Which redirects to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armero_tragedy

And for this earthquake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Ancash_earthquake

There is only the article on the destroyed city at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yungay,_Peru

So I'm leaning towards the viewpoint that "2004 Indian Ocean tsunami"
(without earthquake) is best. And for the earthquake to be split off
to its own article (preferably titled 'Great Sumatra-Andaman
Earthquake'). This would mean that in subsidiary articles where people
currently write "following the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of
2004", they would instead write "following the Great Sumatra-Andaman
Earthquake and the resulting Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004", and there
would be two links instead of one (if you look at the article, a split
is not impossible and in some ways would help).

There is actually a fairly well established de facto naming convention
for earthquakes that includes the year and location. But it is
complicated by the fact that some earthquakes are 'Great' and the year
then gets dropped. But it seems nearly all our earthquake article
titles have been standardised, and surprisingly the wiki didn't fall
apart (I'm being slightly sarcastic here).

Of course, things staying the way they are would also work just as well.

Carcharoth