Misplaced Pages

Talk:Earthquake engineering: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:12, 23 December 2008 editShustov (talk | contribs)2,089 edits list in intro: Explanation← Previous edit Revision as of 15:28, 28 December 2008 edit undoTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,283 edits Plagiarism: new sectionNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
If it does not bother you too much, why should we scratch it? If it does not bother you too much, why should we scratch it?
Anyway, the list format of presenting the main objectives of ] seems to me more visual, easy for viewing and, therefore, should be preferred where appropriate. Best, ] (]) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Anyway, the list format of presenting the main objectives of ] seems to me more visual, easy for viewing and, therefore, should be preferred where appropriate. Best, ] (]) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

== Plagiarism ==

It looks like there are blocks of text in this article which are word-for-word copies of outside works. In ], a number of the image captions are drawn directly from USGS documents (e.g. ) without attribution. (That section needs some cleanup in any case.) Footnotes, people! ](]) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:28, 28 December 2008

WikiProject iconEarthquakes B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCivil engineering Stub‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.

To-do list for Earthquake engineering: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2008-06-01


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : *failure mode section to include different modes of failure in earthquakes
    • design section to include soil stabilisation, base isolators, dampers etc.
    • Merge : articles listed on talk page if no disagreements
    • Verify : everything in article

Earthquake engineering / seismic analysis / seismic performance

Misplaced Pages's content on earthquake engineering is currently a bit of a mess. I am going to try to clear it up (but it might take me a while). Earthquake engineering includes analysis and design. Currently there is a reasonably decent article on analysis, and several articles on design which all seem to push the same approach and one product in particular (Earthquake Performance Evalunation Tool).

I have created this as a separate article, and propose to merge several articles into this one so that there is one clear and concise article on earthquake engineering. The Seismic analysis article can then remain as a more detailed article on analysis, which is probably the largest single topic.Tkn20 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose to merge:

into this article. The last three are in my opinion just adverts for particular products, and may be original research (so there is little to merge, but some of the content would be relevant when included with other available research and products). This is a big topic, covered very badly with several articles giving only a tiny view of the whole. The best thing to do is to start with a good overall article.

In the case of vibration control - there is perhaps a good argument to keep a vibration control article, but it shouldn't be primarily about earthquake vibration as it currently is. Vibration is caused in machines, by pedestrians, cars, wind and all sorts of other causes. The vibration control article should be much more general, and the earthquake specifics merged into this article. Tkn20 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Earthquake engineering now contains all basic information from six (6) articles recommended for merging which should be redirected to the following sections and subsections of Earthquake engineering:

  • Seismic performance to 1 Seismic performance
  • Seismic Performance Evaluation Tool to 1.1 Seismic performance evaluation
  • Earthquake simulation to 2.2 Earthquake simulation
  • Vibration control to 3 Seismic vibration control
  • Earthquake Protector to 3.1 Earthquake protector
  • Earthquake construction to 5 Earthquake construction

Shustov (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

list in intro

It does not bother me much, but is there a reason for the list of "main objectives of earthquake engineering" in the into is presented in list form, rather than prose? It's not hideous, but does not seem necessary. WP:EMBED perhaps has some insight? Again, not a huge deal to me, just seems like it might be better. ./zro (⠠⠵) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it does not bother you too much, why should we scratch it? Anyway, the list format of presenting the main objectives of earthquake engineering seems to me more visual, easy for viewing and, therefore, should be preferred where appropriate. Best, Shustov (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It looks like there are blocks of text in this article which are word-for-word copies of outside works. In Earthquake engineering#Failure modes, a number of the image captions are drawn directly from USGS documents (e.g. ) without attribution. (That section needs some cleanup in any case.) Footnotes, people! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories: