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 10:10, 30 December 2008 editShustov (talk | contribs)2,089 editsm Plagiarism← Previous edit Revision as of 14:24, 30 December 2008 edit undoTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,283 edits Plagiarism: Some guidance.Next edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
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) 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)


Dear ]: Though you, according to your User resume, are "intimately acquainted with the use of semicolons", please, think twice before accusing me in plagiarism in ]. All images in this article - among them there are 12 of my own - have been properly credited. In particular, of 14 images from the section ], 7 were diligently credited to USGS (to verify, just click on the pictures!). Besides, I provided an external link to USGS site, see . Keep clear! ] (]) 10:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC) :Dear ]: Though you, according to your User resume, are "intimately acquainted with the use of semicolons", please, think twice before accusing me in plagiarism in ]. All images in this article - among them there are 12 of my own - have been properly credited. In particular, of 14 images from the section ], 7 were diligently credited to USGS (to verify, just click on the pictures!). Besides, I provided an external link to USGS site, see . Keep clear! ] (]) 10:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::Shustov, it may be that you're unfamiliar with the normal rules and standards for citations in scholarly works. While I'm sure that you're doing so unintentionally, breaking those rules is ], and is something that has to be taken very seriously. Let me try to give you a condensed quick reference guide to how you can avoid problems in the future (and how you can fix the text you've already added).
::When you copy a source word-for-word, it is essential that you do two things. You ''must'' enclose the copied material in double quotations marks: "like this". It should be absolutely clear which text you wrote yourself, and which text came from another author. Second, you need to clearly identify the source for any material which you've copied. Every quoted passage needs to have a citation identifying its source. (See ].)
::It isn't sufficient to include a single link in the Bibliography or External Links section. That doesn't tell our reader which text was ''not'' written by Misplaced Pages editors, and so fails to give credit where it is due. It also doesn't allow anyone to come back and verify the correctness of the quotations; no one knows what content from the article – if any – is drawn from any particular linked page. Finally, the ''particular'' link that you've given above only links to a large directory of additional documents and resources. While it may be a valuable resource suitable for inclusion in the list of External Links, it doesn't contain the text that was copied, again making it difficult to locate the original source of the material.
::For the USGS images which you've uploaded, yes — you have given appropriate credit on the image description pages. In the future, there are some additional tricks which you (and other Misplaced Pages editors) might find useful. There's a number of things you can add to the image description page.
::*You can include a link (URL) for the online source of the image. Not only does that make it easy for subsequent editors to verify the source, it may also provide a useful resource to future editors.
::*For images which are part of a larger document, including full publication details (title, author(s), date, etc.) can be helpful. Links to online documents are again helpful.
::*For public domain technical images which are captioned, consider copying the caption in its entirety on to the image description page. (Citation rules apply there as everywhere else, so be sure to enclose the caption in "double quotes" and indicate explicitly the source.) Feel free to add additional descriptive material as appropriate.
::I hope that you find some of that guidance worthwhile, and that you can use it to fix up your contributions. ](]) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:24, 30 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)

Dear TenOfAllTrades: Though you, according to your User resume, are "intimately acquainted with the use of semicolons", please, think twice before accusing me in plagiarism in Earthquake engineering. All images in this article - among them there are 12 of my own - have been properly credited. In particular, of 14 images from the section Earthquake engineering#Failure modes, 7 were diligently credited to USGS (to verify, just click on the pictures!). Besides, I provided an external link to USGS site, see USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. Keep clear! Shustov (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Shustov, it may be that you're unfamiliar with the normal rules and standards for citations in scholarly works. While I'm sure that you're doing so unintentionally, breaking those rules is plagiarism, and is something that has to be taken very seriously. Let me try to give you a condensed quick reference guide to how you can avoid problems in the future (and how you can fix the text you've already added).
When you copy a source word-for-word, it is essential that you do two things. You must enclose the copied material in double quotations marks: "like this". It should be absolutely clear which text you wrote yourself, and which text came from another author. Second, you need to clearly identify the source for any material which you've copied. Every quoted passage needs to have a citation identifying its source. (See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#When quoting someone.)
It isn't sufficient to include a single link in the Bibliography or External Links section. That doesn't tell our reader which text was not written by Misplaced Pages editors, and so fails to give credit where it is due. It also doesn't allow anyone to come back and verify the correctness of the quotations; no one knows what content from the article – if any – is drawn from any particular linked page. Finally, the particular link that you've given above only links to a large directory of additional documents and resources. While it may be a valuable resource suitable for inclusion in the list of External Links, it doesn't contain the text that was copied, again making it difficult to locate the original source of the material.
For the USGS images which you've uploaded, yes — you have given appropriate credit on the image description pages. In the future, there are some additional tricks which you (and other Misplaced Pages editors) might find useful. There's a number of things you can add to the image description page.
  • You can include a link (URL) for the online source of the image. Not only does that make it easy for subsequent editors to verify the source, it may also provide a useful resource to future editors.
  • For images which are part of a larger document, including full publication details (title, author(s), date, etc.) can be helpful. Links to online documents are again helpful.
  • For public domain technical images which are captioned, consider copying the caption in its entirety on to the image description page. (Citation rules apply there as everywhere else, so be sure to enclose the caption in "double quotes" and indicate explicitly the source.) Feel free to add additional descriptive material as appropriate.
I hope that you find some of that guidance worthwhile, and that you can use it to fix up your contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories: