Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake prediction
Earthquake prediction: Reply to Reywas92 (start over)
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 02:58, 22 April 2026 | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::Disagree. "[M]ost of the content" of [[Earthquake forecasting]] is identical to a very small portion of [[Earthquake prediction]] only because that is where the former was copied from. (Which content is not even relevant to EF.) As I have said earlier, when the duplicated material is removed from EF, there is essenially nothing left to merge. Also, there has been no demonstration here that prediction and forecasting have theories, methodologies, etc. in common, perhaps because the EF article has no EF specific content. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-23582-61|~2026-23582-61]] ([[User talk:~2026-23582-61|talk]]) 23:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC) |
::Disagree. "[M]ost of the content" of [[Earthquake forecasting]] is identical to a very small portion of [[Earthquake prediction]] only because that is where the former was copied from. (Which content is not even relevant to EF.) As I have said earlier, when the duplicated material is removed from EF, there is essenially nothing left to merge. Also, there has been no demonstration here that prediction and forecasting have theories, methodologies, etc. in common, perhaps because the EF article has no EF specific content. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-23582-61|~2026-23582-61]] ([[User talk:~2026-23582-61|talk]]) 23:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
:::This doesn't make sense, if "the EF article has no EF specific content" and it's not "relevant to EF" then why is there an EF article? What ''should'' the EF article have? Even the leads overlap. I do not think this level of copy/paste duplication is acceptable, particularly as it confuses the reader as to what exactly each topic is and how they are different. If you think these should be separate pages, please outline which sections/content each one should or shouldn't include so that there is not so much overlap. Or does it need to start over from scratch? — [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]][[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]] 01:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
:::This doesn't make sense, if "the EF article has no EF specific content" and it's not "relevant to EF" then why is there an EF article? What ''should'' the EF article have? Even the leads overlap. I do not think this level of copy/paste duplication is acceptable, particularly as it confuses the reader as to what exactly each topic is and how they are different. If you think these should be separate pages, please outline which sections/content each one should or shouldn't include so that there is not so much overlap. Or does it need to start over from scratch? — [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]][[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]] 01:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::::I agree, the current EF does not make sense. And: good questions. For one of which the answer is: start over. |
|||
::::I maintain that, though similar, EP and EF as topics are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles, and also that there is enough material to write a proper (albeit modest) article for EF. By "proper" I mean not a compilation of "what everyone on the Web says", but diving into how operational forecasting is done. See the sources in [[UCERF3]]. |
|||
::::An ER article should start - in the lede - by distinguishing between EP and EF, just as the EP article does. To that end both articles rely on the same sources, and so the initial text might be very similar. Every section after that should be scrubbed. If no one is up to rewriting it EF could be left as a stub (but with a link to UCERF3 as an example of EF). [[Special:Contributions/~2026-23582-61|~2026-23582-61]] ([[User talk:~2026-23582-61|talk]]) 02:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
