This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
@Dawnseeker2000: All other data are based on the Korea Meterological Administration which uses ML. If you change whole data using USGS, I don't mind using Mw. USGS publishes only main shocks in South Korea[1] and does not publish aftershocks of these earthquakes. Also, the map and the chart are created using Korean data and I cannot create them using USGS. So, the main scale used in this article should be ML and Mw should be added as a supplement as my edit you reverted.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for the explanation. It doesn't really make sense to be using Richter magnitude in this day and age, but we don't necessarily have to be at the mercy of the KMA. Another reason to move away from them as a source for everything would be because their website lacks intensity information. Dawnseeker200022:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't really call it edit warring. That was good 'ol WP:BRD. Just one more thing: My perspective is that the readability and usability really goes down when using multiple sources per entry. That is why my trust model approach has been to cite everything in the articles then simply copy material to the lists. So the usability and lack of intensity detail puts this list in a position where it will still need an overhaul at some point. Dawnseeker200023:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply