This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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 Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey 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
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan 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.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
The reason is that the current consensus at talk:Turkey is to use Turkey due to the fetch thst the current spelling is the WP:COMMONNAME used by most reliable English language sources. Also, while they may change in the future the last discussion regarding changing the article title was closed in late November 2022 so it’s highly unlikely that there is, at this point, a significant enough change to support using the new name.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless/Until the Turkey article is moved per an RM, the rest of Wikipedia (other than the Turkey and Name of Turkey articles) should assume the country's name is Turkey. If/When it's renamed, we can discuss the point in time where the change starts to apply, and update this article if the point in time is before now. Note that these decisions should be made for Wikipedia in general, not with any specific reference to this article. Animal lover|666|07:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, and I don't at the same time. It's just basic manners to refer to a person, an organization, a country, as they wish. If the argument is 'we use the name Turkey because everyone else does' then I have a hard time understanding when it could change, because for change to happen some people have to adopt and use the new name. I also don't see this consistently done throughout Wikipedia - for example, the page for Maize is named such even though it is not a commonly used name in English. But I suppose you have answered my question, and I don't want to argue, just want to offer a rebuttal to this. Thank you. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:8088:572F:CDB9:A470 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is the wrong place to discuss it. Please discuss it either at Talk:Turkey or at an appropriate venue based on the policies involved. This article won't be singled out for use of any other name for this country. Animal lover|666|12:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly plausible that at some point we will follow the new spelling, and do so retroactively to a date before these earthquakes. However, we have repeatedly made a decision not to do it yet. And this article will follow decisions made at Talk:Turkey in this context. Animal lover|666|07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there an en-uk tag? This was previously en-us
I recommend changing it to en-gb, due to the fact that places uses the British spelling of the word centre, instead of the American spelling of center. Europe is primarily dominated by en-gb, so it makes sense to change it to the localized English dialect. ElusiveTaker (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"center" is used far more in the artcle and 2 out of 3 of the uses of "centre of them are the name of the thing itself with the third being a translation. we use "stories" instead of storeys. Of the uses of "center", most uses are "epicenter" while also being ".. business center" and "national center...". DarmaniLink (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike eg. Kosovo or Palestine, Northern Cyprus is an entity with extremely limited international recognition - officially only Turkey considers it an independent country - and should be replaced with Cyprus on the table of foreign casualties. I'm neutral on this topic politically, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Cyprus is overwhelmingly the name used for this area in reliable English-language sources. (See the Turkey/Türkiye discussion further up on this talk page.) 73.168.37.85 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition of a country isn't what Wikipedia is based on, it usually takes 'de facto' country status, e.g., Taiwan isn't recognized as a country by anyone. nafSadhdidsay22:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In old days' talk pages' users replied to last comment. It didn't mean it was a response to immediately previous comment. With these new UI it is a bit confusing :P.
That aside, my opinion on this matter is aligned with yours. I'd suggest using whatever the sources are using. I don't see any strong objection to adding TRNC to that table. I have a slight objection to adding a table for foreign casualties in general since the numbers are still being updated. I'd opt for adding a table once some reliable source publishes a single table which WP can directly cite. nafSadhdidsay22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is recognised by multiple countries and has embassies in most countries in the world (unlike "Northern Cyprus"). This page is now used to push the legitimacy of "Northern Cyprus" despite being only recognised by Turkey. Alepik (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it also doesn't legitimize the use of North Cyprus national terms and imagery. If reliable English-language sources don't typically recognize this subunit of Cyprus as a separate country - and outside the Turkosphere they don't appear to - then neither does Wikipedia. Micronations and sovereign citizen groups grant citizenship to people all the time; if any of them happen to be victims, their countries won't be acknowledged as such on that page either unless it's already common in English to do so.
North Cyprus victims who have citizenship elsewhere (eg. Turkey) should be grouped with the country that granted it.
The revert to North Cyprus/TRNC should be changed back Cyprus.
i think it is important to talk about the "prediction", whether you believe its possible or not of this earthquake. The tweet by Frank Hoogerbeets showed his prediction ended up being pretty close. my addition is being revoked because of "its psuedoscience". Even still, it matters to include it with a disclaimer about how earthquakes "cant be predicted". here was my additon
Prediction
See also: Earthquake prediction
The seismologist, Frank Hoogerbeets, predicted an earthquake would occur in the exact location the earthquake occurred. He said in a tweet on Feb 3, 2023, that has since gone viral, "Sooner or later there will be a ~M 7.5 earthquake in this region". His prediction ended up being 35-40 miles SW of where the original 7.8 magnitude earthquakes epicenter was and 95 miles SSW of the 7.5 magnitude aftershock. He later said after the earthquake that earthquakes like these are always preceded by "critical planetary geometry," similar to what happened before earthquakes in 115 and 526, and what happened on February 4-5. According to Hoogerbeets, "Earthquakes are affected by planetary alignments." His organization, SSGEOS, also claims to work on monitoring geometry between celestial bodies related to seismic activity. PalauanReich (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the summary, "Sooner or later" is not a prediction. If you call "sooner or later" a prediction, anyone can predict earthquakes at this point. I could say "sooner or later" the San Andreas Fault in California will produce an earthquake. It's useless if the "prediction" isn't specific.
The reference you added (his tweets) are primary sources which doesn't support a lot of the claims in the description; that's WP:OR. FYI Hoogerbeets isn't a seismologist, he's a researcher. I agree this can be covered in the article since many rs mention his alleged "prediction" but the way it's written is not adequate and I've removed it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it can be included, but some, including me, touched on his tweet before, and many disagreed saying that it shouldn't be mentioned as trivia at all. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoogerbeets himself, in his own video, states that this was "a coincidence" and he "didn't know" (youtube video pqIrvFNltc0 link blacklisted; timecodes roughly 3:10–3:50). Folly Mox (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PalauanReich I see you've added sources back. Can you please support what you've said with secondary sources? Using his tweets is original research. A lot of information there is uncited/unsupported by existing (and inappropriate) refs. Any editor can remove it if the section isn't improved Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did include that info but it was still deleted. I could change it to alleged prediction or something like that, but it is still important info IMO PalauanReich (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PalauanReich: I'm wondering how you're interpreting this as important information to include, when the Solar System Geometry Survey site specifically disclaims any ability using their method to forecast earthquakes with this kind of precision, and in a video posted days following the event, Hoogerbeets stated: "I tweeted about that region three days before it happened. That's more or less of a coincidence. ... There was some increase in seismic activity... and that made me think about the region, because historically there have been very large earthquakes — very deadly earthquakes in the past and it had been a long time. And that was the reason for me to tweet about that particular region, that sooner or later there will be around magnitude 7.5 again, and it just happened three days later, which I didn't know."[1] If even the person who made the statement characterizes it as a coincindence rather than a prediction, what reason would we have for including it in an encyclopaedia article? Folly Mox (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a common misconception that people have, both in general and in connection to this event. The AP source I linked above along with other sources like NPR, Snopes, and The Independent shows that people are falsely claiming that this person scientifically predicted that an earthquake would hit. We can easily say something along the lines of "Social media claimed researcher predicted earthquake. Experts agree claims of prediction are bogus. While there is debate in general on Earthquake predictions, experts have concluded that earthquakes cannot be predicted through astrology." --Super Goku V (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False information about maximum Mercalli intensity of earthquake
One of the strongest ground motion observed in Turkey earthquake history which is 2.14 g over Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş). Hatay and Kahramanmaraş provinces damages are huge, almost there is no non-damage building over there. Most of them were completely collapsed. Death toll will be increased dramaticly following days. Many Turkish geophysicist professor says that maximum Mercalli intensity of earthquake XII (extreme) according to damage. In spite all of that wikipedia shows maximum Mercalli intensity IX, which is ridiculous according to damage.213.74.67.62 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days until the seties of earthquakes is over, then it will be easier to figure out what's what. Experts are undoubtedly doing their best, but it's too early to be sure Animal lover|666|12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that counts as "reasoning". I am not sure it can be count as the same fault "line", while it is only okay to say it is part or the same fault "system". People should take a look at the definitive map of fault lines on Turkey using this link. To me, it seems more reasonable that the first earthquake caused an aftershock of 6.7 magnitude and also another earthquake on a very close but different line of 7.5 magnitude which itself caused another two aftershocks of 6.0 magnitude. In other source that claims the 7.5 earthquake is an aftershock, it is said that it is usual for aftershocks to be at least 1.0 lower than the mainshock. It may be required in a future time to actually give credit to a Turkish institution's publication rather than very hastily prepared pieces of reports that only seems authoritative. Yanekyuk (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The initial response was that it was a second mainshock and now they're saying it was an aftershock. What we see from the map of fault lines doesn't matter per WP:NOR. The RS are calling it an aftershock, therefore thats what we call it. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of the earthquake, which is described as an aftershock, has been renewed. AFAD announced the first of the two earthquakes as 7.7 and announced the second as 7.6. According to the current situation on Wikipedia, the first one is 7.8 and the second 7.7. This does not fit the description on the aftershock page. It is neither an earthquake that occurred on the same fault nor its intensity is lower than the first earthquake. If it was high, this time we would call the first earthquake the foreshock of the second. However, it is neither higher nor lower, which makes using either name debatable. In addition, geologists around the world, including Turkey, often describe it as a second earthquake. In this case, the phrase aftershock should be reconsidered. BurakD53 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the maps in the info-box should both be displayed simultaneously by default. Currently, the Turkish map is shown by default, and the Syrian map is collapsed by default, and there is the option to switch to the Syrian map or to display both of them simultaneously. In my view, this issue significantly affects both countries simultaneously, so the two maps should be presented together by default. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be touching on a different but relevant issue: The map of Syria with the bullseye icon doesn't look good, because with its given size, the superimposed circle doesn't encompass much of the affected areas, and it also occupies the space outside the image. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It currently says "Israel has deployed 430 search and rescue, disaster relief, 15 cargo planes, and humanitarian aid workers mainly to the areas of Adana and Gaziantep."
430 search and rescue what? workers? units? Should it be worded "Israel has deployed 15 cargo planes and 430 search and rescue, disaster relief, and humanitarian aid workers mainly to the areas of Adana and Gaziantep."? 196.159.218.213 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. My initial comment in Talk:2023_Turkey–Syria_earthquake/Archive_1#Inclusion_of_Portal:Kurdistan: This was not the practice in past articles of earthquakes that were clearly within the Kurdish-majority region, such as Talk:2011 Van earthquakes(...) We may discuss this later, though, but I am totally against this during these troublesome times. Kurdish victims aren't thinking about Kurdistan, let alone millions of non-Kurds. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC) I am simply against the involvement of contentious ethnopolitics in this dire situation for the moment. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Kurds are affected in Germany or the UK etc. Project Kurdistan is a relevant project, but if the article is about an event in the country they were born not? To any additional relevant project an article is added, the chances rise it once gets included in some sort of a Wikieditin campaign. I now added project Kurdistan and a phrase on Kurds (the majority population in Van) also to the Van earthquake article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be bluntly honest and fair @Ayıntaplı, inclusion of a project doesn't harm anyone, nor does it push any POV. It simply a statement by a project that the said project has interest in the article. I don't understand why there is any objection. If wikiproject Japan wants to add this, they should be able to do it -- it'd look stupid, but why bother opposing it? nafSadhdidsay20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment 3 days ago, I'm not against its later inclusion despite my current opposition, just not at this time, but I don't understand the apparent hype to add it the moment the earthquake happened. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do support adding effects to the Kurds. Leaving out a heavy hit majority may raise some red flags, and even cause a major article dispute due to Wikipedia's policies. Including everyone affected is better than leaving them out. ElusiveTaker (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although I don't think this should be a vote, and I don't feel like I have the right to vote on a project's internal decisions. Ayıntaplı, no offense, but your opposition against the involvement of contentious ethnopolitics seems misplaced, because there is no ethnopolitics involved in this matter. There is no reason why the Kurdistan project should be handled in any special way, or why we even should have to debate this. The apparent hype to add it the moment the earthquake happened may be due to the urgency of the situation. It's the same reason for the "apparent hype" to write about the event, which started the moment it had happened. Or it's for some other reason, I don't really care why, because I'm not involved in that project. Renerpho (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already withdrawn my opposing vote, so no need to further discuss anything or even vote. When it comes to "ethnopolitics," there have even been a widely-shared claim that the earthquake was an attack against the Kurds perpetrated by Turkey so much so that it had to be fact-checked. The problem here is the amount of disinformation circulating the Internet in spite of that much of the affected places are outside the Kurdish region completely derails the discussion of a horrible disaster to one that divides people based on ethnicity. But as nafSadh pointed out, WikiProject is quite trivial, and my response was an overreaction. I am sorry if anything came off wrong. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose The only thing the article says about Kurdistan (or even Kurds) is that a militant organization PKK has declared a ceasefire. Perhaps the debate about logistics and response times has been included the context of the conflict because it would hinder aid efforts. If there have been these problems in the distribution of aid and relief we would say more about it then. If and when we have reliable factual information. I am following closely and have not seen anything yet that would be helpful to improving our coverage. So the article contains very little information of interest to that Wikiproject imo.04:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. elwesii (talk • contribs)
Nevermind, I see someone added this to the article:
In the morning of 7 February, Turkey accused YPG of having overseen an MRL attack on its border checkpoint, and that the Turkish army has responded with further attacks.[231][232] The Kurdish Red Crescent[233] and Kamal Sido from the Society for Threatened Peoples later accused Turkey of airstrikes against the Kurdish population around Tell Rifaat also after the earthquake. Sido demanded from Turkey to open the borders to Syria for humanitarian aid just as they were open for Islamists.
Whoever added it also took the liberty of changing the content of the sources themselves (changing PKK to YPG). Not as innocuous as the above discussion presented, the citations look like right wing Euro junk and the Turkish press sources must be corroborated by international sources of good repute. I am even more strongly opposed to adding this project and this repellent content to the article until good and reliable information about this becomes available to us. G. elwesii (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adarbari: added this per your request. I'm not certain if the unit "g" is supposed to be italicized in this context or not, or if the reference is supposed to be inline or at the end of the template, so anyone with sufficient editing bits feel free to adjust to the standard presentation with my gratitude. Folly Mox (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peak ground acceleration
I try to find where in the source is mentioned a pga of 2.14 (214%g) but I can't. The highest values that I find are in Fevzipasa (2708), with 1.62 g. The only value that somehow matches is 215.34 cm/s of peak ground velocity in Hassa, but this is velocity not acceleration. The station tagged as Pazarcik has a pga of 0.63g. C messier (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the data in the source I uncritically copied from the body to the infobox, I've come to precisely the same conclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the article to follow the data available in the source cited. @Adarbari:, since the edit introducing the value into the infobox was at your request, are you aware of a source that shows a peak ground acceleration of 2.14g, or were you just going off the prose like I was? Folly Mox (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. No station numbered 4614 is present in the current data at all. Perhaps USGS chose to invalidate the results. Thanks for the clarification 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo montage is not neutral
Hello. Does anyone know why almost 40% of the photo montage used for the infobox consists of showing the Turkish flag while the whole world knows that the earthquake also happened in Syria? I wonder why on earth there is a flag, and why only the Turkish one in it? Do Syrians not count? This photo montage should be replaced by a neutral one, for example a photo montage showing ruined buildings or the mysery itself. But instead a non-neutral political image (with a flag) has been added. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance. Ferrus (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Turkish flag flying half-mast could be relevant, but it shouldn't cover much of the picture. By the way, another problem about the montage is that at least 3 photos are from the Hatay Province. But since we need more pictures, we may want to wait a little. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Turkish Wikipedia is allowed to be used for chauvinistic purposes. It's amazing that the English Wikipedia is allowed and not interfered with. Penaber49 (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A flag flying at half mast is for all the victims, not only Turkish victims but all the victims of the earthquake, Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian, Christian, Muslim, Armenian, American. A flag flying at half mast is a customary and formal gesture of respect for victims and mourning for those of have died, shared by all countries, for all of the over 20,000 victims who lost their lives. G. elwesii (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no pictures of the effects of the earthquake in Syria in Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, you are free to create a different photo montage from suitably licensed pictures. C messier (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A flag flying at half mast in memory of the victims of an earthquake seems relevant to an article about an earthquake. And considering three quarters of the casualties we know about so far are in Turkey, it doesn't seem unreasonable for it to be a Turkish flag. As things develop, better photos might become available and this can be revisited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That the Turkish flag flying at half-mast is for mourning the Armenian, Christian and Kurdish victims is WP:OR. I wonder what would happen if Kurds or Armenians would fly their flags... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Building collapses in Diyarbakir
Article currently says "Many buildings were destroyed in Adıyaman and Diyarbakır". Reuters reported on 2/6 that "at least 20 buildings crumbled" in Diyarbakir. [2] It is almost twice the distance from Adiyaman to the epicentre. Should we discuss them separately?
Cumhuriyet (Turkish press) reported 2.10 a lower fıgure of 7 buildings and there would be an investigation into the building collapses and possible illegal construction in this province. I wanted to make some changes about this. G. elwesii (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detecting unreliable sources
You may find User:Headbomb/unreliable useful. Obviously sources highlighted red may need human editor judgement. Although, for example, Youtube videos may sometimes be OK it usually takes longer to verify the info is actually in the video than it would for text info. And I have no idea how to verify who a tweet is really from nowadays.
So I think it would be useful if sources such as tweets and videos could be gradually replaced over time by easier to verify sources
I'm letting other editors know that @Userbala is making unsourced changes/updates. I recently dropped a message on their talk page requesting them to cite sources when making new changes/updates. This revision shows they haven't comply to Wikipedia's policies of citing reliable sources. I am putting this user up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because the user isn't even discussing with me and continues with the bad editing habit. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I do is making minor updates like casualities etc. And none of the edits I made were wrong. I live in Turkey and I listen all the statements or updates about the earthquake on live and edit as early as I can. None of the updates were wrong. It's been 20 minutes since the last update and the figure is still outdated on this page, I tried to edit but found out I was blocked without a reason. Userbala (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Userbala: The reasons are given on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site and does not need up-to-the-minute accuracy. All information requires a source. Until the casualty figures stabilise, it's likely to be constantly out of date. The important thing is to document the ongoing and long-term effects of the disaster, not the minute by minute blow by blow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023 (2)
Not done: A discussion at Talk:Turkey resulted in a consensus which favored the name Turkey instead of Türkiye, and for the sake of consistency, this article will continue to call that country Turkey. Nythar (💬-❄️) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change it to Türkiye - Syria earthquake.
Thanks for quick reply. Something like that but with a simpler legend and zoomed in to only Syria and Turkey and both earthquakes together and svg Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to find one in Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think there are any specifically with such features. Maybe we can use CSS image crop for the aforementioned image in order to "zoom in." Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
International humanitarian efforts section is too long
Perhaps we should merge everything in the section to the article and agree not to have anything other than the lede statement here. That way it stops being a problem here and allows more focus on that article. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'll leave it for now. Its not out of hand and it doesnt seem like its going to be in danger of getting out of hand. Maybe the sections can be merged. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023 (3)
Not done According to our article on aftershocks, Most aftershocks ... either occur along the fault plane itself or along other faults within the volume affected by the strain associated with the main shock. If this information is incorrect, and aftershocks strictly occur along the same fault as the mainshock, please provide a reliable source to that effect so our article can be corrected to follow scientific consensus. Folly Mox (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023 (4)
International relief effort by country: ADD THE BELOW
Spain - Four Spanish Navy ships, part of a NATO contingent in Eastern Mediterranean at the time, arrived in Iskenderun on February 8. On board carrier Juan Carlos I and landing dock Galicia, 500 marines started helpingTurkish authorities. Ambulances and medical and food supplies were disembarked as well, while 12 helicopters on board the ships were also readied for medical and rescue operations.
On February 7, a 56 strong Spanish Army rescue unit from Unidad Militar de Emergencias (UME) and 35 rescue specialists from Comunidad de Madrid Firefighters were airlifted from Spain to Incirlik Air Base and, jointly with Spanish Army troops already at Incirlik manning Patriot missile systems, were deployed for rescue operations near Gaziantep.
For now, I have reverted to the other collage, due to hypothermia concerns mentioned earlier, which are now archived. However, later realized that the map in the collage only shows the second quake, which needs to be fixed. We need a better collage, one without a palm tree but one that also has the right map. Right now, neither collage fits this bill. Berkserker (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: A discussion at Talk:Turkey resulted in a consensus which favored the name Turkey instead of Türkiye, and for the sake of consistency, this article will continue to call that country Turkey. Nythar (💬-❄️) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done According to our article on aftershocks, 
Done Closed the template call in this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)