Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake

5510:. It'd be fine if we were writing a script for a History Channel special, but here, we should be as specific as possible, and "ceased to exist" or even the awkward "ceased to exist as a functional entity" don't communicate the extent of destruction as clearly as the data point about the percentage of buildings destroyed. I'm not a huge fan of the clause describing Tangshan, but that's a tougher call. Still, it seems like the sort of thing we'd only do for an article about a foreign-to-westerners city; users can click the blue link if they need to. If we have the data, some less awkward phrasing that still gets across how big Tangshan is might be "in minutes, 85% of the XXX buildings in Tangshan collapsed". Oh, and also, if we can specify the number of minutes, that'd also help give this a more neutral tone. 4428:

BUILDINGS CHAPTER 3: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT Volumd III: CHAPTER 1: RAILWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 2: HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 3: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING CHAPTER 4: ENGINEERING FOR WATER TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 6: EARTHQUAKE RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TANGSHAN Volume IV: CHAPTER 1: GENERAL VIEWS OF DAMAGE IN MEIZOSEISMAL AREA CHAPTER 2: GROUND FAILURE CHAPTER 3: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: ANCIENT BUILDINGS CHAPTER 5: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 6: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES CHAPTER 7: RAILWAY AND HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 8: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING OF WATER TRANSPORT

407: 386: 2124:, e.g. titles of publications, headers, scientific names. Here, we are emphasizing the figures because they are the primary topic of discussion in that section. It does not carry a strong semantic meaning, but I do think there is a semantic emphasis here. I also agree that it would be strange and undesirable to make each figure a subsection, which if justified would automatically merit bolding for typographic reasons. Quasi-subsections would be just as strange though. Otherwise, bolding here would be very distracting and draw too much emphasis to just the figures. The background coloring 2683:" does the readers a disservice in blunting their understanding of the matter. Some of these numbers have been very widely repeated (even in a peer-reviewed journal), but for all that they are entirely meaningless without some explanation of where and how they came about. They all have some basis, and though we are not fortunate enough to know all of that I think we should explain what we can. And as I said above, I think it is quite likely that some readers will arrive here wanting to know not what the range of estimates was, but about a particular number. ♦ 199: 2612:, which took on political significance. (E.g., claims of a government cover-up.) I think it is reasonable to assume that many readers will arrive here (or return) with a particular number in mind they have seen elsewhere, and would like to go directly to the relevant text, which bolding or highlighting would faciliate. That digits are as tall as capital letters is of little effect. (So are the lowercase letters 'bfhl', for what little effect that has.) But note that making them a little larger – 110%, to be precise, using 129: 4297:

stop the whole thing blowing up out of control - I don't know if there is some sort of arbitration standards for this kind of thing in wikipedia, but a cooling off period for both of you seems in order - both of you want a good result, but neither of you see this the same way - so it looks likely to be a bone of contention until someone can word things in a fresh way that you can both agree to dislike but tolerate, i'm going to wish you both the best of luck with finding that

189: 162: 5655:"Ceased to exist" (with or without qualification) is a succinct summary of the situation; the sentence following provides (following the source) the briefest amplification of several aspects of the disaster. Your #2 version does not summarize, and buries the "all services failed" in the middle of the compounded sentence. At any rate, your comment is irrelevant to the point Sdkb raised here, which is whether the phrase is hyperbolic language. ♦ 488: 1493:) but it's gone away. (Yeah, I should have archived it. Dang.) Given your command of Chinese, could you search for a replacement? Or even (a long shot) do you suppose we could ask them to restore that page? Incidentally, the missing page had this notation: "International Networking Unit Record No. 京ICP备06029777". But that seems to be worthless. Googling on that last part plus "唐山" turns up some hits, but they're all 404. ♦ 265: 318: 297: 50: 5866:. (A qualification I am open to but Mark rejected.) Sure, a good part of the population survived, but so did the population of the former USSR. In neither case is the existence of the entity contingent on the existence of the population. The significance of this term is that for the surviving population there were no municipal services, which is the reason for existence for cities. ♦ 5677:’s point about hyperbolic language (with which I agree).If the essence is that there were no municipal services anymore, I think that the subsequent compound sentence that states that there were no municipal services communicates that essence. Its also fine to split that phrase off into a separate sentence, if its emphasis is so necessary. But there’s no real need to summarize 120: 21: 536: 2650:, since they're all shaky data. Are we certain we should be including them at all, instead of a simple range from high to low estimates? That seems like the more normal practice. The experiments in the thread above this (guillemets and large font size) are even further from our stylistic norms, and bear no resemblance to other Knowledge content. 2377:

strikingly large) figures, and it is reasonable that readers are likely to be interested in comparing the different figures. That is the point of highlighting: to enable the reader to quickly find ("index") the figure that each little pile of text is about. (A table would facilitate that, but I find a table to be unsuitable here.) ♦

1255:

that it was "bad" that many people (including my friends' relatives) lost their lives at Tangshan, but I don't think that it should be states as "bad" on Knowledge. The earthquake happened and some factors led to more people dying. There's no need to state whether it or the relevant factors were good or bad fortune. —

5753:, it continued to exist and has been rebuilt since the earthquake. Therefore, "ceased to exist" is a colorful overstatement and should not be used in an encyclopedia. I suppose it's debatable whether it was a "functional entity" immediately after the earthquake, but millions of inhabitants survived somehow. 2958:" as a fuctioning entity. Yes, it is dramatic, but so was the reality, and I know of no rule or guideline that prohibits use of an accurate, sourced statement. You imply that it is "puff", but I don't see that. The city was entirely rebuilt, to a new plan, so it seems quite accurate to say that Tangshan 5857:

sense, yes, the USSR "ceased to exist" (it was replaced by other entities), while "Tangshan" as a legal entity continued. So are you saying Housner & He are liars? From their perspective – and it totally baffles me why that perspective is not clear with even the most cursory reading of the source

5721:

The cessation of municipal services is not the only element of "ceased to exist". Destruction of 90 percent of the residential dwellings meant that, to a very large extent, Tangshan no longer was a place of shelter. Highway and railway bridges are not municipal services, but their loss is significant

4621:

has no such requirement, and on showing that an exact quote (as proposed) would be counter-factual. Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse, given that 23 chapters of a four-volume engineering report firmly establish the engineering context

4212:

To quote him simply, where some readers confound "greatest disaster" with "greatest number of deaths", is to make him speak that which is not true. The context clearly shows that he was focused on the built environment. When that context is not provided "most damaging" more accurately conveys what he

3574:

speaking is NOT the case. You claim it is forbidden as idiomatic, which is demonstrably counter-factual. E.g., a search of article space shows only 10 instances of articles with "ceased to be", there are 7,615 instances of "ceased to exist". More particularly, there are 10 instances of "city ceased

3001:

is a literary dramatic flourish that, while an interesting hook, can be misconstrued and replaced by more standard neutral wording (neutral in the sense of emotional & reporting tone, not in the sense of NPOV). The city still existed - sure not in its former form or as a functional city - but it

2237:

Ah okay, I think I misunderstood your intention of use of bolding / emphasis / color to be actual emphasis and demonstrating the varied figures rather than as an index. How it was before, the bolding was too strong to serve as emphasis and really pulls one’s eyes away from other text. To some extent,

996:

here (e.g. "fortunate") that can easily be avoided. In my second-most-recent edit, the "palpable failure" sentence seemed particularly egregious since it was unsourced at the time. But even now, the "Tangshan was not so fortunate" sentence is unnecessary here. Of course the reader can infer what they

595:

Apparently I'm getting a Syntax Error for the map in question (under the next section, "Damage", titled, "Extent of significant shaking"). I've tried enabling and disabling various gadget and beta preferences with no luck. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the formatting of infoboxes well enough to

5445:

It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making

4753:

in the prologue refers to physical damage is an inference. It is being inferred from the rest of the book being about physical damage.Okay, it's an EERL report; I was using the pdf version and I assumed that there was a book version. But surmising whether or not other editors have read the source is

4892:

without any other context can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is unnecessarily imprecise writing (besides being potentially

4361:

I appreciate the mediation suggestion, but I actually think this wasn't much of an issue anymore by the time of your post. Any outstanding issues would be resolved by the RfC via consensus of other editors, while I felt that disengaging from the heated and escalating language here would be a better

4315:

Thanks for your effort. What may have been missed here is that I have been somewhat neutral about retaining or removing the "most damaging" sentence. But I am strongly convinced that an isolated "exact quote" is factually incorrect, and "most damaging" is the more accurate phrase. So there we are.

4296:

Ooops - I got a bit distracted by the amount of arguments on the page and missed that the debate got split - i was trying to stop things before the page got unreadable and out of hand - and my comment a little higher up was aimed at the original 'ceased to exist' - but I am probably too late now to

2697:

But it's not like the numbers won't still be there. Plus, are there that many readers with a specific figure reported in 1976 or 1977 soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds coming to the death toll section of the earthquake page specifically to look for that figure? That's a very narrow

1836:

I made a few edits regarding the death toll that you may want to review. I basically changed the infobox entry to reflect the official figure (at least what was more recently reported by official media), made two subsections since two thirds of the section is about reports immediately following the

791:

Unfortunately, no. Troubleshooting a bug requires having some knowledge of the effects of the bug, particularly the error message encountered. At any rate, I suspect what the problem is: two software packages out of sync. Not an issue specific to the map at hand, or addressable here. Though I might

579:

Perhaps my preferences aren't set correctly, but I see no map with any points labeled (not "C", as indicated in the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of "The Earthquake" section, nor "A" or "B" either, as noted in the infobox, as well as in later sections), other than in the infobox, where only the

5590:

I maintain that "ceased to exist" is none of those (let alone "unintelligible to an average reader"), and is used here "in a businesslike manner". Indeed, it is the precise term used by two respected engineers in what is arguably the most authoritative source in English on the Tangshan earthquake.

4518:

An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes. The Tangshan disaster met all these requirements and the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the

4183:

Thanks for the suggestion. (And I don't believe any apology is needed.) I have no problem with adding adequate citation, though I did have an issue with Mark for simply deleting the text rather than tagging it with {cn}. We also have an issue where Mark insists that "damage" includes "deaths", and

3809:

So you are ducking out on explaining your "shot down" statements? Perhaps you should modify your comment on who is refusing to "debate" this matter. Also strike your demonstrably false statement that I did not address your points. And if you won't discuss my suggestion perhaps I should just do it.

3516:

is imprecise and has other interpretations that are inappropriate here is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple logical argument for modifying the statement. You might not think that any alternative expresses what happens more precisely and clearly while I do, sure. Just because you disagree with

2184:

bolding is to make an element, such as a volume number, stand out from the rest, which is a form of emphasis. And exactly what we need to do here. I think this "sense" is where one part of a sentence is emphasized relative to another part, which can clarify, or alter, the meaning, but that doesn't

1973:

avoid that. But with a bunch of different figures (and adamantly not wanting to convert that section into a table) I think the different figures should be highlighted in some way, but more than italiciation. They are, after all, essentially index terms for the content of that section, and (I feel)

1710:

I am presuming "Lin" is the surname--is that correct? For publisher you gave four terms (or is that two pairs of "Publishing House/Press"?); is there a preferred form here? I tried googling the title with "isbn", but the results seemed to be trash. Am I correct in presuming that books published in

1142:

the MOS explicitly takes the position that articles should not take a position on fortune, it's really a subjective opinion whether something was "fortuitous" or not. Some silly "examples": Some would consider Trump's election fortuitous. Some would not. Some would consider Tangshan's suffering as

622:

seeing?) has nothing to do with the infobox. The map of concern, titled "Extent of significant shaking", is displaying properly for me, with the points "A", "B", and "C" displayed next to the red triangles. So it's not a gross problem, and we will need to do some careful trouble-shooting to figure

4427:

Volume I: CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC ACTIVITY AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 2: ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY CHAPTER 3: EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY CHAPTER 4: STRONG EARTHQUAKE MOTION OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER 5: SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Volume II: CHAPTER 1: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT CHINESE

4072:

Then the claim is unreferenced. If this is purely about physical damage separate from the deadliness, then any claims about being a superlative for physical damage should be clearly sourced whether it is a specific claim (e.g. in terms of intensity scales or buildings destroyed) or a more general

2005:

For highlighting the figures, that’s the purpose of the emphasis template! I do think that it’s sufficient even though it’s less prominent than bolding. Also relevant is that the “em” and “strong” templates produce semantic emphasis as opposed to just typographic emphasis. An example of the usage

1254:

saying that the occurrence of an event with unknown reasons is subjective. What I'm saying is that the position that something was fortunate is subjective. Saying that something is fortunate or fortuitous implies the position that it was "good" or "bad" that something happened. I personally agree

4870:

In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist as a functioning entity. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were

3014:

kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is what I mean when I say that those words, without any additional context, are inaccurate and dramatic. Can you see what I mean here? I'm not

2560:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, lorem vivendo luptatum an qui. Sea munere feugait recusabo ei 242,419, dicit convenire accommodare at mei, et ornatus efficiantur sit. At qui dolores vulputate consectetuer, harum eripuit ne duo, vim mazim prompta ea 275,000. Ne numquam saperet mel. Ei est zril dicunt

2457:

A bit uneasy about fraktur (even if properly rendered) as I haven't seen any use of it outside of mathematics. My understanding is that guillemets are only used in some languages outside of English and for translations from other languages to English, so I don't feel particularly good about that

1458:

earthquake at Haicheng. 242,419 people died at the similarly-sized earthquake at Tangshan. The (lack of) precursors and time of day contributed to the low death toll at Haicheng and the high death toll at Tangshan. One doesn't need to state that Kerr thinks that Tangshan was not as fortunate as

1375:

fortunate" be better?), for what are very similar earthquakes in very similar contexts. The point is not that Tangshan's "fortune" (destiny) that day was "bad" (by some subjective criterion), but that it was "less fortunate" than Haicheng's, and that some of the "relevant factors" were entirely

1134:

4540:

substantial physical damage from a large enough earthquake, close proximity, and poor building structures. Anything else that may be inferred from the table of contents, the contents of the rest of the book, the fact that the authors are engineers, the fact that it was not the single deadliest

3978:

means there aren’t any outstanding issues, which are not part of the RfC below, that need to be addressed further in this section; i.e. we can just focus on the RfC. Although, I think our thoughts & positions are quite clear; perhaps waiting for more responses from the editors there / more

2286:

What I meant by an example is an article that uses the colored background. Are there articles that currently use colored background for figures? I feel like I might have seen one once but I’m not sure. Perhaps an outside opinion may help for this matter? There may be some who are experts on WP

1943:

Right, but there are no claims to being the authoritative or the most accurate here. Regarding citing what others say the officials say, the government-run press should be a reliable source for reporting the government figures! I agree though, that a government source of some sort dedicated to

2376:

Even with only "a sentence or so" for each, the different figures are the essential elements of the section. (They could also be viewed in respect of the sources, but that is a secondary consideration/key.) It is a very notable element of the story that there were these highly divergent (and

2075:

I note that bolding of subsection headings is not only permissible, but done automatically. If each paragraph is broken out as a subsection, with the figure under discussion used as the heading, then the scanability problem is solved, and we are entirely kosher per MOS:BOLD. However, I don't

1127:"___ was fortunate". It would be acceptable with respect to this position that an article may something like "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate in his/her analysis of ___". However, in this (and many other) cases such a statement is unimportant and doe not need to be included in an article. 5408:

As to substantive comments: you seem quite ambivalent on whether the preceding discussion is part and parcel of this one, or not. At any rate, your explanation of why qualifying "ceased to exist" with "as a functional entity" is "worse than other alternatives" seems to be only that it is

1728:) gives their English name as "Seismological Press" when omitting China from the Chinese name. So the official English name should be "China Seismological Press". Yep, China uses ISBNs as well. It seems to be 978-7116460933 or 978-7477148487 according to second-hand book sales listings ( 4847:

In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously

945:" (without explanation) evinces an identity that does not apply here. For sure, the concepts are closely coupled, and often the difference is immaterial. But as explained (perhaps inadequately?) in the "Question of prediction" section: whether there was, or was not, a 2339:) that use colored backgrounds, but more to classify within a table than to emphasize. I searched article space for "hastemplate:bg"; got a rather low 415 hits. (Perhaps by another name would turn up more?) A cursory examination showed use of {bg} for emphasis at 4957:- the phrase 'ceased to exist' strikes me as a mild variant of peacock/weasel words, I'd have the subclause changed to a stand alone sentence - something like 'Prior to the earthquake Tangshan was an industrial city which had approximately 1 million inhabitants' 1336:

I disagree that "fortunate" should be attributed in the text ("__ thinks that"). We do that when there is a dispute, or when it might be of interest to the reader. But lacking any contention of the fact I see no reason why the usual attribution in a note is not

1015:

In your zeal to de-editorialize do you actually check the sources given? (Well, usually given!) Or are you just flying by a gut-feeling? (I don't mean to sound snide; it's genuine question. I have seen quite a few editors that seem to be running primarily on

1751:

I see that both of your links seem to link to the book. But for both ISBNs the template complains of a checksum error. I suspect "jd.com" is a bit casual about copying data from the original publisher. Well, ISBN would be nice, but not absolutely necessary.

5028:

I think that the quoted phrase is unnecessary and doesn't provide any more information than is already given in the two following sentences, but the quotation marks would be an improvement if there is consensus that it must be included (perhaps without the

1211:". It refers to things or events "happening by accident or chance". And, to take time of day as an example, there is no reason known (or even suspected) why the Tangshan earthquake happened at 4 AM and not (say) 4 PM; that was purely and objectively 3936:-interpreted through out this discussion. (And your tendency to run away with an uncivil interpretation rather then inquiring whether that is what I meant is why I fault you on AGF.) In particular you should note that "disincline" should be taken as 5362:", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on 1078:". (If the text was any closer quotation marks would be needed.) And in this source and others there is an explicit contrast with Haicheng, and mention of specific points (such as lack of precursors, and time of day) where Haicheng was fortunate, 4856:

In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously

2264:

Regardless, I disagree with the need to index the figures (which would usually then merit subsections) since there is only a sentence or so for each figure. I think that there are too many figures with small accompanying text for it to really be

2189:

to the figures is exactly what is needed. Italics are too "mild" for this, as you hardly notice them until you're already upon them. I see the figures as a primary index key, which is useless if the only way to find a given figure is sequential

904:

show the same problem you saw before? What I see from that link is the basemap (without the overlaid annotations) at the upper-right, and a blank box (presumably where the overlay data is/isn't) a little lower on the left. Is that what you see?

3094:, in fact write that. Presuming that you had merely not read the source seemed the more charitable explanation for what you wrote. Perhaps you don't understand that "if" carries a strong sense of "possibly not true"? Perhaps "despite", meaning 5579:

Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike

5891:. Even if Tangshan were completely destroyed and abandoned, it would still exist as ruins. In this particular case while most of the city was destroyed it was rebuilt and is inhabited. #2 factually describes the scale of the devastation-- 2808:

I believe you refer to the WP "List of" page. Yes, the range there is not what the cited source says, and ought to be corrected. I have not undertaken that correction, or others, because undoubtedly there are other instances, and I think

4901:), when the physical destruction is quantified in the subsequent sentence and human life loss is quantified later in the same paragraph.While the phrase is literally taken from the dramatic opening in the prologue to one of the sources ( 4648:

requires exact wording. However, the passage does not directly say anything about any kind of superlative with respect to physical damage. I didn't say that that the book being about engineering is inferred, but that extrapolating that

4256:, whereby the onus is on the editor reintroducing the content to add a precise reference that directly supports the content.Housner having been an engineer and Housner-He saying that a certain level of physical/structural damage is a 5775:

physical manifestation of the city no longer exists, except as landfill somewhere.. Even if you argue that the regenerated city continues, in the moments following the quake its state of being was, definitely, and per other sources:

5075:: As you all can see from the preceding discussion, MarkH21 and I have been having quite a set-to on this. He takes "ceased to exist" as applicable to all forms of existence, whereas it is clear in the source that it this meant as a 3621:

You essentially rejected your own proposal in the next sentence and you didn’t acknowledge my proposed text until just now, while still not explaining why you reject my proposed text. You also still have not provided a single reason

2431:

people died in the quake". I still prefer bold, and haven't yet figured out any way of doing "half-bold", but would consider guillements and {larger} satisfactory in giving the readers a visual "anchor". How do you feel about these?

2042:

significant. These figures are key terms, essentially the topic of each paragraph, but not, I think, otherwise semantically significant. Note that the effect intended here is not a mild bump of emphasis as one reads the text (e.g.,

1529:

Yes, I see the "242769" figure there, which supports our use, and is likely good enough to quell any objections. Though it would be good to have an official source that is still current. What do the Chinese language wikipedias cite?

1903:

parameter should be included. Also, the cite/citation templates create full citations, which should be in the Sources section; the in-line citation should be a short-cite. News agencies are a little tricky; I suggest something like

4156:

If you two could stop the 'squabbling' that would be good (apologies if that seems a bit harsh)- it is clear that you both have the best of intentions regards getting the article sorted but different interpretations of the correct

2006:

difference is that semantic markup is read by text-to-speech readers for the visually impaired and by other software that usually ignores typographic markup (normal bolding using apostrophes, normal italicization, colors, etc.). —

1666:

Not as clearly and cleanly "official" as I'd like it to be, but that is problem with the Chinese government. (And my inability to read Chinese?) I'll see about working these in, and hopefully that will suffice to cover the matter.

3575:

to exist" (including a case of "the Jewish population of the city ceased to exist"), and 43 instances of "town" or "township" (instead of "city"). The ONLY talk page I have found where "ceased to exist" is objected to as idiom is

2154:

Ah, maybe you saw it in the (now) first paragraph of this section? Which goes to show that background color can be subtle to the point of uselessness. Seems to need a stronger color than "azure". Perhaps something on the order of

5722:

in this context, as it meant that Tangshan was largely cut-off from externally supplied services. "Ceased to exist" is the central concept here, as supplied by an authoritative source, which the sentence following illustrates. ♦

2242:

which only prescribes boldface for article title terms, automatically bolded terms (headers, infobox, etc.), and a few specific cases (e.g. mathematics). Avoidance elsewhere is still the preference, regardless of the reason of

1362:

I agree that "fortunate" is often used with a strong tone of "good" or "bad", which certainly have subjective elements. But! There is no "position" taken here that 242K deaths (or any other aspect) was "bad". This is about the

5474:

doesn't provide any more information than is given in the rest of the lead, particularly the subsequent two sentences.Again, your most significant aspect is already in all three proposed sentences in the bolded three words of

5301:

Your inclination to comment on contributors, what you think they like, what you think they find boring, and what you think is in their vocabulary is grossly inappropriate. Cut it out, you’ve been warned multiple times now. —

4451:

Also: as I have explained previously (did you read it?) if "greatest disaster" is interpreted as equivalent to "greatest number of deaths" than Housner's statement is incorrect. As that is quite unlikely, I suggest that your

722:

There could also be a browser problem; you should check this with any other browsers you have available. Also try accessing the map without logging in; that should eliminate any problems with your personal configuration.

1632:). Interestingly, this news article also mentions that the public memorial has 246,245 names on it due to some recent additions and revisions in 1992, 2008, and 2010. Nonetheless, 242,419 remains the official number. — 1400:

fortunate than Haicheng. And this was to a degree so extreme as to be significant and notable in its own right (and thus should be mentioned), and leads into why the supposed "failure to predict/warn" was so serious.

1169:

The MOS "Editorializing" section comes under "Words that may introduce bias", and I see no instance of any words being absolutely forbidden. As to Knowledge "not taking a view" re "fortunate", well, I do not see that

2343:, but that was in a table. At any rate, I don't feel any love for {bg}. What I would really like is something on the order of "half-bold". Hmm, I might try some experiments with {fg} to that end. Another idea I had: 5268:

I consider "functioning entity" to be ordinary English. But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary I suppose we could replace it with "city". Is that clearer? Or do you require an enumeration of municipal functions?

1143:

unfortunate. Some would consider it a result of poor construction techniques and planning. There's no objectivity in fortune and results of probability. If one objects, then the appropriate venue is the MOS talk! —

1249:

the word is included, i.e. "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate" (or something more graceful), rather than a statement that "___ was fortunate". The former is different from the latter with a ref tag afterwards. I'm

1116:

For de-editorializing, it's both. But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article. The well-established position in MOS is:

5112:. A search of article space show 7,615 instances of "ceased to exist", with (as far as I can see) no objections on the basis of idiom. I argue that this shows this is an acceptable term, sanctioned by broad usage. 3373:

And I find your characterization of death as subsumed under "damage to human life" rather bizarre. My broad experience is that damage and deaths are always reckoned separately, and that this is so obvious – i.e.,

5366:

part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb.

4160:

I'd suggest this as a compromise - part a) rewrite of the section however Mark wants it - but also part b) that should include the exact quote from Housner (described as a quote from Housner) hope that works out

4502:

and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me.Let's follow the logic here. I removed the because the newly inserted sentence because it was not clearly or directly referenced. You claim that the sentence

3459:. There's no implication whatsoever that there is any surprise or doubt. That's just a fact of English. It's fine if you misunderstand the wording, but don't be so quick to accuse editors of not reading sources. 4685:

has no such prohibition (only of WP:SYN). Furthermore, that this source is ENTIRELY about physical damage (and pertinent aspects) is not an inference, but a plain, clearly seen and understood (no?) observation.

1792:. Searching www.seismologicalpress.com turned up some interesting stuff, but it didn't look anything to do with the book. So I have tweaked the citation, and will run with that. Thanks for your assistance. ♦ 5354:– you found history to be boring, and therefore so should WP. If, just perhaps, that should be the case, then I would have a better understanding of the basis of your viewpoint, and we could discuss that. If 5973:

does not say that at all?? In fact I cannot find the value 7.6 anywhere in there??? Other sources are corroborating that it is 7.6, but this is a poorly done citation unless I'm blatantly missing something.

1086:— I presume you mean in the sense of opinions arising from one's own personal feelings, distinguished from opinions based on sensible, external reality, without distortion from personal feeling — well, the 750:

awaiting your response. The problem you have seen may be connected with a deeper level bug that is being investigated, and the difference where you encounter this problem and I don't may be a useful datum.

4702:

Another reason why I sometimes wonder if you have read any more of the source than the Overview (or perhaps just the Prologue to the Overview) is where you keep referring to this source as a "book". It is

3552:

have a certain belief or attitude (about history), which might in turn explain your view. If you don't have such a belief, fine, just say so (a simple "no" would suffice). My "quip" is a straight-forward

2790:

To digress, I think that the range on that page should probably be changed to what is the current "official" (government) figure. Even the USGS site doesn't list the range but notes the high estimates as

2757:

But I weary of this discussion. For a distinct albeit small improvement I am getting way too much friction. The harder our readers have to work to understand something the more they will value it; right?

3609:

You say that you dispute it being imprecise without addressing or even discussing the points I mentioned. The phrase has connotations beyond partial destruction. That other pages use the phrase or that

1734:) which are not exactly reliable... I couldn't verify that these are correct ISBNs via an ISBN lookup. The book is less than $ 5 USD if you want it though :) Of course it'll be entirely in Chinese. — 4774:

Again, if you’re neutral on the actual sentence being there, why does this even matter? You’re neutral on it and I don’t think it should be there, so we can leave it out. There’s no point to this. —

3606:

is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate.

3584:

I have not ignored your proposed text; I reject it. And I have suggested an alternative, which you reject. Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you. ♦

3073:(i.e., fatalities). Those are different, not at all redundant; your comment is incorrect. While I am rather neutral on whether it stays, I would hope you can make a better argument for its removal. 3509:

stop existing on 28 July 1976. Do you not accept that there are other connotations of the phrase (no longer being any entity, being wiped out, etc.)? I don't see that you've acknowledged that yet.

5454:

if you agree to some part of what I wrote. It's quite a stretch to interpret that as me claiming that you are blind or claiming anything about you.My point is and has been that the discussion of

1608:

Yes, that is great. (Double-plus good!) I know of the second book, but have never seen a copy, so I couldn't verify it. For the first book, could you provide a page number for the 242,769 figure?

3911:

that immediately followed as a dismissal of the preceding sentence. Okay, my interpretation of that was wrong based on your support for that option in the RfC below. I think we're done here. —

3872:

That is a rather impudent statement from someone who was in such a rush to open an RfC. And wouldn't your "shot-down" explanation be more appropriate for this discussion rather than the RfC? ♦

2675:

Mac: this is not one of your more stellar comments. While all data has a degree of shakiness, there are big differences in the reliability and significance of these data. Presenting them as "

1563:

1) 林泉. 地球的震撼. 中国地震出版社. 1982. (Lin Quan. The Earth's Shock. China Earthquake Publishing House / China Earthquake Press / China Seismological Publishing House / China Seismological Press. 1982.)

5827:

In many other cases in the encyclopedia, I wouldn't dispute the use of 'ceased to exist' because it's literally correct. Example: the USSR has 'ceased to exist' although Russia still exists.

4576:

adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. That does not that it should be considered inappropriate to remove unreferenced material without taking the interim step.You said before that

4389:

Since you are so obtusely disputatious I submit a list of the 23 chapter headings from the four volumes of "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976". Note that ALL of these chapters are about

6092: 4207:

An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes.

4456:

is incorrect. As you have not responded to my request (at 21:25 1 Mar.) for "some source that says otherwise", I think we can presume that you are unable to support that interpretation.

1806:

No problem! Given that the official figure is actually 242,419 (and it originates from a more recent study), I'll also add the Xinhua and 1988 book references and change the IB entry. —

856:

What do you mean by "moving the letter labels to the caption"? They identify elements on the map by their adjacency; putting them into the caption (where they already are) destroys that.

6132: 455: 3752:

meaning of "debate"?) What I am disinclined to discuss is your immaterial (and even false) pettifoggery. I have offered an alternative; perhaps you should clarify why you reject it. ♦

3570:

I find your arguments so thin as to be incredible. E.g., you interpret "ceased to exist" as being imprecise (which I dispute), while arguing that it is a form of "cease to be". Which,

3174:

Damage can refer to both damage to physical structures and damage to human life. Plus, the quote to which you associate this sentence doesn't specifically refer to physical damage in

1179: 988:

Sure, but again I am just trying to remove some of the interpretive tone that is present or at least suggested by some of the wording here. In particular, there are some instances of

5441:

comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a

1509: 2938:

Your view of continued existence seems to be based on having some fragment of the city's physical fabric surving intact, while Dr. Housner's view was that it no longer existed as a

4749:(changed bolding is mine). It requires direct support from the reference.Again, I didn't say that Housner-He being about physical damage is an inference. That the specific phrase 2740:

given for Tangshan ranks it deadlier than three other earthquakes of 273,400, 250,000, and 260,000 deaths, and wants to know something about the validity of the different numbers.

6122: 358: 6072: 4007:

done here. (Such as you explaining why you still reject my alternative wording.) I would resolve these issues here so that they don't bog down the RfC, but have it your way. ♦

368: 2238:

this is the purpose of indexing typography but this was to the degree that it detracts from the rest of the content in the section. I think this is also what is the stance of

5079:

entity. To the extent that could be considered imprecise I have suggested adding that clarification (the 3rd option), but for reasons he has not explained he considers that "

1947:

Sorry about the citation format change! Feel free to change the formatting - or I’ll get around to it in a bit. Note that the year of the Xinhua article is 2017, not 2019. —

1178:". Indeed, I have yet to find any discussion of that in the archives. As to rigid avoidance of "fortunately", the only discussion of this I have found in the MOS archives is 3303:

that you were surprised or doubtful of what Housner said. But you are being unnecessarily contentious here: you seem to have missed my key qualification that your "even if"

3181:

You're talking about "if", which is different from "even if". "Even if" is synonymous with "despite", "in spite of", etc. You can check any dictionary you want to see that (

4042:). Number of deaths is a easily quantifiable and common way of describing the destructiveness of an earthquake (alongside magnitude, intensity scales, and financial cost). 2646:. This doesn't qualify for italics or boldface. It's just numbers. And there being multiple conflicting numeric reports makes them even less appropriate to emphasize per 35: 4743:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that

6127: 6102: 2557:

I see no need for any form of highlighting. Digits are taller than most lowercase letters, so it's already easy to pick out a multi-digit number from a passage of text:

279: 2886:

doesn't mean that we should use it here. It's a dramatic flourish suitable for a book but not for Knowledge articles, particularly since it's not precisely correct. If

5947: 4511:

is A) solely referring to physical damage so it is not to be redundant with the following sentence about being the second/third deadliest in recorded history and B)

6087: 4200:"in the history of the world." In fact it is quite clear from the context that Dr. Housner – don't forget that he was an engineer – was applying "disaster" to the 1051:

all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. Knowledge should not take a view as to whether an event was

245: 5789:

The core issue here seems to be the issue of whether "ceased to exist" is too "dramatic", or more exactly (in your words) "colorful overstatement", and therefore "

3961:", do you mean that you have withdrawn your objection to "ceased to exist"? Or perhaps you accept the qualification? Or something else? Is the RfC still needed? ♦ 4465:

In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

2626:

deaths' – is one option under consideration. Another options is just insert a bullet ('•') of some kind, or to enclose the figures in guillements, like «this». ♦

2076:

particularly like lots of small subsections. Perhaps we could just prefix the figure (in bold) to each paragraph as a quasi-subsection heading. What do you think?

1837:

earthquake and one third is about the later government-reported figures, removed two minor unattributed claims, and replaced boldfaced figures with emphasis (per

334: 3824:

I already said I’ll continue the discussion in the RfC section. Just because someone haven’t gotten to responding less than 24 hours later, doesn’t mean they’re

6117: 6107: 3015:

saying that the phrasing is prohibited by guideline or policy, but that the wording can be improved through some modification.Perhaps some other alternative to

1556:, a publishing house sponsored by the State Seismological Bureau) for giving 242,769 deaths and 164,851 serious injuries and 2 (1988 academic book published by 4038:

is taken in its most general sense (including human cost, physical damage, financial cost) then it is redundant with the sentence that immediately follows it (

3127:

what he said? At any rate, I find "ceased to exist" a more accurate description than the weasely "nearly completely destroyed", which is NOT what Housner said.

3002:

continued to exist in a destroyed state with several hundreds of thousands of surviving inhabitants, and later continued to exist as a rebuilt city. The words

6062: 465: 5417:". On the contrary, I have argued that is a precise, succinct statement of the most significant aspect of the situation immediately following the quake. ♦ 5083:" To the contrary, I argue that "nearly completely destroyed" is quite imprecise, and even something like "85% destroyed" is imprecise in the sense that it 6047: 6042: 6037: 6032: 6027: 6022: 6017: 6012: 6007: 6002: 953:, and therefore, in contrast to Haicheng, no preparation. Also, in several cases where you have removed text I would suggest that templating (such as with 3517:

the argument doesn't mean that my position is somehow entirely opinion-based and not borne from any application of WP writing guidelines and standards. —

3160:. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. ♦ 3022:

In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable...

6077: 5358:, then so be it. At any rate, you are perfectly free to not answer, and I neither make nor take any imputation of your beliefs. In the second instance (" 2890:, then the city did not literally cease to exist. It's just literary flair. I'm not sure why you prefer that to something capturing the same spirit like 1190:" There was also discussion of why "words to avoid" was changed to "words to watch", with mention of some editors taking this to mean "remove on sight". 5969:

When whoever wrote that this earthquake's magnitude was remeasured to be 7.6 on the Chinese scale or whatever in the first paragraph, the cited source

4909:

is imprecise here due to its other connotations. It's unnecessary dramatic writing made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences per

3666:") I don't see where I have "shot down" that proposal ("essentially" or otherwise), so please point to the specific text where you got that impression. 3215:

can have different implications, which I discussed in my last comment? One can describe the physical devastation and tragic loss of life without using

6137: 6097: 6057: 325: 302: 1725:

Yes, Lin is the surname. I gave four different English names for the publisher that I found in different references online. The publisher's website (

3436:

be in the lead, besides Housner-He having written it. I don't see it adding any value here, and only serving to be imprecise and idiomatic language.

133: 5108:

Mark's principal stated objections to "ceased to exist" are that it is too "dramatic" (for which no policy or guidance is cited), and forbidden by

3748:

I reject your insinuation that I have refused to debate "actual merits", etc. (All of the foregoing notwithstanding? Perhaps you have yet another

3378:– that it hardly warrants assertion. But if you can find some source that says otherwise, sure, knock yourself out, perhaps I will find it amusing. 6082: 6067: 3119:

And perhaps you are reading too much into "ceased to exist"? We could add a qualifying "as a functional entity", which would clarify what Housner

2733: 504: 4128:

As it stands, its not directly referenced to anything. I’m removing it; you can re-add it after providing a reference directly supporting it per

4064:

There is no source in the article that asserts that it is one of the most physically damaging earthquakes. Here I am focusing on the superlative

3425:, which I also think is worse than other alternatives. Would you care to consider the proposed removal of the text in the blockquote that begins 3178:

from Housner-He. If you're neutral on whether the statement stays, then I take it that you won't oppose its removal unless you want to be POINTY.

2528:

Should reported death figures for a historical event use boldface, emphasis, or any other type of typographic or semantic emphasis? The editors

1245:

I think there is some misunderstanding about my objection. I am not saying that the word is forbidden, but that the attribution should be clear

431: 255: 4877:

Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC); converted talk-quotes to block-quotes and completed the quoted sentences in the proposals after

4653:

specifically refers to physical damage from the fact that the rest of the book is about engineering is an inferral. That's what's indirect. —

5997: 274: 172: 3630:

besides it being written in a source. If you refuse to debate the actual merits and precision of the wording then fine, I’ll open an RfC. —

3466:

was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic (

3211:

It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. Do you not see how

2458:

either. Larger also seems a bit off... I'll make a post at the typographical Wikiprojects to ask for attention or otherwise make an RfC. —

1490: 406: 385: 1291:

But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article.

618:

the location map in the infobox. Perhaps the text should be clearer about that. At any rate, I believe the problem you are seeing (or in

6112: 5975: 822:

Just noticed that the map also doesn’t appear on many mobile devices. Moving the letter labels to the caption may be the best option. —

1130:

I think it is perfectly acceptable (and preferable here) to just have what is already given: 2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 M

1576: 3019:

would be better, but even removing the entire sentence would be fine. Perhaps even just combining the two adjacent sentences to form:

863:

arises from a problem with PHP-7. If you have a mobile device (any device?) where you can disable PHP-7 that would be a good test. ♦

4260:

for an earthquake disaster does not directly support the claim that Housner-He is referring solely to physical/structural damage in

2661: 414: 391: 4536:

and does not explicitly say that it was some superlative with regards to physical damage. It says that such an earthquake disaster

4362:

use of all of our time. The important thing is that a consensus is reached by editors in the RfC over the actual content matter. —

792:

tweak the text so that readers having this problem will understand that the reference to "C" is on the map they don't "see". :-) ♦

3041:

It's unnecessary and redundant since the second sentence already prescribes it as one of the most damaging in recorded history. —

221: 61: 6052: 5117:

I am fine with some qualification or explanation, or even explicitly quoting "ceased to exist", which seem quite reasonable. ♦

3400: 1868:

number is not necessarily most authoritative, nor even most accurate; "official" means the number published ("blessed") by the

3468:

Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring?

3204:

or modify the statement to something else without in-text attribution to them. Again, I am not suggesting that we have to use

1872:

authorities (usually the government). And it is a big difference between citing an official report directly, and citing what

1856:

I see. Yeah, the more I consider it, breaking out "Official figures" seems to be a good idea. Do keep in mind that a while a

1611:

While these books are good (authoritative, and even officially blessed), I think we still need to find an official source. ♦

3691:

in my following comments (at 22:23 28 Feb. and 00:32 1 March). QED: your statement of non-acknowledgement is FALSE. (I take

3311:. Whether you or I have the better grasp of a fine point of English usage is quite immaterial here, as I was attempting to 1625:

Looking further at the discussion in the Chinese Knowledge article, the official number of victims is 242,419 according to

1434:)! Similarly for "fortuitous" which has "fortunate" and "lucky" strongly associated and included in many definitions (e.g. 5935:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5532:

or how long it took everything to collapse (neither of which can be known "precisely"), but that there were (effectively)

4830:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4600:

I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation.

2858:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2522:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

997:

want from the objective explicit contrast, rather than have the subjective opinion on whether something is "fortunate". —

4532:

We disagree about both A and B. Even if I took A for granted, this source does not explicitly say that the earthquake is

430:, and related subjects on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 5462:

does not clearly connect to the point about municipal services) and we can also see that I'm not the only one who finds

3735:

evident objection except here, shows that your objection is contrary to wide-spread, established, and accepted practice.

2065:

a particular figure in the section. (Though as {strong} is also "semantically significant" the use of the WP <b: -->

1894: 651:: What is this "Syntax error" you see? (Exact & complete wording, please.) I presume it shows up in the text; right? 142: 3407:, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? ♦ 2817:

to have encountered elsewhere. Simply giving our readers more contradictory numbers (i.e., typical WP style!), or even

2587: 212: 167: 614:

Curious. The "map in question" is, of course, the one displayed — or should be displayed! — in the "Damage" section,

2698:

audience, plus the section is not very long / dense and it's not difficult to find the different figures anyways. —

1916:("name" and year concatenated) to the cite template. If that doesn't work: don't worry about it, I can make it work. 5135:

is not in any of the proposed texts here.Also if your objection is that the essence of the matter is that Tangshan

220:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

5540:– such as the number of buildings or minutes – is meaningless. The significant information to be conveyed is the 2604:

number). But in this case it is notable that there was not "a" death toll (including preliminary estimates), but

4838:

In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.

4090:

All very disputatious. If you question the sourcing of any of the existing text please tag the specific text. ♦

1446:

have that connotation for many readers. Yes, it's not really so bad if we use "fortunate" here but the contrast

516: 3319:

thought you might not have read the source. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.

2732:

is someone is comparing "the world's deadliest natural disasters" (or some suchy), or comes here straight from

2414: 1030: 661: 5970: 3952:" (I was contemplating whether, if you and I agreed on that change, it might be challenged by other editors.) 1174:

an attributed characterization is "taking a view". Nor do I see that absolutely forbidding "fortunate" is a "

5979: 5832: 5758: 5446:

such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful.The comment

4193: 3196:

The lead doesn't need to say exactly what Housner-He say, unless it is specifically attributed to them a la

601: 585: 5287:

after the second comment or so in the previous discussion and didn’t mention it here at the RfC. It’s moot.

1553: 5959: 4580:

If that's the case, then this is all unnecessary and an unproductive use of both your time and my time. —

4109: 3829: 3292: 3190: 2583: 2176:

Sorry, no, this emphasis is not "semantic": its presence or absence makes no difference whatsoever to the

1944:

reporting such figures would be better, but this is more than sufficient until such a source can be found.

5946:

Mark was perhaps too shy to mention it here, but I would not want anyone to miss the fun we're having at

5443:

oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do!

3340:

Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "

2658: 148: 30: 5669:

My comment was in direct response to the first paragraph of your comment immediately above it starting

4405:. I challenge you to find where this report discusses the overall death toll, other than incidentally. 3090:" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that, where it is readily verifiable that he 3731:(per my previous comment; did you not read it?) is that 7,614 instances of "ceased to exist", without 2128:

work... I feel like I've seen that on another article before but I can't find an example right now. —

5955: 5871: 5810: 5727: 5660: 5596: 5458:

is moot because it is not part of any of the proposals in this RfC. And yes, it's still imprecise (a

5422: 5274: 5122: 4995: 4974: 4962: 4712: 4635: 4484: 4321: 4302: 4218: 4166: 4095: 4012: 3966: 3877: 3815: 3757: 3589: 3412: 3165: 2980: 2830: 2763: 2688: 2631: 2549:, while the other editor would like a typographic way to highlight the death figures as indices. See 2481: 2437: 2427:(sets font size to 110%), giving "no more than «242,419» people died in the quake" and "no more than 2382: 2333: 2212: 2103: 1995: 1930: 1797: 1757: 1716: 1672: 1616: 1535: 1498: 1406: 1220: 1099: 978: 910: 868: 797: 756: 728: 4902: 4524: 2351:

by default?) Maybe a 115% font size? Another idea I want to swish around a bit: some kind of bullet.

2085:

In any event, I think italicization, no matter how effected, is neither appropriate nor useful here.

1380:. Which, by the way, does NOT imply goodness or badness (in the way that "lucky" has come to imply 119: 5780:. A small point to note: only about three-quarters of a million of Tangshan's inhabitants survived. 5061: 5012: 4565: 4561: 4460: 4253: 4129: 4105: 2997:, I don't think that the article should state that in WP voice in the lead.My point is simply that 1431: 1058:

So is your objection to "Tangshan was not so fortunate" — that it is unnecessary — because this is

993: 931:

Just letting you know I am about to do some extended editing. I would like to point out that your

889: 565: 330: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 5346:

the situation, I believe a comment is in order. In the first instance I asked (@ 00:32, 1 Mar) if

333:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

5828: 5754: 4810: 3186: 2502: 1626: 895: 745: 597: 581: 522: 3662:" (@ 03:15). (The shooting down of that proposal would be your continuation of that sentence: " 3027:

I'm sure we can come up with several suggestions that would be better than just stating that it

1568:

Chen, Yong; Tsoi, Kam-Ling; Chen, Feibi; Gao, Zhenhuan; Zou, Qijia; Chen, Zhangli, eds. (1988),

4894: 3490: 1974:

should be readily findable without having to sequentially search the text. As to alternatives:

1899:

family (CS2 style). Where a {cite} template is used (sometimes there is no CS1 equivalent) the

1367:

between Haicheng vs. Tangshan (e.g., few deaths versus many deaths). That is: Tangshan was not

5896: 5008: 4499: 4238:

that is the focus of this subsection, or about the RfC / original section’s discussion of the

2798: 2703: 2570: 2463: 2300: 2133: 2011: 1952: 1885: 1846: 1811: 1779: 1739: 1637: 1630: 1599: 1582: 1573: 1516: 1468: 1260: 1148: 1002: 989: 827: 770: 765:

If it's worth anything, I do see the labels on Windows desktop Chrome Version 72.0.3626.96. —

564:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

188: 161: 2946:" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services. " 2476:(as an instance of an inherently bolded typeface) is just my little amusement. Stand easy! ♦ 5917: 4814: 3421:

You've still ignored my proposed text and immediately shot down your own proposal of adding

3197: 2653: 2579: 2506: 548: 518: 487: 5951: 5867: 5806: 5723: 5656: 5592: 5418: 5270: 5118: 5109: 4991: 4970: 4958: 4910: 4708: 4631: 4480: 4436:

The Overview volume mentions fatalities in three places, and almost incidentally. What is

4356: 4317: 4298: 4247: 4229: 4214: 4162: 4091: 4008: 3962: 3873: 3811: 3753: 3721: 3585: 3478: 3408: 3345: 3216: 3161: 2976: 2871: 2826: 2759: 2684: 2627: 2616: 2477: 2433: 2421: 2378: 2208: 2120:

Here, it is semantic emphasis! Typographic bolding / italicization is used where there is

2099: 2051: 1991: 1926: 1907: 1831: 1793: 1788:

Yeah, I figured out last night that my question should have been whether China used ISBNs

1753: 1712: 1668: 1612: 1531: 1494: 1439: 1402: 1216: 1095: 974: 906: 864: 793: 752: 724: 427: 5245:

measure that only roughly correlates with the effects, and, just as I have already said:

3561:"inferral" that this is a comment about the contributor (distinct from the contributor's 3512:

It's standard and within guidelines to write precisely, unambiguously, and clearly. That

2180:

of the text. (That "sense of emphasis" is a bit misleading. E.g., the primary purpose of

1435: 5566: 5556: 5515: 5507: 5153:

but for reasons he has not explained he considers that "worse than other alternatives."

5057: 4914: 4040:...making this the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history. 3901:

Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you.

3375: 3350:

Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.

3182: 3157: 2950:" is inaccurate (how much is "nearly completely"?), not what the source says, and does 1978:? I rather don't like it (makes the numbers a little less clear), but could accept it. 1557: 1427: 1017: 3497:. But even disregarding its status as an idiom, I have discussed how it is imprecise. 3483:

Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions

3144:", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was 1732: 5991: 5506:(uninvolved editor) "ceased to exist" is hyperbolic language not well-suited to WP's 2647: 2553:

for past discussion and additional proposed alternatives. 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

2292: 2288: 5983: 5922: 5900: 5875: 5836: 5814: 5762: 5731: 5700: 5664: 5640: 5600: 5519: 5494: 5426: 5313: 5278: 5166: 5126: 5065: 5044: 5019: 4999: 4978: 4943: 4785: 4769: 4716: 4664: 4639: 4591: 4488: 4373: 4325: 4306: 4275: 4222: 4170: 4143: 4123: 4099: 4084: 4016: 3990: 3970: 3922: 3881: 3843: 3819: 3788: 3761: 3641: 3593: 3528: 3416: 3233: 3169: 3052: 2984: 2932: 2834: 2802: 2767: 2707: 2692: 2666: 2635: 2591: 2574: 2485: 2467: 2441: 2386: 2304: 2216: 2137: 2107: 2015: 1999: 1956: 1934: 1850: 1815: 1801: 1783: 1761: 1743: 1720: 1676: 1641: 1620: 1603: 1539: 1520: 1502: 1472: 1426:

It's more than just often... it's the explicit definition in most definitions (e.g.

1410: 1307:" That sure sounds like "forbidden". But perhaps today we agree that "fortunate" is 1264: 1224: 1152: 1103: 1006: 982: 914: 872: 831: 801: 774: 760: 732: 605: 589: 520: 5892: 5691: 5631: 5485: 5304: 5157: 5035: 4934: 4898: 4776: 4760: 4655: 4582: 4467:" Particularly irksome about your deletion is that there was no lack of a reliable 4364: 4266: 4134: 4114: 4075: 3981: 3913: 3834: 3779: 3632: 3612:

The ONLY talk page I have found where "ceased to exist" is objected to as idiom is

3519: 3494: 3224: 3152:

of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re

3043: 2923: 2794: 2699: 2566: 2535:

unsure of the options and standards. One editor is against the use of boldface per

2459: 2296: 2129: 2007: 1948: 1842: 1807: 1775: 1735: 1633: 1595: 1512: 1484: 1464: 1256: 1144: 998: 926: 823: 766: 204: 3222:

If you refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives, we can just go to RfC. —

2499:

The consensus is against adding bolding or emphasis of the reported death figures.

2821:

giving them the numbers, serves them less well than if we provide some basis for

1726: 1463:

The inclusion of the sentence "Tangshan was not so fortunate." is unnecessary. —

5912: 4738: 4682: 3712:

I would say that "being written in a source" – but not merely "a source", but a

2543: 2121: 2028: 1770:

is like Chinese combination of Amazon + eBay. This book might not have an ISBN:

967: 957: 419: 3065:

Taking your last point, re "most damaging", first: the first sentence is about

1771: 901: 264: 49: 5205:

suboptimal, still somewhat imprecise by what a "functioning entity" really is

2728:". (Especially as most of the world's population wasn't even alive then.) The 2536: 1838: 1560:

by members of the National Seismological Bureau of China) for 242,419 deaths.

423: 317: 296: 194: 5477:

Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable,

5141:

Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable,

4969:

the comments below by MikeNorton and Dawnseeker2000 seem a good solution too

4421: 3474:

are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop.

1120:

Knowledge should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

5793:" A recent search shows that 7,614 articles use "ceased to exist", and the ' 5674: 5511: 5383:", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can 4551:

the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world.

4027:"This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history." 56: 3909:

But would there then be a problem with that not being exactly what he said?

2888:

eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable

2724:

The "very small audience" would be those people who had a casaulty figure "

1986:? So so, has to be done carefully, but I am kind of liking it. How about a 5971:

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/1/Tangshan/Volume1_Chapter_1.pdf

4932:

sentence doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences. —

4917:.The third option is slightly better than the first but still suboptimal, 3766:

Again, my comments were regarding the blockquoted proposal beginning with

3035:

This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history.

5750: 4506:

This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history

2643: 2239: 4913:

and general MOS guidelines for precision. Just because a source says it

4252:

Removing unreferenced or unclearly referenced material is acceptable by

3039:

the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.

3010:

that you provide) can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer

2989:

I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the Housner & He source...

1489:

At one point I found what appeared to be the official (CEA) death toll (

1074:

taking a view? Sorry, no, that is the source (Kerr, 1979), which says: "

20: 3979:

editors and letting the RfC run its course would be most productive. —

3777:

For the rest of the discussion, it’ll be discussed below in the RfC. —

2473: 2344: 1729: 1448:

can easily be drawn without using words carrying an implicit "goodness"

556:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

5528:

The essence of the matter is NOT the extent or severity of the damage

3219:

that lacks precision, even if that's how one book introduces the topic

1508:

I can look for sources later, but at the very least here's an archive

1289:

I think you were quite clear, with little room for misunderstanding: "

949:

is questionable. What is not questionable is that there was no public

668:: do you see two maps, one of Tangshan, and one that is mostly blank? 4498:

is language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's

4053:

The attributed Housner-He source does not say it was one of the most

2905:

while true, doesn’t really need to be said especially if unattributed

2340: 1881:

A preliminary review: the "citation style" of this article is to use

1767: 4707:"a book", it is four volumes of pretty dry engineering reportage. ♦ 5091:

as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services. This is

3903:

We were clearly not coming to an agreement so I opened the RfC. Re

5771:

Sure, it was rebuilt, but to a different plan. In that regard the

5565:

on the 'pedia, which shows widespread, strong acceptance. Second,

4990:- Why not just put "ceased to exist" exactly like that in quotes? 4192:" However, on that basis Housner's remark would be untrue, as the 2329:

As to colored backgrounds for figures: there are infoboxes (e.g.:

1876:

the officials said. (But perhaps the best we can do in this case.)

217: 1552:

The Chinese Knowledge cites 1 (a 1982 academic book published by

1585: 5216:

made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences

5183:" is what you initially suggested instead of "ceased to exist". 4549:

support that Housner-He may mean physical damage when they say

3768:

In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan...

5212:

doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences.

5155:, I gave reasons in the last paragraph of my comment above. — 3679:

Your proposal, at the top of this discussion, was to replace "

2897:

Also regarding the revert and what I think was confusion over

2207:

How do you reckon that bolding would be "very distracting"? ♦

1090:

explicit reality is: the factors in why Tangshan got crushed

530: 523: 481: 113: 44: 15: 5911:

The whole "ceased to exist" seems a little unencyclopedic. ~

4862:

an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants

2734:

List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes

1864:(in the sense of strong basis for accepting its results), an 1570:

The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976: An Anatomy of Disaster

1182:, where the statement at the top of the MOS was reiterated: " 5241:" Such quantification of the scale of destruction is a very 4651:

the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

4553:

These arguments do not do anything to provide a source that

4401:, or geological/seismological aspects of the quake that are 4262:

the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

4186:

the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

4059:

the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

2942:. This would be clearer if you would read the source (your " 1693:

What do you think of this as a citation of that first book:

263: 5011:, an eminent authority on earthquake engineering" said it. 2813:

page should address the different numbers that readers are

902:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/1976_Tangshan_earthquake#Damage'

39:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. 5254:

as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services.

3557:

of why we don't seem to be on the same wave-length; it is

5439:

Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?

5360:

Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?

4840:? Please decide on one of the three following proposals: 4618: 3472:

Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?

1969:

I am going to demure on removing the bolding. I agree we

5387:

see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling?

5338:

discussion are much interested in our squabbling in the

3270:

offered an alternative, to which you have not responded.

3176:

greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

3123:. But would there then be a problem with that not being 2973:

greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world

5214:" (What you described in your preceeding paragraph as " 5099:" by the following sentences, as they do not state the 4630:, etc., without any mention of the total death toll. ♦ 2909: 2899: 2878: 933: 5625:. The very next sentence also says that explicitly in 3489:

is an idiom; it's a form of "cease to be" which is in

5617:

all do not describe anything precise with respect to

892:

I can get something that looks like broken OSM maps.

55:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's

4213:

meant than an "exact" quote taken out of context. ♦

4049:

is taken to solely mean physical/structural damage:

3297:

used to emphasize something unexpected or surprising

2993:

here means that despite the source having the words

418:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 329:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 216:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4807:

There is a clear consensus for the second proposal.

4413:

Chapters in "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976"

3618:

are non-arguments and don’t address the issue here.

623:

this out. Please provide the following information:

5342:discussion. But as you have raised that here, and 4475:(it was on the following sentence), but only that 3156:, but that seems like a personal feeling that you 3033:Also I don't see the point of adding the sentence 2726:soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds 1629:, the official state-run press agency of the PRC ( 1442:) Even if that is not the intended usage here, it 1076:The city of Tangshan had not been so fortunate.... 596:perceive if there's a problem with the source. - 6093:B-Class China-related articles of High-importance 5561:" In the first place, that specific term is used 4915:doesn't make it automatically worthy of inclusion 4031:(Splitting this issue from the above discussion) 3604:have a certain belief or attitude (about history) 1070:". Alternately, perhaps you are thinking this is 639:map, or even just a box, in the "Damage" section? 4106:onus is on the addition of unreferenced material 3264:refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives 2417:.) Two methods look good: using guillemets, and 6133:Top-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles 5805:has accepted "ceased to exist". 7,613 times. ♦ 5577: 4868: 4854: 4845: 4805: 4516: 4504: 4234:Was your comment here about the sentence using 4205: 4061:- this does not refer to physical damage alone. 3453:despite the possibility that; no matter whether 3208:. See the proposed text in my previous comment. 3020: 2967:No misunderstanding about the other edit. The " 2907:part of my edit summary refers to me reverting 2596:Normally we do not bold or otherwise highlight 2497: 5151:there if you’d like.Also regarding your claim 5137:was not able to provide any municipal services 5031:an eminent authority on earthquake engineering 4446:referring solely to physical/structural damage 5553:I firmly disagree that "ceased to exist" is " 3006:(without any other context, e.g. without the 1452: 1450:. What I wrote above works as a bare example: 1207:I dispute your opinion that "fortuitous" is " 1118: 1034: 8: 6123:High-importance Disaster management articles 5555:hyperbolic language not well-suited to WP's 5334:I rather doubt that the editors present for 5056:Is more suitable compared to the 1st option 4204:. E.g., in the preceeding sentence he says: 3439:By the Oxford citation, see that it defines 3299:", which, coupled with your "if", suggested 3258:", again? That is a hypothetical, as I have 3202:According to Housner-He, ... ceased to exist 685:: do you see the "Tangshan earthquake" map? 6073:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in History 5033:and just leave the name as a blue link). — 4494:Again, tone down your aggressive language. 4202:failure of structures and their functioning 3944:. It seems you also failed to note that my 3505:, it is imprecise because Tangshan did not 3352:" Which I believe favors "ceased to exist". 2969:one of the most damaging in modern history 2954:"capture the same spirit" as the explicit " 2915:still seems dramatic and somewhat imprecise 1094:than Haicheng all seem to be fortuitous. ♦ 5797:complaint about that term I have found is 4836:Should the lead article have the sentence 4534:one of the most damaging in modern history 4422:https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/ 4408: 3774:one. You still seemed to have missed that. 3656:You essentially rejected your own proposal 3348:says nothing about "cheap"; it says that " 1454:2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 M 380: 291: 156: 5248:does not convey the essence of the matter 5239:Eighty-five percent of the buildings .... 5196:The reasons you gave against #3 in your " 5085:does not convey the essence of the matter 4184:his interpretation of Housner's remark (" 3309:as questioning whether Housner wrote that 343:Knowledge:WikiProject Disaster management 6128:B-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles 6103:High-importance Chinese history articles 5292:failed to provide any municipal services 5139:, notice that the sentence already says 4953:for what it's worth I'd agree most with 4609:Your argument is based on interpreting " 4578:I am rather neutral on whether it stays. 4190:does not refer to physical damage alone. 3069:, while the following sentence is about 2582:doesn't bold death tolls for tornadoes. 2539:and advocates for the use of italics or 1029:Perhaps you have in mind this text from 719:(Feel free to interpolate your answers.) 702:And in the "OSM overlay tests" section: 346:Template:WikiProject Disaster management 5611:ceased to exist as a functioning entity 5464:ceased to exist as a functioning entity 4411: 2347:! (Gee, aren't all letters essentially 2291:(which seems to possibly be inactive), 2059:draw the eye from elsewhere on the page 1066:true? I think that is presuming upon " 382: 293: 158: 117: 6088:High-importance China-related articles 5791:should not be used in an encyclopedia. 5790: 5686: 5682: 5678: 5670: 5626: 5618: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5554: 5476: 5471: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5450:(not bolded as quoted) was part of me 5447: 5442: 5438: 5414: 5410: 5376: 5375:", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. (" 5368: 5359: 5295: 5291: 5284: 5246: 5238: 5215: 5211: 5204: 5197: 5180: 5152: 5148: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5096: 5080: 5030: 4946:; fixed typo 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 4929: 4925: 4924:is still somewhat imprecise by what a 4906: 4889: 4878: 4861: 4837: 4750: 4742: 4650: 4645: 4610: 4577: 4554: 4550: 4542: 4541:earthquake whereas they use the words 4533: 4495: 4464: 4445: 4261: 4239: 4235: 4189: 4185: 4065: 4058: 4054: 4046: 4039: 4035: 3975: 3958: 3949: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3825: 3771: 3767: 3684: 3680: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3627: 3611: 3599: 3513: 3502: 3486: 3482: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3349: 3341: 3296: 3263: 3255: 3212: 3205: 3201: 3175: 3141: 3087: 3038: 3037:when the very next sentence says that 3034: 3028: 3016: 3007: 3003: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2975:", and arguably even more accurate. ♦ 2972: 2968: 2955: 2947: 2943: 2918: 2914: 2904: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2725: 2680: 2676: 1913: 1900: 1701:(in Chinese), Beijing, China: 中国地震出版社 1304: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1208: 1183: 1175: 1075: 1068:the reader's knowledge and perspective 1067: 942: 938: 5615:ceased to exist as a functioning city 4479:sentence was missing its citation. ♦ 3491:the Wiktionary list of English idioms 2550: 2492:Request for comment: bold vs emphasis 2066:or triple apostrophes are indicated.) 2047:term is significant"), but (from the 2038:emphasis (not highlighting!) that is 7: 6118:B-Class Disaster management articles 6108:WikiProject Chinese history articles 5073:Support #3, okay with #1, but not #2 4824:The following discussion is closed. 4073:statement about physical damage. — 3714:very pertinent, authoritative source 3546:I made no "inferral" of your beliefs 3106:, better fits what you meant to say? 2971:" is a fair rendering of Housner's " 2516:The following discussion is closed. 1772:China issued ISBNs beginning in 1987 1295:Knowledge should not take a view ... 1215:, there is no subjectivity to it. ♦ 412:This article is within the scope of 323:This article is within the scope of 210:This article is within the scope of 6063:Knowledge vital articles in History 5941: 5466:imprecise and awkward. The comment 5350:– please note: qualified as only a 4758:, and a speculative one at that. — 3720:for inclusion than your claim that 3429:? I don't see any argument for why 3200:. It would be fine to either write 2894:that is accurate and not just puff. 2061:. It's a matter of scanability: to 920:Various edits coming up (Feb. 2019) 147:It is of interest to the following 33:by Knowledge editors, which is now 6048:Selected anniversaries (July 2023) 6043:Selected anniversaries (July 2021) 6038:Selected anniversaries (July 2014) 6033:Selected anniversaries (July 2012) 6028:Selected anniversaries (July 2010) 6023:Selected anniversaries (July 2009) 6018:Selected anniversaries (July 2008) 6013:Selected anniversaries (July 2007) 6008:Selected anniversaries (July 2006) 6003:Selected anniversaries (July 2005) 5801:. On that basis I say that the WP 5673:. My comment wasn’t a response to 4440:is your claim that Housner-He are 3950:would there then be a problem ...? 3457:despite the fact that; even though 3427:In minutes, eighty-five percent... 2413:So I tried some experiments. (See 1572:, Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 153, 1371:fortunate as Haicheng (would "not 859:I suspect that the problem of the 672:: Do you catch any error messages? 14: 6078:B-Class vital articles in History 5931:The discussion above is closed. 5294:substantially different from the 4895:Wiktionary list of English idioms 4057:earthquakes, it says that it was 2854:The discussion above is closed. 2287:typography that may help here at 1184:The advice in this guideline ... 440:Knowledge:WikiProject Earthquakes 6138:WikiProject Earthquakes articles 6098:B-Class Chinese history articles 6058:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 4967:editted in an additional comment 3932:, just as you have persistently 3699:, but perhaps you dispute that.) 3548:; I only questioned whether you 3493:(linked in WP:IDIOM) and in the 2024:I beg to disagree on the use of 1176:well-established position in MOS 534: 486: 446:WikiProject Earthquakes articles 443:Template:WikiProject Earthquakes 405: 384: 316: 295: 197: 187: 160: 127: 118: 48: 19: 5749:According to the article about 5200:" above (at 07:25, right?) are 4568:acknowledges that some editors 1912:for the short-cite, and adding 1891:templates (CS1 style), not the 973:) would be more appropriate. ♦ 664:. In the "small test" section: 460:This article has been rated as 363:This article has been rated as 326:WikiProject Disaster management 250:This article has been rated as 6083:B-Class China-related articles 6068:B-Class level-5 vital articles 5687:all municipal services failed. 5685:if another lead sentence says 5081:worse than other alternatives. 4965:) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC) - 3899:Excuse me? You literally said 3664:worse than other alternatives. 3658:" as I was with your earlier " 2736:, where the "242,769–655,000" 1478:Source for official death toll 1436:The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1428:The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1: 5679:all municipal services failed 5448:Can you see what I mean here? 5296:all municipal services failed 3930:your interpretation was wrong 3142:more standard neutral wording 3086:Your "even if Housner writes 3053:02:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 2985:22:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 2933:03:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 2651: 2606:multiple and wildly differing 2509:) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 2108:21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC) 2016:01:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC) 2000:23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1957:01:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) 1935:23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1851:22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1816:22:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1802:20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1784:05:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1762:04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 1748:Yes, that occurred to me. :-0 1744:02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 1721:02:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 1677:00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 1642:22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 1621:19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 1604:04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 1540:23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 1521:04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 1503:22:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 1473:03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 1411:21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 1265:03:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC) 1225:00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC) 1186:should not be applied rigidly 1153:07:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 1104:01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 1007:20:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 983:22:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 873:20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC) 832:01:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC) 802:22:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 775:03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 681:In my "Bigger test" section: 434:and see a list of open tasks. 337:and see a list of open tasks. 272:This article is supported by 224:and see a list of open tasks. 5998:Old requests for peer review 4817:) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 4751:greatest earthquake disaster 4196:is generally considered the 1396:fortunate, only that it was 761:19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 733:20:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 606:17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 590:17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 349:Disaster management articles 5536:available locally to help. 5456:nearly completely destroyed 5285:nearly completely destroyed 5133:nearly completely destroyed 4899:Farlex Dictionary of idioms 3772:nearly completely destroyed 3685:nearly completely destroyed 3660:shot down your own proposal 3503:direct, literal expressions 3495:Farlex Dictionary of Idioms 3206:nearly completely destroyed 3017:nearly completely destroyed 2903:(i.e. about the cns?), the 2892:nearly completely destroyed 1982:? Not really a good idea. 1388:. Again: hat sentence does 1209:really a subjective opinion 689:: Do you see the diamonds? 275:WikiProject Chinese history 230:Knowledge:WikiProject China 6154: 6113:WikiProject China articles 5984:04:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 5960:21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 5923:20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 5901:10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 5876:23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5837:21:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 5815:19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 5763:01:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 5563:over seven thousand times' 5181:early completely destroyed 4881:00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 4786:08:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 4770:04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 4717:00:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 3140:I don't what you mean by " 2948:early completely destroyed 2835:21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC) 2803:00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC) 2768:23:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 2708:22:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 2693:22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 2667:22:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 2636:19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 2592:23:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 2575:08:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 2486:20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 2468:19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 915:23:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 466:project's importance scale 369:project's importance scale 256:project's importance scale 233:Template:WikiProject China 5942:Don't miss the fun at ANI 5732:23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5701:04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5671:The essence of the matter 5665:23:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 5641:00:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5623:available locally to help 5619:there were (effectively) 5601:23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5520:18:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5495:23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC) 5427:22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC) 5314:23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5279:23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5167:01:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5127:01:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 5066:16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 5045:00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5020:15:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 5000:15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 4979:16:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 4944:07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 4665:23:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4640:23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4592:21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4558:supports the contribution 4489:23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 4374:21:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4326:21:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4307:10:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 4276:04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 4223:23:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4171:14:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 4144:01:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 4124:00:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 4100:00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 4085:06:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 4017:22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3991:04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3971:22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 3923:00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3882:22:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC) 3844:23:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 3828:or anything else fitting 3820:23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 3789:01:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 3762:00:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 3654:I am as baffled by your " 3642:01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 3594:00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 3529:03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 3417:21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3234:00:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3170:00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 2940:functional, living entity 2882:, even if Housner writes 2730:much more likely scenario 2600:death toll (or any other 2442:23:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC) 2387:22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC) 2305:15:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 2217:01:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC) 2138:11:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC) 1558:a now-Elsevier-subsidiary 706:: Do you see three maps? 459: 400: 362: 311: 271: 249: 182: 155: 5933:Please do not modify it. 4827:Please do not modify it. 4800:RfC on "Ceased to exist" 4515:supported by the quote: 4403:pertinent to engineering 4108:, not its removal. This 4068:(and regarded by whom?). 3470:). That, plus your quip 3295:), "even" as adverb is " 2856:Please do not modify it. 2519:Please do not modify it. 2415:User:J. Johnson/sandbox2 1711:China also use ISBNs? ♦ 1698: 1432:The Cambridge Dictionary 1293:" Also citing the MOS (" 939:complete lack of warning 27:1976 Tangshan earthquake 5544:of all the destruction. 5147:(bolding mine). Insert 5103:of all the destruction. 4615:requiring exact wording 4471:, nor even a lack of a 4194:1556 Shaanxi earthquake 3948:was, quite literally, " 3423:as a functioning entity 3401:WP:I just don't like it 3291:Per your own citation ( 3008:as a functioning entity 2295:, or somewhere else? — 2094:Alternately, perhaps a 580:epicenter is marked. - 415:WikiProject Earthquakes 6053:B-Class vital articles 5582: 5538:Precise quantification 5470:means that the phrase 5468:doesn't add much value 5415:doesn't add much value 4873: 4859: 4850: 4819: 4529: 4508: 4240:ceased to exist matter 4209: 3024: 2825:the contradictions. ♦ 2511: 2122:"no sense of emphasis" 1914:|ref=CITEREFXinhua2019 1461: 1392:say that Tangshan was 1122: 1057: 937:(13 Feb.), replacing " 268: 236:China-related articles 5864:as a functioning city 5283:And I didn’t mention 4860:(with or without the 4519:history of the world. 4496:Obtusely disputatious 3928:There's the problem: 3907:, I interpreted your 1511:of that website :) — 1440:The Oxford Dictionary 1384:luck); it means only 888:Thanks to a tip from 267: 134:level-5 vital article 65:section on 10 dates. 5965:Magnitude 7.6 vs 7.8 4617:. I reject that, as 4564:(italics mine).Yes, 3146:F...ING DEVASTATING! 1988:slightly larger font 1305:"___ was fortunate". 1080:and Tangshan was not 5627:all services failed 5479:all services failed 5452:actually asking you 5237:(singular) is the " 5143:all services failed 4525:Housner-He Prologue 4438:totally unsupported 3689:I responded to that 3598:Your comment about 1984:Background coloring 1594:Hope that helps. — 1386:happening by chance 340:Disaster management 331:Disaster management 303:Disaster management 5460:functioning entity 5411:somewhat imprecise 5252:ceased to function 5089:ceased to function 4926:functioning entity 4871:seriously damaged. 4644:I didn't say that 3770:, not the initial 3485:as you point out. 3403:is where you have 3158:just don't like it 2096:colored background 1627:Xinhua News Agency 943:failure to predict 900:does clicking on ' 269: 143:content assessment 5696: 5636: 5557:encyclopedic tone 5508:encyclopedic tone 5490: 5373:what I mean here? 5309: 5162: 5040: 5009:George W. Housner 5007:– And add that: " 4939: 4781: 4765: 4745:directly supports 4660: 4646:directly supports 4611:directly supports 4587: 4433: 4432: 4369: 4314: 4271: 4139: 4119: 4080: 3986: 3918: 3839: 3784: 3637: 3524: 3229: 3048: 2962:no longer exists. 2928: 2865:"Ceased to exist" 2837: 2792: 2642:No emphasis. See 2584:United States Man 2551:the above section 2187:Drawing attention 2057:documentation)to 1922: 1031:WP:EDITORIALIZING 861:map not appearing 572: 571: 551:in most browsers. 529: 528: 510: 509: 480: 479: 476: 475: 472: 471: 379: 378: 375: 374: 290: 289: 286: 285: 213:WikiProject China 112: 111: 67: 43: 42: 6145: 5920: 5915: 5862:cease to exist, 5699: 5694: 5639: 5634: 5493: 5488: 5312: 5307: 5165: 5160: 5043: 5038: 5017: 4942: 4937: 4829: 4784: 4779: 4768: 4763: 4747:the contribution 4681:Same as before: 4663: 4658: 4590: 4585: 4527: 4409: 4372: 4367: 4360: 4313: 4274: 4269: 4251: 4233: 4142: 4137: 4122: 4117: 4112:is appalling. — 4083: 4078: 3989: 3984: 3940:to discuss, not 3921: 3916: 3842: 3837: 3787: 3782: 3695:to be a form of 3640: 3635: 3527: 3522: 3501:when taken as a 3232: 3227: 3051: 3046: 3029:ceased to exist. 2931: 2926: 2912: 2902: 2881: 2875: 2807: 2789: 2665: 2625: 2621: 2615: 2548: 2542: 2521: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2338: 2332: 2158: 2157:at least 655,000 2097: 2056: 2050: 2033: 2027: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1965:Bold vs emphasis 1921: 1915: 1911: 1902: 1898: 1890: 1884: 1835: 1702: 1697:林 , 泉 (1982), 1588: 1488: 972: 966: 962: 956: 936: 930: 899: 749: 660:Please go to my 575:("C" on the map) 566:Reporting errors 538: 537: 531: 524: 501: 500: 490: 482: 448: 447: 444: 441: 438: 409: 402: 401: 396: 388: 381: 351: 350: 347: 344: 341: 320: 313: 312: 307: 299: 292: 238: 237: 234: 231: 228: 207: 202: 201: 200: 191: 184: 183: 178: 175: 164: 157: 140: 131: 130: 123: 122: 114: 66: 52: 45: 23: 16: 6153: 6152: 6148: 6147: 6146: 6144: 6143: 6142: 5988: 5987: 5967: 5952:J. Johnson (JJ) 5944: 5939: 5918: 5913: 5868:J. Johnson (JJ) 5807:J. Johnson (JJ) 5724:J. Johnson (JJ) 5697: 5690: 5683:ceased to exist 5657:J. Johnson (JJ) 5637: 5630: 5607:ceased to exist 5593:J. Johnson (JJ) 5581: 5491: 5484: 5472:ceased to exist 5419:J. Johnson (JJ) 5310: 5303: 5271:J. Johnson (JJ) 5233:The subsequent 5163: 5156: 5119:J. Johnson (JJ) 5041: 5034: 5013: 4940: 4933: 4930:ceased to exist 4928:really is. The 4923: 4920: 4907:ceased to exist 4890:ceased to exist 4825: 4820: 4802: 4782: 4775: 4766: 4759: 4709:J. Johnson (JJ) 4661: 4654: 4632:J. Johnson (JJ) 4588: 4581: 4572:object, and to 4528: 4523: 4481:J. Johnson (JJ) 4434: 4429: 4414: 4370: 4363: 4354: 4318:J. Johnson (JJ) 4272: 4265: 4245: 4227: 4215:J. Johnson (JJ) 4208: 4188:") is that it " 4140: 4133: 4120: 4113: 4110:WP:STONEWALLING 4092:J. Johnson (JJ) 4081: 4074: 4066:one of the most 4029: 4009:J. Johnson (JJ) 4003:I think we are 3987: 3980: 3976:we're done here 3963:J. Johnson (JJ) 3959:we're done here 3919: 3912: 3874:J. Johnson (JJ) 3840: 3833: 3812:J. Johnson (JJ) 3785: 3778: 3754:J. Johnson (JJ) 3697:acknowledegment 3681:ceased to exist 3638: 3631: 3628:ceased to exist 3586:J. Johnson (JJ) 3525: 3518: 3514:ceased to exist 3487:Ceased to exist 3443:(distinct from 3431:ceased to exist 3409:J. Johnson (JJ) 3399:The concept of 3230: 3223: 3213:ceased to exist 3183:Merriam-Webster 3162:J. Johnson (JJ) 3150:plain statement 3096:notwithstanding 3088:ceased to exist 3049: 3042: 3004:ceased to exist 2999:ceased to exist 2995:ceased to exist 2977:J. Johnson (JJ) 2956:ceased to exist 2929: 2922: 2919:ceased to exist 2908: 2900:my edit summary 2898: 2884:ceased to exist 2877: 2869: 2867: 2862: 2827:J. Johnson (JJ) 2760:J. Johnson (JJ) 2685:J. Johnson (JJ) 2628:J. Johnson (JJ) 2623: 2619: 2613: 2546: 2540: 2517: 2512: 2494: 2478:J. Johnson (JJ) 2434:J. Johnson (JJ) 2428: 2424: 2418: 2379:J. Johnson (JJ) 2336: 2330: 2209:J. Johnson (JJ) 2156: 2100:J. Johnson (JJ) 2095: 2054: 2048: 2031: 2025: 1992:J. Johnson (JJ) 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1967: 1927:J. Johnson (JJ) 1905: 1892: 1888: 1882: 1829: 1794:J. Johnson (JJ) 1754:J. Johnson (JJ) 1713:J. Johnson (JJ) 1700: 1696: 1669:J. Johnson (JJ) 1613:J. Johnson (JJ) 1579: 1567: 1532:J. Johnson (JJ) 1495:J. Johnson (JJ) 1482: 1480: 1457: 1403:J. Johnson (JJ) 1301:should not read 1217:J. Johnson (JJ) 1133: 1125:should not read 1096:J. Johnson (JJ) 975:J. Johnson (JJ) 970: 964: 960: 954: 932: 924: 922: 907:J. Johnson (JJ) 893: 865:J. Johnson (JJ) 794:J. Johnson (JJ) 753:J. Johnson (JJ) 743: 725:J. Johnson (JJ) 577: 568: 554: 553: 552: 535: 525: 519: 495: 445: 442: 439: 436: 435: 428:plate tectonics 394: 365:High-importance 348: 345: 342: 339: 338: 306:High‑importance 305: 280:High-importance 252:High-importance 235: 232: 229: 226: 225: 203: 198: 196: 177:High‑importance 176: 170: 141:on Knowledge's 138: 128: 108: 12: 11: 5: 6151: 6149: 6141: 6140: 6135: 6130: 6125: 6120: 6115: 6110: 6105: 6100: 6095: 6090: 6085: 6080: 6075: 6070: 6065: 6060: 6055: 6050: 6045: 6040: 6035: 6030: 6025: 6020: 6015: 6010: 6005: 6000: 5990: 5989: 5966: 5963: 5943: 5940: 5938: 5937: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5905: 5904: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5820: 5819: 5818: 5817: 5784: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5766: 5765: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5693: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5633: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5578: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5523: 5522: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5487: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5413:" (huh?) and " 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5344:misrepresented 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5306: 5299: 5288: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5208: 5198:last paragraph 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5159: 5114: 5113: 5105: 5104: 5097:made redundant 5069: 5068: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5037: 5023: 5022: 5015:Dawnseeker2000 5002: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4948: 4947: 4936: 4921: 4918: 4905:), the phrase 4893:idiomatic per 4875: 4874: 4865: 4851: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4804: 4803: 4801: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4778: 4772: 4762: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4657: 4628:infrastructure 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4595: 4594: 4584: 4530: 4521: 4509: 4454:interpretation 4431: 4430: 4426: 4416: 4415: 4412: 4407: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4366: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4268: 4243: 4210: 4206: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4158: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4136: 4116: 4077: 4070: 4069: 4062: 4028: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3983: 3954: 3953: 3915: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3836: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3781: 3775: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3716:– is a better 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3634: 3619: 3607: 3581: 3580: 3567: 3566: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3521: 3510: 3475: 3460: 3437: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3226: 3220: 3209: 3194: 3179: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3045: 3031: 3025: 2964: 2963: 2925: 2917:refers to the 2866: 2863: 2861: 2860: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2681:a simple range 2670: 2669: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2577: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2496: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2185:happen here.) 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2019: 2018: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1945: 1938: 1937: 1923: 1918: 1917: 1910:|Xinhua|2019}} 1878: 1877: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1786: 1749: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1609: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1578:978-0080348759 1577: 1564: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1524: 1523: 1479: 1476: 1455: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1299:So an article 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1136: 1131: 1128: 1123:So an article 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1082:. As to being 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1010: 1009: 921: 918: 890:RobinLeicester 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 857: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 738: 737: 736: 735: 720: 714: 713: 712: 711: 697: 696: 695: 694: 676: 675: 674: 673: 655: 654: 653: 652: 643: 642: 641: 640: 627: 626: 625: 624: 609: 608: 576: 573: 570: 569: 563: 562: 561: 549:case-sensitive 543: 542: 541: 539: 527: 526: 521: 517: 515: 512: 511: 508: 507: 497: 496: 491: 485: 478: 477: 474: 473: 470: 469: 462:Top-importance 458: 452: 451: 449: 432:the discussion 410: 398: 397: 395:Top‑importance 389: 377: 376: 373: 372: 361: 355: 354: 352: 335:the discussion 321: 309: 308: 300: 288: 287: 284: 283: 270: 260: 259: 248: 242: 241: 239: 222:the discussion 209: 208: 192: 180: 179: 165: 153: 152: 146: 124: 110: 109: 68: 53: 41: 40: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6150: 6139: 6136: 6134: 6131: 6129: 6126: 6124: 6121: 6119: 6116: 6114: 6111: 6109: 6106: 6104: 6101: 6099: 6096: 6094: 6091: 6089: 6086: 6084: 6081: 6079: 6076: 6074: 6071: 6069: 6066: 6064: 6061: 6059: 6056: 6054: 6051: 6049: 6046: 6044: 6041: 6039: 6036: 6034: 6031: 6029: 6026: 6024: 6021: 6019: 6016: 6014: 6011: 6009: 6006: 6004: 6001: 5999: 5996: 5995: 5993: 5986: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5976:165.124.85.25 5972: 5964: 5962: 5961: 5957: 5953: 5949: 5936: 5934: 5929: 5928: 5924: 5921: 5916: 5910: 5907: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5890: 5887: 5886: 5877: 5873: 5869: 5865: 5861: 5856: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5847: 5846: 5845: 5838: 5834: 5830: 5829:Antipocalypse 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5816: 5812: 5808: 5804: 5800: 5796: 5792: 5788: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5779: 5774: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5755:Antipocalypse 5752: 5748: 5745: 5744: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5702: 5698: 5688: 5684: 5680: 5676: 5672: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5642: 5638: 5628: 5624: 5622: 5616: 5612: 5608: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5598: 5594: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5558: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5543: 5539: 5535: 5531: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5502: 5501: 5496: 5492: 5482: 5480: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5449: 5444: 5440: 5437:Your comment 5436: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5386: 5382: 5380: 5374: 5372: 5365: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5315: 5311: 5300: 5297: 5293: 5289: 5286: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5255: 5253: 5249: 5244: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5217: 5213: 5209: 5206: 5202: 5201: 5199: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5190: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5168: 5164: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5144: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5071: 5070: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5052: 5051: 5046: 5042: 5032: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5021: 5018: 5016: 5010: 5006: 5003: 5001: 4997: 4993: 4989: 4986: 4985: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4945: 4941: 4931: 4927: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4891: 4887: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4880: 4872: 4867:Replace with 4866: 4863: 4858: 4853:Replace with 4852: 4849: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4839: 4831: 4828: 4822: 4821: 4818: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4799: 4787: 4783: 4773: 4771: 4767: 4757: 4752: 4748: 4746: 4740: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4684: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4666: 4662: 4652: 4647: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4593: 4589: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4557: 4552: 4548: 4545:, etc. would 4544: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4526: 4520: 4514: 4510: 4507: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4457: 4455: 4449: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4425: 4423: 4418: 4417: 4410: 4406: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4375: 4371: 4358: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4277: 4273: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4249: 4244: 4241: 4237: 4236:most damaging 4231: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4211: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4159: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4145: 4141: 4131: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4121: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4067: 4063: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4048: 4043: 4041: 4037: 4032: 4026: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3992: 3988: 3977: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3938:unwillingness 3935: 3931: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3920: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3845: 3841: 3831: 3830:that rhetoric 3827: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3790: 3786: 3776: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3643: 3639: 3629: 3625: 3620: 3617: 3615: 3608: 3605: 3603: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3547: 3544: 3543: 3530: 3526: 3515: 3511: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3377: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3308: 3305:comes across 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3235: 3231: 3221: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3054: 3050: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2895: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2880: 2873: 2864: 2859: 2857: 2852: 2851: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2656: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2618: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2559: 2558: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2552: 2545: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2523: 2520: 2514: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2423: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2335: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2188: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2064: 2060: 2053: 2046: 2041: 2037: 2030: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1972: 1964: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1909: 1896: 1887: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862:authoritative 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1833: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1708: 1695: 1694: 1692: 1691: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1571: 1565: 1562: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1486: 1477: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1460: 1451: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1189: 1187: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1129: 1126: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 969: 959: 952: 948: 944: 940: 935: 928: 919: 917: 916: 912: 908: 903: 897: 896:Rusty Lugnuts 891: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 833: 829: 825: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 803: 799: 795: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 747: 746:Rusty Lugnuts 742: 741: 740: 739: 734: 730: 726: 721: 718: 717: 716: 715: 710:: Any errors? 709: 705: 701: 700: 699: 698: 693:: Any errors? 692: 688: 684: 680: 679: 678: 677: 671: 667: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 650: 647: 646: 645: 644: 638: 635:: do you see 634: 631: 630: 629: 628: 621: 617: 613: 612: 611: 610: 607: 603: 599: 598:Rusty Lugnuts 594: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 582:Rusty Lugnuts 574: 567: 559: 558: 557: 550: 546: 540: 533: 532: 514: 513: 506: 503: 502: 499: 498: 494: 489: 484: 483: 467: 463: 457: 454: 453: 450: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 411: 408: 404: 403: 399: 393: 390: 387: 383: 370: 366: 360: 357: 356: 353: 336: 332: 328: 327: 322: 319: 315: 314: 310: 304: 301: 298: 294: 281: 278:(assessed as 277: 276: 266: 262: 261: 257: 253: 247: 244: 243: 240: 223: 219: 215: 214: 206: 195: 193: 190: 186: 185: 181: 174: 169: 166: 163: 159: 154: 150: 144: 136: 135: 125: 121: 116: 115: 107: 106:July 28, 2023 103: 102:July 28, 2021 99: 98:July 28, 2014 95: 94:July 28, 2012 91: 90:July 28, 2010 87: 86:July 28, 2009 83: 82:July 28, 2008 79: 78:July 28, 2007 75: 74:July 28, 2006 71: 70:July 28, 2005 64: 63: 58: 54: 51: 47: 46: 38: 37: 32: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 5968: 5945: 5932: 5930: 5908: 5888: 5863: 5859: 5854: 5802: 5798: 5794: 5777: 5772: 5746: 5620: 5605:The phrases 5562: 5541: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5503: 5478: 5451: 5384: 5378: 5370: 5363: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5251: 5247: 5242: 5234: 5142: 5131:Quick note: 5100: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5076: 5072: 5053: 5014: 5004: 4987: 4966: 4954: 4888:: The words 4885: 4876: 4869: 4855: 4846: 4835: 4826: 4823: 4809: 4806: 4755: 4744: 4704: 4627: 4623: 4614: 4573: 4569: 4566:WP:CHALLENGE 4562:WP:CHALLENGE 4555: 4546: 4537: 4517: 4512: 4505: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4463:also says: " 4461:WP:CHALLENGE 4459:By the way, 4458: 4453: 4450: 4441: 4437: 4435: 4419: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4388: 4258:prerequisite 4257: 4254:WP:CHALLENGE 4201: 4197: 4130:WP:CHALLENGE 4071: 4044: 4033: 4030: 4004: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3898: 3749: 3732: 3728: 3725: 3724:forbids it. 3717: 3713: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3623: 3613: 3601: 3600:whether you 3576: 3571: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3545: 3506: 3498: 3433: 3404: 3316: 3312: 3306: 3304: 3300: 3267: 3259: 3217:cheap idioms 3153: 3149: 3145: 3124: 3120: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3070: 3066: 3021: 3011: 2959: 2951: 2939: 2896: 2868: 2855: 2853: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2737: 2729: 2677:just numbers 2654: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2532: 2529: 2527: 2518: 2515: 2501: 2498: 2456: 2348: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2125: 2062: 2058: 2044: 2040:semantically 2039: 2035: 2034:. It is for 1980:Colored text 1970: 1968: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1828: 1789: 1569: 1481: 1462: 1453: 1447: 1443: 1425: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1308: 1300: 1251: 1246: 1212: 1185: 1171: 1139: 1124: 1119: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1071: 1063: 1059: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 994:WP:EDITORIAL 950: 946: 923: 887: 860: 707: 703: 690: 686: 682: 669: 665: 648: 636: 632: 619: 615: 578: 555: 547:Anchors are 544: 492: 461: 413: 364: 324: 273: 251: 211: 205:China portal 149:WikiProjects 132: 60: 34: 26: 5858:– Tangshan 5621:no services 5542:consequence 5534:no services 5377:Do you not 5352:possibility 5250:: Tangshan 5101:consequence 5087:: Tangshan 4864:sub-clause) 4391:engineering 3826:ducking out 3342:cheap idiom 2815:very likely 2655:SMcCandlish 2334:weather box 2182:typographic 1976:Underlining 1337:sufficient. 1092:a lot worse 437:Earthquakes 420:earthquakes 392:Earthquakes 62:On this day 31:peer review 29:received a 5992:Categories 5909:Support #2 5889:Support #2 5747:Support #2 5340:preceeding 5077:functional 4992:Mikenorton 4971:EdwardLane 4959:EdwardLane 4903:Housner-He 4886:Support #2 4756:ad hominem 4547:indirectly 4500:WP:INCIVIL 4399:structures 4357:EdwardLane 4299:EdwardLane 4248:J. Johnson 4230:EdwardLane 4163:EdwardLane 3626:including 3499:Especially 3104:regardless 3100:unaffected 2921:change. — 2876:Regarding 2872:J. Johnson 2788:Ah I see. 2608:death toll 2537:MOS:NOBOLD 1874:others say 1839:MOS:NOBOLD 1832:J. Johnson 1378:fortuitous 1311:forbidden. 1297:"), for: " 1084:subjective 990:WP:ALLEGED 947:prediction 424:seismology 5803:community 5778:destroyed 5149:municipal 5058:Idealigic 4624:structure 4395:buildings 4198:deadliest 3957:By your " 3905:shot down 3572:precisely 3507:literally 3344:". Also, 3266:". And I 3198:WP:INTEXT 3187:Cambridge 2960:as it was 2910:this edit 2823:resolving 2622:, as in ' 2580:WP:SEVERE 2243:emphasis. 1971:generally 1901:|mode=cs2 1860:might be 1459:Haicheng. 1213:by chance 1172:reporting 1135:Haicheng. 1088:objective 1072:Knowledge 1064:obviously 1053:fortunate 1049:of course 1045:naturally 1041:obviously 662:test area 505:Archive 1 137:is rated 57:Main Page 5751:Tangshan 5504:Option 2 5369:Can you 5235:sentence 5110:WP:IDIOM 5054:Option 2 4955:option 2 4911:WP:IDIOM 4879:unusable 4857:damaged. 4848:damaged. 4574:consider 4556:directly 4543:greatest 4538:requires 4513:directly 4473:citation 4157:wording. 4055:damaging 4047:damaging 4036:damaging 3946:question 3810:Okay? ♦ 3722:WP:IDIOM 3693:response 3683:" with " 3563:behavior 3555:question 3479:WP:IDIOM 3462:What is 3405:opinions 3346:WP:IDIOM 3154:dramatic 3148:, and a 2644:MOS:TEXT 2561:dolorum. 2240:MOS:BOLD 2190:reading. 1895:cite xxx 1886:citation 1870:official 1866:official 1586:88005916 1554:zh:地震出版社 1365:contrast 941:" with " 493:Archives 36:archived 5893:Eostrix 5580:manner. 5567:WP:TONE 5348:perhaps 5005:Comment 4988:Comment 3942:refusal 3750:precise 3726:Another 3464:bizarre 3441:even if 3376:WP:BLUE 3313:explain 3125:exactly 2991:even if 2944:even if 2795:MarkH21 2700:MarkH21 2624:243,419 2567:Maproom 2474:Fraktur 2460:MarkH21 2429:242,419 2345:Fraktur 2297:MarkH21 2265:useful. 2178:meaning 2130:MarkH21 2008:MarkH21 1949:MarkH21 1843:MarkH21 1808:MarkH21 1790:in 1982 1776:MarkH21 1736:MarkH21 1634:MarkH21 1596:MarkH21 1513:MarkH21 1485:MarkH21 1465:MarkH21 1257:MarkH21 1145:MarkH21 1060:clearly 1055:or not. 1037:Clearly 1018:WP:IDLI 999:MarkH21 951:warning 927:MarkH21 824:MarkH21 767:MarkH21 464:on the 367:on the 254:on the 173:History 139:B-class 59:in the 5773:former 5530:per se 5207:", and 4811:Cunard 4469:source 3729:reason 3718:reason 3451:) as: 3434:should 3293:Oxford 3071:deaths 3067:damage 2679:" in " 2648:WP:DUE 2617:larger 2602:single 2503:Cunard 2422:larger 2341:Base64 2293:WP:RFC 2289:WP:TYP 2159:dead"? 2052:strong 1908:Harvnb 1768:JD.com 1138:As to 1047:, and 145:scale. 104:, and 5855:legal 5853:In a 5692:MarkH 5632:MarkH 5569:says: 5486:MarkH 5481:, ... 5305:MarkH 5298:? No. 5243:crude 5158:MarkH 5145:, ... 5036:MarkH 4935:MarkH 4844:Keep 4777:MarkH 4761:MarkH 4656:MarkH 4613:" as 4583:MarkH 4560:a la 4365:MarkH 4267:MarkH 4135:MarkH 4115:MarkH 4076:MarkH 3982:MarkH 3914:MarkH 3835:MarkH 3780:MarkH 3633:MarkH 3602:might 3550:might 3520:MarkH 3481:says 3477:Yep, 3307:to me 3301:to me 3225:MarkH 3121:meant 3102:, or 3044:MarkH 2924:MarkH 2791:note. 2738:range 2349:black 2126:might 1858:study 1841:). — 1766:Yep, 1699:地球的震撼 227:China 218:China 168:China 126:This 5980:talk 5956:talk 5950:. ♦ 5897:talk 5872:talk 5833:talk 5811:talk 5799:here 5795:only 5759:talk 5728:talk 5681:via 5675:Sdkb 5661:talk 5629:. — 5597:talk 5516:talk 5512:Sdkb 5423:talk 5336:this 5275:talk 5123:talk 5062:talk 4996:talk 4975:talk 4963:talk 4897:and 4815:talk 4739:WP:V 4713:talk 4683:WP:V 4636:talk 4485:talk 4477:that 4322:talk 4303:talk 4264:. — 4219:talk 4167:talk 4132:. — 4104:The 4096:talk 4013:talk 3967:talk 3878:talk 3832:. — 3816:talk 3758:talk 3616:one. 3614:this 3590:talk 3579:one. 3577:this 3559:your 3455:and 3445:even 3413:talk 3315:why 3268:have 3191:OALD 3166:talk 2981:talk 2913:and 2879:this 2831:talk 2811:this 2799:talk 2764:talk 2704:talk 2689:talk 2632:talk 2588:talk 2571:talk 2507:talk 2482:talk 2464:talk 2438:talk 2383:talk 2301:talk 2213:talk 2134:talk 2104:talk 2098:? ♦ 2063:find 2045:this 2036:mild 2012:talk 1996:talk 1990:? ♦ 1953:talk 1931:talk 1847:talk 1812:talk 1798:talk 1780:talk 1774:. — 1758:talk 1740:talk 1717:talk 1673:talk 1638:talk 1617:talk 1600:talk 1583:LCCN 1574:ISBN 1536:talk 1517:talk 1499:talk 1491:here 1469:talk 1444:does 1407:talk 1398:less 1382:good 1261:talk 1221:talk 1180:here 1149:talk 1100:talk 1062:and 1003:talk 992:and 979:talk 934:edit 911:talk 869:talk 828:talk 798:talk 771:talk 757:talk 729:talk 602:talk 586:talk 545:Tip: 359:High 246:High 5948:ANI 5919:333 5914:HAL 5860:did 5385:you 5381:... 5379:see 5371:see 5356:not 5290:Is 5218:".) 5093:not 4919:but 4754:an 4737:By 4705:not 4622:of 4619:W:V 4570:may 4448:". 4442:not 4420:At 4045:If 4034:If 4005:not 3934:mis 3733:any 3687:". 3624:for 3260:not 3092:did 3012:any 2952:not 2819:not 2664:😼 2533:are 2530:and 1566:2) 1390:not 1309:not 1252:not 1140:why 963:or 637:any 620:not 616:not 456:Top 5994:: 5982:) 5958:) 5899:) 5874:) 5835:) 5813:) 5761:) 5730:) 5695:21 5689:— 5663:) 5635:21 5613:, 5609:, 5599:) 5591:♦ 5518:) 5489:21 5483:— 5425:) 5367:(" 5364:my 5308:21 5277:) 5269:♦ 5161:21 5125:) 5064:) 5039:21 4998:) 4977:) 4938:21 4922:it 4780:21 4764:21 4741:: 4715:) 4659:21 4638:) 4626:, 4586:21 4522:— 4487:) 4424:. 4397:, 4393:, 4368:21 4324:) 4316:♦ 4305:) 4270:21 4221:) 4169:) 4138:21 4118:21 4098:) 4079:21 4015:) 3985:21 3969:) 3917:21 3880:) 3838:21 3818:) 3783:21 3760:) 3636:21 3592:) 3565:). 3523:21 3449:if 3447:+ 3415:) 3256:If 3228:21 3193:). 3189:, 3185:, 3168:) 3098:, 3047:21 2983:) 2927:21 2833:) 2801:) 2793:— 2766:) 2758:♦ 2706:) 2691:) 2652:— 2634:) 2620:}} 2614:{{ 2590:) 2573:) 2547:}} 2544:em 2541:{{ 2484:) 2466:) 2440:) 2432:♦ 2425:}} 2419:{{ 2385:) 2337:}} 2331:{{ 2303:) 2215:) 2136:) 2106:) 2055:}} 2049:{{ 2032:}} 2029:em 2026:{{ 2014:) 1998:) 1955:) 1933:) 1925:♦ 1906:{{ 1897:}} 1893:{{ 1889:}} 1883:{{ 1849:) 1814:) 1800:) 1782:) 1760:) 1752:♦ 1742:) 1731:, 1719:) 1675:) 1667:♦ 1640:) 1619:) 1602:) 1581:, 1538:) 1530:♦ 1519:) 1501:) 1471:) 1438:, 1430:, 1409:) 1401:♦ 1394:un 1373:as 1369:so 1263:) 1247:if 1223:) 1151:) 1102:) 1043:, 1039:, 1033:: 1020:.) 1005:) 981:) 971:}} 968:or 965:{{ 961:}} 958:cn 955:{{ 913:) 905:♦ 871:) 830:) 800:) 773:) 759:) 751:♦ 731:) 723:♦ 708:Q9 704:Q8 691:Q7 687:Q6 683:Q5 670:Q4 666:Q3 649:Q2 633:Q1 604:) 588:) 426:, 422:, 282:). 171:: 100:, 96:, 92:, 88:, 84:, 80:, 76:, 72:, 5978:( 5954:( 5903:. 5895:( 5870:( 5831:( 5809:( 5757:( 5726:( 5659:( 5595:( 5559:. 5514:( 5421:( 5409:" 5273:( 5210:" 5203:" 5179:" 5121:( 5095:" 5060:( 4994:( 4973:( 4961:( 4813:( 4711:( 4634:( 4483:( 4444:" 4359:: 4355:@ 4320:( 4301:( 4250:: 4246:@ 4242:? 4232:: 4228:@ 4217:( 4165:( 4094:( 4011:( 3965:( 3876:( 3814:( 3756:( 3588:( 3411:( 3317:I 3262:" 3254:" 3164:( 2979:( 2874:: 2870:@ 2829:( 2797:( 2762:( 2702:( 2687:( 2662:¢ 2659:☏ 2630:( 2610:s 2598:a 2586:( 2569:( 2505:( 2480:( 2462:( 2436:( 2381:( 2299:( 2211:( 2155:" 2132:( 2102:( 2043:" 2010:( 1994:( 1951:( 1929:( 1845:( 1834:: 1830:@ 1810:( 1796:( 1778:( 1756:( 1738:( 1715:( 1703:. 1671:( 1636:( 1615:( 1598:( 1589:. 1534:( 1515:( 1497:( 1487:: 1483:@ 1467:( 1456:s 1405:( 1259:( 1219:( 1188:. 1147:( 1132:s 1098:( 1001:( 977:( 929:: 925:@ 909:( 898:: 894:@ 867:( 826:( 796:( 769:( 755:( 748:: 744:@ 727:( 600:( 584:( 560:] 468:. 371:. 258:. 151::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index