Talk:Seismology

A seaquake can be defined as "an earthquake originating under the sea floor".--Wanblee 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this page could use a little reformating and a lot of additional information. I'd like to add some information on the types of waves, the basic science behind it, a little more history, and information about modern studies in seismology. I'd also like to add a content section to help keep it organised. It'll probably be a slow process, though. Does anyone have any problems with the changes I'm proposing or does anyone have any other suggestions? --Beabria, September 21, 2006

Perhaps a better interpretation of the greek "logos", would be "study of" rather than word, which doesn't really make sense in this context. An example of this si the world Biology, defined as study of life.

Reply by Zeus: ive edited it to knowledge, as ive seen on other fields of science. =)

• "Seismosurfing" the Internet for earthquake data
• Earthquakes Canada
  • Earthquakes Canada FAQ
  • Historic earthquakes in Canada
  • Earthquakes Canada general earthquake information
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake hazards program
  • USGS's "Historic worldwide earthquakes"
  • USGS "About earthquakes"
  • USGS earthquake topics
• Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (Wikipedia page)
• International Seismological Centre (An international earthquake database) --132.156.40.108 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Seismic" redirects here, and is the term used for technology used in the oil and gas industry to help find oil. Could some mention be made here? TastyCakes (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I suggest that someone add the following to the very beginning of the article, before the first sentence:

{{Redirect|Seismic|seismic methods in exploration geophysics|Reflection seismology}}

which displays as

"Seismic" redirects here. For seismic methods in exploration geophysics, see Reflection seismology.

Thanks. 132.156.40.110 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

... what does it show? What kind of wave is it? What do the colors signify? What is the significance of its interaction with the buried land mine? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Despite its etymology being related to the study of earthquakes, many sources confirm that this is the study of waves caused by earthquakes. See https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/s/seismology.aspx , https://www.aapg.org/about/petroleum-geology/geology-and-petroleum/seismology-and-geophysics, https://www.nature.com/subjects/seismology and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seismology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arademaker (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Opening a discussion when an edit is disputed is good. However, your evident lack of experience suggests that (if you are going to be a useful contributor) you need to be brought up to speed on a number of points. Please note the following.

1) New discussions should be at the bottom of the talk page. If you start a new discussion by clicking on the [New section] tab this will happen automatically. (The next time I come by here I will move this discussion to the bottom.)

2) All discussion comments should be signed with the "four tildes" ("~~~~"). (Or click on the signature button in the editor toolbar.)

3) All article content (especially any disputed content) should be cited to reliable sources with a citation.

4) URLs are not citations. Citations include additional information about the source, and are typically created using standard templates, such as {{cite book}}.

5) A single source, no matter how authoritative it may seem on its own, does not necessarily justify inclusion. In general we go by the WP:WEIGHT of mainstream expert opinion. (For seismology there are several excellent encylopedias that carry great weight of authority.)

6) Keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience. While striving for (say) correct definitions, we generally avoid pedantic details of little interest to non-experts.

7) The lead section should be a summary of what is in the article. If there is any reason for (say) a more precise definition, that should be done in an appropriate location, not in the lead.

8) To make a case for revising the definition you may be expected to present expert sources – not Wiktionary! – establishing that the revision is better than the existing definition, and to quote those sources, not just wave at them.

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply