This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Perhaps not a big deal, but one I have wondered about, and I see this came up yesterday. The section "Most studied earthquakes" was initially taken from the ISC figure, and cited as such. So the numbers change. Two issues arise.

1) Are we okay with revising the number studies attributed to each event, and adjusting the possibly changed rankings accordingly? Merely updating some data would seem to be okay, but changing rankings implies a comprehensive review of all candidates, and involves a certain level of editorial responsibility that might run into an WP:OR problem. If the ISC has a sort function that would just pop out a ranked result, I think that would be fine. But I don't recall if they have that.

2) If we modify (rightly or wrongly) the data and consequent results, we should indicate in some way that the result is partly our work, our update of the original figure. ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)