Talk:2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1

Constitución, Talcahuano
Does anyone know about the situation in these cities? My relatives live there. 78.53.47.125 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They would have experienced Mercalli intensity scale intensity VIII-Destructive; "Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture moved." Abductive  (reasoning) 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * did the Tsunami hit these cities? both are close to the epicentre and at the coast. 78.53.47.125 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this place isn't for such discussion. Please refer to any media outlet. That is where we get all our information from. We know no more than them. — Cargoking  talk  16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

needs protection
Just from looking at the history this article needs to be protected. Iwalters (talk)


 * You're free to file a request at Requests for page protection. --bender235 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But now that this section is here anyways: I see no reason in the history why this file should be protected. I do not see more than an occasional revert, and protection would prevent many editors from contributing to this article. I would not know why page protection is beneficial at this time. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:82.215.42.102 is introducing plausible but false/unsourced information to the article. Semi-protection may be warranted. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see him in the last 100 edits, and if a single user is really causing troubles than perhaps he needs to be blocked. Unless there are so many disruptions that effective editing is threatened, I do not think protection is necessary.Andreas Willow (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the protection is there anyways. Perhaps it's not even so bad since I've easily lost count of the number of edit conflicts I've had today. Andreas Willow (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, most of the IPs were actually behaving. Half  Shadow  19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Protection was not my idea, see above. Without the IPs this article would be only half as good. Andreas Willow (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been semiprotected (request). I think that it is not necessary at the moment. Anonymous users are doing good edits by now (very few sporadic vandalism for an high visible article). emijrp (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont really understand why this article is protected, I was the second contributor to this article and now I cant contribute at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelargentina (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The state capital of Hawaii is Hilo, on the big island.
Deleted phrase regarding Honolulu as Hawaii's capital. Honolulu is Hawaii's largest city, but the capital is Hilo on the island of Hawaii.

Great article, and an impressive production considering the recency of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vienmer (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * check your maps again, Honolulu IS the state capital JZTess (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hilo is the administrative center of the island Hawaii ("Big Island"), but Honolulu is the state capital of the state of Hawaii (which contains several islands, including the Island of Hawaii). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like the difference between Ottawa and Toronto. Toronto is the capital of Ontario, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. Half  Shadow  18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Santiago
Is Santiago ok??? 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this place isn't for such discussion. — Cargoking  talk  18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Images
The request for more images has been on this talk page for a while now but so far there were not many pictures available. I've been monitoring Flickr for a while now and finally some images are starting to be available under CC licenses. Unfortunately I do not know much about including CC images from Flickr on Wikipedia, so I don't know how to get them here (isn't there a Flickr upload bot somewhere?) or what licenses are allowable. For instance this might be a good candidate. Feel free to find other images via a Flickr search for recent photos on 'chile earthquake'.Andreas Willow (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That image isn't acceptable. For images on Flickr that may be relevant, see here. They have to be CC-BY 2.0 or CC-BY-SA 2.0. — Cargoking  talk  20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Tsunami Warnings
These warnings are exaggerated. The source in the article says "The organization is expecting strong ocean currents and flooding to occur on the east coast of Australia for several hours Sunday.[44]" is quoting a Chinese newespaper Xinhua. It appears to be wrong.
 * See the original here Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre "Possibility of dangerous waves, strong ocean currents and foreshore flooding throughout the day from 08:00 am (EDT) Sunday.".—220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have corrected the text, and changed the citation to the original source. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You! Skinsmoke :-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines
Brace for possible tsunami after lunch Sunday – Phivolcs By Alcuin Papa Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 02:54:00 02/28/2010 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20100228-255780/Brace-for-possible-tsunami-after-lunch-SundayPhivolcs

"The Philippines can expect the arrival of the initial tsunami waves generated by the magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile after lunch of Sunday, according to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs).

"In a bulletin issued at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, the Phivolcs said the estimated time of arrival of the first tsunami waves was between 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.

"The advisory warned 19 provinces on the eastern coast of the country to watch out for tsunami waves. .  .  "


 * posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Amazing, a chance to give people information in real time
We can do some real good. Let's just play it as straightforward as possible. Let's strive to neither overstate nor understate. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll
HuffPo reporting death toll is at least 10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/chile-earthquake-83-magni_n_479294.html I don't know how to add a source sorry, and thanks to all for keeping this updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.54.93 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 47 dead http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35615455/ns/world_news-americas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.54.93 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the UK will care as soon as we hear of any Britons caught up in this.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * UK just reported 53 (Sun) 64 (Telegraph) while another source said at least 10 but it is unknown. It is pretty clear that it will continue to rise and there will be conflicting reports. For example, NY Times is saying it lasted 90 seconds.Cptnono (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please add that there has a been two deaths confirmed in Argentina. A 8 year old kid died when a wall fell on him and a 53 year old man has also perished in the northern province of Salta. http://www.clarin.com/diario/2010/02/27/um/m-02149212.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelargentina (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The Salta earthquake was a different event, some 12 hours or so after the Chilean quake.  Skinsmoke (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)"
 * The Salta earthquake was an official aftershock, should we break up this article according to each aftershock?

Destructive power
The figures for comparisons to Haiti are totally wrong - it's about 30 times per order of magnitude. A quake 1.8 magnitures larger releases about 500 times the energy, not 60 odd times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's 501 times, for once my guess came in almost bang on right. For those interested, the equation is 2/3 log10 (M0) to give you the power, so for a single change in magnitude it's 10^1.5 or 31.6 times

1.8 x 1.5 = 2.7 10^2.7 = 501 which is the ratio for a quake 1.8 times larger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. The press is falsely stating that the Chile earthquake is 1,000 times the strength of the Haiti earthquake. In order for this to be true, the Chile earthquake would have had to have been magnitude 9.0, not 8.8. The correct formula is on this USGS web page: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.141.111 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Map : Chile Quake Warning Area 2010
Should the map not also show that a tsunami warning has been issued for Antarctica? Skinsmoke (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it should. Good remark. Unfortunately I don't know how to do it (I'm not very familiar with SVG files).Andreas Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the main image? If so, it is only I png I created using a CIA image and basic lines from iWork 09! It only shows the epicenter. A new file would have to be created if you wanted tsunami content. — Cargoking  talk  20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that file. It's the one labelled "Countries with coastal areas at risk (in pink)".  I've asked the creator of the file, on WikiCommons, to amend it.  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The description on the image file says "Area warned by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center following the earthquake". Did PTWC warn Antarctica? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. The warning says that Antarctica is included. We should change the caption, 'tho. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your request has been honored and the changes have been made JZTess (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary and revised tsunami energy maps diverge quite a bit

 * Please add the revised forecast map to the right to the "Tsunami" section, and/or its image galery. Thank you. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary tsunami map showing very uneven distribution of wave energy completely uncharacteristic of ocean swell behavior. "Beautiful but terrifying." This caused evacuation of Hawaii coastal areas and the closure of an airport. Was the model thrown off because of the distance of the epicenter from the coastline?

Tsunami  revised arrival time map, much more what you would expect from an understanding of ocean fluid dynamics. Someone needs a bigger QA budget.

I note that Hawaii is listed by name but not by any abnormal swell heights at. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hawaii may yet have to receive its largest wave. Furthermore, I don't see your point. Wave travel times and wave energy are different things, so the different pictures certainly do not contradict each other. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the two maps (which you call preliminary and revised) plot two different metrics. The first one appears to show the maximum predicted tsunami amplitude at each location, independent of time.  The second one plots tsunami arrival times, with lines connecting locations experiencing the same arrival time.  Therefore the two maps are not directly comparable.  It may be reasonable to expect that two locations that experience the arrival of the tsunami at the same time may not necessarily experience the same amplitude of wave, due to differences in underwater topography or other factors.  Ketone16 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A NOAA official Dr. Fryer (phonetic) was just shown on HawaiiNewsNow.com as saying the preliminary estimates were the result of the model being influenced by a 1960 tsunami's behavior. The 1960 Valdivia earthquake remains "the most powerful earthquake ever recorded, rating 9.5 on the moment magnitude scale" with a tsunami which killed 61 people in Hawaii. Since it was less than 10 times as powerful, the warning was clearly justified, but I wish the data from the buoys shown on the revised map had filtered through a little better.

And I'm pretty sure the uneven distribution of swell heights suggests that something is very wrong with the preliminary model. I'll take those questions to WP:RDS. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see your point. Due to the limited occurrence of tsunamis, models are currently imprecise but roughly fine. Arrival times can be estimated pretty well, give or take perhaps half an hour. The height of waves can also be roughly estimated. But the relative swell heights are predicted well. For example, the 98 cm tsunami just recorded at Hawaii is much higher than other recordings that were recorded much earlier after the quake. Which is predicted pretty well by the wave energy map. Which brings me to this point: what is your problem exactly? In what sense does your second statement support your first, and in your opinion what should be improved or corrected? Andreas Willow (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My memory of actual swell height maps from a variety of tsunamis is that none have had such a fibrous and uneven distribution of swell height variances. Do you know of a counter-example? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for a retraction of your original argument based on an apples-to-oranges comparison of two totally different maps. The second map is most definitely not a simple "revision" of the first.  Ketone16 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

99.191.75.124 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an alternative map from which is much closer to observations and more evenly distributed. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look any less "fibrous and uneven" to me than does the first map you cited. The main difference is that the swell heights are more rapidly attenuated in the east-west direction.  It sounds as if you're making poorly-defensible qualitative arguments without knowing anything about the underlying quantitative basis of the predictions.  Ketone16 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that the revised forecast looks much more fibrous than what I remember of coastal swell height maps, but I think it would be a pointless mistake to argue over the statistical properties by eyeball. Certainly at the largest level of granularity, the swell heights are distributed closer to the epicenter, and if you can find a contour line in the revised map which has a greater perimeter-to-enclosed-area ratio than the contour lines of the preliminary map, I would like to see it. I am sure that NOAA scientists and their colleagues internationally will be comparing the projections to observed buoy measurements closely to help improve these models. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an animation showing the swells propagating and calibrated to a buoy's observations. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about tsunami in Hawaii
The National Weather Service has been saying for at least the last half an hour that no tsunami is expected in Hawaii. See: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/messages/hawaii/2010/hawaii.2010.02.23.204429.txt but CNN is still prattling on and on. What gives? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * THIS REPORT IS ERRONEOUS. Read it closer.  That report is for a 3.5 earthquake that hit Hawaii four days ago.  To my knowledge people in Hawaii should continue to take precautions as they have been.  Abrazame (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's because magnitude 3.5 earthquakes don't cause tsunamis, especially when they're four days old? Andreas Willow (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to bulletin 017: KAHULUI MAUI        20.9N 156.5W  2147Z   0.98M /  3.2FT  22MIN  which means that Maui, Hawaii had a 98 cm tsunami.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Willow (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Associated Press says max observed wave crests were 5.5-6 feet. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to participate Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I got to http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/messages/hawaii/2010/hawaii.2010.02.23.204429.txt by following links from the National Weather Service webpage at:http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/ So does this mean this webpage cannot be relied on in case of emergencies? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are statements about four days of activity there, with dates accurately represented so far as I can see. Abrazame (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is how I got to the page:
 * I clicked "4" on the map at http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/
 * This got me to: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/?region=2&id=hawaii.2010.02.23.204429 where I saw the word "Hawaii" highlighted
 * I then clicked "click to read" which lead me to the page in question which starts out like this:
 * TSUNAMI SEISMIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NUMBER  1
 * NWS PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER EWA BEACH HI
 * 1044 AM HST TUE FEB 23 2010
 * TO - CIVIL DEFENSE IN THE STATE OF HAWAII
 * SUBJECT - LOCAL TSUNAMI INFORMATION
 * THIS STATEMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ACTION REQUIRED.
 * and, yes, I agree I should have read the next words, and paid more attention to the date, but I didn't :-) Ottawahitech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC).


 * The numbers on that map refer to the earthquakes, not the locations potentially affected by tsunami. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Winter Olympics
The 2010 Winter Olympics is almost over, those it may become affected by the Tsunami of the 2010 Chile earthquake. No games are likely to be affect, however. This website here stats that four members of the Chilean delegation will participate in the closing ceremony. That website also states that the 2010 Winter Olympics may be the first under a tsunami advisory. Is this notable enough to be mention on the 2010 Chile Earthquake article? --12george1 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is it affected? I don't expect they will cancel events because of the tsunami, unless it is indirect. Can you indicate whether there are any reports of the tsunami significantly affecting the Winter Olympics? Andreas Willow (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate for a minor note in an article describing the closing ceremonies, but it's not appropriate here at this point. Best, Abrazame (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Info on this was apparently placed under California and British Columbia section. --12george1 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Video
I see a bunch of video popping up on YouTube. If anyone has personal video available, it would be great if you could upload a version here (well, to Upload would be best). We can't use YouTube videos directly here, and EL's to YouTube cause problems. Thanks! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest Chile EarthQuake Video: http://www.CaliforniaQuake.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChileQuakeNet (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

use of WP article on OSM
Excerpts from a version of this article's opening paragraphs have been adapted for use on OSM, with links replaced with OSM-relevant links as available. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Chile_earthquake&oldid=431919. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami Effects in UTC vs. Local Time
While UTC is useful, can we get an addition to the table showing the tsunami effects in the cities/locations in local time? People in those areas would get more out of it.Seeyardee (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Feet or Meters?
I'm making data maps for Tsunami confirmations. Should I use feet or meters? JZTess (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's international; metres with feet in brackets. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 80 mm/year (~⅓ in/year), 1/3 in is WRONG. It should be 3 in/year (1 in = 2.54 cm, 80 mm = 8 cm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.37.151 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

International data
Seeking to update the data table with data outside of PTWC and WCATC. any suggestions? JZTess (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Try here Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No original research please
The second photo to the left says "slight damage". The building's wall has detached. It is expensive repair. It is not slight. We can say "less extensive" compared to the first photo on the left. That is less of a judgement call. If you are a construction worker, OR is still not allowed but you can put your opinion and help correct stuff JB50000 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami arrival date
The tsunami that hit Minamitorishima only had a height of 10 cm. Should we list the 1.2 m tsunami that hit Iwate at 15:49 JST? What about the 90 cm one that hit Sendai Bay? --180.12.68.192 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The cities experiencing the strongest shaking ...
It must be "AMONG the cities experiencing the strongest shaking", according to the source. 78.53.47.41 (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Palestine responce
Can somebody add Mahmud Abbas condlences Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have added his condolences to the article. --Powerofrussia2 (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do not we have a separate page for responses to this quake? --Saki talk 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The responses hold a lot of gravitas and should remain within the article for the time being. These are official responses of importance from governments and shouldn't be relegated to a separate page. At this time anyway, as it is current information and current news. --Powerofrussia2 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Saki is right. Moreover, the long, repetitive, predictable and utterly boring list of government responses unbalances the article. See 2010_Haiti_earthquake for a good model for creating separate articles for such lists. Ericoides (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved all of this material to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake. Ericoides (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that decision is correct. First of all it is common for pages like these (on current disasters) to have the international response moved to a different page as soon as the number of responses grows larger than 10 or so. Second, I disagree with the statement that The responses hold a lot of gravitas and should remain within the article for the time being. The impact is quite limited for an article that focuses mainly on encyclopedic content (even if it's a current event, this is not Wikinews), and it is quite bad for the general readability of the article. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Geology
The main article for the section of "geology" is Geology of Chile not Nazca Plate. Can somebody change this? I can not because my accout is too new. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have added it in addition to Nazca Plate, as both are relevant. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami arrival data
The Tsunami arrival data table is packed with measurements between .1 and 2.0. Are these noteworthy? This table seems like a lot of space dedicated to a non-notable event. At what height do we really care if there is a tsunami? Maybe French Polynesia at 6ft? That is mentioned in the copy. I like the NOAA Projection though. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a sense it is noteworthy simply because the height didn't match the height feared.
 * However, can someone again put the list into chrionological order? I was going to do so myself, but Monterey's timing needs confirmation. Did the tsunami really hit Monterey before San Diego? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the information on travel times is useful even if the tsunami is not big. If you want to see only the largest tsunamis I guess it suffices to sort by height. Additionally, it is still interesting (to me at least) to see the relative wave heights, and that may be a difference between 4 and 12 cm. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But since I agree with you that the table is not quite improving article readability I swapped it with a block of other tsunami-related information. Now it is at the bottom of the article and a lot less bothersome. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And regarding your remark on making the list chronological, perhaps it is an idea to include also the relative travel times in the table? It's somewhat hard to sort it on arrival time as it is now. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Could the table be pared down - edit out all but a couple of the Hawaii and California sites? 206.194.127.112 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re IP 206.194.127.112 above: this is an international encyclopaedia, so absolutely not. The ordering of the table doesn't seem to follow any sensible order. It seems to me to make most sense for it to be ordered by arrival time ie those who were hit first are at the top of the list, to give some sort of comparison between time travelled and size of wave.  If this isn't easily done, then perhaps by alphabetical order of country/territory.  In any respect, it seems a nonsense that Chile's entries are at the bottom of the table where impact and damage was the greatest, and the US is near the top, where damage was negligible. Also - why are so many US sites noted compared to the number from any other country? 82.32.238.139 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that's only due to the availability of more data from U.S. sensors. I would prefer if the table were in chronological order as well. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan Tsunami Subsection
Shouldn't there should be one for Japan since the tsunami caused a lot of damage and deaths in that country?  Burningview   ✉  14:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting your information from? That is not what the world's media is reporting. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are talking about the previous Chile earthquake? It was a bit amusing to have the map of Japan on TV for about 12 hours straight across every TV channels. --Revth (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh OK maybe I'm mistaken then. Yes, the media might have confused me with the previous ones.   Burningview   ✉  14:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 708 confirm deaths to 16:00 in Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.225.174 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

comment
Added to the See Also the Sahana Foundation's website for those wishing to volunteer and help. I am not sure if I added it to the right place, so if someone knows of a better place to put this, please feel free to move it. --Mfinney 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chile earthquake → 2010 Maule earthquake — See discussion below. bender235 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Page title
Wikipedia has generally gone for broader geography in earthquake article titles. Given that it's caused damage in Santiago, calling it a "Chile" earthquake rather than a "Concepción" earthquake seems appropriate -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope to use this title.--黄泉改 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the event response map, yeah, this is at the very least a regional event, if not a national or continental one. Fonce Diablo (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going ahead and merging the articles. Whether it stays at this title can still be discussed, but having two is not going to be sustainable. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I agree that the article should remain here, but I feel obliged to remark that the strongest earthquake the world has seen so far, is named the 1960 Valdivia earthquake and not the 1960 Chile earthquake. However to prevent confusion I think we should stick with the current title for at least a couple of days.Andreas Willow (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait for what the media or Chilean government calls it. They often come up with some catchy name that everyone is going to talk about, and thus that will become the new title for this article.-- MarshalN20 | T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 15:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cyrius. The title of this page should be 2010 Concepción earthquake, or (better) 2010 Maule earthquake. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is Muhammad Ismail .H, PHD., starter of the article at 07:22, 27 February 2010 after the next 48 minute the quake. [] I am also agree to change the name or moved to relevant name discussed by wikipedians. Really i am far away from Chile and don't know the exact location name when the earth quake occur. Only know the name as "Chile" . So as per wikipedia naming style in earth quakes, i gave the name "2010 Chile Earthquake"


 * We are few techies are running a life care project called Integrated Tsunami Watcher Service after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake disaster. I got the information about the big quake on my few mobiles by our Project ITWS network and start to tracking the earth quake. Next i came to know the quake doesn't create Tsunami in our region Indian Ocean. But i came to know the earth quake possible to create Tsunami at Pacific Ocean.


 * We don't have any mobile numbers in the pacific ocean rim to send the tsunami alert as SMS. So i went to create the article in the earth quake preliminary magnitude 8.3 with USGS Event ID us2010tfan to inform about the event around the world. Also requested Main Page's talk page about add the event as news section. But i can't found the request in the Talk page now.


 * I am Thanking all of our brothers and sisters whom worked as wikipedians to bring the event around the world by wikipedia to secure lives. Really i was learned more and more by wikipedia and currently working an extreme tremendous project gathered information from wikipedia by wikipedians. Insha Allah i will be start an article about the project as soon possible.   --Gnuismail (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether the earthquake is noted as countrywide or local, the title should be changed: not "Chile earthquake", but "Chilean earthquake" (or "Earthquake in Chile"). "Chile" is a noun, but this title puts it in the place of an adjective; the adjective for "Chile" is "Chilean". Firstorm (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Move suggestion
Quite often earthquake articles are named after the country, but Chilean earthquakes are often named more precisely because Chile stretches 4,630 kilometres (2,880 mi) north to south. I suggest moving the article to 2010 Maule earthquake, in keeping with the USGS sources. Any dissent? Ask yourself; if this earthquake had struck Santa Barbara, California, would calling it 2010 United States earthquake make any sense? <font http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2010_Chile_earthquake&action=purgeface="Cambria"> Abductive (reasoning) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree its an example of systemic bias. The title should be "2010 Concepción earthquake"·Maunus· ƛ · 12:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concepción is 109 km away from the epicenter. That's be like calling the 2010 Santa Barbara earthquake the 2010 Malibu earthquake. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in light of the >5.0 aftershocks being reported by USGS, Offshore Bio-Bio, Chile has been reported more than any other locale. (As well as, Offshore Valparaiso, Chile and Valparaiso, Chile) Along this subduction zone, I'd expect the trend for multiple locations to continue. As such, I'd recommend capturing them all with a Chilean group title.Lmcelhiney (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, we'll use the most common name. It may take a few days or more for that to be determined. I suggest we move slowly and follow the majority of sources.   Will Beback    talk    13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I initially created the page at 2010 Maule earthquake but agreed to move here instead since there were three parallel articles (also 2010 Concepción earthquake) at the time.. It is fine to keep it like this (don't we have a 2010 Haiti earthquake as well?) for now, but as I remarked above in an earlier discussion about the page title, I think that in the end it would be better to move this page to 2010 Maule earthquake, indeed in line with USGS sources, and also the name of the region closest to the epicenter. But to avoid confusion I suggest that this move is not performed for the next few days.Andreas Willow (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One difference with the Haiti earthquake, Chile is a very long country (4,300 km), so it is I think necessary to narrow the area affected down a bit, whereas Haiti is much much smaller and this is less relevant. Mikenorton (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, 2010 Maule earthquake is the correct name. That is why I created the article there this morning. I completely agree that the current name is awfully imprecise.Andreas Willow (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. --bender235 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably premature to be talking about moving it. As long as all plausible titles redirect here, it should stay here for the time being. Once things have calmed down and all the information is known, it can be moved to the most precise title but if it's moved now, it's likely to be moved again and again as happens with many current events articles. No harm will come from leaving it here for a few days. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell | <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?   17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But just like that, no harm will come from moving the article now. If it turns out to be wrong, we could move it somewhere else. Wikipedia is dynamic, there's no problem with moving pages multiple times. The current title is wrong, plain and simple. --bender235 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While the discussion carries on, I'd like to ask: is there anyone who objects to the future name of 2010 Maule earthquake? If not, then perhaps it is indeed a good idea to move the page there. It will probably confuse a few people, but I should remark that earlier today the Wikipedia main page referenced 2010 Concepción earthquake and caused a redirect to this article, and no one seemed to bother. So I doubt that anyone will mind. As bender235 remarks, the Wikipedia infrastructure was designed specifically to allow very easy page moving and there is no true reason to let it remain here if a simple redirect is able to fix any problems whatsoever. Since I myself have little knowledge of page moving, I suggest someone else does it.Andreas Willow (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Go ahead and move the page, please. --bender235 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Give it at least a week for an "official" name to this event to come up. The lot of you are making a bigger magnitude of this than the earthquake.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am with MarshalN20, in that some time should be given to let the dust settle. If I were to have to make a call right now, I'd Oppose. Right now, WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Chile earthquake" and headlines are not featuring "Maule".--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A newspaper is not an encyclopedia. I am not saying that the article must be moved as soon as possible, but someone who reads this article next year should find it at 2010 Maule earthquake simply because Chile is a few thousand km from north to south and just 'Chile' is too imprecise, and also because it is untraditional (except for small countries like Haiti, you will have a hard time finding earthquakes who have a wiki page with a name only referencing the country. If a magnitude 8.0 strikes San Francisco tomorrow it won't be the 2010 U.S. earthquake either). So while I admit that the newspapers use Chile, I'm not sure Wikipedia should do that, given both the lack of precedent (few earthquakes are named after a large country) and the different focus (it's an encyclopedia which organizes information, not a newspaper who reports the latest events, and thus it should use distinctive naming conventions). If I were to make a call right now, I'd still be in doubt, but probably a Weak support because I still don't see a problem in moving a page to the name it will eventually have. If you want to convince yourself of 'tradition', look at the List of largest earthquakes by magnitude to see that none of the large earthquakes were named after a country. Andreas Willow (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, it's entirely possible that the WP:COMMONNAME will change is the future. However, at present, sources (including those cited in the article), are referring to the event as the "Chile earthquake" and not "Maule earthquake". My principle concern is that Maule earthquake is not widely recognized and would make the article more difficult to find (WP:NAME).--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be no more difficult than now if the only thing that changes is that this page becomes a redirect, and the other page becomes the article. But I think this whole discussion is premature. If the point is raised a couple of weeks from now, there will probably be less resistance when a move is suggested, and there will not be as much reason for opposition. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the media outlets and popular references will choose Chile and not Maule... forever. The year and the internationally-recognized region (Chile) will suffice it. If this occurred near e.g. Los Angeles or Kobe or even Concepcion, we would call it by the internationally-known city. No major city was within 50 miles in this case. If it was 90 miles from a different major city, then it might be named after a regional area like (Southern) California or (Honshu) Japan. My belief is that if it occurred off the coast of Honshu and near no major city, we would be calling it the "2010 Japan earthquake" and not the "2010 Iwate Prefecture earthquake." (See this article: 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake for an example that would be a poor name for a world event such as the one we are discussing.) We are talking about #5 on the list of recorded seismic disturbances, so the media outlets should direct our consensus to a great degree. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems to be a matter of your personal taste. We have the 1138 Aleppo earthquake. The 1556 Shaanxi earthquake. The 1960 Valdivia earthquake. Why exactly should we make an exception and name this earthquake, which affected only part of Chile, the 2010 Chile earthquake? Perhaps you should read my comment above and tell me what is wrong with my argument that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and thus must use a more distinctive name. For the newspapers, there are never 2 Chilean earthquakes simultaneously, anyways. And if you insist on using 2010 Chile earthquake, please go ahead and change the 1,000 other article names as well. Andreas Willow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're trying to call it what you want it to be called. We are not here to make up names, we're simply placing information from sources. Those articles are named the way they are because that was the common name given to them by the media. Wikipedia wasn't around in 1556 to name the "1556 Shaanxi earthquake."-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Naming this quake after the epicenter is not the best idea, the epicenter is only located above the point where the rupture begins. Generally, the larger the quake, the longer the fault rupture. The actual rupture zone for this quake extends over 400 miles of coastline (see USGS Shakemap), which means that many different regions of Chile were similarly affected, and not just the Maule area. This should be taken into consideration if a rename is to take place. RapidR (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time of the quake
at 03:34 local time (06:34 UTC) Is this time correct? Local Chile time is supposed to be five (5) hrs behind UTC.Mirrordor (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was put like that according to the USGS page on this event. Andreas Willow (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I agree that according to this picture it should be 4 hours. But I'm guessing daylight savings time makes it three. Andreas Willow (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 03:34 is correct. CLT is 4 hours to UTC, CLST (what we have now) is 3 hours. --134.171.184.3 (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this necessary?
"It is tied with a 1906 Ecuadorian earthquake as the seventh strongest earthquake ever recorded, and far more forceful than the 7.0 Mw 2010 Haiti earthquake." This is true of many earthquakes, not least the Haiti one, it is only mentioned because it was the most recent, but thats just for 2010 What about people looking at this article ten years from now?(Aurumpotestasest (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
 * If the claim is OK at the moment but may become dated/irrelevant in future, perhaps we could keep the claim now and remove it when it ceases to be OK.
 * However, I'd object on a different angle, which is that there's more than one way to measure "strength" of an earthquake (shaking intensity? energy release?) and neither of those may have been measured as accurately in 1906 as they are today (off the top of my head I suspect we're comparing apples with oranges anyway). Perhaps it would be better to say that the strength is similar to the 1906 earthquake, rather than tied.
 * bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the comparison to the 1906 Ecuador quake is at all relevant, I tried removing it but it got put back twice and I didn't want to start an edit war over it. There are several earthquakes that have similar estimated magnitudes and we don't know what sort of uncertainty is involved with this particular historic one - it could include some early instrumental data, but even then the error range is likely to be large. I just don't see what the reader gains from knowing that there was a similar one 104 years. Mikenorton (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

============================= ==

Причины землетрясения в Чили ,магнитудой 8.8 балла происшедшего 27 февраля в 06:34:41 по UTC. Представлены в сообщении # 99 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=75 Ядро земли, ЭМПоле ядра земли, мониторинг землетрясений. От автора Арсеньева Алексея Россия г.Арсеньев.

77.34.186.156 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe i've misread (can somebody contribute a good translation), but are you really proposing that tidal movements caused reversals in the earth's magnetic field and a major earthquake? If so, I'd like to see a much better source... bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No WP:OR please. — <font style="color:#000080;">Cargoking <font style="color:#f9f9f9;background:#000000;"> talk
 * If that's what it said, it should not be included here, but at a Fringe article, should such an article exist (the one for the last earthquake (Haiti) disappeared after alot of debate). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Biobío Region
The earthquake was in Biobío Region not in the Maule Region. Edit Please.--Inocentemente (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aparently, it was on the border of both.--86.29.140.181 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Map
Update?--86.29.140.181 (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * what's the point? As I understand, how the toll was climbing. Is that needed?-- DA I (Δ) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
1 dead and 2 injered by a after shock in Brazil / --86.29.140.181 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article
Can someone create a Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake ? This would ease updating by having separate sections, without paragraphs running all together with different dates and confusion of what occurred when. (The last quake has the article Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake)

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami arrival times table
This looks a bit unwieldy. Perhaps it could be summarized? --John (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aftershocks
5 aftershocks above magnitude 6 so far - JVG (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A map of aftershocks with magnitude >6 has been prepared over at OpenStreetMap; see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Chile_20100227_earthquake_epicentres_with_imagery_boundary.png --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No clear foreshocks present, as far as I can tell. 3 weeks earlier, ht tp://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_skbc_l.html

Request for international help has been stated by the officials, someone cited in the television news 84.231.52.25 (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Humberto Suazo scores in Spain
please add to "Response" to show his tribute to Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.107 (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010

Not done: The article doesn't have an appropriate section for this gesture of symbolic support. Celestra (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Northwestern vs Northeastern
The Pacific Northwest of America is actually the coastal region of Northeastern Pacific Ocean. Not sure whether "Northwestern Pacific" is appropriate, especially when Hawaii is included. Qrfqr (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be Northwestern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.108.59 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Relief aircraft crash
This aircraft accident fails WP:AIRCRASH, but may be worth mentioning in this article as the aircraft was being operated in connection with the relief effort following the earthquake. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

500 times stronger than Haiti earthquake
In the last line of the text of this article, "50 times more forceful" should be "500 times more forceful," according to the information in the Wikipedia article on moment magnitude scale.

Don Page Professor of Physics University of Alberta don@phys.ualberta.ca

129.128.7.129 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed it. Thanks, I meant to correct that days ago (see 'Destructive power' section further up the page). If anyone needs a source for this (I don't see why, it's just simple maths), the figure is quoted in this BBC story here . Mikenorton (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Chile earthquake
The earthquake was ofcorse was upsetting and a lot of people have died and some ......well badly injured,lost families friends.they are not half as bad as Haiti as they had very poor buildings and Chile had well built buildings....they said no to our help so what ore can we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.83.63 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Building fell over, not collapsed
That almost new building in Concepcion fell over sideways and broke into two large pieces. It didn't pancake down floor on floor. government representatives have said there will be an investigation into the building's construction. Many other buildings suffered ground floor or foundation failures, causing them to lean but not fall completely onto their sides.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation tags are all off by one number
All the note tags are one number off from their links. For example, [4] links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chile_Earthquake#cite_note-reuters_1-3 Every one is off by one like that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Split off tsunami
Perhaps we should split off the tsunami into a separate article? __meco (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For an ongoing situation, let's spend the space. Let's have it BOTH here and perhaps in a separate section.  The limiting factor is that we don't want to run too much past 100KB any one article.  Cool Nerd (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The tsunami does not seem to be nearly as notable as the earthquake itself; it should probably remain as part of the earthquake article. Right now people are adding a lot of detail because events are still unfolding across the Pacific.  It may be reasonable to pare down the less important facts about the tsunami in order to provide more balance to the article.  In a couple of weeks it will become more clear what is an important fact and what is not.  Ketone16 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When the tsunami hits, it will then meet WP:NOTABLE for an article on its own.--122.57.95.69 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The tsunami had already hit several locations by the time the original suggestion was made.  Ketone16 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's also valuable to include projections, as long as the projections are from reputable news sources, government agencies, maybe quotes and projections directly from scientists, etc. Now, if we are looking for the "best" information, that is a perfectionist trap.  I suggest that instead we lower our standard to merely good information, and we revise it as we go along.  And that last part is key, we stick with the story, and a number of different editors updates it as we go along.   Cool Nerd (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if an asteroid is on a collision course with the Earth, per wiki rules, we can only have an article about it after it hits ? ! ?  Cool Nerd (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chile Tsunami
Please, a huge tsunami destroyed many cities and towns. There should be more information abaout that instead of the fake threats of tsunami in hawaii and other places. The 2010 Chile Tsunami has destroyed almost completaly the cities of Talcahuano and Dichato (in Greater Concepción), Constitucion (in Cauquenes Province), and Pelluhue city and Curanipe (in Talca Province), Iloca and Duao (in Curicó Province), San Juan Bautista, Chile (in Juan Fernandez Islands) among other places. There are many deaths and total devastation in the building. Please write more about this. This is a main subject in the catastrophe. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that this tsunami has affects thousands of kilometres away from the source. Now what in my mind is important is with such a large shake, is where has all the energy gone? In Christchurch, New Zealand we had an approx 2m surge and near the source, a 2.6m wave in the Valparaíso, Chile. Historically in the 1868 1877 and 1960 Arica tsunamis the run up height in Arica was in the order of 25m where as 13 hours later when the tsunami arrived here in Christchurch, NZ the heights were in the order of 2.5m to maybe 3m. Now the quake depth is 55km which could account for some of the discrepancy, but for all of it? --[user: ngatimozart] 07:14 2 March 2010 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngatimozart (talk • contribs) 07:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen and read, there should indeed be much more in the article on the effects of the earthquake on Chile, especially the tsunami that hit the coastline of Chile near where the earthquake struck. That should really be the focus of this article, not the tsunami warning across the Pacific and the wave heights thousands of kilometres away. I'll suggest some sources below in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional Source
had a colleague send this ref to me, Ihavent had time to read through this entire wiki article here, but, a recent journal published last year in Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 175 (2009) 78–85 by Ruegg et al Interseismic strain accumulation measured by GPS in the seismic gap between Constitución and Concepción in Chile did predict a magnitude earth quake in chile of magnitude 8-8.5 in the near future saying Therefore, in a worst case scenario, the area already has a potential for an earthquake of magniutude as large as 8-8.5, should it happen in the near future. If you guys want to use that for this article it seems as though this paper provides some interesting forsight into the event (if it hasnt already been cited). Ill leave this source though to more experienced hands with this article. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The area of the recent rupture has been identified for a while now as a seismic gap. If we add anything, we need to be careful not to make it sound like a prediction. Mikenorton (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Church mass
Removed the very short (one sentence) section regarding a church holding a mass. I'm sure at least one church would do this for every disaster in history, so it's not really worth a mention. Furthermore, it was uncited. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Risk for large aftershocks in effect
There have been about 50 aftershocks over the richter scale of 5, the largest was 7.0 on March 1st...and any future aftershock in that level can cause even further damage and a low to moderate risk for tsunamis in the Pacific coasts (more likely in South America, probably to the north in North America). + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth axis shifted
Is this information any useful in the article ? Krenakarore (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody add this to the article?
The center of the city of Talca was compared to a bombed area by El Mercurio on March 1.

According to El Mercurio people in Rancagua fear to not be priorized in the rescue and resoration of basic services efforts.

Prison escapes and riots
In the prison of El Manzano in Concepción a prison riot begun after a failed escape atempt by the interns. Diferent part of the prison were set on fire and the riot was only controlled after the guards shot into the air and recieved help from military units.

In Chillán prison guards captured 36 of 203 prisioners that had escaped following the earthquake. During the escape prisioners burned 7 houses close to the prison. A witness in Chillán asserts that he was robbed by prisoners with a machine gun and that they also forced his girlfriend to kiss them. Another witness declares to have been sexualy molested by around 20 men, who are believed to be escaped prisioners. The sitiation in Chillán was described as being like the Wild West by El Mercurio Chiton magnificus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to Geodata for Chile Earthquake
For the external links section:

http://cegrp.cga.harvard.edu/chile/

GIS data for relief and reconstruction efforts, free for all non-commercial use.

thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.156.72 (talk • contribs) 4 March 2010


 * Done, with this edit.


 * Next time you write a message on a discussion page, please 'sign your name' with ~, thanks.  Chzz  ►  19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Tsunami warning was not issued
The section on tsunami in the article says, in its first sentence, that Peru and Chile were the first in issuing the tsunami warning. This is innacurate: in Chile the authorities did not issue a tsunami warning after the earthquake, but on the contrary: it was mistakenly informed that there was no danger of tsunami. Later on the Minister of Defense acknowledged the mistake. Apparently there was a confusion in the communication between offices of the Chilean Navy and the National Office of Emergencies. Most people along the coast who ran away to higher grounds did it on their own innitiative and judgement. Due to lack of communication with the affected zones, the authorities were for hours unaware of the devastation on the coastal villages, towns and resorts. Claudiodib (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chile and Peru don't issue the warnings on their own, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center does, it is the up to gov'ts to heed or ignore the warnings. Chile and Peru were the first in the warned area but the tsunami hit the coast faster than the news spread. JZTess (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian response
The following is inaccurate and could lead to some misinterpretations like the editorial of the Washington Post some days ago, which insinuated an arrogance that wasn't such:

Main article: Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake

Despite Chilean president Michelle Bachelet's earlier statement that Chile did not need international aid,[46]

The cited link (in spanish) says the following:

"La mandataria dijo que "por el momento no necesitamos ayuda internacional" "

This means that "Temporarily, we won't be needing any help". She never dismissed the international help; it wasn't clear at the time how great the impact was and what was required.

I recommend an edit such as the following:

Despite Chilean president Michelle Bachelet's earlier statement that Chile did not need international aid AT THE TIME, UNTIL A CLEAR ACCOUNT OF THE DAMAGES WAS MADE, etc[46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Featuredman (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing to increase rescue efforts?! URGENT
Please, someone edit this page's first paragraphs in order to look somewhat more like Haiti's earthquake wikipedia page. The first thing people do when they hear about a catastrophe is look it up on websites such as the BBC, CNN, and Wikipedia. You would be doing Chile a great favor if you guys decided to change this page a bit. Even though this earthquake was so much stronger than the one in Haiti, Chileans still aren't getting the relief we need. Changing this Wikpedia page is a step in the right direction. This page could make people aware of the real nightmare chileans are going through. I understand that Haiti needs help, but we need help too! We haven't even reached our 250,000 dollar goal, while Haiti has recieved over 1 billion dollars in support. I am just asking you guys to write something like, "Within the next 24 hours, 67 aftershocks were recorded" and things like that because Haiti's page has a lot more 'shocking' info. Well, I hope you guys understand what I'm asking for and don't get too mad at me :) Thanks! 200.119.230.172 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Death toll discrepancy
The source in the beginning of the article states that the president has confirmed 723 deaths, however the info box on the right declares 795, which is a substantially large discrepancy. Request this be addressed. Stewie K ]] 00:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are more than 800 confirmed deaths at march, 3. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the info box tells now that the death toll is 279. We all know that there were more than 800 deads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.230.97.184 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted death toll
The Chilean government has adjusted the death toll from 802 to 279, without giving an explanation. This should probably be taken account of in the article. Lampman (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. They did give an explanation: many people who were missing were mistakenly reported as dead. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually 279 is the number of identified bodies. They think they have another 300 or so bodies and another 200 or so missing that were mistakenly added to reach the previous number of 802. Right now it is all a mess. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for tsunami effects on Chile
Some sources I found for the effects of the tsunami on Chile: I don't have time to add these to the article, but there does need to be a lot more in the article on this as details emerge as more is reported about this. There will be other news stories already published and others still to be published. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chile earthquake: Two minutes of death and destruction – then tsunami hits a paralysed nation (Guardian - 28/02/2010)
 * Unravelling the Chilean Tsunami (Times Online - 01/03/2010)
 * Chile: Prepared for the Quake but Not the Tsunami (TIME - 01/03/2010)
 * Desperation Grows in Devastated Southern Chile (Wall Street Journal - 02/03/2010)
 * Tsunami sweeps away entire towns on Chilean coast (Associated Press - 02/03/2010)
 * Anyone? I'll do this if no-one has time, but is anyone following the talk page and actively editing this article? Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdated tag
I've put the outdated tag in the article because article maintenance is flagging down seriously: Info hasn't been updated and/or added. It seems we're not even trying, whereas the Haiti earthquake article seemed to be updated every minute during the first 2 weeks. People, Chile may be more developed than Haiti, but that doesn't mean the Chilean events less notable. For those of us who speak Spanish, let's use the Spanish article as a foundation to expand the English article.Caleiva (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a timeline article, Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you suggest some specific instances of outdated information you'd like to see removed or updated?--<font style="color:#333333"> Pontificalibus  (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other talk page sections above. See here for example. There are other sections asking for updates as well. My theory as to what happened here is that the page semi-protection meant that IPs were put off editing here, and that while there were a few dedicated editors willing to devote time to this in the initial few days, those editors are less active here now and the article is suffering because of this. Maybe post at the earthquake wikiproject to find people willing to do some serious work on the article and address the issues? Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i adjusted the comparison to the haitian earthquake
A quake of magnitude 8.8 is less than 100 times as powerful as one of 7.0, a quake of 9.0 would be exactly 100 times more powerful than the haitian quake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.126.93 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's a discussion on looting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.59.75 (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Magnitudes are log base 32 (to be precise: 10^1.5), not log 10.--190.161.142.101 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Another earthquake"
I support moving the article to the more specific February name, but to clarify the edit summary, I've seen today's tremblor being spoken of as a significant aftershock, not a separate earthquake. Abrazame (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The USGS are treating it as separate, as it did not occur on the subduction interface, but most likely within the subducting Nazca Plate on the basis of a preliminary analysis. Mikenorton (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are alot of earthquakes in Chile, even in February. If you wanted a better name, it would be something like 3:30am 27 February 2010 Maule earthquake that caused a tsunami ; as it is 2010 Chile earthquake can easily be interpreted as the most prominent Chilean earthquake of 2010, which, at 8.8 is definitely almost certainly going to be the most prominent. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I thank Mikenorton for the link, clearing up the misimpression given by early news reports I had read. I take the anon's point and those raised below, and I redact my statement of support of the article move.  Nobody searching for the March quake would forget the February one and simply type "2010...", while the impact of the subsequent quake does not seem enough to justify a disambig hurdle for those searching for the February 27 quake.  Abrazame (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
February 2010 Chile earthquake → ? —
 * This was moved without a WP:RM from 2010 Chile earthquake to February 2010 Chile earthquake, with the reasoning that another quake occurred on March 11. But several quakes occurred in Chile in February, and I don't see why it matters if another quake happened on 11 March, on the naming of this article, since this is most likely the most prominent Chilean quake of the year, or even the decade; and this article already covers several earthquakes that are aftershocks of the 8.8, some of which occurred in March. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the March 11 quake is at March 2010 Chile earthquake. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back to 2010 Chile earthquake as this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back to 2010 Chile earthquake, since most of the traffic will point to that page, and it is not necessary to have a disambiguation page for the two shocks. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back to 2010 Chile earthquake, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back to 2010 Chile earthquake, there are other earthquakes where a large shock has occurred within the aftershock area, but was not a true aftershock, which has still been covered within the single article. I see no reason not to do that here. Mikenorton (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back and merge with March article, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Abrazame (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move back, neutral on merge. -- Avenue (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ I've moved it back per WP:SNOW. Though I haven't merged it, whether the merge happens can be sorted out later, I'm neutral on that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake
Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake was deleted at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 1 - but I don't see how consensus was achieved, and no administrator's decision comment was added to quote some policy to override the discussion that occurred. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was an outrageous stitch-up by a dodgy cabal. Ongoing discussion here: Deletion_review/Log/2010_March_15. Ericoides (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The category was restored and the decision was overturned. The category now needs to be repopulated. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate to add articles to the category that do not even mention the earthquake on the article itself... which someone is now adding to articles that don't mention the earthquake at all... 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 pandemic flu in the quake zone
According to Xinhua, there's been Mexican Flu detected in the quake zone. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its only a single case, so it doesn't seem particularly relevant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Juan Fernandez Islands tsunami height
Hi. The tsunami height of the Juan Fernandez Islands, particularly at Robinson Crusoe Island should be included inthe tsunami arrival table, but I don't have the exact time of arrival. Initial estimates were of a 40-metre tsunami, but later reports indicated 3 metres. The Times Online source appears to be adequate as an individual ref for this height but we need an arrival time. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The NGDC catalogue list of run-up heights gives 5.0 m for Robinson Crusoe Island but unfortunately does not include a travel time. Mikenorton (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

29 March quake
We have an article, 2010 Biobío earthquake, for a 6.7 quake in mid-March, but there was a 6.1 on 29th March in Biobio... 

76.66.192.73 (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

причины землетрясения в Чили
Причины землетрясения на Гаити ,магнитудой 7.1 балла происшедшего 12 января 2010 года в 21:53:10 по UTC. Представлены в сообщении #86 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=75 Причины землетрясения в Чили ,магнитудой 8.8 балла происшедшего 27 февраля в 06:34:41 по UTC. Представлены в сообщении # 99 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=75 Причины землетрясения в Мексике, магнитудой 7.2 балла происшедшего 4 апреля 22:40:48 по UTC. Представлены в сообщении #188 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=175 также определены солнечно-земные связи и реальная работа по прогнозу ЗМТ. Ядро земли, ЭМПоле ядра земли, мониторинг землетрясений. От автора Арсеньева Алексея Россия г.Арсеньев. 86.102.36.249 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chili Earthquake
I question the authenticity of the top picture associated with this article. There appears to be too much of the building that remains undamaged for the building to also have split apart and tilted so wildly. There is even unbroken glass which would seem impossible for that to be in a building that underwent such an upheaval. There is also a website on the wall in front of the building, which is either coincidence or proof of a fraudulent picture.

Will Bell Will Bell (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick check of google images turns up many pictures of the same building from different angles. It looks entirely genuine. Mikenorton (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is genuine. Diego Grez (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

does source 29 works?
It doesn't work for me --Bogdanno (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

About the section Food Scarcity
I dont know who was the person that realized that food is Beer. The only thing that food scarcity talks about is about the lack of sufficient beer for the population. Are you serious? I say that whole section be deleted until actual sources verifying Scarcity in actual food are found130.245.231.230 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted --Keysanger 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

GOPE
GOPE is a special force of the Chilean police and indeed they were there. But all available police forces were there. --Keysanger 16:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Death table illegible
The tables with the Death toll are illegible and the sortable function doesn't work. I deleted it and put the Spanish one. --Keysanger 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criminal Prosecution
Perhaps a part should be added regarding the current criminal investigation and prosecution against Carmen Fernández, then head of ONEMI, and even former President Michelle Bachelet, led by the Chilean justice. It's cause relates to the lack of issuing the tsunami warning to the population and other matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.232.61 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on 2010 Chile earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100322191939/http://earthquake.usgs.gov:80/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010twam.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010twam.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629022435/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100227/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_chile_earthquake_9 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100227/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_chile_earthquake_9
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131017033437/http://ntwc.arh.noaa.gov/index.html to http://ntwc.arh.noaa.gov/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716131138/http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/85695562.html to http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/85695562.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120307201704/http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=342&Itemid=1TSUNAMI to http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=342&Itemid=1TSUNAMI
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110712215615/http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20100227&Kategori=BREAKING01&Lopenr=100227022&Ref=AR&Show=0 to http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20100227&Kategori=BREAKING01&Lopenr=100227022&Ref=AR&Show=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100303045651/http://www.vcstar.com:80/news/2010/feb/27/Ventura-county-gets-a-surge-but-no-damage/? to http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/feb/27/Ventura-county-gets-a-surge-but-no-damage/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)