Talk:2010 Pichilemu earthquakes

merge
an aftershock - should be merged -- DA I (Δ) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

no its a different earthquake 78.184.32.58 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AFTERSHOCK. Read sources  -- DA I  (Δ) 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so sure about clear aftershock nature: says "almost certainly occurred as the result of the change of regional stress caused by the February 27 earthquake", but then "however, imply that the March 11 shocks occurred as the result of normal faulting within the subducting Nazca plate or the overriding South America plate, unlike the February 27 earthquake". Suggest to wait with merge until geological analysis comeplete. --190.161.142.101 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be merged, it's a different earthquake. 78.2.98.205 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * 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: page moved. December21st2012Freak  Happy St. Patrick's Day! 02:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010 Chile earthquake → 2010 Pichilemu earthquake — Please move it to 2010 Pichilemu earthquake, it was specified by Chilean news media later, read: http://www.elrancahuaso.cl/admin/render/noticia/22248 http://www.el-carabobeno.com/p_pag_not.aspx?art=a120310i02&id=t120310-i02  http://www.chile.com/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=118476 http://24horas.cl/videos.aspx?id=63158 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.134.84 (talk) 09:35, March 14, 2010


 * The correct process would be to post a formal request. Please go to Requested moves and follow the instructions there. -- &oelig; &trade; 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2010 Pichilemu earthquake has the correct information about this earthquake. --190.110.135.109 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

http://24horas.cl/videos.aspx?id=63158
 * Support.-- DA I (Δ) 20:52, 14 March 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.

Mercalli
¿X Mercalli? :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.176.61 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It reached X Mercalli magnitude in Navidad, and Pichilemu, at least. Diego Grez (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just changed the shake map to one that, although less clear in some ways, shows various cities and gives a key to the colours using the Mercalli scale. This shows that intensities reached about X on that scale in the epicentral region. Mikenorton (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! Diego Grez (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on 2010 Pichilemu earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010tsa6/download/stationlist.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elmorrocotudo.cl/admin/render/noticia/24777
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://diario.elmercurio.com/2010/03/12/nacional/nacional/noticias/3394A796-6B3E-4073-9E0C-DC0C642887DC.htm?id=%7B3394A796-6B3E-4073-9E0C-DC0C642887DC%7D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2010/03/05/401804/dos-sismos-sobre-5-grados-richter-sacudieron-la-zona-central.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/raga/v67n3/v67n3a11.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213071803/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010tsa6.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010tsa6.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sismologia.cl/events/sensibles/2010/03/20100311143929.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://latercera.com/contenido/680_261687_9.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://radio.uchile.cl/noticias/72407/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://radiopolar.com/noticia_45169.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/11/chile-pinera-idUSN1119348920100311
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/11/chile.earthquake/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-12&NewsID=84245&BodyID=0&PaginaId=24
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-12&NewsID=84245&BodyID=0&PaginaId=23
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://diario.elmercurio.com/2010/03/12/nacional/_portada/noticias/8A2434C1-D813-408D-9C44-A2AE2C5C0B26.htm?id=%7B8A2434C1-D813-408D-9C44-A2AE2C5C0B26%7D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-12&NewsID=84159&BodyID=0&PaginaId=33
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?EQ_0=4722&t=101650&s=8&d=22%2C26%2C13%2C12&nd=display
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sismologia.cl/events/sensibles/2010/05/02-1452-40L.S201005.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sismologia.cl/events/sensibles/2010/09/29-1629-53L.S201009.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lanacion.cl/terremoto-del-27-f-ha-tenido-8-500-replicas-en-chile/noticias/2013-02-23/132652.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Two earthquakes
There were two earthquakes on 11 March 2010 within 15 minutes of each other, the first being Mw 6.9, the second Mw 7.0 (note that one published paper reverses those numbers, but all seismologists agree that they were of similar magnitude). No-one reading this article would be able to work that out I think. The article should be renamed to 2010 Pichilemu earthquakes. The earthquakes have similar focal mechanisms and are clearly related to each other. The faults that moved are probably connected at depth and were both triggered by stress changes associated with the 2010 Maule event. The two most recent journal papers that cover this refer to them as the largest events within a seismic sequence - Crustal extensional faulting triggered by the 2010 Chilean earthquake: The Pichilemu Seismic Sequence and Seismological analyses of the 2010 March 11, Pichilemu, Chile Mw 7.0 and Mw 6.9 coastal intraplate earthquakes. Rewriting the article to include the two earthquakes will take a bit of work, but it should be done to match the available sources. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Now renamed and I'm part way through a rewrite to match what the published sources say. I will also rename the "Geology" section to "Earthquake sequence", as it's mostly about seismology, not geology. Mikenorton (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The two earthquakes are generally regarded as aftershocks of the 27 February earthquake e.g. Ryder et al. 2012 "Large extensional aftershocks in the continental forearc triggered by the 2010 Maule earthquake, Chile", Farias et al. 2011, quoting from the introduction "Instead, the largest aftershocks, Mw=6.9 and Mw= 7.0, occurred within 15 min of each other on 11 March 2010", Ruiz et al. 2014 refer to "These two shallow, coastal, intraplate aftershocks at the northern edge of the rupture area of the 2010 Maule mega-thrust earthquake", Aron et al. 2013 state "Some of the largest aftershocks of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake in central Chile were nucleated on upper plate normal faults, including the Mw 6.9 and 7.0 events of the Pichilemu earthquake sequence.". Whatever was said at the time, the current consensus amongst seismologists is clear that these were aftershocks and the text will be amended accordingly. Mikenorton (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, the two sources used to suggest that it wasn't an aftershock turn out to say that they were in fact aftershocks, just not on the plate interface. Mikenorton (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)