Talk:2013 Balochistan earthquakes

New island
seabed rising created new island according to Reuters - I don't know if it has a name yet or any more info, but probably worth a little digging. EdwardLane (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

6.8 Magnitude aftershock
large magnitude aftershock at 14-20km depth reported here USGS reports a preliminary Magnitude of 6.8, EMSC 7.0 and Geofon 6.6 - nasty. EdwardLane (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no aftershock, it was a separate earthquake--80.187.100.226 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Lukatz

New Shakemap
http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usb000jyiv#shakemap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.226 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

2013 Pakistan earthquake → 2013 Balochistan earthquakes – We would improve on a somewhat generic "Pakistan" title (we have a handful of "#### Pakistan earthquake" articles) and would align with what reliable sources are calling it with this proposed move. We should also specify that there were multiple shocks, as there was a M6.8 aftershock on September 28. The editor who created a move ruckus on September 7 (and that prompted this RM) has created a separate article on that aftershock with a nonstandard title. That article should be deleted, as no one will realistically be searching for it, and its minimal content should be merged here.



These sources (BSSA, Elsevier) are calling it the 2013 Balochistan earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support based on rationale. However, I would note that we can never merge and delete anything, ever. Copyright requires that the source of any merge be retained (usually as a redirect) – and the edit summary upon any merge in both the merge-from source page and merge-to target should each provides links to the other page, with a description of what was done. However, the source page does not need to remain at the original title if it's a implausible malaprop etc., but any move of it to another name, e.g. a far more plausible redirect, should occur before the copyright attribution edit summary is left so it actually points directly at the name where the source history is retained--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Understood, and thank you for the clarification. I misspoke; should not have used the "merge" word. My initial thought was that there's little to retain from that one, including the title. It's enough of a mess that we should delete it altogether and start over with new aftershock content in this article. Dawnseeker2000  19:01, 7 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.