Talk:October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes

Second stronger earthquake
There was a more stronger Earthquake 2 Hours after.--BangertNo (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2016
October 2016 Italy earthquakes → October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes – the Earthquakes where in Central Italy, having the same style as August 2016 Central Italy earthquake Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wykx  (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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: page moved. Wykx (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2016 (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.

script to generate wikitable
I made User:Itu/script/ingv_quake2wikitable.sh to produce wikitable comfortable and avoid typos.... --Itu (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But dates are wrong... Please correct. Wykx  (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Wykx mentioned, your script has not worked properly. There must be an error at your script's page. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is causing the problem, but you're getting the dates wrong. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry i've fixed that now. Hopefully its ok now. --Itu (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes and August 2016 Central Italy earthquake be merged into 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. I think that the content in the two articles can easily be explained in the context of only one article, since US Geological Survey and INGV (National Geological Institute of Italy) consider it's the same seismic event and same geological system. Geographical area is the same (epicenters are only 15 miles distant eachother), population is the same, it's the same seismic sequence, in reconstruction they will consider just one unique earthquake emergency, there isn't any new foundrising campain, the special earthquake commissioner who manages the emergency is the same. The same situation happened for the 2012 Emilia earthquake, when there were 3 different big shakes, but actually there is just one article. In the italian wiki we are discussing about it, and almost all users are agree to write just one article, orherwise there will be a duplication. Holapaco77 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Opposed: With several months of differences, I think we need to keep two separate articles and keep mentions of chained event in both articles. It's similar to April 2015 Nepal earthquake and May 2015 Nepal earthquake. Wykx  (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Infact, I think Nepal earthquakes could be merged too, since they occurred in only 2 weeks (25 april-12 may = 17 days): as you can see the May 2015 is more or less like a stub and in many parts is just a duplication of April 2015 Nepal earthquakes. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually then you should discuss first in the Nepal earthquakes pages. Wykx  (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Northern Italy earthquakes in 2012, these earthquakes occurred months apart, so I don't think your comparison really applies here. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to this as well - the earthquakes are all clearly related, but that doesn't mean that they have to be covered by a single article. There is a sufficient time gap as Dustin says and we can't always avoid some duplication. Mikenorton (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can read in this table, the seismic sequence was not over after the first shake in august, but every single day since 2 months there were continuos earthquakes and aftershoks in that small area: so I think the article should cover the seismic sequence, not any single shake part of exactly the same event and emergency. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Holapaco77 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aftershocks are common in all seismic areas. As Mikenorton mentioned, sequences are clearly related but main shocks, timing, effects are separated events.  Wykx  (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aftershocks can continue for more than a 100 years after an earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Approve because the experts say so. In the official documents, INGV, the research institute that best knows about earthquakes in Italy, always talk about "seismic sequence" for the quakes from 24 Aug onwards, see for instance this report. Quoting from the report "The seismic sequence began on August 24​th and immediately activated segment of the fault system about 40 km long, the portion north of the epicenter of the Amatrice earthquake was more active than the rest of the fault system. On October 26 a magnitude 5.9 event activated a northernmost segment further 15 km long." There were also many seismologists being interviewed in the Italian press, for instance Gianluca Valensise of INGV, interviewed by Il Sole 24 Ore, said that "the earthquake of Oct 26 is certainly connected to the one of Aug 24: if the former did not happen, the latter would have likely arrived in 10 or 100 years". I urge the merge of the two pages, which by the way, has already taken place in itwiki.--Japs 88 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes that both events are related. But we have two main shocks at several months of interval. Wykx  (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Macroseismic intensity values
There has recently been some to-and-fro editing about the observed seismic intensities. The USGS values are good early estimates of the intensities, but they are not the last word. This paper by Paolo Galli and others reports a detailed survey of damage and intensity levels across the area of the earthquakes. For the 30 October event they give an Io (intensity at the epicentre) value of 11 on the MCS (Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg) scale - another updating of the original Mercalli scale, but a close equivalent of the MMI scale (see here for more details). The Galli et al. paper also gives values for the 24 August earthquake, with an Imax (maximum observed intensity) of 10-11 on the MCS scale. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)