This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This series appears to be closely related to volcanic activity. Should this be merged into a possible eruption article or do we continue to integrate volcanism into this? Borgenland (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These earthquakes are actually related to a rifting episode on the entire Reykjanes Peninsula, which, with volcanic eruptions at least, occurs every 600 to 1200 years (I've also read heightened seismicity occurs every 30 years or so on the Peninsula, but without accompanying eruptions) and lasts a couple of centuries. During such a rifting episode, several to all volcanic systems on the Peninsula have eruptions (Reykjanes, Krýsuvík and Brennisteinsfjöll did so in the previous episode in the late 900s and mid 1200s). Fagradalsfjall's 2021, 2022 and 2023 eruptions were part of this, as were swarms which occurred prior to the eruptions beginning late 2019 and inbetween them at both Reykjanes (on its Svartsengi subswarm, as with these earthquakes) and Fagradalsfjall (source). Maybe an article like "2019-present Reykjanes Peninsula rifting episode" or so would be better suited for this, aside from those about individual eruptions or impactful seismic swarms like this one (evacuating an entire town isn't a decision one takes on a whim, I imagine) if warranted and large enough to stand alone from their respective volcanic system article. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the Icelandic Met Office treating its updates in a news thread approach the authors updating this item have got into an archive issue on ref. 1. I count 8 updates since the archive date of 11th November and note multiple use of reference postdating 11th November. The url-status=live has not sorted this out. The active authors (good on you) could see if a manual update of access-date in the reference will work on next significant update of article using this source to get the archive bots to do a fresh job. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Borgenland. 2023 Iceland earthquakes feels good to me. Unless we have a similar size earthquake in December somewhere else or this turns into a volcano eruption. Steinninn12:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this title is very inadequate re. the ongoing volcano-tectonic episode in Iceland / Reykjanes Peninsula.
1) There are lots of earthquake swarms in Iceland every year (at Askja eg. one is ongoing or see also the precursory swarms exactly this summer re. the Fagradalsfjall eruption) and there have been thousands of earthquakes in Iceland in 2023 (as in most years). See eg. this weeky report of the Icelandic Met Office. It says there have been 4000 quakes in the whole country of Iceland only during this special week. https://en.vedur.is/skjalftar-og-eldgos/yfirlit/manudir/weekly-overview-20-26-november-2023-week-47
2) In the meantime, it is clear that the swarm was a precursor of an volcanic eruption, ongoing as we speak.
3) We also had other heavy earthquakes in Iceland this year (over magn. 5 within the precursory swarm of the summer eruption at Fagradalsfjall).
My proposal as a title would be something like "Winter 2023 volcano-tectonic episode on Reykjanes Peninsula, Iceland" (because the summer 2023 erupton at Fagradalsfjall was also a volcano-tectonic episode located on the same peninsula in the south-west of Iceland.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Renaming the Wikipedia page to '2023 Mount Fagradalsfjall Eruption' would be misleading, as the current eruption is occurring within a different volcanic system, namely Eldvörp-Svartsengi. In contrast, the previous three eruptions were indeed part of the Fagradalsfjall volcanic system. A more accurate title would be '2023 Svartsengi Seismic and Volcanic Events.' This title better reflects the location of the magmatic intrusion's source and the proximity of the eruption to the Svartsengi area. Gaggi96 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, news sources outside of Iceland have included minor inaccuracies in their reporting on the volcanic eruption. Importantly, Iceland's main news outlets, RÚV, Vísir, and mbl.is, have not named Fagradalsfjall as the source of the current volcanic activity, as they receive their information directly from scientists. Gaggi96 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the earthquakes can now be considered only a prelude to and/or part of the current eruption, I suggest changing the name of the article to "2023 Svartsengi earthquakes and eruption" to reflect this and also to clarify the location.
UPDATE: I have now copied this article into the Svartsengi article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartsengi. Does everyone here think it looks good / makes sense? If it does then I petition to have this article ("2023 Iceland earthquakes") removed.
The page '2023 Sundhnúkur Eruption' specifically addresses the event itself, while the 'Svartsengi' page provides a general overview of the system as a whole. Therefore, maintaining both pages is crucial for comprehensive coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaggi96 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the earthquakes and the current eruption are best understood as two parts of a single prolonged event. The fagradalsfjall eruptions only got sections in the article on that volcano, not full articles of their own. Either this article should be folded into the one on Svartsengi volcano or the name should be changed to "2023 Svartsengi Earthquakes and Eruption" to clarify the location and also update the type of event. 27skierman (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three previous eruptions, currently only subsections on the Fagradalsfjall page, certainly deserve their own dedicated pages. The name '2023 Svartsengi Earthquakes and Eruption' seems appropriate for this page. It accurately captures the gravity of the situation, marked by the evacuation of the town following over 20,000 earthquakes and a significant land shift of up to one meter, which resulted in a large fissure bisecting the town center. Gaggi96 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah on further thought this makes more sense. I will now work on paring down the copied information on the other article into a brief summary. 27skierman (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Svartsengi volcanic system has had some prior activity. 2400 years ago, this very fissure, Sandhnjúkar, erupted and created the youngest lavafield in the surrounding area. Then inbetween 1210 and 1240 Eldvörp erupted on and off for 30 years. Due to prior eruptions from the very same area, the existance of an power station named after the volcanic system, and there is an prior eruption from this very place, renaming it to Svartsengi is very unwise and unprofessional. The prior eruption from this very place is then the sole reason for having an year in the title. Snævar (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the earthquakes can now be considered only a prelude to and/or part of the current eruption, I suggest changing the name to reflect this. The previous eruptions at Fagradalsfjall were referred to by the initial vent location (Geldingadalur, Litli-Hrútur, etc) so it would make sense to continue that convention here. 27skierman (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. I don't see any problem keeping this article, but create a new article on the Sundhnúkur eruption. The earthquakes had specific consequences, especially to the town of Grindavik, so they are notable for those alone. Any new article on the Sundhnúkur eruption can have a summary on the earthquakes as the prelude to the eruption. At the moment the earthquake article is already rather big, turning it to the eruption article will make it bulkier. We also don't know if this is like the Fagradalsfjall eruptions which continued to erupt every year, but that is a possibility, and that can make the article extremely bulky if the full earthquake coverage is included. Some scientists believe that the Reykjanes peninsula is undergoing a fresh phase of volcanic eruptions that may continue for decades or even centuries. This eruption is linked to Svartsengi system, and how any article on the eruption is named can be the subject of another discussion in the future depending on what happens to the eruption. Note also that the "eruption" in the title should not be capitalized. Also it may be better not to use "eruption" and the year at all should this turns out to be a long term series of eruptions, like Kīlauea, but that can be decided later. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with an process that would follow your wishes, the article still would be moved to the eruption. Local scientists have agreed since the 2010 Fimmvörðuháls eruption that even earthquakes of magnitude less than 4 still contribute towards an fissure eruption, and this is an fissure eruption. For these earthquakes the local scientists measured movements of the land and did sub ground checks that showed them that there is a link between the earthquakes and the magma moving underground. Your comment does not make any difference. Snævar (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That movement of magma is linked to the earthquake is irrelevant as far as notability of Wikipedia articles goes. The earthquakes are by themselves notable due to the effect on Grindavik. It is entirely possible to have multiple articles on a series of linked events if the individuals events are by themselves notable enough for a separate article, and merging them would create excessively large article. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. These events are related enough that they should be in the same article and the title should relate to the larger event, which is the eruption. Steinninn13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but eruption needs to be lowercase. The earthquakes were the prelude to the eruption and were caused by the buildup preceding the eruption. JM (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's crucial to note that the town was evacuated due to severe earthquakes that effectively tore the town apart, causing damages amounting to approximately 10 billion ISK. Additionally, it's worth noting that, as of now, the eruption itself has not caused any damage. Therefore, I propose that we incorporate the word 'earthquakes' in the title. The suggested new title would be '2023 Sundhnúkur Earthquakes and Eruption'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaggi96 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also for moving the article and why don't we just call it a volcano-tectonic episode like most of the scientists?
By the way, the evacuation had also the big volcanic intrusion for a reason. And the damages to the town came only after the evacuation had taken place. There was fear that an eruption could start in the middle of the town of Grindavík, and for a cause, as the last Fagradalsfjall eruptions always started more or less above the respective dikes.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the name to "2023 Sundhnúkur earthquakes and eruption". "Iceland" is not nearly a specific enough location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27skierman (talk • contribs)
Map of 2023 Iceland earthquakes and eruption (map data)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a preliminary plan for the protective barrier intended to shield the Blue Lagoon and Svartsengi Power Station.
The file currently in § Barrier construction doesn't cite any sources and appears to be OR. I've also scanned the references in the paragraph and the ones following it, and I can't find any descriptions for the layout of the image created. But I'm happy if someone proves my reference analysis wrong, please {{ping}} me.
I want to be clear that I'm not commenting on the quality of the image, I'm okay with accurate and verifiable info being presented as is, and although it would be nice with a better quality image, the quality isn't my concern and was not the basis for my challenge.
@MicrobiologyMarcus Hello, and thank you for your comment. I realize now that I mistakenly presented the image as my own creation. In fact, it is an image provided by the Icelandic government. Could we possibly update the image to reflect its public domain status? Gaggi96 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaggi96: I'm not familiar with the commons but provided it was released by the Icelandic government to public domain, that should be simple. Keep in mind that not all governments release their publications to the public domain, so it's best to check first. If they don't, the image should be deleted and rehosted on Wikipedia with a free-use rationale instead.(Update: It appears that government works in Iceland are public domain. So just be sure to provide the source of the document from the government) If it is public domain, you can edit the section on the commons website, under source include the link you found and under author you can specify the government or agency who released it. The commons template commons:Template:Information should have more information on proper linking and attribution. Once it's completed there, it can be included here; my preference would be to also include a sentence with a link to the source of the information that's described in our article, not just on commons, that will help the reader identify the information. microbiologyMarcus(petri dish·growths)16:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the eruption section removed with all the important details???? Now we’re left with the earthquake section which would make this title moot. Borgenland (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneEdgar:@Borgenland:@Alvaldi:@Askeuhd: The introduction days:『Sundhnúkur is a crater row and currently active volcanic fissure...』This is wrong. Sundhnúkur is a gentle peak (elevation 134m) north of Hagafell, and not far from Sundhnúkur to the north, a crater row called『Sundhnúkagígaröðin』(Sundhnúkur crater row) starts, trending in NNE direction past Stóra-Skógfell. Check out https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1222844626
It's the same problem as with Litli-Hrútur, a hill close to the previous eruption (but not Litli-Hrútur itself erupted, just a previously unnamed spot in a plain nearby). --Kuhni74 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to ask how far did the false claims spread? Because if the claims did not spread as far as the COVID-19/5G claims, then I am not sure if we should keep the section there. --Minoa (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Minoa, I don't think it needs to be there. Is a re-telling of an inaccurate climate-change-denial talking point relevant to mention on the page for every volcanic eruption on earth? Every volcanic eruption that makes major news websites will have at least one random social media comment repeating this misinformation. In almost every case, some fact-checking website will write an easy article, or we could reference one of the many existing sites which refute this misinformation in the general case, and then we'll have a duplicate, irrelevant "misinformation" section on the wikipedia article for every notable volcanic eruption. The reported misinformation is not about this eruption, it's about all volcanic eruptions. Unless the prevelance of the misinformation, or the harm casued by it, is notable in the specific case of the particular eruption, I don't see what it adds to the article. Akkadrowe (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sundahnúkar system has started erupting again [7]. The content and the name of the article should probably be updated accordingly. Perhabs 2023-2024 Sundhnúkur eruption? Alvaldi (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate missing presumed death was not an event of 13th as first reports much earlier this week so I have deleted sentence. Incident mentioned elsewhere on page with another earlier date. Can I suggest even this date needs verification as I am aware of Icelandic English language sources that say incident was unwitnessed.ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article uses this term a fair bit and it seems to be multiplying. Often used loosely by popular news sources or even some science communicators to imply scientific credibility to a statement when none exists. Should article not be worked through to see if its a weasel word in context or if alternatives would read better as three or four significantly in about 50 words does not read well, especially when some statements quote numbers but the inline references used give no hint of statistical testing ? ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DonebyUser:Prioryman in Feb 2024. --Kuhni74 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
