This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile 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 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
Not so sure about clear aftershock nature: [3] 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)[reply]
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 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.
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)[reply]
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]