Talk:2020 Petrinja earthquake

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving 2020 Petrinja earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 December 2020.

Wikipedia

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Two different earthquakes[edit]

Dear all, in Croatia on 28th and 29th December was happen two different earthquakes with followed lower earthquakes. This article speak about on 29th Decbmer not 28th December. Best regards, Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, you can use both dates in this article like on hr.wiki but both earthquakes must be mention. Best regards, Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article defines the earlier ones as foreshocks already. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Departamentul pentru Situaţii de Urgenţă"[edit]

Can we have this in English? It's not that special that it couldn't be translated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2491:FC00:447D:DBDC:5230:75A7 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad[edit]

Again, an article is tarted up with the flags, most preceding useless pandering quotes from politicians, making a WP:Quotefarm. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree, we should only include actual assistance, be it financial and/or in the form of rescue teams/equipment on the ground, rather than just fine words. Mikenorton (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a brief look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes#Recognized content indicates that this list format with flags is not the standard for good earthquake articles. There are some good earthquake articles where there are tables and flags, but that's not the same as this. And the empty content complaint can be addressed under WP:NOT#NEWS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the apparent consensus about the flags discussed here, but was met by reverts from a combative anonymous user. I don't know if they have any actual support, certainly until it's voiced here in anything resembling proper process, I don't consider these reverts valid and will continue to revert them as WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

epicenter coordinates[edit]

This is apparently a rehash of Talk:2020 Zagreb earthquake :) the Croatian Seismological Survey this time published their estimate of coordinates rather quickly and explicitly, so it can be cited easily, from e.g. https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/geof/seizmoloska_sluzba/izvjesca_o_potresima?@=1m69w#news_45225

However, I am puzzled by those maps of theirs - their stated 45°24′01″N 16°13′07″E / 45.4002°N 16.2187°E / 45.4002; 16.2187 is consistently shown in their maps - such as https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/_news/52681/29122020.jpg - off by about 10 km to the northwest from what all of our coordinate renderers show, and what is described in other sources (which say the epicenter was near the village of Strašnik, as opposed to near the villages of Vratečko and Slana). I wonder why that is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to the ANSS coords, because the other figures were uncited, but I'm happy to go with those in the link given above, particularly as, in this case, they are explicit and don't have to be estimated off a map. Regarding the apparent differences that you mention, perhaps an e-mail/message to CSS would be worthwhile. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, those coordinates don't match the map at all - I estimate about 45.47, 16.12 from the map. Mikenorton (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, they published a video map of the epicenters, and that one has a different base map and doesn't seem to be off - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSvZhrpIVng&t=49 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better, but still out by about 1 km to the WNW by my estimation. Mikenorton (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But since their intent was to illustrate something on an area of over 1500 km2, a 1km error seems negligible enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that we didn't use it, just surprised to see any discrepancy. Mikenorton (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, they also published another map at https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/geof/seizmoloska_sluzba/potresi_kod_petrinje?@=1m6dc#news_118053 which seems to use another base map (looks like OpenStreetMap), but it covers an even larger area and is not quite detailed enough to discern the specific coordinates, yet it seems much more accurate than the first renders. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity of aftershocks[edit]

Those intensities cited by usgs.gov are based on online reports, and they seem quite questionable to me. There should be some other, more reliable, source for that. For example, how can an earthquake of 4.4 magnitude have an intensity of VI, and earthquake of 4.7 only IV, and both are in the same depth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.188.73 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most intensity data in earthquakes around the globe come from observations by individual members of the public. Where there are seismometers, the direct observation of peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration are normally combined with these more widespread observations to produce definitive intensity maps (isoseismal maps). It's also worth remembering that there is no direct relationship between magnitude and intensity - local ground conditions are important. Mikenorton (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I still think it would be more reasonable to rely on the reports from the Croatian Seismological Survey (https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/geof/seizmoloska_sluzba/izvjesca_o_potresu) which are certainly more accurate. It doesn't make any sense to have media reports about an aftershock which caused panic, and that the intesity of that aftershock on this page is cited as II or III, based on a random online report on the usgs.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.160.231 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 review paper[edit]

Herak, Tomljenović et al have issued a review paper[1] (in Croatian) with details about the focal mechanism, damages, aftershock characteristics, Petrinja fault system etc. There's also a summary on Index.hr[2] (also in Croatian) with updates on features caused by the earthquake such as the Mečenčani sinkhole. This should be a fairly useful source for the article. Daß Wölf 00:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]