Category talk:Seismic faults of California: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:53, 1 June 2008 editVolcanoguy (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers106,067 edits add {{Earthquake category}} tag← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:18, 2 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,881,206 editsm -redundant class params (3); cleanupTag: AWB
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	{{Earthquake category}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Southern California\|class=NA~~}}		{{WikiProject Earthquakes}}
	{{WikiProject ~~California\|class=NA~~}}		{{WikiProject Geology}}
			{{WikiProject California\|southerncalifornia=yes\|sfba=yes}}
	{{SFBA Project\|class=NA}}
			}}

			== Should there be an integrated treatment of these faults? ==

			Should there be an integrated treatment of these "seismic faults of California"? Currently there is only piecemeal treatment of some 50 faults, many of these just bare-bones stubs, and no consideration of how these are more notable than the other two hundred or so faults in California. (I grant that the awareness of Misplaced Pages editors is a rough measure of public notability, and even of public interest. But susceptible to being skewed by individual's particular interest.) Nor is there anything relating these in an overall view.

			As an example I submit what I did at ], which provides a comprehensive regional view of the notable faults, along with aspects common to all. Strong caveat: the California faults are so much more numerous, even if partitioned into northern and southern, that the same approach is probably not quite quite workable. But is there some other approach that might work?

			Related to this is also the question of whether there should be some criteria of which faults should be included. (Separate discussion?)

			By the way, there is an outstanding resource for three-dimensional views of California faults — see the picture and links at ].

			Comments? - ] (]) 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

			:Should there be? Probably. Will there be? Maybe. It seems the really proper thing to do is to start a Wikiproject, decide on a standard presentation, and slowly upgrade all the articles to meet the standard format. The easier way to do it is to create an infobox which will at least present basic facts about each fault, and in the process of people filling in the blanks, they'll dig up enough material to write a fuller article; the structure of the infobox will at least suggest an article structure, too. I'd be willing to help out with ideas for an infobox, at least. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

			:: Perhaps a WikiProject would be a good way to go. I am unconvinced about the usefulness of an infobox, The "basic facts" are basic enough they could probably be presented in a table, though with some 200 faults that seems unreasonable. But perhaps there could be a suggested outline/format? Which might tie-in with an article that addresses material common to all of these faults. - ] (]) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

			:::I've had a go at a possible format for a ] at ] - just a quick first draft to get feedback. ] (]) 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:18, 2 December 2024

This category does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Earthquakes

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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

Geology

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology

California: San Francisco Bay Area / Southern California

	California portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This category is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.
	This category is supported by Southern California task force.

Should there be an integrated treatment of these faults?

Should there be an integrated treatment of these "seismic faults of California"? Currently there is only piecemeal treatment of some 50 faults, many of these just bare-bones stubs, and no consideration of how these are more notable than the other two hundred or so faults in California. (I grant that the awareness of Misplaced Pages editors is a rough measure of public notability, and even of public interest. But susceptible to being skewed by individual's particular interest.) Nor is there anything relating these in an overall view.

As an example I submit what I did at Puget Sound faults, which provides a comprehensive regional view of the notable faults, along with aspects common to all. Strong caveat: the California faults are so much more numerous, even if partitioned into northern and southern, that the same approach is probably not quite quite workable. But is there some other approach that might work?

Related to this is also the question of whether there should be some criteria of which faults should be included. (Separate discussion?)

By the way, there is an outstanding resource for three-dimensional views of California faults — see the picture and links at Southern California faults.

Comments? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Should there be? Probably. Will there be? Maybe. It seems the really proper thing to do is to start a Wikiproject, decide on a standard presentation, and slowly upgrade all the articles to meet the standard format. The easier way to do it is to create an infobox which will at least present basic facts about each fault, and in the process of people filling in the blanks, they'll dig up enough material to write a fuller article; the structure of the infobox will at least suggest an article structure, too. I'd be willing to help out with ideas for an infobox, at least. Argyriou (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a WikiProject would be a good way to go. I am unconvinced about the usefulness of an infobox, The "basic facts" are basic enough they could probably be presented in a table, though with some 200 faults that seems unreasonable. But perhaps there could be a suggested outline/format? Which might tie-in with an article that addresses material common to all of these faults. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at a possible format for a List of seismic faults of California at User:Mikenorton/sandbox - just a quick first draft to get feedback. Mikenorton (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories: