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