![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The caption for the photo describes something that isn't evident in the picture. No diverging columns. Tmangray 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Although its magnitude was less than the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, the intensity of shaking experienced in the Hayward area may have been greater than in 1906 due to the proximity of the Hayward Fault." The meaning of this sentence was changed, with the latest edit. The original wording had implied that the 1868 event may have actually been greater than the 1906 event. The original sentence was added by Leonard G., August 22, 2004. There was no source cited, and I cannot find any still. The original claim that "some believe that this earthquake may have in fact been of greater intensity" than 1906 (likely 7.8, in an estimated range of 7.7 to 8.3) is perhaps dubious. Maybe this vague and confusing sentence should just be dropped entirely. Steven Russell 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason "plate tectonics" is spelled with a 'k' in the text of the link?
No, just my usual kind of screw-up. I blew a hard drive containing preferences and now can't figure out to reactivate the spelling checker in my browser. Leonard G. 18:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article should be renamed by dropping the word "zone". The most common, and equally correct name for the fault is simply the Hayward Fault. All faults are "zoned", so the extra word is unnecessary. It is also out of conformity with other articles about other faults. For example, the article on the San Andreas is simply "San Andreas Fault". Tmangray 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The 5.6 magnitude earthquake that occured on Oct 30 2007... did not occur on the Hayward Fault. It occured on the Calaveras fault.
As of the current edition when this was posted, the article uses "major seismic event," "major earthquake," "major events," "major 1868 event," "major Hayward Fault earthquake," "major event," "major segment" and "major regional earthquakes" a total of 19 times without a clear definition of what qualifies as "major." Can the article be edited to more clearly define what constitutes a "major" event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.190.49 ( talk) 09:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The entry states "The 140th anniversary of the 1868 event was in 2008, and the average time between the last five major events is also averaged at 140 years." This is puzzling to me, especially since it is unsourced and un-referenced. All of the supposed earthquakes except the 1868 one would've occurred before any scientific recording or study were available; indeed, literate people didn't arrive in the area until 1769, so a 'quake in c. 1728 could not have been recorded. (OK, it's just possible that native peoples witnessed it and told settlers about it, but I doubt it.) Is there any way to determine geological events in the past with that kind of time-frame accuracy? Can anyone explain how it could be known that 'quakes occurred in c. 1728, c. 1588, c. 1448 and c. 1308? This seems like pure speculation to me. Bricology ( talk) 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The opening paragraph needs extensive rework. Filled with opinion,conjecture, and some just plain odd stuff:
Dcbrc2 ( talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Category talk:Seismic faults of California on whether should be some integrated treatment of all these faults, rather than the current piecemeal approach. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hayward Fault Zone. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The caption for the photo describes something that isn't evident in the picture. No diverging columns. Tmangray 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Although its magnitude was less than the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, the intensity of shaking experienced in the Hayward area may have been greater than in 1906 due to the proximity of the Hayward Fault." The meaning of this sentence was changed, with the latest edit. The original wording had implied that the 1868 event may have actually been greater than the 1906 event. The original sentence was added by Leonard G., August 22, 2004. There was no source cited, and I cannot find any still. The original claim that "some believe that this earthquake may have in fact been of greater intensity" than 1906 (likely 7.8, in an estimated range of 7.7 to 8.3) is perhaps dubious. Maybe this vague and confusing sentence should just be dropped entirely. Steven Russell 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason "plate tectonics" is spelled with a 'k' in the text of the link?
No, just my usual kind of screw-up. I blew a hard drive containing preferences and now can't figure out to reactivate the spelling checker in my browser. Leonard G. 18:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article should be renamed by dropping the word "zone". The most common, and equally correct name for the fault is simply the Hayward Fault. All faults are "zoned", so the extra word is unnecessary. It is also out of conformity with other articles about other faults. For example, the article on the San Andreas is simply "San Andreas Fault". Tmangray 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The 5.6 magnitude earthquake that occured on Oct 30 2007... did not occur on the Hayward Fault. It occured on the Calaveras fault.
As of the current edition when this was posted, the article uses "major seismic event," "major earthquake," "major events," "major 1868 event," "major Hayward Fault earthquake," "major event," "major segment" and "major regional earthquakes" a total of 19 times without a clear definition of what qualifies as "major." Can the article be edited to more clearly define what constitutes a "major" event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.190.49 ( talk) 09:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The entry states "The 140th anniversary of the 1868 event was in 2008, and the average time between the last five major events is also averaged at 140 years." This is puzzling to me, especially since it is unsourced and un-referenced. All of the supposed earthquakes except the 1868 one would've occurred before any scientific recording or study were available; indeed, literate people didn't arrive in the area until 1769, so a 'quake in c. 1728 could not have been recorded. (OK, it's just possible that native peoples witnessed it and told settlers about it, but I doubt it.) Is there any way to determine geological events in the past with that kind of time-frame accuracy? Can anyone explain how it could be known that 'quakes occurred in c. 1728, c. 1588, c. 1448 and c. 1308? This seems like pure speculation to me. Bricology ( talk) 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The opening paragraph needs extensive rework. Filled with opinion,conjecture, and some just plain odd stuff:
Dcbrc2 ( talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Category talk:Seismic faults of California on whether should be some integrated treatment of all these faults, rather than the current piecemeal approach. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hayward Fault Zone. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)