Talk:List of earthquakes in California

src: ww4.hdnux.com

Video Talk:List of earthquakes in California

May 2009 Earthquakes

This is absolutely useless. Why is this here? Earthquakes happen all the time here, no big deal. I'd imagine the only reason someone put this nonsense here is because of the hype of the impending "Big One." Newsflash, the "Big One" was supposed to be here decades ago. My grandma told me that when she moved to California in 1964 that they were talking about it then, too.

Roswell created alien hype. Then the Commies were 'a coming. What the f*ck. Take this bull off.--GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, the earthquake did not occur in California. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.91.71 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maps Talk:List of earthquakes in California

2010 Baja California earthquake

The earthquake's epicenter is in Mexico, however, because this was such a large quake so close to the border, and because there were aftershocks in California itself, I think the entry should be included on this list. Until there is a good reason stated otherwise, let's not delete it. Somnlaut (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fault rupture looks like it just managed to extend into California, so it's very much a California earthquake as much as it is Mexico. RapidR (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is to be included then why does the list not include the 1892 earthquake that took place in the same region? The meaning of "in California" in the title isn't well-defined if we take it to indicate something beyond the location of the epicenter. 198.70.193.2 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The earthquake hit California, even if the epicenter was outside the borders. If the 1892 earthquake was similar then let's include it too.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I know enough to suggest a concrete set of guidelines, but perhaps any part of the "fault rupture" overlapping boundaries, beyond just the epicenter, would be a good criteria, since the shaking intensity seems to radiate outward from a line segment rather than a point. Another idea would be to include earthquakes which are felt above a certain intensity in the bounded region. It seems intuitive that earthquakes with a significant impact on the region should be included. If we know enough about the 1892 quake under this criteria, then I see no reason not to include it. Somnlaut (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the 1892 quake. Some research revealed that it was definitely in the same area and strongly felt in San Diego and Los Angeles. USGS calls it the Imperial Valley earthquake, which is the name I decided to keep, although this is at odds with SCEDC and a journal article associated with USGS which call it the 1892 Laguna Salada Earthquake. Interesting similarities between these quakes... Somnlaut (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Magnitude type not specified

The measurement system for Magnitude isn't specified here, so this column doesn't provide a useful or accurate comparison point for these quakes vs. any others. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.210.234 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've added a column for magnitude type. Dawnseeker2000 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

src: 3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net

Forecasts

I have added a link to a new article, California earthquake forecast. And I would suggest a new section in this article (because it is a topic of great public interest) with a brief discussion of earthquake forecasting/prediction. I can suggest some references if anyone is interested. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

7.2 Northern California

How come the 6.8 magnitude earthquake 50 miles west of Eureka was added but the 7.2 earthquake 100 miles west of Eureka, back in 2005 wasn't added?http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2005/usziae/#details I think I might add it.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Request to merge

Request to merge 2014 Eureka Earthquake with another page. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

2014 La Habra, California Earthquake!

No article for the 2014 La Habra Earthquake? Interesting; seeing as total damage is likely to surpass that of the 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake which does have an article.--Subman758 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This earthquake was a 5.1 and should definitely be added! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32C7:9170:9D9E:C39D:6E45:3377 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done The NGDC's significant earthquake database describes the event's effects as "Severe" with 10.8 million in damage. Dawnseeker2000 03:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

src: www.latimes.com

How Big Does a Quake Have to Be?

Does this page really need to list piddly 4.1 quakes? That isn't even a decent-sized aftershock. Should there be some kind of criteria (e.g. magnitude >= 6.0 or a fatality) for a quake to be listed here?

Yes, good question. There needs to be proper selection criteria (see WP:LISTV#INC) that distinguishes notable events from non-notable events. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I've begun adding a footer in our lists that states a minimum inclusion criteria. The encyclopedia should only be mentioning events that had some effects (damage, injuries, or deaths). Dawnseeker2000 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

src: media2.fdncms.com

Focus

Was made aware of list guidelines fairly recently, and realized that the restructuring and content additions that I've been making are off track, and want to post my intentions to get this list focused on the common selection criteria for stand alone lists. That means a healthy amount of content (5,000-7,500 characters) will be removed. The events that were added were of strong to severe intensity, but that doesn't necessarily mean they had impact that was noteworthy, and most of them will be removed. There are some exceptions though, and I'll retain those. The list has become a little unwieldy, so the removal should be good, and closer to being featured content. Dawnseeker2000 03:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

src: www.latimes.com

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

There are several entries in this list that peg their region as "Bay Area". Since the epicenter for the 1906 quake was right off the coast of San Francisco Proper, why is its region listed as "North-Central", as in the border of Northern California and Central California? I would expect "Bay Area" would be the perfect designation, but if there is other extant logic, I'd like to hear it. -:-  AlpinWolf   -:- 04:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The effects of the very large event in 1906 were severe in Northern and Central California (from the North Coast to Monterey Bay). Dawnseeker2000 05:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(Rather belatedly, but in case the question arises again.) "Bay Area" is a more limited region than "Northern and Central California". And Northern and Central get lumped together because they lack a boundary as distinct and as notable as the one between Central and Southern California - roughly, just north of the the offset in the San Andreas fault. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

src: www.almanac.com

Use an authoritative earthquake catalog?

The last edit to the article got me wondering: why not use the USGS earthquake catalog (see https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/) to get authoritative data, particularly the magnitudes? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia