Talk:Hayward Fault Zone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mem.Stad. Columns Photo

The caption for the photo describes something that isn't evident in the picture. No diverging columns. Tmangray 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption improved - Leonard G. 04:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1868 Hayward earthquake

"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)

Intensity and magnitude are two different concepts. The original wording implied something known to be incorrect, so I changed it to something which may be correct. I've also moved almost all that out of the table, and into the main text.

Spelling

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)

Proposal to rename

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)

I might add, the term "zone" should be distinguished from the term "faultline" which is difficult if they are conflated as they are in this and other fault articles. Technically, the Hayward Fault is itself part of the vast San Andreas Fault Zone which, according to current theory, actually extends across the western US and even out to sea some distance. That is, the boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates is actually not a discrete line, but, yes, a zone across which the stresses generated by the two plates are spread out over a vast area. The stress maximum axis lies along the San Andreas FaultLINE. The Hayward Fault as a line also manifests a more localized stress maximum with smaller strands along either side of it representing the Hayward Fault ZONE.
It is however, difficult to find an adequate authoritative explanation of this online to cite as a reference. It would help if someone could find such. I would post the above explanation, but for lack of a citeable reference close at hand. I still think this article ought to be renamed, and a section added to explain the difference between the fault zone and the faultline. Tmangray 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Earthquake incorrectly attributed to this Fault

The 5.6 magnitude earthquake that occured on Oct 30 2007... did not occur on the Hayward Fault. It occured on the Calaveras fault.

"Major" earthquake

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)

"every 140 years"?!

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)

There is a small explanation in the Prehistoric earthquakes section. The dates are estimated based on Paleoseismology, which is only accurate to within 10s of years at most. The 140 years is based on the average time interval between the last 5 events, it doesn't mean there has been an event exactly every 140 years. RapidR (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Section on California Memorial Stadium Needs Work

The opening paragraph needs extensive rework. Filled with opinion,conjecture, and some just plain odd stuff:

  • "There are no plans at this time to replace the stadium in its entirety at a more appropriate location"
  • "its "O" shape may possibly be split into two 'C's"
  • "A suitable site for a replacement is available immediately to the east in Wildcat Canyon,"
  • "While there is only a small probability of an earthquake on this fault while the stadium is occupied, the results could be deadly."

Dcbrc2 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Seismic faults of California

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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hayward_Fault_Zone/Archive_1&oldid=1100986057"