Jump to content

Talk:2010 Baja California earthquake

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

Images

[edit]
  • File:April 2010 Baja California earthquake intensity USGS.jpg
    File:April 2010 Baja California earthquake intensity USGS.jpg
  • File:2010BajaEarthquake.png
    File:2010BajaEarthquake.png
  • File:2010BajaEarthquake.jpg
    File:2010BajaEarthquake.jpg

65.94.253.16 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please add additional images to {{Commons|2010 Baja California earthquake}}

Comments

[edit]

I felt it in central San Diego, the worst earthquake i've felt here so far (since 1998). There was no damage, but the whole house shook fairly violently for about 40 seconds. -Monz (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. —Terrence and Phillip 23:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California earthquake

[edit]

I know the event was felt in CA, but is the "California earthquake" template appropriate, or should it be removed? I am thinking it does not apply here so I will remove it. Please add it back if there is precedent to do so. 72.220.169.176 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case (forgive the pun) -- there are pictures of damage already on CNN, specifically of a bookstore in Palm Springs. I wouldn't be surprised if there are late-breaking damage reports from El Centro/Brawley or even Yuma, where there is some flimsy construction. Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a reference for a broken water pipe in San Diego.[1] Still, if I look at the other earthquakes mentioned in that template, the others seem to have had a "significant" amount of CA-based damage. I don't usually work on earthquake articles though, so I defer to those who work on these articles more frequently to be consistent with usual practice. JMG (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically Baja California, is part of California. As the region known as California, is shared by two countries.--Subman758 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone ever refer to the two areas as being part of one "California region"? If so, we should have an article on that usage. I don't see one currently at California (disambiguation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMGarrison (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said technically! Although there was an art exhibit some years back in San Diego, that was advertised in downtown with banners that showed the two Californias as one. Also on old maps 16th, & 17th centuries they are both labeled as just California. Like I said Technically, but you add or create what you want.--Subman758 (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the two areas certainly have a common history under Spanish and later Mexican rule. I will do some digging and see if I can find enough to create an article on that usage. JMG (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article Las Californias. It shows the history of The US State of California, when it was part of Mexico. However I am thinking of something of when California was first discovered, to around the time the Missions were built.--Subman758 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit removed. Don't know how to cite this?

[edit]

The following paragraph was reverted out of the article:

Map of southern California and northern Baja California with earthquakes shortly after the main earthquake (image credit: US Geological Survey)

In addition the above aftershocks, there were more than 25 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater in southern California and northern Baja California in the two hours immediately following the main earthquake (see map below and right). Seven of these earthquakes were of magnitude 4.0 or greater. The majority of them were centered on an area about 40 miles to the northwest of the main earthquake. The rest were scattered over a wide area of the southern California desert, as much as 100 miles from the main earthquake. Seismologists have not yet announced what relationship, if any, these earthquakes have to the main earthquake.

The explanation was "Removed paragraph with no source. If a citable source refers to the 40 earthquakes we can cite it."

Citing the source ([[2]]) is problematic because it is a dynamic map that will no-longer have the information after one week. Instead, I uploaded a snapshot of the map and referred to it. Does anybody have a suggestion on how to include this information in the article? There is no caption pointing out how many of the 137 earthquakes on the map are of what magnitude. You have to look at the map and the legend and count for yourself. Rsduhamel (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rsduhamel. I removed the text you added but I left the picture. Let me try to explain why I did that.
It is difficult to come up with a citation based upon the picture without falling into what Wikipedia calls "original research". WP:OR Basically, if we hand count markers on a map, we run a lot of risk of introducing bias and errors. For instance, what magnitude threshold should we use? What distance should we look at? What time period should we look at? Our choice of each of those things would affect the data, yet the choices would probably be arbitrary.
For example, do we have any data to imply that an earthquake within 5 miles is likely to be related? What about within 50 miles? What about within 500 miles? What about within 5,000 miles? Earthquakes happen on this fault-line literally every day. It is not up to us to interpret a map and draw any inferences.
The last sentence was particularly problematic, "Seismologists have not yet announced what relationship, if any, these earthquakes have to the main earthquake." I know you have the phrase "if any" there. Still, if we mention it in the article then we are implying that it has relevance. If we don't know the relevance or if there is any relevance, then we should leave it out.
If we start looking at maps and saying "this may or may not be related to that" then it won't stop with one map. Soon someone will want to write "that this earthquake may or may not be related to earthquakes this year in Chile and Haiti" or that "earthquakes may or may not be getting more frequent as a result of global warming."
If there is any correlation between these quakes and the main quake, someone from the USGS or other source will be quoted about it in the news soon enough. That would be the time to add the mention (with citation) into the article. JMG (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I also added your picture to the Wikipedia Commons page so it can be used by other projects, such as the Spanish language version. Thanks for uploading it! JMG (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you found a source - excellent! JMG (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that source is nothing more than a reporter making original research of his own. The USGS has made no statement that I can find on the activity other than the main earthquake and aftershocks in the immediate area of the epicenter. The reporter must have counted squares on the map.

For what it's worth, here are some facts that I cant weave into the article because I just don't have time to dig around through my library or the web to cite sources. Pointing to maps and other graphics automatically generated by the USGS will be considered OR. The epicenter is where the earthquake begins, not necessarily the location of greatest shaking. The greatest shaking for this quake extends for over approximately 60 miles to the northwest from the epicenter along the Laguna Salada Fault into the US. The shaking was severe to violent (USGS terminology). Only distance from heavily populated areas prevented major loss of life. Now, here's some real OR. Most of the aftershock activity (but not the largest aftershocks) is centered on an area 50 miles from the epicenter, near the US-Mexico border. I'm going to stick my amateur neck way out and predict that there was a surface rupture along the Laguna Salida Fault. I say this for these reasons: Major quake, shallow, severe shaking over a long part of a fault and the area is known for surface ruptures from relatively small quakes. This quake was stronger than the 1940 Imperial Valley quake, which produced horizontal displacement of up to 10 feet. I'll be keeping an eye out for reports.68.7.140.136 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Beachball!

[edit]

This article could really use a beachball diagram (focal mechanism). Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude 6.6 aftershock added to list of earthquakes

[edit]

I just noticed that the USGS has updated the map and list of earthquakes (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Maps/116-33_frames.htm). They now show that the main shock was followed by a magnitude 6.6 aftershock 30 seconds later, 46 miles to the northwest of the main shock. This was a major earthquake in its own right. I can't add this to the article because extracting the information from the map and/or the list would be original research. Rsduhamel (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the Quake list and map you link to and they don't show any 6.6 quake anywhere around the 7.2 mainshock. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the 6.6 too. It's gone now, however. Brian1078 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was probably just placed there erroneously. No news outlets or anything else I've seen have reported a second Quake of that intensity (and in all likelihood a 6.6 wouldn't have gone un-noticed since it would have been nearly as large as the Northridge Quake of 94). Gateman1997 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely there. Wish I had saved the page just because. It's gone now. For what it's worth. They showed a 5.1 right at the El Centro airport 1/2 hour after the main shock. Then it was gone, then it was back, then it was gone for good. I guess they are still figuring this one out. Rsduhamel (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been named

[edit]

It appears that the quake has been officially named the Sierra El Mayor earthquake. See this page:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/ci14607652.php#summary

Rsduhamel (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved it; however, I suspect that it will be moved back because people don't like change. –Turian (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back, the earthquake is better world know as the prior name, also added this sentace (a.k.a. 2010 Sierra El Mayor earthquake, 2010 Easter earthquake). Not so sure about the last one, if so, 2010 Pascua earthquake will be added as "aka" name.--Jcmenal (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictable. –Turian (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The earthequake seems not to be referenced as 2010 Baja California earthquale and should therefor be moved, see this USGS webpage, which also might be interesting to improve the content of this article. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 22 Earthquake

[edit]

The earth moved again today at about 10:30 am. It felt more like an aftershock, there were separate shocks. It felt the same as in Easter (6.9 here in Tijuana), with the difference being that it lasted less than 20 seconds.201.160.231.1 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It need source, also couldn't be an aftershock, they finished a long time. TbhotchTalk C. 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of 2010 Ocotillo earthquake

[edit]

The 2010 Ocotillo earthquake is a stub describing one of the aftershocks, which is unlikely to be expanded any further. I think that some of the information in that article should be moved here and a redirect placed to this article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in aftershock. TbhotchTalk C. 21:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, just a large aftershock that is not notable in it's own right. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, otherwise the stub should simply be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS.--Boffob (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE No need for its own page, as it was simply an aftershock, that is already mentioned in the other article.--Subman758 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a clear consensus - I'll salvage anything that might be useful and then add the redirect. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mikenorton (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Baja California earthquake. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Baja California earthquake. 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).

  • 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) 17:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For this event...

[edit]

We have three choices for intensity information; all supplied by the USGS:

  1. Shakemap (IX): I've looked at quite a few events Mike, and the software that they're running consistently overstates the intensities. When I look at what the USGS seismologists write in text form in the "Impact" section of each earthquake report, the maximum stated intensity is usually one or two steps below what the automated Shakemap system provides.
  2. DYFI (IX): We should not use this figure either because of its user-generated origin.
  3. Text that the scientist wrote in the "Impact" section of the USGS report (VII): Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that this is the source that we should be using.

One thing that supports the selection of VII (Very strong): There are videos that show the intensity of shaking from this event. In my personal experience living in California and working with these articles, I would agree that what they show aligns with intensity VII and not intensity IX. Also, the effects of the shock would probably be a bit more dramatic if the intensity truly reached Violent. Dawnseeker2000 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dawnseeker2000, that's made me look into this a bit more deeply. The largest degree of shaking based on direct observations is from two seismometers, both recording VIII, about 20 km from the epicentre in El Centro, so I'm guessing that they extrapolate that to IX. I agree that some of the shakemaps contain too much extrapolation. In this case the observed ground accelerations at El Centro (maximum pga 61.69 %g) show that we should at least have VIII as the maximum and the EERI initial report on the event refers to an area of "MMI VII-VIII instrumental intensity", see page 6. The DYFI responses include one of VIII and one of IX and these are the closest observations to the interpreted rupture, which is where they get their maximum IX from I presume. In summary, a maximum of IX looks fine to me, but I'm happy with the idea of using VIII as that's a real observation and doesn't involve extrapolation. I assume that they use the pga/MMI relationship of Wald et al. 1999 to combine the datasets. Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I'm going to get around to responding to this. Pretty low energy these days. Dawnseeker2000 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Baja_California_earthquake&oldid=1196561855"