Jump to content

Talk:San Andreas Fault

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

Notice of availability of a new template

[edit]

A new template is available, which can make for interesting reading in this article if properly used. The template, {{Days elapsed times factor}}, parses as follows:

{{ Days elapsed times factor | Year | Month | Day | Factor | Decimal places }}

This template calculates the amount of change since a given date. For instance, a template filled in like this…
{{Days elapsed times factor|1989|10|17|0.009582|0}}
…generates this numeric value, which automatically changes over time: 123

You might ask “Why is that nice?” Because one can use it to generate text like this:

The virtue of this is you don’t have to go back and periodically tweak the value. Every 3.4 months, the template will increment the value an additional centimeter. To accomplish this, one need code only as follows:

This strain rate of 33–37&nbsp;mm/year, which is about the speed at which a fingernail grows, may seem small. However, it quickly accumulates. Since the October 17, 1989 [[Loma Prieta earthquake]] roughly {{age|1989|4|18}}&nbsp;years ago, the Pacific plate has moved approximately <u>another {{Days elapsed times factor|1989|10|17|0.009582|0}}&nbsp;cm</u>!

In the above text, 182 days was subtracted off the {{age}} date template so the number of years would round to the nearest value. In the {{Days elapsed times factor}} template, I used the actual date of the earthquake. The 33–37 mm slip rate was averaged and scaled to a centimeter-based value of 3.5 cm/year, and divided by 365.25 to obtain a daily slip factor of 0.009582 centimeters per day. It is always wise to have at least 32 times more precision in a conversion factor, which explains the jump from 35 counts to 9582 counts.

Here’s the “live” slip rate, displayed with excess precision: 123.04246 cm

Sometime on March 22nd, the value (which as of this writing displays as 64.33355 cm and rounds down to 64 cm) will round up to 65 cm.

I will leave it to someone expert in the field of earthquakes to properly use this feature; I’m not sure as to what specific part of the San Andreas fault would be an appropriate place to reference a specific amount of strain.

Greg L (my talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Big One (earthquake)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect The Big One (earthquake) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § The Big One (earthquake) until a consensus is reached. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article condition

[edit]
There is no doubt I am sometimes as slow, as well as behind, as Wikipedia maintenance. In the Vague writing- lack of timelines section above I made comments and there was a reply from JJ of an impending update after finishing other work. A parenthetical quote was supplied, "any week now?" The thing that could be funny, if not so serious, is that as of today that was "8 years, 5 months, 1 day ago".
Today I told someone going to visit Bishop, California, as a friend lived on the Bishop Reservation, that I was pretty sure that might be in or near the middle of the San Andreas Fault or maybe in an area with a lot of fault lines. I typed the name into my browser and I clicked on one result. WOW! Bishop is almost surrounded by fault lines and one seems to point straight at the city. I brought up the old faithful Wikipedia article and while reading ended up at the "External links" section. A bell went off. It seems I was planning to work on the section, actually trim it with a chainsaw. I "took a gander" at the history then the talk page. OOPS! I might have dropped the ball on my practice of revisiting my edit history. A reminder might have been a notice that the impending "any week now?" might have arrived.
Well, in my defense I was a strapping young pup, of only about 59, so might have been somewhat impetuous. My daughter has informed me that I definitely have ADD, possibly ADHD, and surely Bipolar disorder. Maybe hypomania?. She claims she inherited it from me. There could be a little bit of right somewhere.
The task at hand, I will bring up the "External links" issues in a separate section, is that I do feel the article could, and really should, be worked to a better classification, maybe reaching Featured article status. This hasn't happened in the last 8 years but a review certainly would not hurt. -- Otr500 (talk)
[edit]
This is a largely an unregulated section meaning there is little or no maintenance. I will give my rationale, supported by policies and guidelines as to why I am moving most (maybe all but three) here for any possible discussion resulting in consensus of a choice of three or maybe four, total.
Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to an astounding 11 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

Policies and guideline for section

[edit]
Around eight years overdue:
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Transferred list for any possible discussion, swapping out, or maybe some inclusion in the article.

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History Fall 2024

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imoreno1112 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Imoreno1112 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Andreas_Fault&oldid=1253506708"