Talk:1971 San Fernando earthquake

message: The previous Wiki page stated, "In actuality, the epicenter of the quake was located underground, roughly at the intersection of Kenya Street and Wilbur Avenue in the Los Angeles district of Northridge" without listing references for this data.
However, the sources I cited indicate something else.
I have removed the original statement because there were no references, but I retained the original text above just in case the author wants to document the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.50.234 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Epicenter location

message: Adjustment here. With regards to the 5/14 overpass collapsing twice, it's not actually ironic that it collapsed during the Sylmar quake and again during the Northridge quake - it's nothing more than unfortunate coincidence. I can't think of any circumstance that would be an ironic collapse of a freeway overpass. --Dennis The TIger 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be.  It was built again, and I'm sure it was built with earthquake prtections (I assumed that the original collapsed due to less strigent earthquake codes at the time of its erecting).  To see it collapse again after another earthquake IMO qualifies it as ironic.  But that may not be what the true definition of irony. - Hbdragon88 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be ironic if they had done so with earthquake retrofitting, but that would likely be a sign of a job not done well. -- Dennis The TIger 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://maps.google.com/maps?q=34°+24.67'+N,+118°+24.04'+W&spn=.386934,.662750&t=h&iwloc=A&hl=en
** In 1971 San Fernando earthquake on 2011-05-25 04:12:37, 404 Not Found
** In 1971 San Fernando earthquake on 2011-06-06 15:00:57, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/710209_SylmarEarthquake/020971_LAHerald_KillerQuake.htm
** In 1971 San Fernando earthquake on 2011-05-25 04:12:37, 404 Object Not Found
** In 1971 San Fernando earthquake on 2011-06-06 15:01:08, 404 Object Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: I've uploaded one of the photos - there are many more (155 in total), if anyone feels like going through them - look here. Mikenorton (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, working on it. Dawnseeker2000  04:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  USGS photos of earthquake damage 

message: A project for a structural dynamics course (~1976) resulted in me analyzing the Olive View collapse.  Photos published in a report on the construction of the building clearly showed spiral rebar left on the ground in the corner of the property after the second story concrete pouring had commenced.  Since only the ground floor columns were circular, they clearly had not had all the reinforcing placed.  Photos of the building after the collapse showed that the joints between the circular columns and the floor of the upper storey had disintegrated as the vertical rebar was there but inadequate spiral rebar was in place; the spiral reinforcing had stopped just short of the top of the column.  This made the joints extremely flexible once the concrete had shattered in the initial earthquake shock, resulting in the building collapsing.  These documents were in the university engineering library and were part of reports on the collapse; I'd don't have a reference handy.  Someone with access to an engineering library may be able to find the relevant docs and provide a commentary to the article. 99.245.230.104 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive view collapse 

message: What you changed regarding the reservoirs was already cited, so I don't see a need to change it, so I put it back the way it was. Just trying to keep this as simple as possible for the GA reviewer. Sorry about the miscommunications we've been having. Dawnseeker2000  00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if you centered less on keeping it simple for the GA reviewer, which appears to take precedence over accuracy as your ultimate goal, the article may be worthy to be such. Imveracious (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have one source; I have another (Van Norman Dam) 

message: According to the EQE Summary Report, March 1994 it did cause surface rupture. This may be read @-http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/02_EQE_geology.htm  Thank you Shyncat (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again. Please stop editing the article until you understand what's happening. The 1994 event is known as a blind thrust earthquake, and that means the fault rupture did not reach the surface. The existing source in the article (a book from Bruce Bolt) supports that and there are others that say the same. You are not going to add a source from "lafire.com" that says the contrary. Dawnseeker2000  20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "You are not going to add a source from "lafire.com" that says the contrary." So if another source exists though is not in agreement with what you think is right it can't be used--according to who? Shyncat (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Northridge earthquake did not cause ground rupture, which is normally interpreted as the surface trace of the fault that moved. There were zones of local surface fractures , but these are not ground rupture. The linked map pdf explains the nature of these fractures in detail. Note that this source explains that the earthquake rupture stopped 8 km below the surface. The 1994 Northridge earthquake article needs a lot of work. The lafire source says "Unlike the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, the Northridge Earthquake did not produce obvious fault ruptures at the surface. At the time of this writing, it was not yet clear that any of the mapped zones of ground breakage represented surficial faulting associated with slip on the causative fault." Mikenorton (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, I now see that I was mistaken. Thank you Mikenorton for not only pointing out the mistake but doing it in a civil manner. Shyncat (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1994 Northridge earthquake]] surface rupture 

message: The map has it showing as a M6.7 but that's not what the size is given in the rest of this. If you goggle that size you get a bunch of results that say 6.7 so what size was it?  DavidCarson73 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 6.6 on the local magnitude scale, but the USGS may have recalculated it as 6.7 on the moment magnitude scale - these two rarely give the same value. The most recent estimate that I can find is that from the ISC-GEM earthquake catalogue, which gives a value of Mw=6.7±0.2. The Southern California Seismic Data Center gives it as a Mw=6.5 event. Searching on Google Scholar I can find citations that support Mw=6.5, 6.6 & 6.7. This is often a problem, even with relatively recent, well documented earthquakes. We could add that the earthquake has been given an estimated moment magnitude in the range M6.5—6.7, with a few example refs. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's a lot of different figures out there that might be a good idea. I'm sure I'm not the only one to wonder about it. Thanks! DavidCarson73 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  USGS ShakeMap  

message: The lower reservoir, the one that almost lost it's bank, is not in use any longer. The way it's written here it sounds like it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E63:A250:7DDE:8F7:619F:42A9 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it reads that way, but how would you change it so that it's clearer? Mikenorton (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Norman Dam 

message: This article had been a work in progress since it was expanded in early 2013, but there's been something about it that hasn't been quite right though. I think that I'm now seeing the problem. As a result of paraphrasing dense sources, the article is equally dense and is too long, with a high text-to-source ratio. As of right now, the article's size is 56,653 characters, with 34,828 characters of readable text. For comparison, this article has just under 1,000 readable characters less than the 2010 Chile article, which has twice the number of total characters. I'll be removing just over 4 KB, and we'll get a new article out of it (Sierra Madre Fault Zone). 
Article                                                                                                                                                  	Total size in bytes                                                                                                                                      	Readable characters                                                                                                                                      	Words                                                                                                                                                    	Refs
2010 Chile earthquake                                                                                                                                    	117,828                                                                                                                                                  	35794                                                                                                                                                    	5802                                                                                                                                                     	174
2011 Virginia earthquake                                                                                                                                 	64,166                                                                                                                                                   	24928                                                                                                                                                    	3884                                                                                                                                                     	113
1971 San Fernando earthquake                                                                                                                             	56,653                                                                                                                                                   	34828                                                                                                                                                    	5586                                                                                                                                                     	31
2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami                                                                                                                        	51,798                                                                                                                                                   	16838                                                                                                                                                    	2723                                                                                                                                                     	78
2016 Aceh earthquake                                                                                                                                     	51,105                                                                                                                                                   	19198                                                                                                                                                    	3051                                                                                                                                                     	121
With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article.	With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article.	With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article.	With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article.	With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article.
Dawnseeker2000 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Another round of improvement

message: See M 6.6 - 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA. Are the names San Fernando Earthquake and/or Sylmar Earthquake official names? If so then where is there an authority for that? The official epicenter is quite far from San Fernando and Sylmar and therefore those names are misleading. Use of those names are apparently due to people not referring to authoritive sources. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current name of this article is based on usage in reliable sources - see WP:COMMONNAME. A scan through google search results (on 1971 California earthquake) gives a slight preponderance for "San Fernando earthquake" over "Sylmar earthquake", with some support for "San Fernando (Sylmar)", "San Fernando - Sylmar"  "San Fernando/Sylmar" and "Sylmar - San Fernando". What other name do you suggest? Mikenorton (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the name should include Sylmar in some form or another, as most of the locals here call it the Sylmar earthquake. Bdonjctalk 02:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it should be called the "1971 Sylmar earthquake" because as of 11-21-21 most of the search results for "1971 California earthquake" say Sylmar earthquake .23.243.175.249 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Current search results are affected by many stories run at the time of the anniversary earlier this year particularly in the local press, who certainly seem to favour "Sylmar". However, to quote from WP:COMMONNAME, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I've used Google Scholar to look at the journals and there is a clear majority using "San Fernando", but I've not had the time to carry out any further analysis. Mikenorton (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of it 

message: The 50th anniversary of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is coming up soon. This wikiarticle is now on deck to appear in the On This Day section on MainPage. However, a few minor problems with the article's contents have been reported on WP:ERRORS. Can someone familiar with the topic help smoothen out the kinks in the article before the anniversary, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed most of the issues raised on WP:ERRORS. More generally, User:Dawnseeker2000 has nominated the article for GA, which will hopefully fix any remaining concerns. Mikenorton (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  50th anniversary