Talk:Hayward Fault Zone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Hayward Fault Zone has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
