Talk:2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes

No longer "earthquakes"

After the initial confusion, this has resolved into an earthquake and aftershock sequence, so no need for the plural in the article title. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not true as of 10 minutes ago. Today's event might surpass in significance the topic of this article. Lars Frierson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Aftershocks are usually a magnitude smaller than the main shock. When the dust settles (scientifically) it might be this was a doublet earthquake (with a chance of being a multiplet). As long as we avoid getting too invested in one view or another I think we can make any needed adjustments later. For now plural seems adequately acceptable. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Searles Valley Earthquake

USGS is calling this the Searles Valley Earthquake Einbierbitte (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they're using it as a location reference, not as a formal name. I can't find any instances of USGS calling it THE Searles Valley Earthquake, just an earthquake that occured within 12 kilometers of Searles Valley. Rainclaw7 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ridgecrest earthquake

Was also felt in Isleton, CA Wife & I live there. Source is wife and self. we felt it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.138.81 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, it is best to report it to the USGS "Did You Feel It?" service, which is at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci38443183/tellus. Abductive (reasoning) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Searles Valley Earthquake

I am hearing USGS and media sources referring to the searles valley earthquake instead of ridgecrest. I dont know why this is, but it seems searles vally is used more often than ridgecrest is in the title. I think it should be changed just because of publicity. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The event has multiple names, but "Ridgecrest earthquake" (5,580 Google search; 8,720 Google news) is used significantly more than "Searles Valley earthquake" (378 Google search; 1 Google news). Following WP:COMMONNAME it's best to stay with Ridgecrest. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's reckoned about 12 km SW of "Searles Valley" (Trona would be a more specific reference point), and 17 km NE of Ridgecrest, so take your pick. The media might be leaning towards Ridgecrest as the better known name. We have a redirect for Searles Valley, and the lead sentence explains the situation, so there shouldn't be an confusion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Earthquake timeline, disagreement over magnitudes.

Currently, this event began with a 6.4 magnitude earthquake yesterday, July 4, which was then reported as the mainshock. More recently, the USGS detected a 7.1 magnitude earthquake which may be now considered the mainshock. A consensus should likely be formed over the timeline and magnitude of the major quakes before more edits and reverts occur. Source for earthquake magnitudes:https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ Rainclaw7 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rainclaw7: What is there to discuss? As far as I know, the consensus has always been clear: the USGS is the authoritative source for this purpose and the mainshock is by definition the largest in the sequence, meaning yes, the 7.1 unseats the 6.4 as the mainshock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I was more trying to head off an edit war, some editors were reverting edits with the official USGS report of a 7.1 in favor of a 6.9. I personally agree with you. Rainclaw7 (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rainclaw7: I think you were late to the party, but the initial magnitude 7.1 was later revised to 6.9, but then I guess revised back to 7.1 again. Master of Time (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Expect the estimates of magnitude to vary over the course of the next week or two, as more data is collected and analyzed. The most authoritative magnitude will be when the ISC assesses all the data — in about two years. Note that for such a shallow quake the surface magnitude (M_s) probably accords better with shaking than the moment magnitude (M_w ), and it might be useful to include both for each of the "main" events. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Epicenter

The epicenter for the July 4th foreshock was in Searles Valley which is located in San Bernardino County. The article says it was in Kern County. I believe that there is some confusion because it is being referred to as the Ridgecrest Earthquake. Ridgecrest is in Kern County, but it is less than two miles from the Kern-San Bernardino County line. I am changing it for now, but wanted to start this so editors know why. Lars Frierson (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The epicenters of all these shocks are not "in" Searles Valley, but 12 to 18 km W or SW of the valley. Exactly which county seems a rather trite detail, but it might be of interest that all of this is occurring under the China Lake Naval Air Station. Perhaps "China Lake earthquakes" would be a better label. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous map!

The map is wrong! Between downtown LA and Long Beach it's not even 35 km. On this map almost 50 km! Ridgecrest is about 175 km from LA. On this map much, much more. Terrible map. I don't have a clue about how to change it. Calle Widmann (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Calle Widmann: This is a USGS map, and it's not wrong. The labels on the map are not meant to be at the exact locations of the cities.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The map is correct but the linear scale is totally wrong. Even if it's not the exact locations, it's very confusing with a linear scale that errooneous. It's not more than 100 km to Oxnard and the quake is not located almost 250 km away from LA. Indio is not almost 250 km away from LA. Who constructed this map has made one major mistake and that is the linear scale. That one must be omitted or adjusted. Linear scales are made to help, not to confuse. In this case it confuses. Calle Widmann (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is the U.S. Geological Survey, not the U.S. Geographical Survey. They spend more time studying rocks under pressure than getting scale on a map right. Lars Frierson (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't add anything useful in this matter. Calle Widmann (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is solved. The current map is correct. The quake is almost 200 km from LA. Calle Widmann (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Earthquake sequence

We now have two major earthquakes and the USGS have not, as yet, referred to the M6.4 event as being a foreshock of the M7.1 earthquake. To quote from the tectonic summary section of the M7.1 event "This earthquake occurs approximately 34 hours after and 11 km northwest of a M 6.4 event in the same region, on July 4th, 2019, at 17:33 UTC. The July 4th event was preceded by a short series of small foreshocks (including a M4.0 earthquake 30 minutes prior), and was followed by a robust sequence of aftershocks, including almost 250 M 2.5+ earthquakes (up until the M 7.1 event). Those events aligned with both nodal planes (NE-SW and NW-SE) of the focal mechanism solution of the M 6.4 event, which was very similar in faulting style to today’s M 7.1 earthquake. The sequence includes two other M5+ earthquakes, one of which occurred 20 seconds before the M 7.1 event. The M 7.1 earthquake occurred at the NW extension of the prior sequence."

I think that for now we should treat them as two mainshocks, a sort of doublet earthquake, rather than foreshock and mainshock. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your comment till just now. Yes, I think we should avoid "foreshock" and "mainshock" for now (it could change yet again), and stick with "multiple mainshocks" . But let's not tag them as a doublet quite yet (until a source says that), just leave them as multiple events. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No indeed, we can wait. Mikenorton (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added explanatory captions to the "2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes" figures (graph and map of aftershocks). And I have gone a bit out on a limb in describing the sequence as three main shocks, followed by aftershocks. But after making the graph of big enough to read it seems quite clear: three events that stand out from the rest, immediately followed by substantially smaller (by magnitude and a half) events that then decrease in magnitude and number. I haven't been following the USGS comments, but it seems clear enough, and I suggest we should revise the text accordingly to remove the "foreshock"/"aftershock" designations. The 5.4 and 7.1 events might be a doublet, but that is yet to be determined. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to run on the limb a bit further and add the 5 July M 5.4 event to Infobox. This implies some reworking of the text in regards of "aftershock", which in some places is a bit garbled as it is. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

On July 8, USGS began referring to the 6.4 as a foreshock at https://www.usgs.gov/news/update-magnitude-71-earthquake-southern-california OCNative (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. But as I described in the move discussion below, the distribution of shocks shows three (and a strange triplet) that stand out from the typical run of aftershocks. Examination of the distribution (see chart, below, or in the article) shows that each of these significant shocks is immediately followed by a sequence of aftershocks (partly overlapping) with an initial magnitude ~1.2 less than the main shock (per Bath's Law), and then decreasing in magnitude and frequency (Gutenberg–Richter law, Omori's Law). Given a suitable presentation of the data it does not take any special expertise to see that that is not the "classical" view of a single notable mainshock with lesser aftershocks (and sometimes a few foreshocks). In a year or two there may well be scientific articles discussing this. But currently the "USGS" sources are mainly press conferences and blogs, what are termed "informal communications", and though the individuals involved speak with an official imprimatur and the best currently available data, it is to be expected they are not speaking with the same depth of consideration to be expected in a peer-reviewed article. In short, immediacy entails a certain amount of slackness. And while in the "classical" view the 6.4 and 5.4 events are merely "foreshocks", yet they are distinctly more notable than a thousand other "foreshocks". I hope this is adequately addressed (albeit briefly) in my copy-edit of the lead this morning. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fault Zone and Seismology

Can someone describe which fault or fault zone was likely involved here? It looks like the Airport Lake Fault Zone or Little Lake Fault Zone, but I'm no expert. Also, some greater context to the earthquake forces, plates, and zones in the area would be helpful here. I know it's not the San Andreas Fault, and I think we could all learn some more about the Owens Valley and Eastern California. Thanks. 2601:645:4301:5360:E5EC:98C3:7D96:139F (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The background section certainly needs expanding, but we'll have to wait for the identification of the causative fault (or faults). Mikenorton (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The media I have been reading calls it Little Lake. Lars Frierson (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the aftershocks have been located by reference from Little Lake, which is on Hwy. 395 about 15 miles north of Ridgecrest. The main fault (as outlined by the aftershocks) runs from between Ridgecrest and Searles Valley NNE right towards Little Lake. (I am doubtful of one description of "20km E of Little Lake"; that would be a point almost due north of Searles Valley, and inconsistent with other locations. That may have been separate event, on a totally different fault, that was triggered by the 7.1 event.) This would be clearer if the"2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes" map extended to Little Lake and Searles Valley to give a better context. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: Your aftershock map is nice, but I wonder if I could talk you into revising it? I think its usefulness would be greatly enhanced with the following modifications:

• Extend slightly further west to include US 395 all the way to the top of the map.
• Extend north to include Little Lake.
• Move the title block more to the right.
• Label US 395. Can the highway also be made a little bolder?
• Add and label CA 178.
• Mark and label Ridgecrest.
• Label Searles Valley. (I haven't been there in many years, so am quite unclear as to how Searles Valley is distinguished/divided from Panamint.)
• Mark and label Trona. (A more definite reference point than "Searles Valley".)
• Event dates: these are hard to see. Perhaps better in black, and slightly larger. Perhaps move away from the clutter of the aftershocks, and add leader lines to connect?

A bit of work, but I think it would be great result. And much appreciated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Magnitude scale

This page lists the earthquake as having a magnitude of 7.1 on some "Mh" scale. What is Mh? It isn't an option for the {{M}} template. Master of Time (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's a typo, but there is reference to a hand calculated magnitude Mh for Southern Californian earthquakes, it just doesn't seem very likely in this case and it's not in their magnitude-type table. Mikenorton (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the USGS to ask what it means. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mh" is not an option in {{M}} because I've never heard of it before. If it's actually used (Mike: let me know) I'll throw it in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that it's contributed by the California Integrated Seismic Network: Southern California Seismic Network (Caltech, USGS Pasadena, and Partners) apparently, according to the ANSS page for the earthquake (Origin sub-page). I'll do some more digging while I await a response. Mikenorton (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The SCSN page for the event [1], gives 7.1 Mw, so that doesn't really help. Mikenorton (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe NEIC threw it in? Anyway, if you're poking around SCSN look for John Vidale; I think he's handling outreach. Who, incidentally, is a WP editor. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I did my own digging and as noted by Mikenorton, there is a "Mh" scale according to this document from the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. I do believe that this is "magnitude type Mh, where the h may refer to helicorder, hand, or human determined magnitude." I am currently under the assumption that there were issues with the most common magnitude methods which we do not know about as that would explain why there was a shift to 6.9 Mw, only to revert back to the 7.1 value. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty common for magnitudes to get "revised" for large quakes as more data comes in-especially since the difference between a 6.9 and a 7.1 is a factor of two in the amount of energy released. I'll admit that I don't recall one going down and then back up to the original estimate, but I'm sure it's happened. Almostfm (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The ANSS event page (our ref #21, which contains the Mh designation) starts the Tectonic Summary with "The July 6th, 2019, 03:19 UTC (July 5th 20:19 locally) Mw 7.1 earthquake". The source for the Mh is given as "California Integrated Seismic Network: Southern California Seismic Network", whereas the [2] SCSN event page] gives 7.1 Mw. I'm still thinking it might be a typo, given all that contradiction. Mikenorton (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Super G: nice article, thanks for finding that. That explains the "M_h". I'll add that RSN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

From that paper I note particularly "For earthquakes that fail quality criteria for all of the other types, we currently use Mh as the preferred magnitude". Mikenorton (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added M_h to the template, and to the documentation. But (ha) the ANSS now has it as M_w , so not needed. But ready for the next time! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all of the sources again, the USGS page that Master of Time has posted and the SCSN page that Mikenorton has posted have both changed on my end. USGS has added a second Mw listing with a checkmark, though hovering over the checkmark shows the word "undefined" still. SCSN is no longer listing the magnitude as '(unknown something)' and is using Mw now. So, it looks like things are slowly being cleared up. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Two separate faults

The most recent USGS update confirms that the M6.4 and M7.1 events ruptured two separate faults, SW-NE trending and NW-SE trending respectively, which explains the unusual T-shaped pattern of aftershocks. The USGS are still not referring to the two earthquakes as foreshock and mainshock, so I think that we should stop doing that. Mikenorton (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And a very intriguing situation, having quakes on cross-cutting faults. Does that make them distinct quakes? By my (admittedly little) understanding these might not even count as doublets. It looks like the M 6.4 event (the orange dot on the 2nd "2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes" map) popped out something (distinct from merely overcoming an asperity) that released the 7.1 event. Have you ever seen anything else like that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Some slight similarities with the 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes, which involved the rupture of multiple conjugate strike-slip faulta. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Conjugate, sure, I think I've seen that somewhere. But T-boned? I can hardly wait for some articles to come out. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That same USGS link now shows USGS began referring to the 6.4 as a foreshock on July 8. OCNative (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved my comment to #Earthquake sequence, where OCNative posted the identical comment. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw an interesting comment at Live Science regarding "Right-angle ruptures":

"The earthquake on Thursday [July 4] was more complex. And part of that smaller event happened on an unmapped fault that trends NE-SW. This is very interesting geologically, said Michele Cooke, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst. "We don't have a lot of earthquakes in our record that show simultaneous slip on two perpendicular faults."

Yeah, that's what I thought. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

pics

https://www.facebook.com/USGeologicalSurvey/posts/2386871944692108

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh? If there is something useful it would help to have a better link. Also: please note that just because a picture is posted by the USGS does not mean we can use it here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as the pictures were taken by an employee of the USGS, they're public domain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But sometimes they post (and publish) pictures taken by others, so it is incorrect to assume copyright status. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

27 pictures are available from the USGS on their event page. Copyright status is listed for each picture; most if not all are public domain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, no consensus for moving (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes → 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake – The July 4 earthquake is now considered a foreshock for the July 5 earthquake, and should therefore only be mentioned as a section in the article. Banana Republic (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• No support - According to the above, the July 4th earthquake might not be a foreshock as first thought, especially given the two fault lines. I think we will need to wait a bit to see what the USGS and similar say. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wait - No need to rush this and the two events had their own separate impacts (and there were a huge number of aftershocks). Mikenorton (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wait -It's been less than a week since the 6.4 quake. Let's give the geologists a little time to sort through the data and see what they say. Almostfm (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• No - The common usage of the word "earthquake" includes not only the main-shock, but also each fore-shock and after-shock (when perceivable, i.e. above 2.0). So the plural form is appropriate. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, the article describes a multitude of earthquakes, giving a list of their dates and times, magnitudes, locations, and depths. It is not just about the main-shock. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. As seen on the adjoining chart, there are at least three events (M 6.4, 5.4, and 7.1) that stand "head and shoulders" above the general run of aftershocks. (And a curious M 5.1 triplet, but let's ignore that for now.) And by "head and shoulders": that is a characteristic of aftershocks, that they generally start immediately following a main shock, but about 1.2 magnitude less (see Bath's Law), then rapidly decay. The USGS and other authorities don't seem to have grasped the challenge of explaining that to the press/public, but with this chart it is pretty plain to see: at least three "standout" events. I.e., earthquakes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. You can certainly tell by the signature of the blue line (mainly the inflection point in the curve) that the behavior is very different between the foreshocks and the aftershocks. It is really one earthquake with a few strong foreshocks and aftershocks. Banana Republic (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wait: Let's give geologists more time before we change the name of the title. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• No: Agree with above, the event was on two separate fault lines according to USGS, so likely separate earthquakes. Rainclaw7 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• No: At this point the article is talking about a swarm. That is plural. Trackinfo (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't believe these events qualify as a swarm. But as plural events significantly greater than the typical run of aftershocks: sure, same result. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Close, there's obviously no consensus to move. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Even with a solid consensus, we should wait the full 7 days. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - The article currently reads (w/o me editing it) that there was one main shock and two strong foreshocks. Every earthquake has thousands of aftershocks and foreshocks. Nothing unique about this single earthquake. Banana Republic (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Foreshocks are relatively rare, particularly destructive ones. It is also unusual to have the foreshock on a completely different fault. Not unique, but certainly unusual. Mikenorton (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Like Mike said: Foreshocks are relatively rare. And many earthquakes have no identifiable foreshocks. Also: The blue line in the graph is the cumulative number of aftershocks over time, and typically has an initial steep rise, then flattens out as the rate of aftershocks declines. The odd shape seen here reflects the overlap of (principally) two such curves, reflecting two aftershock sequences. You should also note the significance of Bath's Law. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, foreshocks are not sufficiently rare to warrant an article about them (which is essentially what is happening when the article is called "earthquakes" instead of "earthquake"). Banana Republic (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not much impressed with your opinion, because you seem unable (or merely unwilling?) to grasp the several points mentioned above. At any rate, your notion that "earthquakes" implies this article is about "foreshocks" is quite mistaken. The essential question here is whether (or not) there was only a single notable earthquake, and all the other shocks are totally unnotable except collectively. In fact, at least one instance of what you deem a foreshock was notable enough that it was the initial inception of this article. Your continued failure to grasp this is starting to sound like WP:IDHT.

While I generally prefer letting this process run the full 7 days, at this point I would accept someone doing a WP:SNOWCLOSE. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I reject your personal attacks. Just because I have a different opinion than others, does not mean that I should not respond to opinions that are stated. You ought to issue an apology.

And now, let me attack your faulty logic. at least one instance of what you deem a foreshock was notable enough that it was the initial inception of this article. Are you kidding me? Of course it was not known that the initial earthquake was a foreshock at the time that the article was written. How is that even relevant? And it's not just me who deems it to have been a foreshock ---- read the article. That's what the article says. Banana Republic (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The article should say "foreshock" because .. "That's what the article says"?? That is quite curious logic. Do you realize that the other "not just [you]" editor that added the "deemed a foreshock" is none other than myself? Which I can take out if that would be less confusing to you. But look: no matter how adamant your opinion on the matter, no one else agrees. The requested move is not going to happen. I see no point in further discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Usually the strongest event overshadows the foreshock. However, for this event both earthquakes got quite a lot of coverage. Thus, having the word earthquakes in the title is necessary. INeedSupport ^:V 20:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because it received lots of coverage at the time, does not mean it deserves as much coverage in hindsight when the first jolt is known to have been just a foreshock to the main tremble. Banana Republic (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose — per INeedSupport's arguments above. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 20:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

July 5 mainshock, restaurant fire

I've looked at the Ridgecrest police logs and can nothing about any restaurant fire. One house did burn down after the 7.1 quake but nothing about a restaurant. (Actually the fire burned a trailer.) I looked at the articles referenced but they didn't mention anything about any restaurant fire. (BTW I live in Ridgecrest.) TMDude (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The source has a picture that is captioned: "A fire burns behind the Casa Corona restaurant..." (emphasis added). That was an outright error, so I have removed it. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the chart of aftershocks

@Phoenix7777:, File:2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes.svg is a nice chart. I see it's being used in the "Earthquakes" section of the article. Please add either to the chart or the page an explanation on if the blue line is the number of aftershocks per hour, per minute, or some other interval. Is the blue line something you constructed? The data source you cited seems to be a raw list of earthquake implying the blue line is your work. I noticed the blue line does not staircase implying either it's a fairly short interval or that you are smoothing the data. If you are smoothing then the method used should also be documented.

I'm also concerned about the potential for original research creeping from this talk page into the article. The blue line itself may be WP:OR unless it's calculation and analysis is a regular part of earthquake science. Also, while Banana Republic's "signature of the blue line (mainly the inflection point in the curve)" in a previous section of this talk page sounds authoritative I have no idea if it's based on well sourced science that we could use in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The line shows the cumulative number of M2.5+ earthquakes over time. "The blue line itself may be WP:OR unless it's calculation and analysis is a regular part of earthquake science." -- Math is not original research, and the data is publicly available. There are other instances for which similar lines have been calculated (often for M3+, since setting a lower limit can help ensure completeness (few or no missed earthquakes)). Master of Time (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think the legend should be changed to say "≥M2.5", or perhaps "M2.5+". Master of Time (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. "Cumulative number of M 2.5+ aftershocks" would better.

Marc: The figure's data comes from USGS/ANSS Comprehensive Catalog, and that is certainly "well sourced science", and about as authoritative as can be had. If you look at the figure's Source section on Commons you'll see that Phoenix7777 has provided the url he used to extract the data as a csv file. From there it is straight-forward to define a view in a spreadsheet and import the data. The blue line is simply a count of data elements (hardly amounting to even a simple calculation) in each "bin" (probably each hour). But the smoothness of that line (have you viewed it at a higher resolution?) makes no difference in its shape, which shows the increase in total number of shocks flattening out as time passed. That also is in accord with "well sourced science". Hopefully that entirely resolves your concern about OR. Right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

All editors: re citation

The quality of our work on this article is being impugned by some extremely sloppy citation. I direct everyone's attention to several problems that need attention.

The most visible problem is the strikingly inconsistent, and even incorrect, display of author's names due to misuse of the |author= and |authors= parameters. In the first place: use of |authors= is deprecated, and neither of these parameters should be used as a convenient short-cut for stuffing in multiple authors. (No! Don't do that!) Second: 'author=' is intended for institutional or group authors, not for authors with a personal (Western style "first") name and family ("last") name. For personal names use the |last= and |first= parameters. ("First" includes everything besides "last".) For multiple names use the numbered parameters: "last1=", "last2=", etc.

This is important for several reasons: so we don't mislead the readers, don't mess up the metadata (used for searching and sorting), don't mess up the formatting, and don't come across as a bunch of rankly inexperienced amateur editors. Okay, we're all pretty much amateurs, but that is no excuse for outright sloppiness. Such as "|last=II |first=Rong-Gong Lin". That is a Westernized version of a Chinese name, where "Lin" is the family (here "last") name, and "II" is the Roman numeral for "Second". The proper form is: "last= Lin |first= Rong-Gong, II".

Another problem: overuse of {{cite web}}. Newspapers, magazines, journals, and other reliable sources often post their content "on the web", and that should be distinguished from "Joe Anybody" material by use of the mare specific {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.

A particular problem here: citation of material to "USGS". That covers a LOT of ground. Note that the "Comprehensive Catalog" (ComCat) published at https://earthquakes.usgs.gov is actually the product of ANSS (look it up), a collaboration of the USGS with various other networks. Fortunately, to cite something from ComCat all you need is the catalog id (such as "ci38457847") – if you use the {{cite anss}} template. (To cite something more than once use {{short-anss}}.) For non-ANSS content cite as any other web content, being certain to include a full URL to where the referenced material is to be found. (Content that cannot be verified is eventually removed.)

Something else to keep in mind: "news" sources — especially television stations — are NOT reliable sources for earthquake parameters. Go to the same source they use: USGS-ANSS ComCat.

Too much trouble? We do have standards here. If you take any pride in your work a bare minimum of effort will bring much satisfaction of work decently done. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ShakeAlertLA

Some of the content regarding ShakeAlert was jarringly incorrect. E.g.: "the earthquake having a predicted magnitude of 4.5 Mw  in the Los Angeles County area, which is below the activation threshold of 5.0 Mw and below level 4" on the MMI. The earthquake did NOT have a predicted magnitude; it was calculated, and immediately upon occurrence. (And not moment magnitude.) Nor was the "activation threshold" at 5.0, and neither "4.5" nor "5.0" is "below level 4" on any scale.

It might be quibbled that that is what some of the sources say, but it is still errant nonsense. It appears that the Mayor garbled his briefing, and some of the "news media" parroted it without understanding. Which shows why editors need to not simply parrot what some ostensibly "reliable" (but nonetheless incorrect) sources say, but to consider possible content with knowledge and discernment.

I have rewritten that content, and, as it applies to both earthquakes, moved it into its own section. It still needs a a citation about how the system works; I'll try to dig them out tonight. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Table of aftershocks

While I doubt that the table of aftershocks is much useful, I grant it might be of some interest. But could we have it in an initially collapsed mode? It's a solid block of pretty boring stuff to have to fly over that breaks the flow of the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And when the table is collapsed the title trails across the image. Can anyone here fix that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to Phoenix7777 for fixing the table. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert

@J. Johnson: Regarding this revert, I don't mind the table being collapsed, but the way it floats just creates large chunks of white space. Surely there's a better way? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd also suggest trimming it to aftershocks greater than 5.0 or even 5.5. By the time the sequence is more or less done, we're probably going to see several more 4.5-5.0 aftershocks, which will just lengthen the table without adding much value. Almostfm (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Currently the table starts below the infobox in a wide display environment. I removed the float property and {{clear}}.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I still see a chunk of white space below "...following the earthquakes..." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not "clear" (ha ha) on what "large chunks of white space" you are referring. The basic situation with that section is in fitting two rectangular blocks of fixed but dissimilar size (the table and the image) within an area with a width set by your browser's window. Because the blocks are dissimilar in size they cannot be fitted into the larger area without leaving space neither one fills. If there is not enough squishy (flowable) text to fill those otherwise empty area there will be "chunks of white space". To the extent that is the problem you refer to there is no solution but to add more text. (Which might not be warranted.) Or are you seeing something else?

The problem I see is that without the {{clear}} the text flows around the image, and the table gets laid over the following section. (Possibly a browser issue, but I see this on both Chromium and an older Firefox.)

And just as I previewed this I see that Phoenix7777 has adjusted matter so the image moves up a bit, and the remaining empty space is along the side of the table. Which is probably as good as can be done. Thank you, sir. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Sources" section?

Would anyone object if I add a "Sources" section, or perhaps "Scientific sources"? I doubt if anyone as given this much thought, but I am working on some additional background, history, and (perhaps) implications material, and it is real tiresome having to work with proper full citations in the text. It is significantly less work put the full citations in their own section, and link to them with in-line A"short-cites". And the usual alternative of using named-refs to replicate the notes precludes using insource specifiers, which really are needed for longer sources. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Local perspectives?

@TMDude: Hi. You mentioned that you you live in Ridgecrest. Could you enlighten me on several points? E.g.:

1) Was there much damage in the town, particularly of structures or infrastructure?

2) Has there been any discussion of tightening the building code?

3) What is the current status of any Alquist-Priolo zoning?

4) Is there much remembrance of past earthquakes there, such as in 1995?

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Background" section

Rainclaw7 has moved the Background section to the top of the article (following the lead), but I wonder if this is the best location. Granted, it is often sensible to start with a general view, then home in on the details. But I doubt if many readers come to this article because of the background to the event. I think they come for the event, and the background should be further on, for those that want to go deeper. (Incidentally, I have a new version of "Background" nearly ready to go in, and it would be convenient to change the location then.) Any objections to moving this back to the prior location? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe split the background section, so you have general context up front but keep any specific details for later. Rainclaw7 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

And if we do keep it where it is I would suggest renaming it to something like "Geological Overview" to clarify its purpose. Rainclaw7 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We have a section named "Tectonic setting" in many of our earthquake articles (admittedly often added by me). In most cases this describes the context of the earthquake in terms of the active fault structures in the area and past earthquakes/seismic hazard. The actual fault movement can then be described in another section on the earthquake itself. There are, however, no hard and fast rules. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I like "Tectonic setting". As to "actual fault movement" (that would be what we call "earthquakes", right? :-) I am anticipating another section on the line of "earthquake history" (or some such) to provide some regional and local perspective. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Article assessment

This article is currently rated C on the assessment scale. Do editors think B-class is appropriate? I'm curious if editors more familiar with earthquake articles than me might be able to share how close the article is to passing GA criteria. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It needs some more work, but I think it's reached (or nearly so) B-class on the quality scale. However, GA is not yet appropriate, as we can expect more scientific articles in the next year or so (see the new one that just came out this week), and there may be significant developments. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

J. Johnson, Ok, I'll upgrade to B-class for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Change of Title

Consideration should be put forth as to the revision of the title from its present form to the following: "2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence" as the two large shocks seem to constitute an earthquake sequence, especially given that there was a third smaller mainshock of magnitude 5.4 between the two mainshocks. Also, it should be changed, given new light involving the recent sequences on the Indonesian island of Lombok, on Puerto Rico, and on the Phillipine island of Mindanao. Furthermore, it clarifies that the earthquakes were not two discrete events separated by a long period of time, but were closely related and affected one another within a short period of time. This does not contradict and it seems to correspond with the article link below which describes and defines earthquake sequences to exhaustion.Webecoolalasdair (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That name does get used in scientific papers published on the earthquakes, but then so does "2019 Ridgcrest earthquakes". Any article that is entitled "Year Place earthquakes" implies an earthquake sequence or there would be two (or more) separate articles. Mikenorton (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Good article?

Do any editors familiar with this topic have a sense of this article's completeness?

Anyone interesting in nominating this article for Good status, if criteria are met? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Factual error that needs to be addressed.

Right now, the article reads "... this earthquake is believed to be the greatest earthquake on record not only for California, but for all of the western United States."

This brings up the question of what is meant by "western United States." Anchorage, Alaska had a greater earthquake, by many times over. Wikipedia even records it as a 9.2. Alaska is even further "west" than California. I think Anchorage deserves its status as one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history.

California enjoys stretching the truth to make itself sound more important in everything, to include the earthquake community. It doesn't make it exactly factual though, in the way of wording it.

I think either removing the sentence, or rewording it, will make it much more factual. On a side note, there is a lot of bigotry when it comes to Alaska. As a former Alaskan and now a Californian, I can say with authority that Alaska is more often than not, referred to as "not really a state." I cannot tell you how many times I was told that by people living in the lower 48. Trust me. Alaskans look down on the lower 48 due to this kind of behavior, but I digress.

I think a better substitute would be "for the continental western United States." I think "all of" should be left off entirely, for grammatical purposes. It sounds sensationalist and besides, the description of the continental western US implies that very thing and there is no need to duplicate it.

So! I will change the wording. I just wanted to explain myself here. If you disagree, or have a better phrase, please ping me and reply here.

MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 21:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you've changed it to "continental western United States", which I think is a good edit. It also looks like you took out the "stretching the truth" line, which I also agree with. That line as originally written isn't within a mile of being encylopedic.Almostfm (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)