Jump to content

Talk:2024 Cape Mendocino earthquake

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

Redirects

[edit]

IDK how to add redirects, but if not already covered, I would add the following: 2024 California Earthquake

2024 Eureka Earthquake

2024 Northern California Earthquake

2024 Offshore California Earthquake

2024 Mendocino Fault Earthquake the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merge

[edit]

Previously, I will redirect articles without consensus but this time, considering earthquakes in the United States gets significantly more coverage than elsewhere in the world, should find a consensus. Even a slightly more damaging earthquake in Cuba only received a fraction of the scale of this media coverage. I am proposing to merge this article into the 2024 EQ list because of the minimal impact and superficial coverage. Very likely this top won't appear in the news in the next coming weeks and coverage within the past hour has not yielded any valuable information for Wikipedia. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The area of the Mendocino triple junction is very active with large and very large earthquakes, and we have deleted articles on similary large events, so this one may also not stand the test of time, similar to 2005 Eureka Earthquake and 2014 Eureka Earthquake. Of the fifteen shocks of at least M6.5, listed here, we have five articles. This latest one may have been more intense, but it's too early to really say for sure. Dawnseeker2000 03:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have an updated stance on this now, as Lori Dengler (a local resident of the Eureka metro area and professor of geology) posted an article on the Times-Standard a few hours ago. She described the shaking as having "never exceeded a moderate level" and "mild" compared to the 2022 Ferndale earthquake, which was lower in magnitude but about 40 miles closer. So now I'm pretty convinced that redirecting is OK. We don't have to rush on it, but it's a fine idea. Dawnseeker2000 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to proceed with RD now, it's a low-profile event unlikely (fingers crossed) any opposition Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see continued coverage Borgenland (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objection for now. It is only three days after the earthquake happened. WP:NEVENT WP:PERSISTENCE might be relevant. Too early to call right now the notability. Maybe give a little longer? I don't object to a merge if it happened, say, in a month and we can be certain that the topic is not notable. Awesome Aasim 07:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story has already gone stale what are you trying to say? What's a good rationale behind keeping an article in this state for another month just for you to change your mind. Note this is a 3 - 1 vote so the redirect will proceed. Telling the editors to wait a month over a stale story is just kissing the crystalball and dismissing the three of us. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing merge as well, and undoing it while there is in fact no consensus for it. This event is the largest on the Mendocino Fracture Zone and the tsunami warnings and how they were responded to have been cited as a wake up call for the Bay Area's emergency responses, ergo these are enduring claims to notability. The fact that coverage is drying up for now doesn't mean it fails NEVENT; by that argument, the sinking of the RMS Brittanic would fail it as well just because no one writes news articles on it today.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng That is an illegetimate argument comparing a major maritime disaster with serious international consequences, secondly there are plenty of resources abt to the RMS Brittanic in the decades since. What has this earthquake done. Largest earthquake in a seismically active area is just another (medium-sized) frog in a big and active pond argument that's becoming weaker every time someone raises it. California's ShakeAlert has alerted thousands, if not millions to past M5 or smaller earthquakes before and we do not have an article about them, neither should they exist. The same would be said for tsunami warnings for global earthquakes, there are no articles solely because a warning bulletin was isseud. So that is not a strong foundation to argue against keep. Tell me what recent sources do you have that are valuable enough to be worthy of keeping the article.
There is, in fact, an agreement to merge by three of us, contrary to your claim, that you have dismissed outright. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has this earthquake done. This could be of geological significance.
There is, in fact, an agreement to merge by three of us, contrary to your claim, that you have dismissed outright. That is a very weak consensus. I am willing to start a proposed merge to address this and garner more consensus. Awesome Aasim 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim
This could be of geological significance: WP:CRYSTALBALL argument
That is a very weak consensus: elaborate, don't just state as if we will legitimise this non-substantative claim Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see any continued coverage" by User:Borgenland above is what's unsubstantial, as refuted by my comparison to another disaster, and thus negates your ability to claim a consensus off a "3 to 1" situation. This is far from a WP:SNOW situation; please read WP:NOTSNOW. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of people does not determine a consensus. The strength of the arguments do too. Here we have a failed tsunami siren and an uneven response. There are others I can't immediately locate which discuss further how it underscored how unprepared the Bay Area is for another disaster in terms of emergency response. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball applies to articles about speculative events in the future, where there are no reliable sources about that prediction. Not about past events where there already are a bunch of reliable sources. Awesome Aasim 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there has not been any peer reviewed papers about this event yet, so your arguments are based on things that hasn't happened. FYI a lot of M7 EQ articles with papers have been deleted or merged because of the very same reason. It could be geologically significant... sure. but there is no evidence for that so you're arguing about nothing. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could have waited a bit more before redirecting, but in the end, this one will most likely become a redirect again. The accounts that I've read from two geologists/seismologists that also happen to live in the area have described a moderate and non-destructive event. Yes, some items were knocked off shelves and the power went out. There are some pictures of ground deformation, but nothing that impacted anything of significance. Dogs barked and there were lots of sirens.
A wake-up call, failed sirens, and an "uneven response" (?) aren't really encyclopedic. In fact, it doesn't look like WikiNews is even covering this one. Come on brother, you can't write an article about an earthquake that discusses how unprepared municipalities are. You write that kind of stuff on earthquake preparedness. Dawnseeker2000 16:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a specific event calls that response into question that is not suitable for a generic response article. And don't call me "brother". Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the arguments do too: again, demonstrate constructively the merits/weaknesses of @Dawnseeker2000 and my arguments.
The tsunami response should belong in a separate article that covers tsunami warnings along the Pacific coast rather than this earthquake. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's the largest on this fault already negates the "it's just a plain old MTJ quake" argument. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument also has an element of desperation, friend. Dawnseeker2000 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me "friend". Address the fact that your argument doesn't work instead of resorting to the ad hominem "has an element of desperation". Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MTJ is just another triple junction just like elsewhere in the world, any earthquake on a known TJ does not make it inherently worthy of article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I argue that it's an earthquake on the MTJ? No. Re-read what I said.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equally applied to an earthquake on the MFZ Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument the largest on the San Andreas, which is just another branch of this triple junction, would not be notable. So that argument doesn't work either. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wouldn't work, but why are you bringing up an imaginary "largest earthquake" on the SAF that isn't even discussed. We are talking about this specific event on the MFZ. PS is this supposed to be an argument because the missile just flew past the target. In-fact, you're reiterating my point. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then the question is why is that argument any more applicable now than with that hypothetical event?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng I make myself clear: if a hypothetical Mw 7+ occurred on Fault A and that event was the largest ever recorded on the fault by seismographs, it is not inherently notable and worthy of an article. If there is no lasting/major human/environmental impact, it is even more compelling there should not be an article.
Now, the Cape Mendocino 7.0 is one of the largest ever recorded in the area and the human impact is minor. Does it sound like the hypothetical event above? If so, apply my justification for this. This is what I said here in response to your reply that claims to negate "plain old MTJ quake argument"
Reading your comment, you seem to argue against your original points, that's how I interpret you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the size of the event or even the human impact. It is determined by coverage in reliable sources, which there already is, as established above. Thus it can have a standalone article and thus shouldn't be deleted. WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to predictions of future events, not to speculation about coverage on past events. I interpret WP:NOTNEWS as applying primarily to tone, as well as establishing that not all newsworthy events are notable.
As an example, there are many small earthquakes such as the recent 2024 New Jersey earthquake that are notable. Neither of these are WP:ROUTINE. Awesome Aasim 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim
  • Notability is not determined by the size of the event or even the human impact: read WP:EVENTCRITERIA & WP:EFFECT before you comment
  • Coverage by reliable sources; many earthquakes even run-of-the-mill events are covered by reputable sources. This essentially voids your point; nothing stands out because every earthquake that can be covered is covered if the outlets want to; that's their job. The key difference is the ability to sustain in-depth coverage for an article; within the last 24 hours there has not been any major development. You basically disregard WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.
  • The argument comparing this 7.0 and the NJ event is weak; you are comparing two regions of the United States with completely different geological setting hence the effects of earthquakes are different. The general consensus for keeping NJ was that it was a seizable earthquake for a generally seismically quiet area; AND there was considerable damage to property in the area. The CM 7.0 has not demonstrated anything beyond smashed store merchandise and minor damage.
Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • read WP:EVENTCRITERIA & WP:EFFECT before you comment Also stated in WP:EFFECT: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
  • Coverage by reliable sources; many earthquakes even run-of-the-mill events are covered by reputable sources. If most of these articles are superficial, then I agree, because WP:NOR is also a thing. When I say "coverage" I mean "significant coverage". within the last 24 hours there has not been any major development Yes that is true, but so many events only receive coverage within a short and limited timespan, that does not mean that the event is not notable simply because there is no coverage. It then is a question to determine whether that coverage is significant or not.
  • The argument comparing this 7.0 and the NJ event is weak; you are comparing two regions of the United States with completely different geological setting hence the effects of earthquakes are different. Not necessarily. The reason I brought this up is even small earthquakes can be considered notable. The CM 7.0 has not demonstrated anything beyond smashed store merchandise and minor damage. The same can be argued about many, many, many other earthquakes. 2022 Ferndale earthquake for example, just some damage to homes as well as a few injuries from falling debris, and also a couple of medical emergencies not caused by the earthquake that couldn't be attended to.
Awesome Aasim 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect: I think the low intensity of coverage now is a good indication this topic won't pass WP:LASTING
  • so many events only receive coverage within a short and limited timespan: If so, then there shouldn't be an article dedicated to this earthquake, and many others.
  • small earthquakes can be considered notable: and you're right, magnitude is not the only factor for why an EQ should/shouldn't have its own article. Hence I'm glad nobody on the opposition has brought up the "M7 is considered large hence notable enough for an article" argument. We have a lot of M7+ earthquakes since 1900 without articles for the same reason. Anyways, I digress; I don't see the link between this argument and enforcing your merge opposition btw.
Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first two points we have debated, that is where our agreement ends, but for the third point we seem to mostly agree. I hope that these considerations are taken into account by whoever is assessing the consensus when deciding to merge or not merge. Awesome Aasim 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The significant content from this article is already mostly in the list article. There is insufficient impact in my view for a standalone article. I don't see this topic meeting the requirement for enduring notability in WP:EVENT. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - Appears to have minimal damage, no casualties thus far. Unless we get an update and the damage is more severe than we thought, I would support a merge. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Damage is limited and neither the similar sized 1994, 1923 and 1878 Quakes with similar location seem to have gotten an article. In case it becomes geologically significant, maybe when it triggers an even stronger quake, then we can talk about merging it with the Article for the significant future Quake.185.13.31.131 (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Cape_Mendocino_earthquake&oldid=1263383469"