Talk:UCERF2

Earthquakes B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:UCERF2 is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mostly complete.

I have just added Table B, and the article is mostly complete. And I reckon I'm mostly done with it. So if anyone else feels like filling out the rest of Table B (see table 1 in appendix A) or smoothing out a few of the rough spots, please jump in. Something else to be done: go back to the articles on the named faults and add a link here. Something a little more challenging: see if any notable earthquakes have occured on any of the "B" faults. Ask if you need assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Alum Rock earthquake?

Dawnseeker2000: regarding your recent edit to Table A, can you verify that the 2007 Alum Rock earthquake was on the Calveras fault? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS source [1] says that it was. Mikenorton (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough for me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Dawnseeker: would you mind adjusting your last edit here to conform with the citation style established for this article? Basically you just need to move the "cite" templates to the References section, replacing them with Harv templates. Ask if you have any questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it taken care of. Had thought of that earlier, but I usually only use harvnb if there are multiple instances of the same ref where I need to pull the page numbers out, and in this case they were all one-use occasions. At any rate, it looks nice and balanced now. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 22:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks nice. (I don't know about "balanced"—?) Though it does show up certain other deficiencies I had forgotten about. Okay, any day now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

This page, and particularly Table A will require updating to the new UCERF3 as much of the current information is out of date as of early 2015. New version: http://www.wgcep.org/UCERF3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.118.213 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for the link. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The need for the update has led to a proposal to delete this article, but that doesn't seem the right way to do it, as some of the exisiting text can remain, partly to cover the history of the development of the forecast, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later. Mikenorton (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at UCERF-3, so I don't know how much of the methodology, etc., has changed. Conceivably it could require a complete re-write of the article. Alternately, and especially if there is any merit in retaining something about UCERF-2, I could see renaming the existing article (with some modification) to something like California earthquake forecast (UCERF-2), then create a new article, based on UCERF-3, to which this title could be redirected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been going through the source material. I propose to create a new article, UCERF3, along the lines of the current article, with the full name as a redirect. When it is ready this article can be renamed UCERF2 and brought up to date. The existing generic title will be a redirect, which can be adjusted as future forecasts are released. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update in place; see UCERF3. I am going to rename this article (and revise), and California earthquake forecast will be a redirect to the latest version of UCERF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link Rot

None of the links in the QFFDB fault# or Maps columns currently work. They reference 'Oops' and 'Error' pages at the USGS site. MikZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's USGS screwing everyone up (again) by changing all the urls. So the links to the reports can be updated (which I will do in the new article). But they simply did away with the static fault maps. Now they want everyone to use the interactive map, which is less clear. And I haven't figured out if there is any way to go into that with coordinates that would highlight individual faults. (Anyone want to figure that out?) There might be away of linking to maps similar to the old ones in UCERF3 data, but I haven't sorted that out yet.

This kind raises a question of whether Table A and Table B should be retained. I think something of the article should be retained to show the historical place of UCERF2, but should we retain obsoleted forecasts? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probability "gain"?

As UCERF3 makes much use of the concept of probability (or information) "gain" I was thinking it should be explained, but it seems too esoteric to present here. (E.g., see Information gain in decision trees and Information gain ratio.) Anyone have any idea how this might be presented simply? Or should I just ignore it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the old talk page...

To align here, but if that isn't what you'd intended, just punch me in the arm & I'll put in a move request. Dawnseeker2000 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not. The previous article (now UCERF2) still exists, and warrants some further discussion specific to it. So I am inclined to having all this back there, rather than having it here (as Talk:UCERF3). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to where we want to be, and we'll upgrade you to a Mocha while we're at it. Dawnseeker2000 01:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negative on the mocha, it's sticky-bun or nothing! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]