Talk:4.3 magnitude earthquake strikes the San Francisco region

Revision 795179 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't feel it! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 795179 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't feel it! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Earthquake articles

I think we need some guidelines on what we will and will not report as far as earthquakes in California. California, like Japan and a few other areas in the world, are especially prone to earthquakes. A 4.3 earthquake, while that may be noteworthy in some parts of the world, is a pretty common occurrence in areas like California. It's like writing an article on "water is wet" or "Florida was sure hot today!" I don't want to discourage anyone from writing articles but I do think we need a bar on what's acceptable for reporting as far as earthquakes in this area of the country. Mike Halterman (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot in the #wikinews IRC channel doesn't report anything below 5 magnitude - i.e. <5 means extremely unlikely to be any casualties or property damag. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

People write about what they want to/are interested in. We shouldn't discourage that unless it is truely not news - and earthquakes are a piece of news, even if a minor one here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we can open that up to weather. A 90-degree day is hot, no? In Florida that happens every day for six months straight. Should we start writing articles when that occurs? I'm saying that in areas where it's common for seismic or weather events to occur, I really don't think minor events should be reported, or if they should, they should be part of a Wikinews Brief. Mike Halterman (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with Mike. But a 4.3 is a decent sized quake for that area of California. Though if no damage injuries or the likes, then its not really news per se. Just because the bot doesn't report it does not necessarily mean its not a big thing. 4.X and 5.X happen in the Middle East often that cause damage. Honestly if we have an article or two on small quakes here and there, if even just California, then I don't see an issue. Its not like we write an article on every quake there is. Though I only tend to write about ones that are big like 7.0 + (of course depending on where it was at). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't an issue in the article itself existing but is it really necessary for this to be today's top headline? An earthquake in California? Seriously? Is it slow today or what? --78.149.171.174 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this in CNN's scrolling headlines this morning. It's important enough for world news... (I'm not speaking to the necessity of putting it on the main page.) Cary Bass (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)