Talk:Aliso Canyon gas leak
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aliso Canyon gas leak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aibroci26, Lmurillo4, CO2EmitterExtraordinaire.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Exact location?
editWould it be appropriate to add latitude and longitude to this article? I’ve had trouble figuring out exactly where this leak is. babbage (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this document, the release well is being drilled at 34°18′45″N 118°33′37″W / 34.312570°N 118.560352°W, which I have added to the article for now. The location of the actual eruption from SS 25 could replace it at a later time.SounderBruce 05:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)- A better source has been found. SounderBruce 06:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Page title
editEkem how about creating a redirect with the term "California gas leak", which is what most non US media use? The present title is of course accurate but obscure and doesnt easily lead to this page. what do you think?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I created a redirect with the term "2015 California gas leak". Thanks for the expansion of the article. Ekem (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ekem Thanks for the redirect. I am puzzled about the extremely low page views = basically unchanged, so it is not the page title.... what do you think about mentioning it in the wiki news ongoing event section? ping me if you reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's getting lots of page views, that's the talk page you linked. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- This event is mostly covered by LA-based news. Nationally, stuff like the affluenza teen gets much more attention and many more hits on WP than this event.Ekem (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's getting lots of page views, that's the talk page you linked. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ekem Thanks for the redirect. I am puzzled about the extremely low page views = basically unchanged, so it is not the page title.... what do you think about mentioning it in the wiki news ongoing event section? ping me if you reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
unsourced edit "methane is not known to cause these health effects"
editAn editor added although methane is not known to cause these health effects here and cited no sources for it. I reverted it, because not only is this an unsourced addition (=formally incorrect) but it is also an uninformed opinion. It looks provocative, as if it wants to agitate, correct me if I am wrong, user:The most interesting man in the world.
The described health effects are most likely due to mercaptane and other constituents that are leaking with the gas.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- No intention to agitate, just trying to improve the article. I can't use Wikipedia as a source but there was no mention that methane causes nosebleeds and the article section just says these things without attributing to the cause. It's just an assumption there. It seems to let those jump to a conclusion that might not be true. If I'm formally incorrect then the Methane article is incorrect. I'm not gonna bother editing this article anymore but suggest that section clarifies what is actually attributing what is causing the medical problems. Also, another suggestion is to possibly mention what the Gas Company might be trying to do. I'm sure they're making some effort with the community. Right now the article looks kind of one sided. I'm not trying to be an apologist at all for the gas company and this is a terrible environmental disaster but I think this article needs some help to be a little more NPOV. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
$4M profits in an average 12 hour cycle?
editI don't think this claim is true. If you look at SoCalGas' parent company's, Sempra Energy, annual report, it shows Sempra's total earnings (profit) were $1,370M. This means Sempra Energy made $0.15M per hour profit total. Therefore, $4M would take Sempra at least 25.57 hrs to generate and therefore, it would take even longer for SoCalGas to generate that profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.73.28 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)