Talk:List of fault zones

Name

If we are to have such a list, and I foresee difficulties with the inclusion criteria, then if should be List of faults as a 'fault line' is the intersection between a fault plane and the earth's surface [1] - some faults do not reach the earth's surface (such as blind thrusts). Mikenorton (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As an alternative the list could also be named "list of faults and seismic zones". If all the faults not reaching the surface would be removed than many earthquakes wouldn't be listed and the list would loose much of its reference value. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How about "List of fault zones"? --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a better name I think. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope

I too share Mikenorton's concern about the inclusion criteria. Currently it reads: either geologically important or connected to prominent seismic activity. Anyone have suggestions for improvement? --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat some of what I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, you should first try to find suitable references to establish notability for this list (see notability criteria for stand-alone lists). That will protect the page against AfDs and may also clarify the inclusion criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that several aspects speak for an inclusion:

• The article was requested here
• Most faults that are linked already have pages on Wikipedia but only very local links (e.g. "Tectonics of South America"-table in Pichilemu_Fault) which give no global perspective of fault zones.
• List of earthquakes doesn't give any information about the faults involved.

Of course many aspect speak against an inclusion:

• The fault zone information could be added to List of earthquakes.
• Some faults probably don't fulfill the inclusion criteria themselves (e.g. San_Ramón_Fault)

I think at this point the page would benefit from a clearer definition of what should be included in the list (e.g. no fault zones shorter than 1000 km). As usual it would be nice to hear a few more opinions. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps much, but I added: It is not intended to list every notable fault, but only major fault zones. --Bejnar (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference lists

• I'm struggling at the moment to find anything like a global catalogue of fault zones to meet the criteria for stand alone lists - there are several countries that list major fault zones that occur within their boundaries (in most cases as part of seismic hazard assessment e.g. New Zealand and the US), but none that I can find that take a more global view. Mikenorton (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Old, but try for starters: Snead, Rodman E. (1972) Atlas of world physical features Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-80800-8, on page 45:Few areas of the world are completely free of the stresses taking place, and faulting is very widespread. This map shows the main fault zones. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This map is another possible source, but a lot of the faults are unlabelled - I'll look further to see if NASA lists them anywhere. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Circum-Pacific Map Project put out a set of seven sheets of plate-tectonic maps for the Pacific that in theory list fault zones, but when I looked at the SW Pacific sheet and the Arctic sheet, very few fault zones appeared. --Bejnar (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

List of fracture zones

I just noticed the List of fracture zones article. What should be the relationship between that article and this article? --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Right now this is a simple alphabetical list. What possible systems of classifying fault zones would provide utility for readers when used as subdivisions within this article? By continent and ocean? By dip-slip, strike-slip and "strike and dip slip"? By geologic period of first incidence? --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would go by tectonic regime - extensional, contractional or strike-slip. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Content and organisation

I decided to do something about this list, firstly by adding the period of movement and also by filling in blank columns. Most of the listed faults are active and this makes me wonder if we should split the table into two (or possibly more) parts. These could be 'active' and 'extinct' and could be further organised geographically. If anyone would like to come up with options while I'm pondering this, I would be grateful. Mikenorton (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)