Meters and feet Edit
The original text says it was a decent of 200 meters, the new background text says a decent of 256 feet. What is the correct unit?--Bp 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- 200 meters is equal to 656.17 feet.18.104.22.168 20:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Janeway says 200 meters in the episode, which is about 656 feet. I wrote it that way in the background info because elevation information is traditionally given in feet here in the states, but also to give us silly non metric users some perspective as to what that equates to without having to do the math ourselves.-Foravalon 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops! I effed up my figures for the descent, it's 656ft not 256ft. You're right, it was pretty "indecent" of me, but i fixed it, it's even more impressive now. Whoo hoo!-Foravalon 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- That "is" the canon figure, and the comparison is in the background info so there is no conflict of interest within the article. -Foravalon 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
JANEWAY: Have you ever been to southern California, Chakotay? CHAKOTAY: No. JANEWAY: After the Hermosa quake in 2047 this entire region sank under two hundred metres of water. It became one of the world's largest coral reefs, home to thousands of different marine species.
Based on this dialog, I have removed this paragraph.
It is unclear how much of Los Angeles was destroyed in the earthquake – Janeway may have been referring to the coastal cities only. But with an elevation of 71 meters or 233 feet in downtown LA alone, a cataclysmic descent of 656 feet (200 meters) below sea level does not bode well for the greater Los Angeles area. Certainly, the city has not been mentioned as existing in the 24th century.
Based on elevation figures from Los Angeles, only the top of the tallest buildings, if they survived the earthquake, would be above water. (The tallest building, US Bank Building, is 310 meters high.) The rest of the city would be submerged.Lakenheath72 (talk) 12:39, January 31, 2015 (UTC)