Talk:Tsunami/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The plural of tsunami (yet again)

There is a simple explanation being missed here, the Japanese language does not use plural nouns. Hence "I have three child" or "could you sell me four pencil?" Obviously then tsunami (a noun) is singular and plural in Japan. The only question is whether to honor their pronunciation (or remove plurals from English as they are completely unneccesary!)

Also the article states "...or use an invariable plural as in the Japanese." I could be wrong, but I don't think this is correct either; my understanding is an "invariable plural" is a word that cannot be spelled as a singular even when referring to a quantity of one. Anyone know? Larryzap (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Forth paragraph includes words such as "centre" and "metre". Discuss. 71.55.16.101 (talk)

I prefer fourth to forth. (Is that what you're after?) HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

laugh - you mean the British English vs American English skirmish is still active on this article? - Tenebris 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference problem

Reference #4 - http://www.answers.com/topic/tsunami - is fully circular. When the reference is checked, the "195" number appears only in the text lifted from Wikipedia. - Tenebris 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.225 (talk)

Doesn't make sense

If the first part of a tsunami to reach land is a trough—called a drawback—rather than a wave crest

And the sentence abruptly ends. Any "if" should have some "then" to make sense. Or at least, this sentence doesn't make sense without a then. It says if, so what is the consequence of the "if" being fulfilled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.6.56 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a change made a few months ago, but I can't see what was intended, so I've changed it back - thanks for spotting that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Name

A tsunami is not "also called a tsunami wave train". This falsehood has been in the article for months. That phrase may have been used somewhere; that does not make it an additional name for the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.181.183 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And a month later it's still there. Anyone here give a shit about accuracy? 201.214.175.96 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The term is used, although it's not that common, to express the fact that tsunami waves are not solitary but come in groups. It needs rewording because it's not a direct equivalent in the way that 'Seismic sea wave' is. I'll see what I can come up with. Mikenorton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The term might be used but it's absolutely not right to use it in the way it's used in this article. It would be like saying "hurricane, also called hurricane winds". In fact, "hurricane winds" compared to "hurricane" appears to be thirteen times more common in the scientific literature than "tsunami wave train" compared to "tsunami" (4800 / 410,000 / 166 / 191,000 results respectively from google scholar).

Why is this article protected anyway? It seems to have been locked for months. 200.120.206.103 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of vandalism just over a year ago and it's been semi-protected since then - perhaps raise it with the admin who protected it, User:Dabomb87. Mikenorton (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble coming up with a new version of the lede, which mentions the "tsunami wave train" but doesn't imply that it's a direct synonym. Perhaps you could propose a revised wording here, I'm getting too tired to think. Mikenorton (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here's what I would propose as a revised lead. I wouldn't be inclined to include the tsunami wave train wording at all, as it's so seldom used, but if you prefer it, this version has it. This includes a lot of the text already present but in what seems to me a more logical order and better summarising the contents of the article. The three paragraphs roughly cover the basic definition and cause; observed characteristics and human impact; and scientific studies.

What do you reckon? 200.120.206.103 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

A tsunami (plural: tsunamis or tsunami; from Japanese: 津波, lit. "harbor wave"; English pronunciation: /suːˈnɑːmi/ soo-NAH-mee or /tsuːˈnɑːmi/ tsoo-NAH-mee) is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water, typically an ocean or a large lake. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions (including detonations of underwater nuclear devices), landslides, glacier calvings, meteorite impacts and other disturbances above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami.

Tsunami waves do not resemble normal sea waves, because their wavelength is far longer. Rather than appearing as a breaking wave, a tsunami may instead initially resemble a rapidly rising tide, and for this reason they are often referred to as tidal waves. Tsunamis generally consist of a series of waves with periods ranging from minutes to hours, arriving in a so-called "wave train". Wave heights of tens of metres can be generated by large events. Although the impact of tsunamis is limited to coastal areas, their destructive power can be enormous and they can affect entire ocean basins; the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was among the deadliest natural disasters in human history with over 230,000 people killed in 14 countries bordering the Indian Ocean.

The Greek historian Thucydides suggested in 426 B.C. that tsunamis were related to submarine earthquakes, but the understanding of a tsunami's nature remained slim until the 20th century and much remains unknown. Major areas of current research include trying to determine why some large earthquakes do not generate tsunamis while other smaller ones do; trying to accurately forecast the passage of tsunamis across the oceans; and also to forecast how tsunami waves would interact with specific shorelines.

---

Thanks, that looks better to me. You've missed out anything on meteotsunamis, but the doesn't belong in the lede as it isn't in the body of the article. Need to find another place for it, perhaps its own section. I'll wait a few days for any other views then make the necessary changes if there are no substantial objections. Mikenorton (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to trim it to a line at the end but then thought it's not really necessary in the lead. It's mentioned in the "see also" section, and perhaps could be mentioned in "generation mechanisms"? 200.120.206.103 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of making the changes, then? Thanks. 190.44.140.37 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, I've changed the lead as discussed, moving the meteotsunami bit to its own section and that's now sourced. Mikenorton (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Great - thanks. 190.44.140.37 (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

---

It should be sayed that in Spanish there is the word "maremoto" that means tsunami. It comes from latín "mare" (sea) and "motus" (movement). This word is used in the Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal Academy) dictionary insteads of tsunami as the correct way to call this waves in Spanish. --77.209.225.210 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Section: Warnings and predictions

In the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami drawback was not reported on the African coast or any other eastern //[THIS SHOULD BE WESTERN] coasts it reached. This was because the wave moved downwards on the eastern side of the fault line and upwards on the western side. The western pulse hit coastal Africa and other western areas. 203.109.210.46 (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed 'eastern' to east-facing', which I think was the intent of the text. The whole thing should probably be rewritten to make it clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thucydides quote?

In the history section there appears to be a quote from Thucydides. The entire quote should be encased with quotation marks. If this is not a quote, then it should be deleted as original thoughts does not meet Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.22.12 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotation marks added as this is a direct quotation from one of the translations of Thucydides, Mikenorton (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article claims, both in the introduction and in the "History" section, that Thucydides noticed "in 426 BC" the correlation between earthquakes and tsunamis. This is a mistake. The tsunami Thucydides is referring to in the passage cited occurred in 426, but his History of the Peloponnesian War wasn't written until much later, probably in the 390s. Like other historians, Thucydides is probably writing in retrospect, not necessarily as the events are happening. 99.42.81.164 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Wgracen (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the notice as this is clearly not a candidate for deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Landslides

The claim that scientists discovered that underwater landslides cause tsunami in the 1950's is wrong. It was known that the Grand Banks earthquake in 1929 triggered a landslide because of the timings when the Trans-Atlantic telephone cables were cut and that the landslide also resulted in a tsunami which hit the Canadian Coast. There is disagreement as to whether the earthquake or the slide caused the tsunami, but it seems more likely that it was the displacement of sediments.

Lituya Bay tsunami occurred when a massive block of ice and rock fell almost vertically into the waters of the bay, triggering a tsunami which within the confines of the bay had an amplitude of about 500 metres.

Despite claims about volcanic islands collapsing and triggering tsunami, there is no known example of island collapse causing a tsunami. It may be that we are at an interlude in geological time during which large scale collapse of part of a volcanic island will not be witnessed. The claim by some geologists etc; that the Cumbre Vieja on La Palma is in imminent danger of collapse is wrong. The Cumbre Vieja is about 25 km long, and the section that ruptured in 1949 is about 2.5 km long i.e., about 1/10 of the length. Incidentally it was the media along with a certain geologist that first used the term the mega-tsunami in respect to a predicted collapse of the Cumbre Vieja. Again no such wave has been witnessed as far as is known, but there are indications that a massive tsunami did occur on Oahu and Molokai in the Hawaiian Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.55.211 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

List of words for tsunami in other languages.

Another language with a word for "tsunami" is Portuguese, where it is called "maremoto". I didn't want to simply edit the article, so I thought I'd bring it up here.

93.102.119.198 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Egon, 22-05-201493.102.119.198 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally list the names for the subject of an article in languages other than English. Tsunami comes from the Japanese, but it is the word commonly used in English now. Just click on the interwiki links for the article and you'll see that there are a few other names out there as well, although I don't think that any of them should be added. Mikenorton (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "Maremoto" is also used by Spanish speaking people the world over and they also refer to earthquakes as "Terramoto or Tornillo". As Spanish is one of the major languages of the human race the term maremoto is more common than many may assume.

Issues with Forecast of tsunami attack probability

1. Grammar
2. lack of working English citation sources
3. Should it even be in it's own subsection?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 

Missing name

Under Tsunami#Causes, third paragraph:

In the 1950s it was discovered by that larger tsunami than previously believed

Who discovered this?

Geologists working for oil companies and the USGS!

More to the point, some vacationers/fishermen on Lituya Bay in Alaska. Earlier stories of huge waves in the bay were dismissed, even with the high scour evidence. In the 90s, with disaster TV series on the rise, the story that woke up geology took to the air and the super-tsunami was "discovered". SkoreKeep (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scales of intensity and magnitude

The latest proposal on tsunami intensity scales (ITIS2012) is a 12-grade one, according to and compatible with the earthquake intensity scales and includes impact criteria grouped in six categories: tsunami quantities, and impact on human, mobile objects, infrastructure, environment and structures . A Proposal for a New Integrated Tsunami Intensity Scale (ITIS‐2012)--Navsika (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a short paragraph to the article using that reference. Mikenorton (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

Those kinds of papers are generally not available on Google Books. Sometimes there's partial papers. The authors probably aren't going to want that material out there for free. Besides, we're not creating a directory here. We're creating an encyclopedia to read. If there's something there in that large collection of papers let's cite it, but creating a list of inaccessible items doesn't seem that good of an idea. I had a large cleanup of the external links section and when I saw the entry of that book in there again I just removed it also (again). Dawnseeker2000 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Books are available at libraries for those that dont want or can afford to spend 130 stutz just after WP told them to do so. I think it would be better to have more textbooks and less links, the one in question is not only tekkie stuff but gives the whole picture, social science included. In so far I would prefer maximum ten links and maximum ten books. Serten (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Typographical Errors

In the section "Man-made or triggered tsunamis" the word "whether" is misspelled. (An "h" is missing).

 Done Thanks,Dawnseeker2000 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ERROR ON LOCATION

In the section titled "Landslides" the term used for one of the Canary Islands is Las Palmas. It is wrong, the correct location is the Island of La Palma, Las Palmas is a port and town on the Island of Gran Canaria. I don't have permission to access the page so can someone with the relevant permissions carry out the alteration. Thanks, The Geologist.The Geologist (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Normal faults

The article currently states:

More specifically, a tsunami can be generated when thrust faults associated with convergent or destructive plate boundaries move abruptly, resulting in water displacement, owing to the vertical component of movement involved. Movement on normal faults will also cause displacement of the seabed, but the size of the largest of such events is normally too small to give rise to a significant tsunami.

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that the phrase "normal fault" here is being used as a technical term — see fault (geology)#Dip-slip faults, where the first sentence says

Dip-slip faults can occur either as "reverse" or as "normal" faults. A normal fault occurs when the crust is extended. Alternatively such a fault can be called an extensional fault.

The problem is that the casual reader may not understand that "normal fault" is a technical term, and may think it just means "ordinary fault" or something like that.

So it seems to me that there are several possible fixes, depending on what is actually meant. If I'm wrong, and the sentence really does mean "ordinary fault", then maybe just say that, or reword for clarity. If it's a technical term as I suspect, then we could link it. Probably the normal fault redirect should be retargeted, either to fault (geology)#Dip-slip faults, or to extensional fault (note in passing that those two contradict each other slightly, as the former implies that "normal fault" and "extensional fault" are synonyms, whereas the latter says that not all extensional faults are normal faults).

If normal faults and extensional faults are not exactly the same thing, then someone with expertise needs to figure out which one is correct and link that one.

Finally, if the link should in fact be to "normal fault", then it would be good to say a few words to make it clear that that's a technical term. Remember that, in a printed version of the article, no one will see the link.

Hope that's not too long to read, and that someone with more knowledge than I have is willing and able to fix the problem. --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not a case of TLDR Trovatore, this does need sorting out. As with everything in geology, terminology gets used imprecisely all the time, particularly in media reports, but also in scientific papers. I think that the best solution for now is to link to fault (geology)#Dip-slip faults as you suggest. The term normal fault came from the coal mining industry of the Midland Valley in Scotland, an area affected by both extension and contraction at different periods. Most of the faults are extensional ("normal"), so normally if you encountered a fault while mining a particular seam, you had to go down (if the fault dipped away from you) or up if it dipped towards you to pick up the seam again (these were faults with a displacement of a few metres generally, so worth doing). Occasionally that was found not to work and the miners had to move in the reverse direction along the fault plane to find the seam, hence "reverse faults" - sadly I have completely failed to find a reliable source for that bit of history. To some structural geologists (including me, which is why I created the extensional fault page), the term extensional is the correct one to use, as it refers to the effect on the markers in the rock that you are using to define displacement, but most geologists tend to use "normal" without worrying about such niceties, so this page probably shouldn't either. Thanks for raising this - I'll make the change as suggested - although I'll then check the literature, because I have a feeling that I've seen reference to tsunamis triggered by large "normal" faulting events in the outer trench swell. I hope that's clear (and not TLDR itself) and thanks again for forcing me to look at this - something that I've been aware of dimly but I've ignored up to now. Mikenorton (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the 1933 Sanriku earthquake is good example of a devastating tsunami associated with normal faulting, so I've modified the text and added some sources. Mikenorton (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

In the Tsunami wiki article, it says known as "tidal wave" and that is incorrect. Tidal waves happen all the time they are not related to Tsunamis. It just bothered me and I can't edit because it's a locked article. Thank you. --Dougalcraft (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of 'tidal wave' to mean tsunami is greatly reduced these days, but it still happens and there are many older books, newspaper reports etc. that use it - it was never commonly used in the scientific world, seismic sea wave being preferred. I think that it's worth keeping for its historical usage. Mikenorton (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To every question, there's an xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1010/ --Sanderd17 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

In the discussion about names of tsunamis in other languages, Spanish word for earthquake is incorrect: it is TERREMOTO not TERRAMOTO. Likewise there is no acute accent on the E of MAREMOTO. 14.2.153.236 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, section on meteorite impact tsunamis

There isn't much on the topic here and I think it could have a section.

There's a section here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltanin_impact#Tsunami

And search also turns up

http://news.ucsc.edu/2003/05/355.html

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2053/20140381

I'm sure there's a lot more on it.

Just a suggestion Robert Walker (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

There is an interesting claim regarding few other languages have a different native word for this. Is there a citation for this? Seems a bit contradictory since there is a bunch of examples right after where in other languages a different word is used. Also that list also seem incomplete. I know at least in Chinese there is a native word that is very different than tsunami. It is 海啸 (lit. sea roar).

I guess my questions around this are: 1. Is this claim valid to have on Wikipedia? And if yes, do we need to cite it? 2. Should we maintain this list of various other words from other languages for the same phenomenon? If we do, what criteria do we use to determine if we should include those words?

Misosoup7 (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Prompted by the edit request below, I was thinking that it's odd that we mention any of these other terms in the english language wikipedia. I propose to delete all of the sub-section headed 'Tsunami' (in the Terminology section) except for the first paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have deleted most of the sub-section. Mikenorton (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion - Multiple wave progression of tsunami

I have made an illustration showing a simplified schematic representation of how a tsunami wave front progress by multiple paths through the water. You may want to include it to convey a better understanding of how a tsunami cause several waves of varying amplitude.

Multiple wave progression of tsunami

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Love Nystrom (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken links in References

I just clicked on the links for references 51 and 52 and both are no longer available. 51 triggers a "Page Could Not be Found" error. 52 leads to "Not Found" on this server.

51) Kyodo Press "Tsunami toppled more than 50% of sea wall in Iwate prefecture" (JA)
52) 1993年7月12日　北海道南西沖地震 (in Japanese).

Nymatis (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed dead ref links and replaced them with citation needed tags. Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

To editors Nymatis and Webbbbbbber: Actually, it's much better to keep them and mark them with the {{dead link}} template. Please see WP:KDL and WP:DEADLINK.  Paine  ^u/c 12:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

thtyt

rhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1205:14E:119:191C:48C0:561D (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Mistypen formula

There is a mistype in the formula of the Murty & Loomis magnitude scale (section "Scales of intensity and magnitude", part "Magnitude scales"): Mt = a log h + b log R + D (instead of ... = D, addition instead of equality). Florofill (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

2nd tsunami image

The 2nd image on the tsunami page is actually a picture of a tidal bore and needs to be removed.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/tsunami/tsunami1.asp ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the first two pictures are both of the Boxer Day earthquake/tsunami, in Aceh afterwards, and then landing in Thailand. The pictures in snopes are indeed of a tidal bore, but the outward resemblance between photos of the bore and the wave in Thailand are not indicative of them having the same cause. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'd thought I recognized what I identified as the Aceh photo, but it is not. It's of the damage caused by the 2011 earthquake off the Japanese coast. Doesn't change the conclusion. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

tsunami is complicated desase mai shi bta rha hu bahan k lodo smjh jaao madhrchodo

tum sb ki maa ka bhosda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.248.95.126 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

65.23.5.242 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Tsunami are very dangerous and can cause damages very deep.They are required evacuation.65.23.5.242 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Drawback Animation

It seems to me that the animation is talking about a different type of drawback to the text. The animation has an object on the surface of the water being pulled backwards (which doesn't seem particularly relevent). The text talks about the apparent drawback of water during the trough of a tsunami.

Armcie (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Tidal wave link

please change Tidal wave to Tidal wave (disambiguation)((!))Tidal wave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Tidal wave (disambiguation) redirects to Tidal wave, so not required. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225143835/http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa.gov/terms.html to http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa.gov/terms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225143835/http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa.gov/terms.html to http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa.gov/terms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206033431/http://www.landslideblog.org/2008/12/vaiont-vajont-landslide-of-1963.html to http://www.landslideblog.org/2008/12/vaiont-vajont-landslide-of-1963.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717025233/http://www.tsunami.org/references.html to http://tsunami.org/references.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

animation needs editing

The initial 12-15 seconds of the animation shown at present are visually confusing, as if a camera is being panned amateurishly. They are also irrelevant. The initial caption shows flawed English grammar, and then there is the odd clue for editors that text should be added, imposed as a caption around 24 seconds. Martindo (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The version of this video on NOAA's YouTube web page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-TO5kq5Aw seems better (e.g. no subtitles and no "false start") than the version that is currently in this Wikipedia article, which probably comes from NOAA's website http://go.usa.gov/SRNwb (currently unavailable). Perhaps the YouTube version could be used in Wikipedia? GeoWriter (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Tsunami

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus below. There are numerous statements which need citation per the criteria. Geometry guy 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does not appear to meet the GA criteria. I'm not familiar with this process, so I'm bringing it here rather than boldly delisting (which I considered). The article is not well written and is woefully undercited. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article will benefit from in-line citations. The prose needs to be sharpened in places. Majoreditor (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Needs significant improvement in references. Lacking citations in many places where statistics and opinions are given. References need to be properly formatted, with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. What makes "abelard.org" (the first bullet point in the References section) reliable? The See also and especially the External links sections could use a trim. There are a couple of dead external links, see here. The bold formatting in the Terminology section should be removed. Has had a disputed statement tag in place since November 2008. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist A quick look at the reference column says that the article has far too few in-line citations for its size; the frequent are not a good sign. The external links section needs to be about 1/2 its current size. The grammar and style of the article could be made clearer in some instances. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Needs to be more comprehensive, and the citation is woeful. ResMar 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Layout and sources are not GA-quality. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The pronunciation "/suːˈnɑːmi/ soo-nah-mee" should be removed from the article. Xintian1 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• External links. Possibly use www.sms-tsunami-warning.com in place of www.tsunami-warning.org as web-based tsunami warning system; www.tsunami-warning.org lacks of valuable content.

———

Whoever wrote the Terminology section needs to check out the United States Geological Survey webpage, because it contradicts the assertions that:

• "tidal wave" and "tsunami" refer to the same thing;
• "tsunami" is currently the term most widely accepted by geologists and oceanographers;
• the term "tidal wave" has fallen out of favour, especially in the scientific community;
• the term "tidal wave" is discouraged by geologists and oceanographers.

There is also this graphic from the Oregon Beachcomber Blog:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CfQvDO4wTcA/UnhExUaPIaI/AAAAAAAABW8/uR_QYaMn6H8/s1600/tides-tsunami-1024x794.jpg———

——— 124.37.83.250 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that it supports most of these assertions. Specifically, it contains this sentence: "Tidal wave" was used in earlier times to describe what we now call a tsunami. This states that 1) at least "in earlier times", "tidal wave" and "tsunami" referred to the same thing. 2) Tsunami is now the term accepted by the scientists of USGS, whereas 3) "tidal wave" has fallen out of their favour, to the point where they are 4) actively discouraging it. Essentially, this sentence supports every statement you quote except for maintaining that the use of "tidal wave" as synonym for tsunami is obsolete. However, pace their expertise in geology, I submit that in matters of language and usage, dictionaries are more authoritative, and these do not mark "tidal wave" as obsolete (although it's more prevalent as a metaphor nowadays than to denote a literal tsunami), so your citation is rather an example of "geologists and oceanographers" attempting to discourage this use than proof of their absolute success.

In point of fact, the objection to the phrase "tidal wave", though it has managed to modify usage, was spurious in the first place. "Tidal wave" means "a wave that resembles a tide", which is an apt description of a tsunami. It's rather unlikely that people ever thought that tsunami were caused by tides, as they are singular events. JudahH (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Tidal wave" is incorrect, but "harbor wave" is correct? Oh, politically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.6.135 (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2019

Tsunamis are not tidal waves. Tides do not create tsunamis, rather earthquakes and movements of continents do. 199.58.98.71 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Tidal wave is actually the proper terminology, or it's more accurate than tsunami at least. The suffix -al at the end of tide has multiple meanings. When you say a wave is "tidal", that can mean it's caused by tidal forces or it can mean that it resembles a wave caused by the tides and in this case that's what it means. Tsunamis are tidal waves because they resemble an extremely large high tide coming in and the drawback that often precedes them resembles an extremely low tide. Tsunami on the other hand is definitely not correct because it means "harbor wave" and tsunamis can hit anywhere, not just in harbors. 65.189.193.27 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

The introduction says that Thucydides suggested that earthquakes and tsunamis were related. However, the source says "The cause of such inundation, for my part, I take to be this: that the earthquake, where it was very great, did there send off the sea; and the sea returning on a sudden, caused the water to come on with greater violence. And it seemeth unto me that without an earthquake such an accident could never happen." Suggested sounds like he merely related the concepts, but he actually says outright that he thinks one causes the other. Could you change suggested to argued or proposed? Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As per the OED page on suggest, suggest means "put forward for consideration". Perfectly valid word choice in this case imo. In addition, suggest and propose are synonyms, so there does not seem to be any benefit to the change. NiciVampireHeart 23:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the quotation from the source? He argued for this; it's not merely saying "this might be the case". WP:IPHUMAN. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

There is an unclosed parenthesis at line 4. I suggest adding a closing parenthesis after "disturbances". 209.129.224.26 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 16:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Change than to that and possible to impossible in landslides 2405:201:803:87E7:890E:96D4:6CAE:C0E0 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed the phrase to "tsunamis larger than had previously been believed possible can be caused by giant submarine landslides", which I think is better wording. Deli nk (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)