Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 3

picture bias
If i was just viewing this article from the pictures (not graphics) alone, my assumption would be "oh so it looked like it only inconvenienced a few people in Tokyo, as well as fires". I don't think the current pictures get across the sheer scale of the devastation and how many it has affected. It looks like they are in need of an update, including more tsunami )images (as they seem to focus on the quake) and spread the location focus from Tokyo, to the other communities, some which have been totally wiped out. thanks (those effected by this tragedy, my thoughts are with you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsloan (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can only include freely licensed or fair use images, which are hard to come by so early. Here's a photo which captures the human terror but I don't know whether it would qualify for fair use. Maybe for a few weeks? It's from the slideshow at . 99.50.126.70 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the rationale behind the actions of whoever it was who removed those pictures - there are plenty of examples of articles where such pictures form an integral part of the article, and they do add a lot of encyclopaedic value. I'm not sure if there was any consensus for removing them, but I got the impression there were a number of copyvios, which may have had something to do with it, but I would suggest that none are removed (if any are added in the future) without reaching some sort of consensus among editors that they should be removed, and that editors should be careful that any images they do add are allowed under WP:COPYRIGHT. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 21:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a few pictures of the Sendai area. I think these photos help capture the sense of devastation in Tohoku. --Tocino 21:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a far better picture at the top of the infobox than the one we had for a few hours earlier, which taken in Tokyo but just looked like people were strolling around going about their usual business. The current infobox picture makes me think "hmm, that looks ominous," which seems appropriate for an article about a devestating earthquake. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I concur. It takes a while for the scale of the devastation to sink it, and that one shot is as emblematic as any shot can be, I think. kencf0618 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/japan_earthquake_aftermath.html seems to be a better editorial selection, showing more of the perspective in photos I think better represents the extent of the disaster. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Quakesos, 14 March 2011
Extensive multiple post pages reporting in earthquake-report.com http://earthquake-report.com/japan-march-11-tsunami/

Quakesos (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for this to be put in the external links, or used as a source? If it is to be used as a source, a more specific request will be needed. There also appears to be an advert at the top of that page for "QuakeSOS" - and that is also your username. What is going on here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your request per the template guidelines. Specify exactly what should be edited and in what fashion, and we would be happy to do it for you if stay within content guidelines. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

GEONET ground motion for Japan
Here is a link to a map showing horizontal ground motion measured via the Japanese GEONET GPS network due to the 2011 Sendai earthquake. One of the GPS stations shows a maximum horizontal ground motion of 4.42 meters to the ESE. It's from "GEONET, Geodetic Observation Center, Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, courtesy of Hiromitchi Tsuji, Head of the Satellite Geodesy Division." I found it on the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory website. It might be worth adding it to the article. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

second tsunami
Another incoming tsunami has been reported quite widely. e.g. I havent seen any reports of it hitting land yet. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'the helicopter reporting the new wave is not an "official" helicopter.' John Vandenberg (chat) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fire dept hellochopper
 * hysteria ;) Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * False alarm
 * but another explosion ;) Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * However, more than 10.000 people have been told to evacuate, according to NHK World. (NHK world also reported that no tsunami has been observed and no earthquake has been reported that would have been able to trigger a tsunami of that scale.) Cs32en   Talk to me  03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking of false alarms, it is probably a typo, but look at the bottom of this page at the estimated arrival date. It says "14:55 - 15:10 JST 13 Mar" when it should say (I think) "14:55 - 15:10 JST 11 Mar", which would make sense when compared to the rest of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Local authorities have warned the respective populations, and the suspected tsunami was widely reported in the media. As the time on the JMA website is in the future, the typo does not appear to be the source of the confusion. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the future? Surely you mean the past? 13 March is the past when looked at from 14 March. I have no idea what the timing of the false alarm above was, and was just pointing out something else I noticed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It says "Copyright (C) 2002", too ;) Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

High or low notability - "the most alarmist response of any major country"
I added the following to the section on International response:


 * On 13 March, the French government advised all its citizens to leave the Tokyo area due to the risk of a possible new earthquake exceeding magnitude 7.0 and uncertainty over possible radioactive leaks.(Japan earthquake: France tells nationals to leave Tokyo, Daily Telegraph, 13 March 2011.)

and somebody removed it, commenting "not notable, many nations offered similar advice".

However, according to the reference I cited it is not true that "many nations offered similar advice" - France is described as having "the most alarmist response from any major country". This it seems to me is actually highly notable and is exactly the sort of international reaction that ought to be mentioned in the article. A Saku (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All nations will be issuing similar advisory statements to travelers, however their assessments and advice will vary a bit. Unless multiple sources are commenting on the French advisory, it isn't very important. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, multiple independent sources are now covering this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, to pick just the first few from a search. A Saku (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all the same authors, and they do not labour on the point that the French advisory is alarmist. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all by different editors who each decided independently the story was sufficiently notable to run. A Saku (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, there will be an article on Reactions to the 2011 Japanese earthquake, see Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid for comparison. Cs32en  Talk to me  03:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * is this where we start a big table of flag-icons and a list of rote platitudes from the PR types? then a big no-consensus AfD (or overturn at DRV) followed by a lot of whinging on teh talk page? or can we just nip that? Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your (implied) prediction is probably correct. Already, the discussion in Germany about the future of nuclear power can be seen as a notable reaction to the event. Most travel advisories will not fall into this category, in my opinion. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But that would be encyclopaedic coverage of reactions; most members of teh wiki-community will want the flags and their crop of ghits copypasta'd inta-teh-table. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

+ WP:BEANS. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand where the hyperbolic claims being touted above regarding what might creep into the article come from. I'm not interested in "a list of rote platitudes from the PR types", or "flag icons". Adding that would be ridiculous. My suggestion was simply we should mention very briefly that "country X has advised their citizens to leave Tokyo", where X is "France". If more countries eventually concur with France, a very brief "several countries have advised their citizens to leave Tokyo" would suffice. The fact that any major country has advised their citizens to leave Tokyo strikes me as very notable and relevant to covering the international response to the situation in an encylopedic way. Leaving it out seems odd. Can somebody explain the rationale without hyperbole please? A Saku (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it is unexceptional. Any government doing its job should have issued similar advisories. The Australian Government said "We also advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Tokyo" . You are claiming something is notable or newsworthy when it simply is not. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Advising their citizens not to go to Tokyo is unexceptional. Advising their citizens to leave Tokyo is exceptional. If it is not notable, why is it being reported so widely? It's notable because it is being reported so widely. A Saku (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * my comments come from years of observation of the dysfunctional wiki-community. they luv flagcruft and trivial bits. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But none of those hyperbolic edits have actually happened. If any did, we seem to have a unanimity here ready to remove such stuff immediately. A Saku (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Other earthquake articles have "humanitarian response" subarticles. So if we were to build one here, it would be Humanitarian response to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; similar to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was actually about the French government's advice to its citizens to leave Tokyo, not about a humanitarian response. A Saku (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please just accept that you have no consensus to add that material and move on to something else. Constantly banging on about it will not change anything. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarifying here: I am not asking for it to be added again. I am asking why others do not want it to be added. Consensus is important. Sorry if I am missing something obvious to you or if I appear stupid, but I genuinely do not understand the reasons. I just want to understand the actual reasoning. The only explanations so far are based on hyperbolic claims. Could anybody explain the rationale without hyperbole please? A Saku (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS travel alerts belong in a WikiNews article; WP:NOTMEMORIAL expressions of condolence are also not appropriate. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Add These
Please add these in the International Response section:
 * Malaysia is sending in a search and rescue team, with doctors and medical assistants.
 * Singapore is sending in a search and rescue team.
 * South Korea is sending in a 102 member team of workers.
 * ✅ WWGB (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) and others

Please Add to "See Also" Section
Minamisanriku, Miyagi This town was 95 % destroyed and has 9500 people missing. It now has it's own article which should be appropriately linked from the main 2011 tsunami article.

98.245.172.142 (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) ✅ -SusanLesch (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could add it to the category for this article? –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake duration
Currently the infobox says the earthquake lasted 5 minutes, but I've seen reports elsewhere that it lasted longer, ten minutes or so. Also, the duration is not in the main article text that I can see. Could we try and find a reliable geological source that gives the duration of the quake and get that put somewhere in the lead and the main part of the article? Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Extent of tsunamis
I recently added something to the article emphasising the geographical extent of the tsunamis (hundreds of kilometers of coastline were affected), but something more is needed on how far inland the tsunamis reached. Clearly this varies with geography, but it would be nice to have more on this rather than the 10 kilometer figure we have at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would also be good to have some information on estimated speed of travel of the tsunami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.180 (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Add to article
Please add the following to the article under International response. Thank you. 122.255.9.7 (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) India is sending woollen clothes and blankets, with the initial plan being to send 22 tonnes of woollen blankets. Source: hindustan times
 * 2) Sri Lanka, one of the worst hit countries in 2004 tsunami, has announced US$1 million in aid, as well as sending a team of medical and rescue workers. Sources: reuters asian tribune hindustan times
 * ✅ Goodvac (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Map
Is this starting to get too busy? Moondyne (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * we have similar maps on the two wiki's about the power plants, as for the article about the earthquake itself the map is more than sufficient at explaining the situation. JBDRanger (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

talk suggestions
this talk page is getting very long and taking a long time to load. it's almost to 200,000 bytes. can we delete or hide the really old and done suggestions? JBDRanger (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest manual archiving of the off-topic or dealt with stuff. The archive bot should take care of the rest - I think it is set to one day at the moment. Even more useful would be someone organising both the talk page and the work being done on the article. Concentrated work on particular sections, pulling together similar talk page threads, that sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * totally didn't see that 2 pages have already been archived, whoops, thanks though. JBDRanger (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New newspaper articles
Starting a section here to list new newspaper articles: Please add more and use them in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Independent (13/03/2011)
 * add more here

oil refinery. more info, please add
The oil section only lists the Ichihara refinery fire. There was also one at Sendai on the JX refinery http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/refinery-operations-jx-fire-idUSTKG00706520110312, Reuters also has this list http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7EB2HO20110311 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.117.246 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the useful links. I have added some information about the JX refinery fire. Goodvac (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

North Korean response? i.e. none
In keeping with DPRK usual behaviour, the great nation of the Kims finally carried a 20s news report of the disaster to air on state TV 48 hours after the disaster. Yonhap. Considering Japan is its neighbour, this seems a notable event and worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.249.93 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quake magnitude
Well, I've been gone for the night, has there been actual consensus on changing the magnitude back to 9.0? We reached a reasonable consensus here last night to use 8.9 - 9.0 for now because the OFFICIAL USGS value is 8.9 Mw, but the 9.0 value from the Japanese is POSSIBLY in Mj (proprietary JMA scale, values will end up similar to Mw but not the same.) The 9.0 on the USGS page is on one sub-page; their primary data still says 8.9 and that remains their official number. Unless there is good rationale behind reverting this to 9.0, it should be changed back to 8.9 - 9.0. Figured I'd ask in case there were new USGS developments I missed or something. Oh yeah, the main USGS page with their OFFICIAL value on it. Again, the reason we're not using the JMA value alone is that it cannot be confirmed if it is in Mw or not. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  11:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing this back if nobody disagrees. See above for the length discussion we had on this. If anyone can point us to verifiable info about whether the JMA is reporting in Mw or Mj, please do so. Otherwise we must use a range since the official USGS value is 8.9, and that is the only official value from a reliable source (all of the media are getting their data from the USGS, JMA, and smaller seismological agencies we won't trust as much as the USGS) that we KNOW is in a particular scale, Mw in this case. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents"
A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to be linking to it. We already link to the article on the accidents, we don't need to link to what's basically a sub-article of that directly. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add to article
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.104.145 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * India is sending in relief supplies to Japan
 * China's Red Cross has pledged a million yuan (about $150,000) in assistance.

Multiple references
Please don't add multiple references to cite every statement. There are often three or more refs attached to one sentence. Please choose and report only the most accurate or reliable, not every reference you can find. The article is desperately in need of a good copyedit when the pace of change slows. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's important to have every detail completely verifiable across many sources about the guy who was swept away near a specific river in a specific little city in California while performing a specific action, in case those mean editors who trim down non-notable content come by and try to edit it! –flodded ☃  (gripe)  13:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant
Hello, the source may say that two out of three are out of order, but the official document in Japanese from JAPC, which was republished on 14 March, says that only 1 out of three is broken, the other two are working.

This plant is very relevant due to its proximity to Tokyo. I could not find any other sources. 58.138.60.73 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I can't read Japanese...were two out of service before but then one was restored, or did only one ever go out of service? Please clarify and I will update the article for you. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Donations and Support
While this disaster is still on going, is there some way we could put support or donation links at the top of the article page to organisations like the japanese red cross?94.168.210.8 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

USGS NOW SAYS 9.0
The USGS just officially upgraded the quake to a 9.0 should someone care to make the many changes necessary. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/ Sqlman (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I think we can go back to 9.0 then, since the consensus before on using the range was in large part due to the USGS value still being 8.9 while the JMA value was still 9.0 (but we didn't know if JMA was Mw or their own Mj scale.) I'll wait a bit and let anyone object before changing it back... –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I think we can go back to 9.0 then, since the consensus before on using the range was in large part due to the USGS value still being 8.9 while the JMA value was still 9.0 (but we didn't know if JMA was Mw or their own Mj scale.) I'll wait a bit and let anyone object before changing it back... –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed they have a new location and depth as well. Does the JMA have values for these? I think we should continue to use JMA values there, but if they're not providing values we can use the USGS ones. (It's possible the USGS updated their values due to new data from the JMA, as well.) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Any objection to marking that 9.0 as Mw then, based on the USGS source? --joe decker talk to me 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: This ref, while using 8.9, seems to suggest that JMA is releasing numbers based on Rj, which they call Rjma. Or perhaps saying something like 9.0 Mj (ref jma) 9.0 Mw (ref usgs)? That would give priority to the JMA source but honor the fact that the numbers are not entirely comparable, even if they are the same "number". --joe decker talk to me 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, see the previous thread about that... We looked into it and decided the USGS values were best for now (to use in a range if they differed), but if they're the same we can just use 9.0 now. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) --joe decker talk to me 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and update and location and depth to the new USGS info if there are objections to that, then...the Japanese information only says 24km, and doesn't even give a detailed location at all. So I think we should stick with the USGS data now, especially since the new revised document that says 9.0 has now been "reviewed by a seismologist," whereas the previous one hadn't been reviewed yet. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Colleagues, I think that http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2727&from=rss_home may be a more understandable explanation of the USGS magnitude change. The earlier link (which is essentially a web link to a database record) is more definitive but less understandable. -Arch dude (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree; that page is more about why they upgraded it from 8.9 to 9.0. The page we have linked is just about the current status and information on the quake, which is what we should be citing. However, that page would be useful in the part of the article where it talks about the progression of how the magnitude has been upgraded over time (and that may need to be edited to include the USGS upgrading it to 9.0.) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

third explosion
a third possible explosion was recently heard at another reactor JBDRanger (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

International Response
"45 countries" WHAT COUNTRIES? I'm itching for more info. Why can't you guys just expand it a bit.. or at least create another page. Frustrates me why you're trying to shrink it down to save room.--24.192.70.167 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Two tiny pagraphs is wrong. I'd do more but I'm busy watching CNN's coverage. Someone do something. I've seen many articles with a long list, some even putting it in a whole other page for it. Chill out, no one's going to look at it with a Windows 95 computer and say "My computer's crashing! Too much information!". Who deleted the old list anyways? This article had one. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  > Chill out, no one's going to look at it with a Windows 95 computer and say "My computer's crashing! Too much information!" WP:ACCESSIBILITY states that we should always account for the fact that such people might exist. We cannot assume that everyone is running on Core i7s, 8GBs of DDR3 RAM and a SSD, even though I am and you are. Plus, since Mozilla Firefox (up to v3.6.15 at least, which is the latest stable) has a habit of having memory leaks (right now mine is utilising 456,100K of RAM, even with minimal addons installed and only three open tabs), even with modern PCs, lengthy webpages can be a hassle. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an international response - a Crisis Common Skype Chat Room: Crisis Commons Honshu Quake - Join us on Skype Crisis Commons - Japan Data Profile - ! 97.113.38.151 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)--JulieWolf
 * Thanks JulieWolf, this update has been placed in the article. Justpossible (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Movement of the island of Honshu?
HELLOO??? Didn't anyone know that it moved FIVE meters??????? ITS TRUE! 99.199.53.134 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hearing that the island of Honshu moved by 8 feet, which seems a little bit wild. Not sure how to find a reliable source on this, but, whether or not one is found, this article should address the movement of the land and the impact on the earth's rotation, since I saw that on the Chile earthquake 2010 article. Hires an editor (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all wild, I wouldn't have been surprised if it shifted more considering the magnitude of this quake! It would be nice to see this addressed in the article, but I suspect it may be days before we get any sort of usable information along those lines. Flodded (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, already have some information. Though, that source can't even spell the guy's last name ("Dr. Ken H8udnut", I guess he hates Udnuts.) I'd still hold off, considering that he's quoted saying that "The entire coast of Japan moved eastward by about 8 feet at the most," which instantly reminded me of yesterday's xkcd (in other words, that quote is so ambiguous that Japan could've stood still or moved in some other direction and it'd still be valid!) Flodded (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html

(CNN) -- The powerful earthquake that unleashed a devastating tsunami Friday appears to have moved the main island of Japan by 8 feet (2.4 meters) and shifted the Earth on its axis.

"At this point, we know that one GPS station moved (8 feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass," said Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Reports from the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy estimated the 8.9-magnitude quake shifted the planet on its axis by nearly 4 inches (10 centimeters).--Tallard (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above from Tallard is correct, the wiki article however states that it is 10 inches, not 4 inches. This is probably due to faulty google translate from news agencies. The source used http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/03/earthquake-shifts-japan-islands-and.html (34), should therefore be changed. If you check http://www.corriere.it/esteri/11_marzo_11/sisma-spostamento-asse-terrestre_5ff04ca0-4bea-11e0-b2c2-62530996aa7c.shtml?fr=box_primopiano (the site that NIGV had spoken to) it has it stated as 10 centimetri (which google translate somehow translates to 10 inches) - --Galku (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart from CNN, I haven't seen either the shifting or the axis tilt reported by any of the really big name news agencies, only smaller ones. The person CNN is quoting qualified it quite a bit compared to the reports that it has moved. All he said was that one GPS station had moved and that it would be consistent with the quake. That's not quite the same as saying we know it moved. There's also nothing about that on the USGS site.


 * I've hardly combed every last news article or every last page of the USGS, though. Can anybody find a reliable source that might shed more light on the matter? – RobinHood70 talk 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/13/scitech/main20042590.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1 - Reports 17 centimeters, which seems to be the most reliable source for this subject so far. I quote; "The initial data suggests Friday's earthquake moved Japan's main island about 8 feet, according to Kenneth Hudnut of the U.S. Geological Survey. The earthquake also shifted Earth's figure axis by about 6 1/2 inches (17 centimeters), Gross added." Galku (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/13/3162741.htm?section=justin CanberraBulldog (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section entitled "Geophysical impact". Contradictions were formerly present because an unreliable, self-published source was being used, but I've cleared that up. Goodvac (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good, Goodvac, with both more and more-reliable sources. We'll want to keep an eye on whether it's 10cm or 10" as mentioned above, but for now, it's well-sourced, so we'll go with the 10" model. And thanks to CanberraBulldog for the Australian ABC News link as well. – RobinHood70 talk 10:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "figure axis" in the cbs article, does not have the same meaning as the "axis of the earth" around which the earth rotates. The "figure axis" is related to the center of mass, which is a function of the mass distribution. The shift in "figure axis" can be measured in cm, whereas the change in the angle of the "axis" is measured in degrees. The source should properly differenciate between these not to cause confusion.

Sinsi sansar (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Sinsi sansar

Vertical Displacement?
From satellite imagery showing a substantially changed coastline, and significant flooding in inland areas, as well as experience from the Indonesian Boxing Day 2004 earthquake and the plate tectonics involved, I'd suspect that there's also a vertical displacement. I'm not a geologist, but would be interested in any sources which could corroborate this. My eyeball estimate is a 1-2 meter vertical displacement. -- KMSelf (not-registered). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.130.160 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the effect of the tsunami and probably says nothing about vertical displacements, and it's happened before. Mikenorton (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here we go: "As it unbuckled, a 250-mile-long coastal section of Japan dropped in altitude by two feet, which allowed the tsunami to travel farther and faster onto land, Dr. Stein said." [|Quake Moves Japan Closer to U.S. and Alters Earth’s Spin]


 * Interesting, although that's about 60 cm, a bit less than your estimate. It suggests that the older tsunami in 869 AD was also accompanied by a small drop in level during the associated earthquake - it's really not helpful to have the coast get lower at the same time that a large tsunami arrives. I wonder what the tide state was when the tsunami hit, that may have had an even bigger effect - tsunamis that coincide with high tides are always more damaging. Mikenorton (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It turns out that it was closer to low tide when the tsunami hit the Sendai region. Mikenorton (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Geophysical Impact Earth Rotation
Can we get this fixed? "The speed of the Earth's rotation increased 1.6 microseconds[36] due to the redistribution of Earth's mass.[35]"

1.6 microseconds isn't a relative speed, its a measure of time. Is this supposed to be 1.6 microseconds per day or something else? Brendan Hide (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes the earth one day to rotate. --Kslotte (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a day lasts for 23h 56m 4.098 903 691s. We as humans are just accustomed to having 24-hour clocks because all those decimals would be an eyestrain and a brainfuck. But, I do agree that 1.6 microseconds is a negligible amount. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened was the force of the earthquake shifted the earth slightly off its axis, meaning that the day was now shorter by 1.6 microseconds. So it wasn't temporary; it was just hitting the fast-forward for 1.6 microseconds, but now it's playing at normal speed... So to say. Eug.galeotti (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Above is incorrect or unclear, redistribution of masses (not change of axis) permanently shortened the day by about 1.8 microseconds. Pol098 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peak ground acceleration
Having noticed unsourced claims of peak ground acceleration values of 0.35g and 0.82g for this quake here and at peak ground acceleration (which I've removed), I've tried to find sources. These values are indeed floating round the internet and quoted as fact, but the trail leads back to us as the source. I can find no reliable sources to confirm any value. At this stage we have confirmed data taken from the nuclear sites (with a maximum of 0.36 g) and a USGS shake map showing rather general map contours, which have not been reviewed (but which indicate values might be around 0.3). As editors, we need to ensure the accuracy of any information we add to this page - people are taking it very seriously and drawing all sorts of conclusions and comparisons. I am sure over the next days we will have reliable data on this, which can then be added. Gwinva (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The energy was spread over a large area, and over a time span of several minutes. The peak ground acceleration will be notable primarily because it was relatively small, compared to other recent major earthquakes. I support the advice to wait for reliable source to report on this, rather than to use primary sources. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found figures of 0.35g and 0.5 g from reputable sources so have added those in. Gwinva (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline article?
Should we start a timeline article? Timeline of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami aftermath ? The Haiti earthquake has a timeline article: Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents --spitzl (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's only about the nuclear thing, not about the quake/tsunami aftermath in general. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Humanitarian response article
It should just be "Global Response to Sendai earthquake and tsunami". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthmn3021 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The International response section continues to grow. Is it time to consider a splitoff? But PLEASE no messages of condolence, or flags! WWGB (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine the way it is, as it's essentially just a summary of the international response to help Japan through this crisis. But I suppose you could start a link to a much more detailed page dedicated to how each individual nation responded to the relief-work for Japan; but definitely leave the current SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE on the main 2011 Sendai Earthquake page for the general reader who have no time to delve into fine details.Got Milked (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well mostly, but I think we can cut down just a bit from the current section, but not until and unless the expanded one gets fleshed out by a good bit. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support-In addition to the reasons cited below, Japanese acceptance of international aide is a significant political change from the 1995 quake, in which Japan refused international aide.
 * Support - Its time this section has its own article. Why shouldn't it have the flags of the countries involved? We should also include the condolences messages from various world leaders in one section and the humanitarian response in another section.Bladdymook (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a list of all the responses, or the flags (you can get those from the countries' pages.) This is an encyclopedia, not a list of all other lists... Which is what a list of all responses is. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Decided this didn't make sense. –flodded ☃  (gripe)  14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * nb: teh troll account is supporting teh flagcruft. they luv to play accelerant. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- from Andyso  (talk page ) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - will grow. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - will grow to large for this page.  Kyle   1278  18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The section is only gonna get bigger. Alphabet55 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - It will grow with time as governments and charities get organised. Mspence835 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - It will bring more information to the article. Also, who in the hell really cares if there's a whole new article.. Many articles for disasters and civil war and etc have their own article for international responses, so I think this will be excellent. I fully support it 100%, and I would love it to happen soon. I would also prefer that it will be in a form that isn't just a bunch of large paragraphs.--24.192.70.167 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I support it. We need more information. A bunch of tiny or large paragraphs just squeezing the most developed countries into a list.. not mentioning everyone else's responses.. Pointless. A lot of articles have actual, real international responses. This is pathetic.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - it gives people a place to look up this kind of things, and gives people a place to compare charitable efforts. MetalDimples338 (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

JASDF
An airforce base was heavily damaged in Miyagi prefecture. More than 20 jets destroyed, and deemed unsalvageable. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More on this at: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110313.aspx regarding Matsushima Air Base - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Japanese second explosion.png
There's a big problem with one of the Fukushima I images. File:Japanese second explosion.png is on commons, claims to have been screencap'd off CTV Winnipeg, a commercial TV station, but also claims to be GFDL. This is clearly impossible. The screenshot itself has a credit for NTV Japan, annother commercial TV station.

I suggest this be uploaded to Wikipedia with the copyright status corrected, and fair-use rationales created for the pages on which it would appear. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima fire
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano has just told media that number 4 reactor is on fire and radiation in the area is now at levels damaging to human health. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Effects of tsunami elsewhere
Apparently several low-lying Hawaiian islands managed by the USFWS suffered considerable ecological damage. Check out Midway, and Kure also was badly hit. I've heard through contacts that Laysan also suffered, but nothing on the net yet about that. Sabine's Sunbird talk  04:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have updated the Hawaii (island) page as per "Tsunami damage estimate for Hawaii now tens of millions", though there are many pages that need updateing. The Japaness towns that have been damaged/destroyed, have little detail, (to be expected so early I suppose). - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

India's response
In the international response section, India has not been added. According to the news article in the end of this message, India has sent 25,000 blankets and are ready to provide naval support. Please add this to the article.

Article: http://www.domain-b.com/economy/Govt_Policies/20110315_naval_ships.html or http://www.webcitation.org/5xCMbMbMx Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Many nations have made minor contributions; we can't list them all. And many are standing by to help as well. Lists of both would be overwhelmingly large, and it's not really relevant to this disaster that they happened to have some blankets donated. Please keep a NPOV. It's been suggested this get a separate article, you might want to take a look at that discussion here. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * no, to be npov we dont pick and choose reelvance. it is relevant. but its been ✅ to the respective age.Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being NPOV can mean exactly that, picking and choosing...but for non-relevance. If we went and looked for every country that had sent a small contribution and/or pledged support, to be truly NPOV as you suggest here, the article would be overwhelmingly large and tilted towards this section. The fact is, we have to assess importance based on what MIGHT be included at that level of relevance. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  16:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see it's already been split off anyways. That's even better, now India's response can be reasonably included, since there is space and weight to do so. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

vandalism
I have removed references to a bogus tsunami scale, Rasmussen scale and flagged that article for speedy deletion as I can find no evidence the scale exists and certainly it is not the one used by JMA in Japan which uses the three point scale tsunami advisory/tsunami warning/major tsunami. I would note the authors of the article have no history other than creating that article and links to it yesterday. please vote to delete it. Samatarou (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Another name
Why do loads of people insist on starting new sections which are essentially move requests when there is a section at the top of this page for that? Could they put their titles under there? Simply south...... 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (11 March 2011)
2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami → 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami — I understand that a lot of news reports seem to refer it as Japanese earthquake rather than other words like Sendai. I doubt that many of the readers even know what Sendai is. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see a news report reporting as Sendai earthquake. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. This isn't the time to be discussing a rename, as I mentioned above. Redirects are cheap; put that in place instead and leave it here for now. We'll sort things out when the news has settled down in a week or so and an accepted commonly-used name has developed. Let's concentrate on getting our article accurate, deep, and reliably sourced at this point. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But might not the naming of the Wikipedia article influence the naming in the news? It has been demonstrated before that information form Wikipedia flows back and shapes issues. The naming of the article now has a good chance of influencing the naming on the news which than will be used to source the naming in the Wikipedia in the aftermath. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with any WP policy that suggests that we should rename articles with the goal of influencing what an event is called. --joe decker talk to me 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one against Original Research which this name and any other would be. My statment wasn't about renaming the article with the goal to influence the name of the event, but that leaving it as is will influence what the event will be called. We are creating the information which we will source later as correct. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) That's a different question entirely, and (b) the use of a plainly descriptive title, which this is, is not in my view WP:OR. --joe decker talk to me 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Rdfox 76 --joe decker talk to me 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move-protected for a few days to prevent further unilateral moves, if you find consensus for a name feel of course free to immediately remove/bypass protection. Amalthea  18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose First of all we should not assume that "many of the readers (don't) even know what Sendai is". Secondly, most WP earthquake articles have the name of the most affected regions in their titles, see Great Kanto earthquake and Great Hanshin earthquake. Third, Japan experiences numerous earthquakes each year, so "2011 Japanese earthquake" is too broad. --Tocino 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect that in the not too distant future that this article will be renamed Great Tohoku earthquake. And I would support a move to that title. --Tocino 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * * see [ WhatRedirectsHere] . Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * *:Tsk. Great Tohoku Earthquake and Great Tōhoku Earthquake were left out. Fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - see below. Simply south...... 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose perhaps tsunami should come first, "2011 Japanese tsunami and earthquake", since the tsunami has more impact, as long as there are no criticality events for the nuclear power plants. "Weak oppose" because there are undoubtably other Japanese earthquakes for 2011 and I can crystalball several large ones for the rest of the year. There's already been the 12 March 2011 Nagano 6.6 quake, that's a separate quake.; Though in construction of the major tsunami, it could be the "2011 Pacific tsunami and earthquake" 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Sendai isn't even mentioned in the lead, and the media doesn't seem to be mentioning Sendai either. Sendai is where it happened, but all of Japan was affected. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It should be moved to The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake, the official English name in Japan. See . Oda Mari (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment but we don't use official names... we use common names... 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose All that matters right now is us receiving the information about the quake/tsunami and putting it on this article. Playing around with names can wait until later, or at least until everything has settled. Obamas Barrack (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Currently this article fails WP:COMMONNAME as it does not use the common name. It should be moved. None of the news media is calling it the "Sendai earthquake." It should be moved.--Matt (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a nation-wide disaster and is referred to as such by Scientists. Michio Kaku--Smart30 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with modifications. I've been watching the news coverage on multiple networks and websites almost non-stop (except for sleep) since Friday and I've yet to hear or read any reference to this event as the Sendai Earthquake, except this article. Calling it the March 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami falls into the "no-brainer" categeory - however note I did put "March" in the title in the event another similar event happens later. If by some chance another earthquake and tsunami occur within March, then we can rename to a more specific date. I agree that redirects are cheap; my argument is that the current name "2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami" comes close to being a factual error in my opinion as no one is using that name to describe this event. I am also citing WP:COMMONNAME here. 23skidoo (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to any name that is too general (i.e. any name using the word 'Japan'). Support move to Great Tohoku Earthquake (that name already has over 1000 hits). Also oppose any name with "tsunami" in the title (per 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake). (When did that article get renamed! Also support working on the article instead of having ongoing discussion about the name of the article - I am only commenting here because of the potential for a move to attract hundreds of people who are unaware of the request and who may object to the move. A move at this point in time will create further discussion that will waste yet more time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE I live in Hiroshima, I have felt nothing of the quake nor the tsunami. The whole Chugoku area of Japan have not been affected by the earthquake, and the Kansai region barely has either. Thats about half of Japan. The media makes the impression that Japan lies in ruins, yet is the only north Japan that has been affected. Calling this the 2011 Japan Earthquake would be just as silly as calling a great California earthquake the 2011 American Earthquake. Not to mention the fact that there are about 1500 earthquakes a year here. The main islands of Japan stretches 3000 km / approx. 2000 miles, it is a large country. 121.105.230.142 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for a change to any of the names actually used by the media, but not something vague like "2011 Japan Earthquake". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose all the reports I've seen in the UK use Sendai as the main point of reference (and often its the only place actually named on their maps) even it the actual headline says "Japan Earthqake". I do however feel that the name is somewhat over-specific, since three prefectures are affected. I don't know what would be better though, "Japan" sounds far too general. Samatarou (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Make no change for now, but the article should be renamed to the official name used within Japan, while other commonly used names such as 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami should be redirects. The USGS report identifies this earthquake as "Near East Coast of Honshu, Japan." Obankston (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This article is the only place I've heard it referred to as Sendai. Everywhere else it's all about Japan, most earthquakes/tsunamis are about the area it effects the most, not just one city (this isn't always the case of course). E.g. Boxing Day Tsunami. Mspence835 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * superceded by new request below.

Earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan
There have been other earthquakes in Japan constantly. Shouldn't the title of this be more specific e.g. 11 March 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami? Earlier this week there was another tsunami with a smaller earthquake. Simply south...... 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the move request above. Thought i might as well move this here. Simply south......
 * Too precise, though March 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami is a somewhat logical redirect, if anyone wants to bother.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer use of 'Tohoku', as it is place-name used in the Japanese name for this Mayumashu (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

New name: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake (15 March 2011 requested move)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. The consensus for Tōhoku is clear. The "and tsunami" issue can be discussed again later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

After long discussions, the German Wikipedia decided to change the name from "Sendai earthquake" to "Tōhoku earthquake", because the official name in Japanese refers to the region Tōhoku (Northeast). Sendai is a large city in that region, but not the city closest to the center of the quake. In addition, the city Sendai was not affected as severe as many other cities, particularly those affected by the tsunami. Due to this set of reasons, I recommend to move this article to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. 78.52.243.3 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The initial editing frenzy has somewhat relented. So it is perhaps time to give the name discussion another go. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami would be my first inclination but I'll wait for the input of others. Pichpich (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how about "2011 Japan earthquake"? It's, at this point, THE earthquake for 2011 unless something at this scale happens again. We can have links up top to a list of 2011 quakes if there are more than a couple of semi-major ones to list. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. I think that's just the lazy solution. The redirect will always be there for readers to find the article and I think it's preferable to have a title that carries a bit more information than that. Pichpich (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the name should follow local convention. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake is good. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it definitely needs tsunami in the title. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See the move request near the top. Simply south...... 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The move request proposed moving it to "2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami", a different name, which seems to have next to no support.
 * I think we all agree, though, that "Tohoku" is far superior to "Sendai" as a name, so would there be any objections to moving to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami? Jpatokal (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is a correct name.--777sms (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with a change but I think we should wait out a bit longer and see what the others think. MetalDimples338 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The earthquake is the cause. The tsunami, destroyed builings, and the Fukushima disaster are effects. Therefore I consider "tsunami" dispensable. But, the Tōhoku solution with or without "tsunami" is better to me than the current name. Therefore I would support both solutions. 78.52.243.3 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. No need for tsunami, I feel like the only reason to include it is when an earthquake does a lot of damage far away due to having a tsunami. When all of the real damage is confined to the area of the earthquake, makes more sense to me to just call it an earthquake primarily even if it was damage from a combination of the two. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  06:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake as well, and also Great Tōhoku Earthquake (though it may be too soon for that name to have been established, that is clearly where it will end up). Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved the move request here, since the old discussion is way up the page and it also happened before we saw more media coverage, knew more about what was damaged, etc. I still support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, until whenever the Japanese media agrees on an "official" English name. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  08:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would choose 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami or 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami instead, because the more relevant event is the tsunami. Most coverage in the world is about the devastation wrought by water, not ground shaking; outside of the nuclear incident (also apparently a result of the tsunami's flooding of the diesel generators), the tsunami is more relevant. -- 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 184.144. The vast majority of damage and casualties seem to have been due to the tsunami, even if it was local. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami seems best. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking of England (talk • contribs)
 * Support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami per everyone. Simply south...... 11:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: From a point of view of a Japanese person, current title (Sendai-) is not good, because Sendai is one of the many damaged cities. Japan earth quake is worse because Western Japan is not damaged. Tohoku earthquake is better. But, the third major earthquake (M7.4) hit Ibaraki prefecture, which is a part of Kanto region. So Japanese media call this disaster "東日本大震災"(Higashi-nihon daisinsai, or Great East Japan earthquake).--Mochi (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake since it seems to be picking up usage. Edit: Note that the 1960 and 2010 Chilean earthquakes don't use "tsunami" even though that was a major component; that only seems to be used when there was lots of tsunami damage other than at the primary location. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake or 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami is a incorrect name.--777sms (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Oppose "2011 Tōhoku earthquake", without the tsunami. – SMasters (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, mainly because the tsunami (and the resulting flooding in the country), which I believe considerably contributes to the title's notability, is the main cause of deaths, not the quake itself. 89119e (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.png Support for 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami with redirection from 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.png Support for Great Tōhoku Earthquake or 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami seifip (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Since the tsunami was a very significant consequence of the earthquake, the two ought to go hand-in-hand. Goodvac (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Geographically correct, matches the official Japanese name, and widely used in Western media. Jpatokal (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I'm convinced by the arguments above, and it would have the advantage of approximate consistency with the Japanese Wikipedia, which calls it "2011年東北地方太平洋沖地震", or "2011 Tōhoku region Pacific Ocean earthquake". Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed name is not common at all, and in fact rarely used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.png Support move to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, same rationale as Jpatokal. Best and out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose to any name containing "and tsunami". Once again Wikipedia is trying to make its own invention. This time it is particularly bad as official agencies and news media do not use such names. Kxx (talk | contribs) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Name issue
I don't have a strong opinion on what the article's name should be. But I strongly recommend discussion before any move to a new name and I would in fact favour a move-protection for a few days until the topic can be discussed at length. Clearly, the current name (2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake) was chosen without consultation, is poorly capitalized and is grammatically incorrect so the article should be moved back for now. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Amalthea has move-protected the article. --joe decker talk to me 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much support the name 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. It looks like Asahi Shimbun is calling it 東日本大震災 higashi-nihon daishinsai ("Great Eastern Japan Earthquake"), after the Kōbe earthquake which is these days commonly called 阪神・淡路大震災 hanshin awaji daishinsai ("Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake"). But it's far too early to be changing the name. Let's wait two or three days. Dngnta (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I say 2011 Sendai earthquake for the earthquake itself, with a sub-article 2011 Sendai earthquake tsunami for the associated tsunami. Even if there was no tsunami, this would definitely warrant an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did the name "2001 Sendai earthquake" come from in the first place? Ardric47 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably from the fact that some early news reports said that the quake was near Sendai... (some later reports said Miyagi...) 184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pure original research. Sendai was only to feel 7 point magnitude and was among many other cities to feel it. It's mainly referred as Japanese Earthquake or Great Tohoku Earthquake. Elk Salmon (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The USGS report identifies this earthquake as Near East Coast of Honshu, Japan. Obankston (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The USGS have updated their page and now refer to the earthquake as "The M9.0 Great Tohoku Earthquake" . Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the change to "Great Tohoku Earthquake" (or "2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake"). It is closer to the official USGS and Japanese name and reflects the larger area affected. Wachholder (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just made this section as part of the one above. Simply south...... 15:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 Tōhoku earthquake seems to me to be the the most popular and neutrally balanced option, as far as both using what the Japanese are calling it but also sticking to our own standards on naming things. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to WP:BEBOLD and have renamed it to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake since we've had a fair bit of discussion and some consensus. Feel free to revert. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." It has only been a few days and I don't see full consensus just yet. I see many people asking for Tsunami to be included. Why was this done so hastily? This story is on the front page, and more care should have been taken, and closing procedures should have been followed, IMHO. But I see that it has since been reverted. – SMasters (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I reverted my other changes as well, thanks whoever renamed the article back. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Flodded: Learn to be still, patience is a virtue. It was I who reverted your move per WP:BRD, and Smasters took the words right out of my mouth. Out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a point here, though, that we shouldn't necessarily wait the full seven days for this requested move discussion to finish. The reasoning would be that Sendai in the name is misleading and a neologism produced by the media because that was where some of the first reports came from. It would be perfectly acceptable to: (a) Ask Almathea to lift the move protection (or warn them that a move may take place through the protection); and (b) Ask an admin to close the discussion early because the article is prominently in the news and it would be better to use the right name sooner rather than later. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, the issue of "earthquake" versus "earthquake and tsunami" shouldn't be allowed to obscure the clear consensus to change Sendai to Tohoku.
 * I'm going to leave a note at WP:AN asking for an admin to take a look and see if there is justification for closing the move discussion early as far as the Sendai to Tohoku aspect goes, or at least be prepared to close it after another day or so, as I really don't think waiting the full 7 days is needed here or desirable. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to wait for 7 days, provided there is clear consensus. The reason for my earlier objection was that the discussion was only going for a day or two, and there were only a handful of votes. Given the amount of activity in here, that was clearly premature and did not show clear consensus. – SMasters (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename: 2011 Sendai earthquake disaster OR 2011 Sendai disaster
Really, I think it should be named '2011 Sendai, Japan Earthquake and Tsunami'. I dunno about you but i think its the best name... Anyone agree? 99.199.53.134 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the events in Japan now include an Earthquake, a Tsunami which caused at least as much damage, and a radiological (nuclear) event, I believe it would be more appropriate to title this page "2011 Sendai earthquake disaster", "2011 Sendai disaster", or something to that effect. I don't think "disaster" is too severe a term, and is more appropriate by not overlooking certain elements - particularly the nuclear failures, which could be the most lasting consequence of all, but is not even referenced in the name. Mburn16 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the Indian Ocean Tsunami article isn't called a disaster, even though it is. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose that idea but I did create redirects out of the two titles you suggested.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose the idea of taking the nuclear plant into consideration. The current title groups the earthquake and the tsunami which is reasonable as they are both natural disasters (though the latter is a consequence of the former). Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, is also referred to as Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Asian Tsunami, Indonesian Tsunami, and Boxing Day Tsunami. We may wish to start including alternate names for the series of events that are still ongoing in Japan. Currently the American media is referring to this event as the Japan Disaster.--voodoom (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The nuclear incident is big, at least the third most serious nuclear incident to have occured. If not being considered in the naming, then it is at least worthy of a page of its own. Looking ahead (although this might not be the JOB of wiki, it is certainly worth taking into consideration), the results of the nuclear incident will most likely be much longer lasting, either in the form of policy changes or outright health consequences. It deserves more consideration than a mention on a page or two. Mburn16 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting otherwise. All I'm saying is that this article's focus (and thus its title) should be the natural disaster. As it stands, there's much more than "a mention or two" of the nuclear plants in this article and the article Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant provides more extensive coverage. That's the way it should be. Pichpich (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There will almost certainly be a new article spun off the nuclear power station one, but that should be kept separate to this one. And the ultimate name of both pages should be decided at a later date. Most effort should be spent on keeping the pages in good condition and updated reasonably frequently. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Common names versus official names
I added information about ongoing news coverage by NHK, Japan's national television and radio broadcaster. Somebody changed the name to "Japan Broadcasting Corporation", which is the official English name of NHK. However, virtually nobody outside NHK uses that name. Everybody, even Japanese people talking in Japanese, just calls it NHK. In English and Japanese, I think it is the common name. How should we deal with a common name being different from an official name as in this case? Does Wikipedia have any rules about this sort of thing? A Saku (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think common sense guidelines prevail. Also, there's precedent due to the fact that the NHK article is indeed at that page and doesn't redirect to the "official" name. (Which is just listed on that page.) We don't call CNN the "Cable News Network", for example, because they use CNN and it's a commonly accepted and recognized name. NHK's own logo also seems to be...a stylized "NHK." I've watched a decent bit of NHK WORLD English coverage the last few days and I don't think I ever once saw or heard "Japan Broadcasting Corporation." So, NHK. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is changing it back justifiable in terms of any particular Wikipedia rules? I'd hate to change it back if this might be in any way controversial. A Saku (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anybody know the answer to this please? A Saku (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would use NHK, and you can point to a talk page discussion that anyone who objects to this can join. A possible alternative is to, at the first mention in the article, use NHK with the official name in brackets, but use NHK after that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll change it as you suggest mentioning this discussion. Also, after spending a long time searching through lots and lots of Wikipedia's pages of rules, I finally managed to find this: Article titles, which looks like the most relevant rule supporting such a change. A Saku (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia's article title
I was thinking that the name of this article could be guided by the Japanese Wikipedia's name for the earthquake. The Japanese Wikipedia currently calls it 2011年東北地方太平洋沖地震, which Google tells me translates as "2011 Northeastern Pacific Ocean earthquake". That does seem a bit confusing though, since the earthquake took place in the northwestern Pacific. Does anyone know whether that actually reflects Japanese usage? Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on Japanese usage but i can see why it translates to that. This earthquake happened in the north-east of the country, but on the Pacific Ocean. Simply south...... 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The 東北地方 in the Japanese name is read "Tohoku-chiho", which literally means "Northeast region", but which in this case means the Tohoku region (which is in northeastern Honshu). Jpatokal (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the clarification. Prioryman (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese name
Wikipedia claims that the Japanese name for the earthquake is Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō-oki Jishin (東北地方太平洋沖地震). While I've seen this name on various Japanese web sites, other web sites use Tōhoku Kantō Daijishin (東北関東大震災). It would seem that there are two valid Japanese names. The first name gives about 20 as many hits on Google (if searching for the names written within quotes), but both names give a significant number of hits. I would say that both names should be mentioned. (83.250.236.39 (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Already in the footnote, see . --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature
I have added a footnote to the article regarding Japanese nomenclature of the earthquake: The Japanese nomenclature of the earthquake varies between media sources. NHK uses Northeast Kantō Great Earthquake disaster (東北関東大震災); Sankei Shimbun, Asahi Shimbun , Mainichi Shimbun , Jiji Press , Fuji Television , Kyodo News , Tokyo Shimbun , Chunichi Shimbun and Tokyo Broadcasting System use East Japan Great Earthquake disaster (東日本大震災); Northeast-Kantō Great Earthquake (東北・関東大地震) has been used by Kyodo News , Tokyo Shimbun and Chunichi Shimbun ; East Japan wide-area earthquake (東日本巨大地震) has been used by Yomiuri Shimbun , Nihon Keizai Shimbun and TV Asahi , and East Japan Great Earthquake (東日本大地震) is used by Nippon Television , Tokyo FM and TV Asahi. This is taken directly from the Japanese Wikipedia. If there are any errors in my translations and/or readings, feel free to correct them. Thanks. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nomenclature. You might like to fold in the fact that the Japan Meteorological Agency deems it "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake" and the USGS the "2011 Tohoku Earthquake," once things quiet down. (By way of comparison, I was in my hometown in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, which was named after the most prominent mountain (in another county!) of the Santa Cruz mountain range, and not after the The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, which was the actual site of the epicenter, a California state park. But its effects were felt all over the San Francisco Bay Area, not just in Aptos, California!) kencf0618 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the various "Northeasts" in the glosses above refer to Tohoku, not the geographical direction, but this has already been fixed in the article. I've also changed 東日本巨大地震 from "East Japan wide-area earthquake" to "East Japan Giant Earthquake", since 巨大 is "giant" and modifies 地震 earthquake. Jpatokal (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename: Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

 * Since we have established to change the name to 2011 Tohoko earthquake and tsunami, is it not better to remove 2011 from the name? a pointer - many of the historical major earthquake's in Japan are not named by year, e.g. Great Kanto earthquake and Great Hanshin earthquake. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a convention to add a year even when there have been no other quakes in that particular area. See Tangshan earthquake and Northridge earthquake as examples. The Great Kanto earthquake redirects to 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Language variants
Would the editors who annoyingly keep swapping from BrE to AmE and vice versa please desist. The first major edit to this article used AmE, so there we have it, but that does not excuse swapping in either direction. It matters not one iota what version of English they may, or may not, use in Japan. I suggest a single instance of "kilometer" and "meter" the first time the units are used, then abbreviations thereafter. LemonMonday  Talk   13:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've created a page notice, and added American English to the top of this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also left a notice earlier on the talk page of the user who'd made several changes to British English that were on the verge of vandalism. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  13:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of interest - what rule/policy dicatates the language of BrE or AmE for a non UK/US article? Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone?  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, oh well!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:ENGVAR, for non-Anglo countries there is no preference as long as there is consistency. For articles relevant to a given Anglophone country, the variation should be the country's own.--Tallard (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag
Can we please have the US flag dropped from this template: Template:Editnotices/Page/2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami? It is jingoistic and highly inappropriate to this article. WWGB (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's distractingly large and such, but it does serve to illustrate a useful point, and one that we actually did need illustrated...how about requesting it be scaled down to, say, 40px instead of 100px as a middle ground? (Or is it policy to have cut-and-paste type editnotices of that sort keep to the standard format?) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is actually a smaller template Template:American English but the contributing admin sought to increase the size, which sucks. I can really do without Old Glory being shoved down my throat every time I edit the article. WWGB (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are we even using the "US-ian English" template, this isn't a thing only affecting the United States. Diego Grez (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR. The template is there because we had problems with editors repeatedly changing things to British spellings. Actually, since that was a while ago, I'm in favor of removing the template now I suppose. If the problem pops up again, it can be restored. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have made my own editprotected request here to remove the flag entirely. It is wholly unnecessary. -84user (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In case other editors are interested, to prevent the whole edit notice appearing (including the flag) one can add "div.editnotice-page { display: none !important; }" to one's Custom CSS file under Special:Preferences Appearance tab. My example is here. -84user (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the flag. --John (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, it looks much better. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The template is there because we had problems with editors repeatedly changing things to British spellings." Actually it's there because editors were changing the spellings in both directions; AmE to BrE and BrE to AmE. There's no hard-and-fast rule here, but as I understand it we should defer to the preference of the editor who made the first major edit to an article. For this article that just happened to be AmE, so we should stick with it. It could just as easily have been BrE (or maybe any other variant). LemonMonday  Talk   17:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the American Flag offensive to anyone? Re-sizing or elimination the flag of the USA or any other country relevent to the subject at hand should only be done in the interest of space. The words of English derivation in the article should be compehensive to the "average" speaker of English. British or American spelling is often irrelevant and should only be changed if the word intented is not clear (and I am at a loss to imagine what examples of unclear cases would be.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.51.50 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's offensive to anyone, it's just unnecessary to be having it displayed in the edit notice. Some people might come under the idea that placing flags in places where they're not supposed to is like a show of ownership or something, or they might think that it's an eyesore every time when they make a modification to the article. Although, I would guess that some people from Venezuela or Guatemala may consider the United States flag as a symbol of imperialism. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Energy section (typo)
Seismic Moment (Mo) is 3.9*10^22 Joules Moment Magnitude (Mw) is 8.9 Article shows (Mw) is 3.9*10^22, which is a mix up.

✅ The Seismic moment article says it's described as M0, not Mo, so I'm assuming that's what you meant by your shorthand Mo. Please let us know if that's incorrect. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

International aid
Why did the post about ZAKA and ISraid get deleted from the international response section? just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.115.46 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think consensus amongst editors may be drifting towards excluding private organizations... –flodded ☃ (gripe)  13:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Private organisations or charity groups is just as important as national or government organisations. No matter how small their contribution, they should be recognised. Bladdymook (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's the point. While they do good work, the fact is what makes organizations prominent is that they are huge organizations like world governments, or prominent folks like world leaders, etc. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe its worth mentioning that Israel officially offered help an hour after the initial quake strike (as told by Japanese consul in Israel, Mitoshiko Shinomya) It seems like Israel was completely deleted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.94.12 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When adding any URL or detail, notability must be considered. For an event this big, we can't include and mention every single charity that donated, nor can we unfairly mention some and not others indiscriminately. Hence, only things that are considered notable are included. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Russia’s Zhirinovsky Calls on Japanese to Move to Russia
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of Russia’s LDPR party and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma, has called on Japanese to leave “the dangerous islands” and move to the Magadan Oblast of Russia.1 2 83.149.3.120 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the direct effects of the earthquake on Japan and and other more-than-slightly affected nation? –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this warrants mention or inclusion within the article. Although this did actually happen, I don't think many people are taking Zhirinovsky seriously. From the messageboards that I've come across, most are quite mocking, and people don't consider the idea to be practical or plausible. For example, Zhirnovsky suggests that the Japanese should move to Russia, and adopt the Russian language, culture, values... what are the chances of this happening? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More figures please
To make people fully understand the scale of the catastrophe it would be great if you included more figures. Meaning listing up the southernmost place in Japan damaged and also the northernmost. (All of them on the eastern shoreside of Honshu, I presume). Also how long this shoreline is in miles and km. Is it true that all the damage was in the three prefectures (Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi) in Tohoku heading the Pacific, or was for example parts of Hokkaido damaged?

Also great if you list up the total square miles (and km2) of damaged area.

IT'S VERY HARD TO BELIEVE that Honshu was moved 2.4m west (NOT east) by the earthquake. Please double or triple check this information. (Other extremely powerful earthquakes has moved small islands etc. less than 20 cm (8") at the most.

Lastly you should rename the article to Tohoku earthquake as much lager areas than Sendai is struck. Sendai is just 10% of the problem.

Stein S., Oslo, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The rename is being discussed. The article does currently have: The severest effects of the tsunami were felt along a 670-km-long stretch of coastline from Erimo in the north to Oarai in the south. That is taken from a newspaper report a few days ago, so later reports that are more specific are needed, to give the northernmost point on Honshu as well. The geological information about Honshu being moved by the earthquake does need checking, but is likely correct. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Great job you've made. Good that the "670 km coastline" info is now listed. Another wrong piece of info is that 16 prefectures are struck: "...has officially confirmed 2,722[6] [7] deaths, 1,892[6] [7] injuries, and 3,742[6] [7] people missing across sixteen prefectures,...".

Map of Japan's 47 prefectures, only the six (6) in north-east was facing the earth-quake centre in the Pacific sea (1-4 and 7-8): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Regions_and_Prefectures_of_Japan.svg

The land-based earthquake was also mainly in these 6 prefectures, maybe also in 2-3 other prefectures as well. 16 damaged prefectures are clearly wrong.

Stein S, Oslo, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: Has there been reported any fatalities or severely hurt people in Japan outside the three worst hit prefectures? Meaning in the prefectures of Hokkaido, Aomori and Ibaraki???

Stein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stein, I'm the one who added in the "sixteen prefectures" count (it was actually in as a smaller number before, not sure where it came from originally.) I added it based on the official casualty+missing count from the Japanese National Police Agency; of the 17 prefectures listed on the PDF, since it's been out 16 of the 17 have had non-zero counts for one of the three columns we cite. Also, there are indeed fatalities and serious injuries in other prefectures as you wondered, see the PDF which is linked as a reference from the dead/injured/missing counts as it has the broken down counts. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest specific mentions of notable aftershocks
Hi. Although the article does not currently have an "aftershocks" subsection, I suggest that we include in-paragraph mentions of notable aftershocks (or nearby earthquakes that are unconfirmed aftershocks) that have recieved mentions in the media, for example: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
 * Magnitude 6.2 - NEAR THE WEST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 11 18:59:15 UTC)
 * Magnitude 6.6 - NEAR THE WEST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 11 19:46:49 UTC)
 * Magnitude 6.8 - OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 12 01:47:16 UTC)
 * Magnitude 6.0 - OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 12 17:19:23 UTC)
 * Magnitude 5.8 - NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 14 01:02:40 UTC)
 * Magnitude 6.2 - EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 15 13:31:46 UTC)
 * Main source

Thanks. ~ A H 1 (T C U) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the JMA, the Magnitude 6.2 - EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 15 13:31:46 UTC was not an aftershock, see here, and it isn't related to the expected Tokai earthquake either. (Note that the JMA gave a 6.4 for this one). I also doubt that the both quakes (6.2 and 6.6) near the west coast of Honshu are aftershocks since they're on or near the boundary between the Northamerican (or Ochotsk plate) to the Eurasian (Amur) Plate hence another boundary than the M 9.0 quake however didn't see any source on this question. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What about this?
 * Magnitude 6.0 - NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (2011 March 16 03:52:05 UTC)


 * ~ A H 1 (T C U) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ireland's response
Ireland has offered international aid. Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore has asked John Neary, the Irish Ambassador in Tokyo, to keep him updated on the relief operation and is in contact with the United Nations. Mayor of Killarney Donal Grady called for empty houses to be offered as shelter and refuge to earthquake victims. Tokyo headquarted company Astellas donated €1 million to the relief fund along with medicines. Tim O'Brien in The Irish Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.5 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.82.137 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this belongs on the Humanitarian response to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami article. Other such aid is listed there, to list all comparable aid on the main article would overwhelm it. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Steal ideas from other wikipedias
I just looked at the Danish article for this event: da:Jordskælvet ved Sendai 2011. The table at da:Jordskælvet ved Sendai 2011 looks informative and is well sourced. How about something similar in this article's "Elsewhere across the Pacific" section? -84user (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Add File:Okhotsk Plate map en.png near to the existing map in the Earthquake section? It would give the reader a clearer idea of the magnitude and direction of the tectonic forces involved. -84user (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's the problem that we have referenced material that says that it's unclear what plate the northern portion of Honshu is actually on (see )...that would contradict that plate map. Can any experts comment on the plate situation? Finding additional references that northern Honshu is on the Okhotsk plate (which LOOKS to be the case) would be helpful as well. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nice table you suggest added was original to this article but was removed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Fukushima I 14 March 2011 satellite image by DigitalGlobe.jpg
184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the image and was going to replace the "two cubes" image, but then noticed the copyright. I don't think it qualifies for fair use on this page, even if it qualifies for fair use on the Fukushima I nuclear accidents page. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

redirects
should we be creating redirects for all the various spellings of placenames that various English-language media sources are using for Japanese places? Or for smaller locations to the greater location that contains it?

For instance, CNN has used Minami Soma for Minamisōma and Minamisanrikucho for Minamisanriku.

And CNN has beein in Ushiami, which Google reveals to be part of Higashimatsushima, Miyagi.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sci Am fast facts
♠Magnitude, according to USGS: 9.0 • ♠Speed at which the Pacific Plate is smashing into the Japanese island arc: 8.9 centimeters (3.5 inches) per year • ♠Speed at which the San Andreas Fault in California is slipping: about 4 centimeters per year • ♠Size of the rupture along the boundary between the Pacific and North American plates: 290 kilometers (180 miles) long, 80 kilometers across • ♠Approximate length of Honshu island: 1,300 kilometers • ♠Years since an earthquake of this magnitude has hit the plate boundary of Japan: 1,200 • ♠Duration of strong shaking reported from Japan: three to five minutes • ♠Greatest distance from epicenter that visitors to the USGS Web site reported feeling the quake: About 2,000 kilometers • ♠Distance that the island of Honshu appears to have moved after the quake: 2.4 meters • ♠Change in length of a day caused by the earthquake's redistribution of Earth's mass: 1.8 microseconds shorter • ♠Normal seasonal variation in a day's length: 1,000 microseconds • ♠Depth of the quake: 24.4 kilometers • ♠Range of depths at which earthquakes occur in Earth's crust: 0 – 700 kilometers • ♠Top speed of a tsunami over the open ocean: About 800 kilometers per hour • ♠Normal cruising speed of a jetliner: 800 kilometers per hour • ♠Length of warning time Sendai residents had before tsunami hit: eight to 10 minutes • ♠Number of confirmed foreshocks to the main shock: • ♠Four • ♠Magnitudes of the confirmed foreshocks: 6.0, 6.1, 6.1 and 7.2 • ♠Number of confirmed aftershocks: 401 • ♠Worldwide average annual number of earthquakes over magnitude 6.0: 150
 * Please include those facts from Scientific American in the article. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would question this bit: "Length of warning time Sendai residents had before tsunami hit: eight to 10 minutes". The tsunami maximum hit Sendai 1 hour and nine minutes after the quake. The calculations for when the tsunami is estimated to have arrived appear to be for the initial tsunami arrival (the most destructive wave or surge is often not the first one). See the section in the article that lists the time when tsunami maxima were recorded in various places by the Japan Meteorological Agency. Some of the other facts above may be worth including, but I'll leave others to comment on those. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the other facts are just plain wrong as well. The depth reported is the depth that the USGS was reporting when they had it as an 8.9; when they upgraded it to a 9.0 (as this article cites), they also updated the depth to 32km. You cannot use the USGS as your source and quote values from different versions of their data since they were updated in tandem. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Weather
Information about weather in and around the earthquake/tsunami zone needs to be added into the article, incl. wind direction and precipitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then what was the weather like during the event, and can you please provide a reference? I think this only needs to be added in if it's relevant, e.g. if we can say "much of Eastern Japan was experiencing heavy winds from the east as the tsunami hit, driving it further inland" then it makes sense to say that. If the weather was generally uneventful other than the tsunami itself, or if there was only localized weather, I don't think it needs to be noted. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

zircaloy
We should improve the zircaloy article, with all that is being mentioned about the failure modes of the nuclear uranium fuel rod cladding. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You would be better off bringing this up on that article's talk page instead, as well as helping improve the article if you can. Thanks. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  15:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox picture crop?
The current infobox picture seems annoyingly tall compared to the map and such; at 1680x1050, I can only see a couple lines of actual text in the infobox without scrolling down. I was thinking of cropping the top and bottom of it a bit to make it 1:1 so it doesn't take up so much space. I think it's a decent picture and that a crop like that wouldn't really affect its impact. Any thoughts? –flodded ☃ (gripe)  19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cropped the infobox picture to 1:1 (my first uploaded image!) so more text is visible without having to scroll. I think it looks better now. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Has this had an affect on the eruptions of old faithful in Wyoming ?
i was told that the earthquake has directly affected the timing of the old faithful eruptions but cannot find any info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.169.191 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have heard from someone I consider very knowledgeable that this has affected the timing of Old Faithfuls eruptions and just wondering if this may be true. I am in no way disrespecting the devastation it caused in Japan.Maddie Madison (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Maddie Madison


 * This is a talk page about the Wikipedia article on the earthquake, not the page to seek out such information. I recommend you use Google or another search engine to look for this sort of information, if it's not in the article. (Which it likely wouldn't be since it's not that relevant to the earthquake, unless it was a massive shift in the eruption cycle possibly; if it was such big news, we'd probably know about it and have included it, but please feel free to point out sources if something like that is the case.) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  23:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"2011 Japanese nuclear accidents"
I would exclude the current sentence "Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger, in remarks to the European Parliament on 15 March, called the nuclear disaster an "apocalypse", saying that the word was particularly well chosen, and that Tokyo had almost lost control of events at the Fukushima power plant.[136]" It may be true (whatever it really means?) but he is a European politician, not a scientist, and not a nuclear energy specialist, making a very vague characterization (apocalypse) that is not informative and has no more validity than characterizations by many others. It smacks of a possible political bias and belongs in the separate article 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, where it can be paced in context with facts and other characterizations. Personally, i'd drop it entirely as being uninformative and possibly political.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And another new article... 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents

184.144.160.156 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not as relevant to this article as the article on the Fukushima I Plant, in my opinion, so I don't think we need to. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

The article 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, which is identified as a main article at 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, is a redirect to 2011 Japanese nuclear incidents, which is only a short list. I propose that 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami should be summarized to the level of detail of the other damage in this section, and the bulk of the information put in 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents so it is not merely a redirect. Obankston (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a redirect, because someone renamed the page after this was posted here. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Small location marker vs old bullseye on quake map?
This was edited, I don't think the new version catches the eye nearly as well as the old version. I prefer the old version, since it stands out much better. I think the new one is just too small and nondescript compared to the city circles for Sendai and Tokyo, for one. Any opinions on reverting? –flodded ☃ (gripe)  02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the 2010 Chilean earthquake, 2010 Haiti earthquake, and 2011 Christchurch earthquake all use larger bullseyes of the older variant in their infoboxes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami doesn't use a map at all in the infobox, but the first map it does use has a bullseye with concentric circles like the old version. Thus, I believe it's reasonable to revert this if nobody objects. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  02:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - the earthquake wasn't that localised, and the 'bullseye' (or 'ripples on a pond', which is probably a better analogy) image actually helps visualisation of its effects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted this somewhat speedily because I felt the new version simply wasn't a good visualization on what's a currently very popular article, and we'd had the old one for quite a while with no debate...feel free to continue discussion if anyone wants to comment on the merits of the other smaller marker. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is the old one, I have no problems. Its just taste I suppose. I do note that the German Wikipedia uses File:Quake pointer.svg on all its earthquake articles. Moondyne (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do prefer the concentric rings as well, but regardless of our aesthetic sensibilities the quick revert was probably the right thing to do. For better or worse, the rings seem to be the de facto standard on English Wikipedia for now. Someone even tried to streamline the the whole thing by uploading a "bull's eye" graphic (is it really needed though?). Perhaps we need to start a discussion over at WikiProject Earthquakes? Would all of you folks care to participate?-- 76.121.180.74 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bullseye1.png is what we use, and makes a lot of sense because it's just overlaid over a generic map. So, it is needed, since it lets us avoid making a custom map for something like this. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We never had more than implied consensus, just that nobody ever changed it from the very early versions of the page. I went by that and the other quake pages on the English Wikipedia. I guess German speakers don't need things pointed out to them with large red circles quite as badly as us English speakers do. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the old version looks better because with multiple rings, you can feel the earthquake away from the epicenter or focus. Just like a real earthquake, you can still feels the effects miles away from the epicenter or focus.
 * As a German WP editor who was involved in the creation of the e/q infobox in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. At the timme there was a short discussion on the question which dot to use. We found the standard dot used in positions maps to small but had however doubts to make it very large as it might imply that the size of the dot might inidcate the size of the magnitude and/or the area which was affected and areas aside were not. I don't remember the discussion exactly but the outcome was to use Quake pointer.svg which is included in the infobox itself (therefor all article with an infobox make use of that dot, but not yet all e/q article do have infoboxes) because of the dot actually marks only the position of the epicentre. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kuji
Though the Daily Yomiuri states that the city of Kuji has been essentially erased by the tsunami, I urge you to verify through additional sources, as I have received word from local residents that although badly damaged, Kuji is still standing. I believe you should be referencing the village of Noda, which is directly to the south of Kuji. It is this settlement that has been largely erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banter82 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you for your comments. As you will appreciate, it is sometimes difficult to ensure complete accuracy in a situation like this, so inevitably corrections will be required. If you have links to any sources yourself that can confirm this, it would be most helpful to provide them, but I'm sure that as further information becomes available this will be rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Geological and Geophysical Sections should be within same section
Either in same section or a sub section, or at least presented consecutively--Tallard (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.55.193.127, 17 March 2011
not only tohoku,but also kanto region.So, this is Tohoku Kanto earthquake and tsunami.And there are 3 seismic centers include Ibaraki. 125.55.193.127 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This would suggest moving the page if I understand you correctly. There have already been multiple (much longer) discussions on what the article should be named; the other regions you mention are of course mentioned in the article body. Please clarify your request if I'm misunderstanding you. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing
14650 - Kittybrewster ☎  10:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From? We are going by the official figures that are being updated several times a day by the Japanese National Police Agency. The PDFs these come from are linked as references. The article does note that actual casualties may be much higher than reported numbers. As far as the numbers, I don't see why we'd switch from using the official counts for most purposes. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How long did it last?
It seems to me that if you don't say how long it was, the information is not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.68.162 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation detection for uncovered fuel rods
Because gamma rays are a strong signature of uncovered fuel rods, and because there is at least one satellite with capacity to sense gamma rays (http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2009JA014502.shtml), someone with access should ask whether there is data on gamma's near the plant. I am not an expert in gamma absorption in atmosphere, but I would think line-of-sight would be a limit. I would also expect an isotropic decay from a fuel rod, so that gamma's should be detectable through holes in the structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardis miles (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mile19, 17 March 2011
edit semi-protected

Spelling error in the See Also section "Related to Tōhoku eartquake" heading earthquake mispelled

and

Capitalization needed in Response section Under Media Coverage heading "internet" should be capitalized

Mile19 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Goodvac (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Error on image labeled "SAR activities are visible amongst the remains of Wakuya"
I am a resident of Wakuya (Miyagi Prefecture) and am fairly confident that the image labeled "SAR activities are visible amongst the remains of Wakuya" does not in fact depict Wakuya. While we are relatively close to majorly affected areas, our town did not experience the tsunami and most structures have little damage. If, in fact, this picture depicts another town named Wakuya, please redirect the link included in the image label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.91.70.162 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings. It is good news to hear that most structures were not damaged where you live. The photo was taken by the US Navy who says it is Wakuya. Normally I would guess that they do things with 100% accuracy, but perhaps this one was a mixup. The caption has been changed. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Wikicommons has a large number of images now. Some of them are better than the ones currently used in this article (in my opinion). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to point out specific images and where you think they should go and such! –flodded ☃ (gripe)  21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors section
This section is too long and needs to be better summarized. We already have a separate article (two, actually) to go into all the details. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a quote from Oettinger in the introductory section. Does this add any substance? Oettinger's training is in law, not in science or technology. Furthermore, he is a common bureaucrat, not an expert analyst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.132.182 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a section on earthquake magnitude at Fukishima, which was apparently 6.8 and i woud add a section on damage at Fukishima 2 Daiini which went unstable but is back in control now.--Patbahn (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Transport - Kesennuma Line
The Kesennuma Line runs along the coast through some of the worst hit areas and should be included. There have been many media images of trains washed off the line by the tsunami. But I cannot find any specific English language references to the line being part of the affected infrastructure. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I have added a sentence about this. Goodvac (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a slightly different understanding of that source. I've started a discussion on the Kesennuma Line talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese tsunami and various industries and economies
We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for other industries ? Also, considering the large portion of trade between Japan and Australia, New Zealand, might there also be economic impact on country x articles? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Japan's workforce is prodominantly made up of those in the third-level (services) economic sector, and not so much first and second-level (agriculture, manufacture) sectors. It's already been mentioned that various steel companies, manufacturers such as Toshiba are affected, however since most of Japan's workforce is in the services sector, I was thinking along the lines of software development, business and enterprise, banking/insurance, et cetera. I don't know too much regarding those fields though, so I can't help you. Somewhat related to the impact on Japan's videogame industry is the anime/manga industry, although I'm not sure if such a topic is notable enough for its own article. (Haven't been paying attention to what's going on within 2channel and futaba, but /a/ got incredibly upset that their favourite anime was no longer airing due to delays... not really worth mentioning at all on Wikipedia) --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The auto industry and electronics industry would seem to industries that might be useful to have articles with the impact on them. Er... I haven't paid attention to 4chan/futaba/2ch/dvach in years. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4chan, eh? Nothing too special, you haven't missed much. /a/'s upset on the anime delays (haven't I seen this before...), /jp/'s complaining that their figurines aren't shipping, /b/ and /int/ is full of the usual trolling, and /sci/ gets nuclear threads all day 'erry day. Well, you could begin a new, separate article which focuses on the auto and electronics industries, provided you've found all your sources and all that. Also, I would recommend creating a user account; it might be difficult creating a new article as an IP, I assume. If you have queries on Wikipedia policies, et cetera, feel free to contact me on my user talkpage, and I'll be glad to help out. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "should there also be one for other industries?" That's a basically a question of notability, which is a GNG question. FWIW, Here's some non-RS mentions of plant closings in the camera manufacturing world. Links to more reliable but primary sources within. I'd want to see that the specific "effects of the earthquake on the X sector" had enough coverage to establish notability. I'd *guess* "yes" for manufacturing in general, *no* for photographic equipment manufacturing (but I might be wrong). --joe decker talk to me 15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, as to yes for manufacturing in general, no for photographic-related manufacturing. –flodded ☃ (gripe)  16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the electronics manufacturing industry in quake/tsunami affected areas, this link may be of interest. Suitable for reference on economic effects perhaps. - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 12:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Warnings
We're trying to resolve this question in the German article for a couple of days but I wasn't able to find any infos on this: According to the JMA tsunami warnings archive the initial JMA warning concerning a major tsunami went out within four minutes after the quake. However, is there evidence wether the public was warned by P/A, SMS, and/or sirenes, and, maybe more interesting, when this was done? --Matthiasb (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume that they were warned by a variety of methods, and thus be very general and just refer to that. Unless we see reports about some particular warning method failing, which we haven't, then I don't see why you'd need to report on how the warning was issued, just that it was issued (and note "by a variety of methods" or whatever if you do want to get into that detail.) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I read an article in the UK The Evening Standard (London newspaper) where a UK banker working in Tokyo described how after the earthquake he and his colleagues had made it outside their building and really loud sirens went off and he started to get worried because he noticed even the earthquake-hardened locals started to look scared at that point. I presume those were tsunami warnings. I'll try and find it. The Evening Standard also has some good (though harrowing) accounts from reporters who have visited the devastated areas. To be honest, there is a lot more being reported in the media than is in our article. This is partly because it takes time for the huge amount of news coverage to be assimilated, and partly because not everything reported needs to be here. But certainly there is scope for much more than we currently have. I read things every day in newspapers which are not in this article. I would add them myself, but as I said, it takes time to do properly and get the balance right. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)