Jump to content

Talk:Tsunami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.249.253.29 (talk) at 05:02, 8 November 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleTsunami was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 7, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Tsunami in Mexico in 1932

Different sources talk about a Tsunami in Cuyutlán town in Mexico, on June 22, 1932. I listed this Tsunami, as "Possible Tsunami" in the section of North America and Caribbean Tsunami, refering a news that also refers newspapers from 1932 and interviews. EliminatorJR eliminated this addition, but considering that it was written under "Possible Tsunami" section, and sourced, it should be kept.

Missing name

Under Tsunami#Causes, third paragraph:

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

Who discovered this?

Geologists working for oil companies and the USGS!

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

GA reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below. There are numerous statements which need citation per the criteria. Geometry guy 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of words for tsunami in other languages.

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

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

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


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

Issues with Forecast of tsunami attack probability

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

Scales of intensity and magnitude

The latest proposal on tsunami intensity scales (ITIS2012) is a 12-grade one, according to and compatible with the earthquake intensity scales and includes impact criteria grouped in six categories: tsunami quantities, and impact on human, mobile objects, infrastructure, environment and structures [1]. A Proposal for a New Integrated Tsunami Intensity Scale (ITIS‐2012)--Navsika (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Further reading

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

Books are available at libraries for those that dont want or can afford to spend 130 stutz just after WP told them to do so. I think it would be better to have more textbooks and less links, the one in question is not only tekkie stuff but gives the whole picture, social science included. In so far I would prefer maximum ten links and maximum ten books. Serten (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ E. Lekkas et al 2012