Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 11, 2011.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 11, 2013, March 11, 2021, and March 11, 2023.


Wonky image problem

[edit]

Testing here:

Energy map of the tsunami from NOAA

Request to remove section that doesn't make sense

[edit]

In Casualties > Japan > Key statistics, second paragraph, the first sentence ("Elderly aged over 60 account for 65.8% of all deaths, as shown on the table to the right.") makes sense. But the rest of that paragraph is completely unrelated both to that leading sentence and to the whole section. Apparently someone wanted to highlight a sentimental piece made by some random journalist in the Guardian about one particular incident, but it shouldn't be mentioned here. The Okawa thing is already mentioned and linked elsewhere in the article (in the subsection Others) and in that case thankfully without such loaded and opinionated language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.229.69.102 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geology Map

[edit]

In the geology section there is a two leaf map labeled, "Mechanism of 2011 Tohoku earthquake" Both panels make reference to "the North American Plate" sitting adjacent to this geographical section of Japan. I believe this is grossly incorrect, Japan does not sit on any piece of the North American Plate. Both map panels need serious revision. Astrophysicalchemist (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably should have been labelled as the okhotsk microplate, however I don't think there is a consensus on whether it is fully its own thing. If someone has a similar graphic with better labelling then I would support its replacement, but I don't see the need for the current image's removal at the moment Vreee (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

[edit]

it isn’t the fourth most powerful earthquake, its number 6 most powerful ever recorded. Timplin (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The article says it was the "fourth most powerful earthquake recorded in the world since modern seismography began in 1900" - this is correct, 2 of the more powerful quakes happened before this. Jamedeus (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

299%g should be XI, not VIII

[edit]

I was quite shocked when I saw VIII here along with 2.99g of PGA. USGS Estimations state that PGAs that exceed 1.39g should be considered as X-XII. So a rough estimate of it would be around XI-XII. Waitwott (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Ishikawa earthquake had 2.88 g of PGA, yet it is considered X-XI. So how come did 3.11 have VIII even with nearly 3g of acceleration? And also, please separate the intensities to their respective blocks, instead of putting its counterpart in parentheses/brackets. Waitwott (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ishikawa earthquake intensity was supported by a source [1]. The VIII intensity in this article is supported by the USGS event page impact summary. I haven't come across any credible source that suggests a different maximum Mercalli intensity. Interpreting the 2.99 g PGA would constitute WP:SYNTH. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

[edit]

Change "It lasted six minutes, causing a tsunami" to "It lasted six minutes and caused a tsunami." The former implies the length of time or severity of shaking caused the tsunami, but tsunamis are simply caused by the displacement of a large volume of water, regardless of how strong or long the shaking was. 2601:1C0:4D7C:6C00:DDF8:6226:A9B1:CB56 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The two aren't completely unrelated - length of shaking relates to size of rupture, which relates to the amount of water displaced but I take your point, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]