Jump to content

Talk:List of tsunamis

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

Question about tsunami from Japan hitting Vancouver Island

[edit]

There was a documentary a while back about a certain First Nations community on Vancouver Island, Sarita, British Columbia, near Port Alberni, that had been the victim of a tsunami that reached it from Japan - in other words, not from the Cascadia earthquake - but I'm not certain of the date; 1790 seems a bit late but that might be it, the Okinawa - Iyejima Islands? - tsunami seems like a better date, but would it have had any strength on the other side of the Pacific? I'll see what I can find out about the Sarita tsunami disaster; must be something online somewhere....Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge tsunami recorded in 1771 in Ishigaki island. The sources are all in Japanese. 61.245.81.52 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

[edit]

How would people feel about changing the plural to "tsunamis" throughout the article (including its title)? Wiktionary lists it as a valid plural, and the lack of a final "s" can be needlessly confusing to English readers. --Doradus (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I went ahead and made this change a few weeks ago. --Doradus (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Kelly, Gavin (2004)" :
    • Kelly, Gavin: “Ammianus and the Great Tsunami”, ''The Journal of Roman Studies'', Vol. 94 (2004), pp. 141-167 (141)
    • Kelly, Gavin (2004), “Ammianus and the Great Tsunami”, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 94, pp. 141-167 (141)

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

freaky

[edit]

lots of info but the most deadly ones shud b made into a separate list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.161.103 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Sea Tsunami - 1341?

[edit]

A catastrophic event similar to a Tsunami is mentioned in the history of the territory now known as the south Indian state of Kerala. The event occurred in 1341 leading to the silting and closure of the ancient port of Muziris, opening up a new port in Kochi and displacing vast areas of land and water. Since Kerala is on the cost of the Arabian Sea, a sea which has not apparently reported any other tsunami, the event remains to be satisfactorily explained. 116.68.91.27 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could have had a Makran origin, especially if it came from the north as the account describes. Still, however, not much data from that region either. —2602:306:BCA6:8300:D57C:89F6:2F46:88BA (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1995- Greenland Tsunami ?

[edit]

Here is a video, of the Greenland tsunami which occured in 1995 [1]. The video clearly shows a landslide (ice) and a series of 5 metre ~ high waves crashing into boats in it's path. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1792:Mount Unzen, should be an independent article

[edit]

1792: Mount Unzen, Nagasaki Prefecture, Kyūshū, Japan (島原大変肥後迷惑) should be an independent article. I would like to write a longer article. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1792 Unzen earthquake and tsunami was made an article. Please enrich it. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

[edit]

Turkey is not a European Country therefore must be deleted from the European list of tsunamis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.255.91 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sea of Marmara borders both Europe and Asia and I don't think that including that tsunami in this part of the list is inappropriate. Mikenorton (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop to vandalise the European section, Turkey is not a European country, it doesn't belong to the European landmass and Izmit lis in Asia, please stop to remove it from the Asian list of tsunamis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.255.91 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tsunami affected both the European and Asian shores of the Sea of Marmara, we are talking about continent areas not countries. Mikenorton (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey IS NOT EUROPE, therefore it must not be mention among the European Tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.253.222 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmit: IZMIT=ASIA!How the Hell the Tsunami in Izmit is recorded in the European list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.229.182 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the European and Asian lists of Tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.229.182 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Historic' of 'Historical'

[edit]

Many of the tsunamis on this list are 'historic', but some like the 2007 Niigata and any before recorded history can only be called 'historical', like that caused by the Storegga Slide. I think that this article should, therefore, be renamed to List of historical tsunamis. I'm aware that there is a slight difference in usage here between American and British English, so I'm seeking comments before making any formal move proposal. Mikenorton (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most historic tsunami was in 1976. The Google NGram shows how the word tsumani has replaced tidal wave since the WW2 and the biggest peak is in 1976. [2]87.113.178.233 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you change the range from 1970 to 2008, you'll see that the biggest peak is actually in 2005-8 (a reaction to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake presumably). The second highest peak is actually in 1977, although it's not clear what that's related to, unless it's the 1976 Moro Gulf earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point in this section - it's over 2 years and there have been no responses, so I'm being belatedly bold and moving the page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether the words "and prehistorical" should be added to the list description:

  • According to most dictionaries and spell-checks, "prehistorical" is not a word.
  • General usage: "prehistoric" is used in contrast to "historic", which in turn is used for past events of note, which are generally included in written history. In the case of human history, "prehistoric" is often systematically used for events before written history. However, this usage is not consistent across all fields.
  • We already changed "historic" to "historical", which is simply used to mean past events, not necessarily those of note or those written down. This distinction is common in fields like geology, where some events may be important, while others may merely have occurred in the past. However, many phenomena occur both before and after the advent of written history, but there is no scientific reason to distinguish between the two.
  • There are only two event listed for which there are no historical writings, the Storegga slide and Santorini.

Elriana (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitively, it feels strange that an event can be both prehistoric and historical, but your logic seems sound. Pburka (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The English language is a bit quirky. I think there may also be some subtle difference between American and British usage of these words, but I have yet to figure it out.Elriana (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has only just occurred to me that there would be nothing wrong in simply renaming this page to List of tsunamis (althought that title is currently a redirect to this page) - would that work? Mikenorton (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table?

[edit]

If this list were in table form it could be sorted by date, continent or death toll without creating separate lists for each ordering system. Most lists of earthquakes in wikipedia seem to be in table form. Any opinions? Elriana (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree - list articles in prose like this are really hard to navigate. I will eventually do it, if no-one gets there first. Mikenorton (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on turning this list into a table. The columns I'm thinking of are Date, Location, Main Article, Primary Cause (e.g., earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc), and Description. Is there any reason to separate the different time periods (pre-1001 AD, 1001-1700 AD, etc)? Or should all of the events be in a single table? Many of the more recent events have heights associated with them. So we could add a maximum height column, making a separate table for events after 1900 or 1950. All opinions welcome! Elriana (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made the lists that were organized by date into tables. I'd still like opinions as to whether the separate time periods should be combined (entirely or in part) into a single table. Elriana (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]
  • The section on Other Historical Tsunamis seems out of place, and most of the entries are entirely unreferenced. I would advocate moving that section to the talk page and adding events from it to the main list as references are found.
  • Many of the event descriptions need copy editing for conciseness, grammar, and tone.
  • The divisions of the table/list by date seem somewhat arbitrary. Is there a justification for keeping these divisions?
  • Highest and Deadliest sections could use a little fleshing out. Perhaps we could list the top 5 in each category?

I'll be working on some of the copy editing when I have time. Elriana (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, thanks for doing this, it's a lot easier to look at now. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible events to add

[edit]

Other tsunamis that may be added to this list with the appropriate references are listed below. I suggest that editors either delete or cross-out entries as they are incorporated into the main article.Elriana (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ca. 500 BC: Poompuhar, Tamil Nadu, India, Maldives
  • 1541: a tsunami struck the earliest European settlement in Brazil, São Vicente. There is no record of deaths or injuries, but the town was almost completely destroyed.

South Asia

[edit]
Tsunamis in South Asia
Source: Amateur Seismic Centre, India[1]
Date Location
September 1524 Near Dabhol, Maharashtra
2 April 1762 Arakan Coast, Myanmar
16 June 1819 Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat, India
31 October 1847 Great Nicobar Island, India
31 December 1881 Car Nicobar Island, India
28 November 1945 Mekran coast, Balochistan

North America and the Caribbean

[edit]
  • 1690 – Nevis
  • 14 November 1840 – Great Swell on the Delaware River
  • 18 November 1867 – Virgin Islands
  • 17 November 1872 – Maine - Recorded at 50 cm on tide gauges, but the cause is unknown, and no damage reported.
  • 11 October 1918 – Puerto Rico
  • 9 January 1926 – Maine -10 ft, flooded Bass harbor, no injuries reported, cause unknown. Might not be notable enough for this list.
  • 4 August 1946 – Dominican Republic
  • 18 August 1946 – Dominican Republic
Possible
[edit]

Source: NOAA National Weather Service Forecast Office,[2]

Europe

[edit]
  • 7000–6000 BC – identified near the Guincho Beach, Lisbon. It corresponds to a series of giant boulders and cobbles, located 14 m above mean sea level.[3]
  • 5500–5300 BC – radiocarbon dating of a debris flow on a core made offshore, close to Marques de Pombal fault related to the breakthrough of the Donana spit.[3]
  • 4200 BC – based on the paleogeographic evolution of the Donana National Park.[3]
  • 3600 BC – based on a debris flow found in the Marques de Pombal fault.[3]
  • 2700–2400 BC – large erosional episode in Punta Umbria that changed the drainage system.[3]
  • 2300–2200 BC – identified on the Valedelagrana Spit Bar (Bay of Cádiz, Spain), with the input of coarse sands into tidal marsh deposits.[3]
  • 60 BC – Portugal and Galicia tsunami, associated with a M=8.5 earthquake.
  • 382 AD – Cape St. Vincent tsunami, associated with a M=7.5 earthquake.
  • 26 January 1531 – Between 4 and 5 a.m., a strong shock was felt in Lisbon and along the Tagus Valley, causing approximately 1000 casualties (see 1531 Lisbon earthquake).
  • 11 January 1683 – An earthquake in Italy triggered a tsunami that killed more than 1000 people. I presume that this is the 1693 earthquake
  • 6 February 1783 – An offshore earthquake in Southern Italy caused a tsunami that killed around 1500 people.
  • 20 September 1867 – An earthquake in Greece caused a tsunami that killed 12 people.
  • 11 September 1930 – Two people were killed by a tsunami in Italy, caused by an undersea earthquake measuring 7.7 on the Richter Scale.
  • 9 July 1956 – An earthquake in Greece generated a tsunami that drowned 4 people.
  • 28 February 1969 – A submarine earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Richter Scale, with its epicentre of the coast of Portugal, caused a tsunami that hit Northern Portugal, parts of Spain, and Morocco. No lives were lost.
  • 16 October 1979 – 8–23 people died when the coast of Nice, France, was hit by two tsunamis, caused by a landslide and an undersea landslide. The sea suddenly receded from the shore and returned in two huge waves, hitting a 60-mile (97 km)-long coastal stretch. Hundreds of boats were overturned, and seven people constructing the new airport were drowned.
  • 13 December 1990 – Six people died when an undersea earthquake in Italy caused a tsunami.

Asia

[edit]

References

  1. ^ ":: ASC :: Tsunamis & Seiches in south Asia". Asc-india.org. Retrieved 2011-03-11.
  2. ^ "Tsunamis en México :: Investigaciones". esmas. Retrieved 2011-03-11.
  3. ^ a b c d e f http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/25/2009/nhess-9-25-2009.pdf
  4. ^ "Marine Georesources & Geotechnology". Taylorandfrancis.metapress.com. Retrieved 2011-03-11.
  5. ^ http://www.lamouettelaurentine.com/st_laurent_du_var/port/tsunami.htm
  6. ^ "THE 1979 NICE AIRPORT CATASTROPH REVISITED" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-11.

To Do Update

[edit]

1) We still seem to be missing a number of events.

2) The descriptions column could still use some judicious editing. In particular, those events with their own articles do not need to be described with quite so many details here. That's why we link to the main articles. If we stick to time, place, cause, size, casualties, and, in a few particular cases, one other reason for historical notability, I think we will have covered the important bits. Events without their own article could have a few more details, but if they get much longer than other entries, that content should be migrated into a separate article.

3)Highest and Deadliest sections still need fleshing out. The NOAA database mentioned above is a great source for this.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of historical tsunamis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Greenland tsunami

[edit]

Doesn't the one on 2017-06-17 in western Greenland qualify (4 deaths), even though it was not caused by an earthquake, but a landslide?

Some references:

  1. Huge landslide triggers tsunami in Greenland flooding villages and damaging homes
  1. Much more detail about the Greenland landslide and tsunami, including images and video
  1. A huge landslide generated tsunami waves damaging some villages in Greenland - 3 adults and a child considered dead.

--Mortense (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative organization?

[edit]

I wonder if you folks busily working on this article would like some criticism, and a suggestion. The main criticism is this: in viewing this article, as soon as I get down to the list(s), what I see is four columns of mostly empty space, and a final column jam-packed with text. This is very unbalanced, both aesthetically, and in the presentation of information; it is wastefully inefficient use of screen space. It also means that (for my typical browser configuration) I can see only three or four entries at a time, which is so "zoomed in" that I loose sight of the overall list.

A more efficient way of organizing immediately occurred to me, and I have taken the liberty of replicating your first list ("Prehistoric") here, with a slight but, I think, very useful modification: moving the over-full descriptions out of the table. These are replaced with a link to the descriptions, which now follow the table as regular text.

Exempli gratia:

Tabular list

[edit]
Date Location Main Article Primary Cause Description
≈7000–6000 BCE Lisbon, Portugal Unknown Desc.
≈6225–6170 BCE Norwegian Sea Storegga Slide Landslide Desc.
≈1600 BCE Santorini, Greece Minoan eruption Volcanic eruption Desc.

[Big change: descriptive text pulled out of the table, replaced with links. Also some formatting adjustments.]

Descriptions

[edit]

[Anchors can be visible, as here, or not. Various schemes possible here.]

t001: A series of giant boulders and cobbles have been found 14 m above mean sea level near Guincho Beach.[1]

The Storegga Slides occurred 100 km north-west of the Møre coast in the Norwegian Sea, causing a very large tsunami in the North Atlantic Ocean. This collapse involved an estimated 290 km length of coastal shelf, with a total volume of 3,500 km3 of debris.[2] Based on carbon dating of plant material recovered from sediment deposited by the tsunami, the latest incident occurred around ~6225–6170 BCE.[3] In Scotland, traces of the subsequent tsunami have been recorded, with deposited sediment being discovered in Montrose Basin, the Firth of Forth, up to 80 km inland and 4 metres above current normal tide levels.

The volcanic eruption on Santorini, Greece is assumed to have caused severe damage to cities around it, most notably the Minoan civilization on Crete. A tsunami is assumed to be the factor that caused the most damage.

[Replaced instances of full citations with bibliographic detail like this:

{{cite conference |author1=Bondevik, S |author2=Stormo, SK |author3=Skjerdal, G | title=Green mosses date the Storegga tsunami to the chilliest decades of the 8.2 ka cold event | journal=Quaternary Science Reviews | volume=45 | year=2012 | pages=1–6 | doi=10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.04.020}}

with a short cite:

{{Harvnb|Bondevik|Stormo|Skjerdal|2012}}

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/25/2009/nhess-9-25-2009.pdf
  2. ^ Bondevik et al. 2003.
  3. ^ Bondevik et al. 2006; Bondevik, Stormo & Skjerdal 2012

Sources

[edit]
  • Bondevik, S; Lovholt, F; Harbitz, C; Stormo, S; Skjerdal, G (2006). "The Storegga Slide Tsunami – Deposits, Run-up Heights and Radiocarbon Dating of the 8000-Year-Old Tsunami in the North Atlantic". American Geophysical Union meeting. {{cite conference}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  • Bondevik, S; Stormo, SK; Skjerdal, G (2012). Green mosses date the Storegga tsunami to the chilliest decades of the 8.2 ka cold event. Quaternary Science Reviews. Vol. 45. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.04.020. {{cite conference}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Discussion

[edit]

Having all that text in a table makes the table harder to edit. But likewise, the text was hard to handle because of all the citation details. So a second thing I did: I moved the full citations (done with the (cite} templates) into their own section where they are easier to handle. In their place I put in short cites that link to the full citations. I also put the full citations in (mostly) vertical format, so that in edit mode they are easier to read, and thus easier to check for errors.

If you play around with this format I think you will find that the display is easier on the reader – the actual list(s) becomes essentially a sortable index into the text, which could become a review article — and also much easier to edit.

Questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some annotations explaining the changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad that someone likes it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a usability point of view, it might be more useful to keep the description contained within the table. That way, readers can easily scroll through the list and get a quick overview of the various causes and effects of tsunami's. I do however agree with you that the overloaded descriptions create a cumbersome and outright ugly presentation. I'd suggest two somewhat less radical tweaks: First, by widening the last column, the visual balance of the text is somewhat restored. Secondly, the contents of the "description" field could be reduced to a short description, while the reference to the main article is the real "dig deeper" link. As an example of the first tweak:
Date Location Main Article Primary Cause Description
479 BCE Potidaea, Greece 479 BCE Potidaea tsunami The earliest recorded tsunami in history. During the Persian siege of the sea town Potidaea, Greece, the Greek historian Herodotus reports how the Persian attackers who tried to exploit an unusual retreat of the water were suddenly surprised by "a great flood-tide, higher, as the people of the place say, than any one of the many that had been before". Herodotus attributes the cause of the sudden flood to the wrath of Poseidon.

Onkl (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With refactoring the use of space becomes more efficient, but the description becomes dominant, even overwhelming, while the other elements diminish into mere side dishes of information. You might as well put all the descriptions into regular paragraphs, with the other fields incorporated into the headers. It wouldn't be so bad if, as you suggest, the descriptions could be reduced – to something like 10 words. But it is doubtful that the general run of WP editing would be so disciplined. You might do away with the description if each and every tsunami to be included in the list was notable enough to have its own article. But that seems quite unlikely.
The form I have shown here, of taking these elephantine descriptions out of the table, allows the table to do what tables are good at: presenting a set of data in a compact, regular format that facilitates inter-record comparisons. If you expand your example with another couple of records, and then compare with my example, you might notice how breaking the lines in each field (e.g.: "479 / BCE") makes them harder to read, while the increased vertical separation makes it harder to compare fields between different records. Large sections of text generally do not work well in tables; the form shown is a standard way of handling such a problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the descriptions in the table itself. Having them in a separate linked place is confusing to me. The paragraphs for adjacent events end up in sequence with no information on where one ends and the next starts or which paragraph is about what. At the point at which enough information has been added to make this information less confusing, you've essentially duplicated the existing table. If there was a way to make the descriptions show as a preview of a couple of lines that is expandable into the full paragraph upon clicking, that would be very cool. But I don't think wikipedia supports this in tables at the moment?

One thing I have tried to do over the years is shorten the descriptions. Most are not too long (making each entry 4-6 lines tall on my screen), but some are still much longer. I'll keep poking at shortening when I get time, however the consensus here turns out. Elriana (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of historical tsunamis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of historical tsunamis

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of historical tsunamis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USGS":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I resolved the error by removing unnecessary text and the offending ref. Dawnseeker2000 07:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Bay, Alaska

[edit]

What about the tsunami at Icy Bay, Alaska in 2015? https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/giant-wave-icy-bay --Spucky123r (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it. Wykx (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Teide, ca. 160.000–220.000 BP

[edit]

It's lacking a major landslide-causing tsunami in the Atlantic, the massive collapse of Volcano Teide (Tenerife, Canary Islands) dated to around 180.000 years ago. Take a look at the caldera left behind (Las Cañadas del Teide) to get an idea of the scale. I can't find immediate data on Wikipedia regarding volume, magnitude, etc., but a quick search could come up with some estimates. In any case, equally ill-documented tsunamis are present in this table, and I believe this one also deserves a mention. Il Qathar (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a reliable source that a) describes this event and b) gives evidence that a major tsunami was triggered, either from imaging of the landslide or more likely from tsunami deposits. The S2 impact event on the list seems to be insufficiently cited in this regard, not that there's any reason to think that an impact that size wouldn't cause a tsunami (if there was any depth of water at the impact site), but we still need cited evidence. Mikenorton (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good for a start?
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15246 31.221.175.171 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough on its own to add an event dated to ~170,000 years ago. There is evidence for two tsunamis in the the same time bracket, one due to an initial collapse, the other due to a collapse following a major explosive eruption, which can be covered by a single entry in the list - nice find! Mikenorton (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tsunamis&oldid=1246214235"