Talk:Tsunami/Archive 2

message: in the article there is this sentence: 
* January 26, 1700: the Cascadia Earthquake (estimated 9.0 magnitude) caused massive tsunamis across the Pacific Northwest and in Awa, Japan
To which Awa does it refer: Chiba or Tokishuma? Does anyone know? If not, then no matter. I only ask for disambiguation purposes. Jaberwocky6669 05:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
::There appears to be a bit of an issue raised at Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#disambiguation request: "Awa" and fact check.  After a bit of search it appears that there was no major tsunami in 1703, and I can't find evidence of massive damage in 1700 either.  The response to the  article here is supported by this data from the NGDC in which the highest death toll between 1700 and 1703 was 5233 on 31 December 1703 for the Tokaido region.  Can anyone offer any more evidence for the large tsunami(s) mentioned here and at 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake? - BanyanTree 01:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who initially added the Awa references to both this article and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake one.  After seeing all the additional evidence it does seem that the Awa event was misreported in several sources.  It may be worth chasing this down a little more before making the WP edits though; for instance if it was indeed the case that this event was reported erroneously in several reputable sources then that itself may be notable enough to comment on in this article.  Terry 13:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the references to Awa both here and at 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake as no additional information has been given refuting the information above that the info is bad. - BanyanTree 00:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awa 

message: I wonder what happened to the idea about putting POV first person accounts into the article, it would give it a great feel. Anyone else like that idea?I seek the heart 07:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. -- Arwel 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: The megatsunami article currently suggests a megatsunami is not a tsunami. However from reading it and from a reading and general understanding ot a tsunami, it appears to me this is qutie incorrect and a megatsunami is simply a media inspired term used to describe particularly large tsunamis, most likely not the result of seismic activity. I have gone into this in more detail in the talk page for megatsunamis. Regardless, the megatsunami article needs to be updated since at the current time, it is either wrong (if I am correct, megatsunamis are tsunamis, unlike what it suggests) or confusing (if megatsunamis are not tsunamis, it does a poor job of explaining the difference) Nil Einne 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro to Megatsunami has been changed so it clearly explains that this is just a large tsunami. -- Beland 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Megatsunami]] 

message: I'm confused about the article's assertion that tsunamis are "phenomena which move the entire depth of the ocean (often several kilometres deep) rather than just the surface." This sounds contradictory to the rest of the article's description of tsunamis as energy transmitted as a wave with a short amplitude until reaching shore. The introduction notes: "A tsunami is not a sub-surface event in the deep ocean." So what's up with "move the entire depth of the ocean." Am I missing the meaning of the statement? Thanks! --joeOnSunset 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what that was trying to say was that when a tsunami originates, the entire depth of the ocean is pushed up.   This is true, but it's a misleading way of saying it, so I've cut it out. HenryFlower 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Several kilometers deep" / "not a sub-surface event" 

message: I think you need more information on this site
:You can add some...Cameron Nedland 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?????? 

message: These Tsunamis MUST stop! thousands od homes and peolpe are being killed because no one does anything about the situation. There are three machines in three different parts of the world, not to stop the tsunami's, but to let every one evacuate in time befoure the happenning occours.
Help prevent people from dying!
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
:Trying to stop a tsunami is like trying to stop the Earth rotating...it can't be done.Cameron Nedland 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, what do you expect us to do? Don't forget how much energy these things have - the 2004 earthquake alone had something along the order of 30 MILLION times more energy than the Nagasaki nuke. The tsunami itself - well, that's just too much to be measured I would think. Spark.1.4 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop!! 

message: Stanleyscup07 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to the high ground and you are safe.  Kowloonese 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm really scared right now! 

message: Please use these citations to support the appropriate material. 
I see that there is a lack of proper journal citations on this page, and that there is discussion about whether or not different types of tsunamis occur. Since the page is locked, I can't insert these. Thanks to the elves in advance. 
Inversion of Deep-Ocean Tsunami Records for 1987-1988 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake Parameters Ritsema, J., S. N. Ward and F. Gonzalez, 1995. Inversion of Deep-Ocean Tsunami Records for 1987-1988 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake Parameters, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 747-754.
Asteroid Impact Tsunami: A probabilistic hazard assessment Ward, S. N. and E. Asphaug, 2000. Asteroid Impact Tsunami: A probabilistic hazard assessment, Icarus, 145, 64-78.
Landslide Tsunami Ward, S. N., 2001. Landslide Tsunami, J. Geophys. Res., 106, B6, 11,201-11,216.
Cumbre Vieja Volcano -- Potential Collapse and Tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands Ward, S. N. and S. Day 2001. Cumbre Vieja Volcano -- Potential Collapse and Tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3397-3400.
"Tsunamis" in The Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology Ward, S. N., 2002. "Tsunamis" in The Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, ed. R. A. Meyers, Academic Press, Vol. 17, 175-191.
Impact Tsunami - Eltanin, Deep-Sea Research Ward, S. N. and E. Asphaug, 2002. Impact Tsunami - Eltanin, Deep-Sea Research Part II, Vol. 46, 6, 1073-1079.
Planetary Cratering: A Probabilistic Approach Ward, S. N., 2002. Planetary Cratering: A Probabilistic Approach, J. Geophys. Res., 107, E4, 10.1029, p7-1 to 7-11.
Asteroid Impact Tsunami of 16 March, 2880 Ward, S. N. and E. Asphaug, 2003. Asteroid Impact Tsunami of 16 March, 2880, Geophys. J. Int., 153, F6-F10.
Ritter Island Volcano- Lateral collapse and tsunami of 1888 Ward, S. N. and S. Day, 2003. Ritter Island Volcano- Lateral collapse and tsunami of 1888, Geophys. J. Int., 154, 891-902.
The Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004 Lay, T., H. Kanamori, C. J. Ammon, M. Nettles, S. N. Ward, and others. 2005. The Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. Science, v308, p1127.
Island Arc debris avalanches and tsunami generation Silver, E., S. Day, S. N. Ward and others, 2005. Island Arc debris avalanches and tsunami generation, EOS- Transactions of Am. Geophys. Un., 86, 485.
Tsunami Thoughts Ward, S. N. and S. Day, 2005. Tsunami Thoughts. Recorder — Journal of the Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, December 2005, 39-44.
The giant Sumatran megathrust ruptures of 1797 and 1833: Paleoseismic evidence from coral microatolls Natawidjaja, D. H., K. Sieh, J Galetzka, B. W. Suwargadi, H. Cheng, M. Chlieh, R. L. Edwards, J-P Avouac and S. N. Ward, 2006. The giant Sumatran megathrust ruptures of 1797 and 1833: Paleoseismic evidence from coral microatolls, J. Geophs. Res., v111, B06403, doi:10.1029/2005JB004025.
Also, as a general reference, Steven N. Ward's page is a must have resource. http://es.ucsc.edu/~ward/
Steven is one of the top experts on tsunamis in the world. 
69.227.208.201 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A set of needed citations for this page 

message: We need something on the triggering of winds by tsunamis. viz. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1763265/ideal_conditions_made_samoa_tsunami_more_devastating/index.html# "magnitude 8.0 earthquake that triggered strong winds and enormous ocean waves". I'm not a geologist, I'm a microbiologist/epidemiologist, engineer undergrad, but my thought is that if the wave has enough distance, that friction between the air and the wave traveling would get the air moving at the surface of the water. That, and as the wave rises up, it would move a greater volume of air close to the surface ahead of it. Think of the wake of a truck. 
69.227.208.201 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winds triggered by tsunamis 

message: "A tsunami (pronounced /(t)suːˈnɑːmi/) is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as an ocean, is rapidly displaced ussaully by earthquakes in faults."The tsunami that happened on Mar.11,2011 was very terrible.  By Diana S. A.
Actually, a tsunami is not a series of waves but a surge of water.  See the article for "storm surge" for some hints as to better describe what is going on.
72.177.34.13 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect from the opening line 

message: The statement 'The effects of a tsunami are always devastating due to the immense volumes of water and energy involved.' is 100% false.  Tsunamis can be as small as having a wave height of 5ft, and can have no destructive impact what so ever.  This fact can be found in most Oceanography textbooks. --67.234.209.142 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Oda Mari (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all Tsunamis are large 

message: Suggest that a section about this intriguing phenomenon, observed before the 2004 Indian Ocean event, would add value to the article. Which animals have this sense and know to act on it? By what means do the animals receive prior warning? How long before the event do they receive it? Why don't humans have this ability? Is this phenomenon observed before other major events, like volcanic eruptions, etc? EdX20 00:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precognition" is probably misleading in this case, as it implies that it wasn't the result of their normal senses.  In the case of elephants, dogs, etc, it is thought that subsonic rumbling of the approaching tsunami provides warning (much like it does for earthquakes).  An article I read back in December suggested that unusual behavior by fish, which presumably could detect the pressure changes and other disturbances in the ocean, caused unusual behavior by the shore birds that feed on them and so on across the ecosystem, well before the effects of the approaching tsunami were noticed by humans.  All of this, well referenced of course, would be useful in this article. - BanyanTree 16:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this section could be removed.  The California Department of Conservation, the agency in charge of earthquake readiness, lists this as a myth.  The problem is, how can one tell the difference between odd behavior in animals due to an earthquake vs odd behavior due to any other explanation.  This may also be a case where it is just a mental trick we play on ourselves, vs hard scientific evidence.  In any case, there should be a hard journal article to support this contention.--Dr.Worm 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Precognition 

message: I did some English-language redaction on the recently added "Tsunamiwave", but I'm not sure about the raw information itself. First, do we have a source for any of it? Second, I'm uncomfortable about the "N-wave" statement (again, fixed if we have a source). Finally, I'm concerned about my editing of the business about a "solitary wave". The original was:
: The Tsunami is also characterised as a Solitary wave (according to shape) which has only crest and no trough.
My version is:
: Tsunamis form "solitary waves", or waves with crests but no troughs — more like sand dunes than sine waves.
The problem is that I may have misinterpreted the use of "which" in the original. I thought it meant "a solitary wave which is  wave that has only crests…", but it may have meant "a subclass of solitary waves that have only crests…". Solitary wave is unhelpful, as its explanation is purely mathematical, but Soliton (to which I linked the reference, and which specifically mentions water waves in a tank) suggests solitary waves are a more general class, and that a tsunami-style wave is only a single example. I'd appreciate it if someone more domain-knowledgeable could check and possibly correction my changes. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsunami wave 

message: + :sr:Цунами(What's this? I'm a Newbie)
[I don't want to put any of this in the article because I'm still not sure how to identify my edit and post verification.]
RE: "However, an extremely large landslide could generate a megatsunami that might have ocean-wide impacts." The reference here is to shoreline slides.
No amount of land sliding into the sea can create a "megatsunami" or any other kind of tsunami over any appreciable distance. Only a deep-sea slide or tectonic upheaval can generate such a phenomenon. The reason is simple friction. Any wave propagated only on the surface dissipates as it encounters and transfers its energy to all the particles of water in its path, as well as the tremendously heavy air above. This can easily be verified by rolling a large rock -- say a foot across -- into one side of a 100 foot pond. Though at this scale such a rock would represent something about the size of Spain sliding into the Atlantic Ocean, you will see the resulting ripples diminish as they radiate outward, and no change whatsoever in the water at the opposite shore. 
: However, it must be remembered, at this scale, that even a millimetre rise on the other side would have drastic consequences. Giving the Atlantic's width to be approx 4000km, a 1mm rise in water level on the other side would equate to a tsunami between 100 and 150m high. Obviously such a small rise of 1mm cannot occur on this tiny scale (water tension). --Spark.1.4 11:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may well be true (I've no idea), but there are very respectable-sounding people who do argue that landslides can cause tsunamis:  Given the inclusion of could and might in the original statement, I think it should stand. HenryFlower 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't pretend to understand the physics/geology/whatever of the matter; all I (or anyone at Wikipedia) can do is to look at what reputable sources say.   Some say that a landslide could cause a tsunami, while some don't.  Unless one side concedes, it's not for us to take sides. HenryFlower 22:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An underwater landslide has been blamed for the July 17 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami (which killed approx 2200. I'm concerned that wikipedia doesn't appear to have a page on it) by some scientists, yes - [1 http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/8_14_99/fob2.htm] [2 http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/seafloorscience/slopes/slopes_story.html] --Spark.1.4 11:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that both sides should be equally represented.  Bill McGuire, a professor at a very respectable university,  does not think the idea is patently absurd. We should say that some people think it could happen, and some people think it couldn't. HenryFlower 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't. But the idea can hardly be as absurd as you make out if they believed (and, AFAIK, believe) it. HenryFlower 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new interwiki 

message: Is this appropriate: Rare footage of the 2004 Tsunami its a video entitled 'funny tsunami' i have been reverting it, but i'm just checking that i'm doing the right thing by stopping it?
I don't think there is anything funny about that or any other tsunami. Only a sick mind could think it funny to loose your friends or family. The Geologist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: Does anyone have any information in which a minimum magnitude is associated with a tsunami. This could prove useful knowledge for those who live in tsunami prone areas.    21:29  28 August 2006 (HST)
: I don't believe that there is a 'minimum magnitude' as such, as a fairly moderate earthquake (say a 5 or 6) could cause an underwater landslide which could be just as devestating as a 9 or 10.--Spark.1.4 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitude 

message: can anyone explain how the tsunami wave appears to sometime cause water to retreat
from the shore at first?Edxguy 14:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: The article Great Chilean Earthquake has a different fatality figure than this article. -- Beland 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The earthquake article mentions earthquake fatalities; the tsunami article talks about tsunami fatalities - I don't think there's any contradiction - apples and oranges.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, since it's not clear, I added the referenced number from the CRED database.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: This section is confusing (to me at least):
"Tens of thousands of Portuguese [...] were killed by a tsunami which followed a half hour later."
"The earthquake, tsunami, and many forest fires killed more than 1,000 of Lisbon's pre-quake population of 275,000."
Either that's mistyping, or it's saying that tens of thousands of Portuguese were killed, but only 1,000 of them were actually from Lisbon.
217.194.34.103 10:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Portuguese Wikipedia says in the article about the 1755_Lisbon_Earthquake at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramoto_de_Lisboa (my translation): "From a population of 275 thousands in Lisbon, it's believed that 90 thousands died." In a remark about this claim, the article also says (my translation) "There are sources citing 30,000 mortal victims." Jayme 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1755 - Lisbon, Portugal 

message: I removed the statement It, in Japanese legend, is thought to be caused by a giant fish-god swimming around under the ocean, causing a tsunami because the legend is (at least in every reference I dug up) that earthquakes, and not tsunami, are caused the giant catfish's writhing.  I know it sounds kind of nitpick-y, but since not all tsunami are caused by earthquakes, the line isn't completely accurate.  Mary quite contrary 05:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese legend 

message: "ca. 1600 B.C.: The Israelite crossing of the Red Sea has been linked by some researchers to a tsunami following the volcanic explosion of the Greek island of Santorini."
Which serious researcher would come to the idea that a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean would spark a tsunami in the Red Sea? Is this an attempt by some creationist to infiltrate the "science" of the christian religious texts into science again?
That should be deleted as it is complete nonsense. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.187.12 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is an attempt by some non-religious scientist to explain what religious people regard as supernatural. It was referred to by Dr Iain Stewart on the BBC programme "10 things you didn't know about tsunami" which aired recently. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: "These tsunami were so large that they caused landslides on the opposite coast triggering another massive tsunami, or "bounce back" tsunami.  An example today would be a landslide equivalent to everything west of Portland, Oregon falling into the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a tsunami that would then hit the Chinese coast with enough force to erode the coast, triggering a landslide large enough to send a tsunami that would in turn inundate the U.S. West Coast and would wipe out Portland."
I'm not sure how even a very large tsunami alone could cause a landslide large enough to generate another ocean-wide tsunami. This sounds implausible, and I've never heard of anything like it before. Added to which, the scenario of everything west of Portland "falling" into the ocean is ridiculous and not sensible for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. But hey, if someone has a reference, let's have it in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.58.133 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bounce-back tsunami 

message: I found this line in the article surprising, and hard to believe:
"The American recording stations in Hawaii detected the tsunami within a few minutes of it starting, but as it posed no danger in their locality they did not publish a warning."
According to:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm
they detected the earthquake- but not the tsunami, because they don't have any buoys in the Indian Ocean, and they did send out warnings.  I think this line should be deleted or cited.
Athenastreet 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami 

message: I've commented out the "Gas bubble" image (:Image:Tsunami5.JPG) pending a reference for this. Maybe gas bubbles cause tsunami, but I'm a bit skeptical. Ref. please. Vsmith 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas bubble image 

message: The section of notable tsunamis is large, perhaps we could create List of notable tsunamis and simply link to it here? - 2-16 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article? 

message: A tsunami (soo-nah-mee; IPA: /tsʊˈnɑːmi/) is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as an ocean, is rapidly displaced on a massive scale
This should read:
A tsunami (soo-nah-mee; IPA: /tsʊˈnɑːmi/) is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as an ocean, is rapidly displaced
Or something simmilar, could someone please confirm
69.156.99.171 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Tsunami does not have to be 'on a massive scale' 

message: What about to move a Historic tsunami section into a new article? It is quite long now and it looks ugly here. Miraceti 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I have removed the following (unreferenced etc.) section from the article:
----
Samui Kaze Desu,( Cold Wind Query) a Japanese expression, meaning ' Isn't that The Cold Wind?' - a small cold wind from the sea that often preceeds the tsunami.
It seems that when a vast volume of sea water is thrown into the air, a similar volume of air is displaced, and consequently a wave of air flows outward from the eruption.
This wave of air travels faster than the wave of water, and is cold by the time it comes ashore because it travels across the surface of the water. It may arrive seconds or minutes before the tsunami,depending how far out the eruption is, or maybe not at all ( perhaps if the first onslaught of the tsunami is a recession of water ?).
Experienced Japanese leave the shore immediately.
----
Mike Rosoft 14:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: Arrant nonsense in the opening graf. Argh. 128.2.247.61 07:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fillius Sum Sunamus" 

message: Both the Oxford English Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary only list the "tsunami" pronunciation.  They do not even have a "sunami" pronunciation therefore the "tsunami" pronunciation is first. Azalea pomp (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the 'sunami' pronunciation. It's incorrect. Oda Mari (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the article should state that the pronounciation /(t)suːˈnɑːmi/ is how it's pronounced in English and not in Japanese, as one may think, as it's originally a Japanese word. Like this: A tsunami (津波?) (pronounced in English as: /(t)suːˈnɑːmi/) CayenneGaramonde (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I would like someone to explain to me why "Tsunami" and not "Tidal Wave". I know the second is caused by the tides of the moon, but considering Tsunami is mentioned as meaning "Harbor Wave", I cannot see why use it except political correctness. If I'm wrong, okay. Thank you.--65.24.61.74 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal Wave Vs. Tsunami 

message: The previous writing of the section not only has errors, but also doesn't use the usual variable letters in some cases. I suggest the following changes be made to bring them in line with normal variable usage.
Here's the before:
F = Gdh 
where F = the overlying force or pressure in Newtons per metre square, G is the acceleration due to gravity, d = the density of the water and h = the height of the water column.
G = 9.8 m s2, d = 1.1 x 103 kg m3 and h is the depth of water in metres
Hence for a water column of 5,000 m depth the overlying pressure is equal to 9.8 x 1.1 x 103 x 5 x 103 or about 5.4 x 10 7 N m2 or about 5.7 Million tonnes per metre square.
Here's the after:
\,\! P = \rho gh 
where 
P = the overlying pressure in Newtons per metre square, 
\rho = the density of the seawater= 1.1 x 103 kg/m3, 
g = the acceleration due to gravity= 9.8 m/s2 and 
h = the height of the water column in metres.
Hence for a water column of 5,000 m depth the overlying pressure is equal to 1.1 x 103 x 9.8 x 5 x 103 or about 5.4 x 10 7 N m2 or about 5.7 Million tonnes per metre square.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talldave (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits for Warnings and prevention 

message: Why don't we call these waves "thalassoseismic waves"? --  Denelson83  21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a more accurate term? 

message: The top two images here seem a bit redundant; I think the top one should be taken out, as it is essentially the second one except from a difficult-to-read angle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.76.127 (talk • contribs) 
:Sounds reasonable enough; any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: The only other language than Japanese that has a word for this disastrous wave is Tamil language and the word is "Aazhi Peralai".
Chinese has a term "" for it.--Marcushsu (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other language than Japanese and Tamil 

message: The "Causes" section says the amplitude is 300 mm. in the open sea, but the "Characteristics" section says 1 m. for the same thing.  Can some knowledgeable person reconcile the discrepancy, or else pick one or the other? Kkken (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Deep-Sea Wave Amplitude 300 mm. or 1 m? 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia editing so excuse me if this isn't done correctly. I believe there is an error in the calculation in the section "Warnings and prevention". The formula is correct and the calculation of N/m2 is correct but the conversion to tonnes per square metre is incorrect. 1 tonne/m2 = 9.8 x 10^3 N/m2. The pressure at 5000 metres is thus approx 5000 tonnes/m2. This is also intuitively correct if you consider that a cubic metre of water weighs 1 tonne, thus a column of 5000 cubic metres of water stacked on top of each other, which would weigh 5000 tonnes, exerts a pressure of 5000 tonnes over its 1 square metre base. Mccarcass (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in calculation of underwater pressure 

message: In the Japanese page for tsunami there is a short description about the origin of the term "tsunami".  Adding this description may become an answer to some discussions on why tsunami are thought to be related to "harbor".  A translation (slightly rewritten) from ja article might be following:
The term "tsunami" — "a harbor wave" in old Japanese — originates from the fact that a tsunami, unlike normal waves, caused massive damages in harbors, even though damages were little (or even unnoticeable) on ships offshore (see Characteristics).
In any way, in recent Japanese it is understood as "tsunami", not as a harbor wave.  The origin is historic.
If Japanese external references are needed, this (About Tsunami -- Tsunami Engineering Laboratory, Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University) or many other resources could be cited.
--Y.oiwa (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding origin of the term in Japanese 

message: The article about tsunami contains some grammatical errors:  the plural of "tsunami" is "tsunami".  I speak Japanese fluently, having lived there and being married to a Japanese man for more than 25 years.  Please make this correction in the page.
Elmo5159 (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about tsunami 

message: Encountered this word for the first time today. What does it consist of? Sand and sea creatures presumably? Drutt (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsunamite 

message: I would like to call your attention to the following recently published book.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BERTSU.html
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherpost (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a reference to the list of references in the article on tsunamis 

message: I would like to call your attention to the following recently published book.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BERTSU.html
Thanks.
--Fisherpost (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a reference to the list of references in the article on tsunamis 

message: Warning center learns from miscalculation, Honolulu Advertiser, Gordon Y.K. Pang, Advertiser Staff Writer, Feb. 28, 2010:
‘  .  .  .  DART gauges spread across the sea floor to detect the size of tsunami waves are a fairly new technology, Fryer said. The initial wave reading from the DART gauge showed 25 centimeters, huge for the deep water, he said.
‘"At that point, we went to full Pacific-wide warning," he said. "Part of the reason we had to do that was because although it was huge, we didn't quite know what it meant because we haven't much experience with those. As we get more under our belts, we'll get better."
‘He added: "Fifty percent error, that's OK. That's about the level of accuracy in this game. It will get better."
‘Nonetheless, "with every event the system improves," Fryer said.  .  .  ’
:posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is already in the article, "A large tsunami may feature multiple waves arriving over a period of hours, with significant time between the wave crests. The first wave to reach the shore may not have the highest run up". Mikenorton (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chilean Earthquake Feb. 27, 2010, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center overestimated size of resulting tsunami waves 

message: *
====User:Heds 1====
* · (talk · contribs  · deleted · cross-wiki · · &lang=en&wiki=wikipedia count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · ere%5B%5D=enpedia_cn search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
:I can contribute a lot more to the causes of tsunami including landslide & asteroid generated events with references (eg. Haugen et al., 2005; Ward & Asphaug, 1999; Ward, 2000) Heds 1 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is semiprotected, for you can edit this article, you must have at least 10 edits. Read more about it here Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users.--Luizdl (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing permision request 

message: * · (talk · contribs  · deleted · cross-wiki · · &lang=en&wiki=wikipedia count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · ere%5B%5D=enpedia_cn search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
:I can contribute a lot more to the causes of tsunami including landslide & asteroid generated events with references (eg. Haugen et al., 2005; Ward & Asphaug, 1999; Ward, 2000) Heds 1 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is semiprotected, for you can edit this article, you must have at least 10 edits. Read more about it here Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users.--Luizdl (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Heds 1]]

message: Simple grammatical change requested:  Drawback section
Currently reads: "If the first part of a tsunami to reach land is a trough called a drawback, rather than a wave crest. The water along the shoreline recedes dramatically, exposing normally submerged areas." [First "sentence" is actually a phrase.]
Should read: "If the first part of a tsunami to reach land is a trough called a drawback, rather than a wave crest, the water along the shoreline recedes dramatically, exposing normally submerged areas."
206.174.25.141 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 206.174.25.141, 21 May 2010 

message: This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.  
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: Is there any chance that   the country im living in Ireland  be   hit by a    tsunami    and has they ever been one   and   where would one come from and  what would  cause   it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.105.68 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: Lisbon_earthquake#The_earthquake_and_tsunami. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: I have no idea which word you should use. Tsunami or Tsunamis doesn't matter to me but you should choose one and stick with it. The section discussing the plurals uses the Japanese way, whereas it seems like the entire rest of the article uses the English way.
Lilly (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency on the plurals. 

message: please spell "casualties" correctly. Also, the people in Guam believe their island is tsunami proof because of the Marianas Trench. thanks 
. I want to edit this article. -- Tapail (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify the change you'd like made, and if it's constructive and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, it will be done.  Alternatively, you need only make two more edits – to any page – and your account will be autoconfirmed and you'll be able to edit this article yourself. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing request 

message: The article claims that there was no drawback on the western side of the 2004 tsunami but when I searched for a scientific article verifying this I found none (though the wikipedia article quoted at great length without attribution). On the contrary, I found a scientific proceeding which claims that there was a drawback: 
The Italian-speaking vice council, Mahad X. Said, standing at the waterfront outside the mosque upon the arrival of the tsunami (Figure 10a), gave a very detailed description of the initial wave sequence. At first, a 100-m drawback was noticed, followed by a first wave flooding the beach. Next, the water withdrew again by 900 m before the second wave partially flooded the town. Finally, the water withdrew again by 1,300 m offshore before the third and most powerful wave washed through the town. These drawbacks correspond to 0.5-m, 4-m, and 6-m depths. The detailed eyewitness account of the numerous drawbacks is founded on the locations of the offshore pillars.  http://mahabghodss.net/NewBooks/www/web/digital/nashrieh/Journal%20of%20earth%20qua/Vol.%2022-2006/Vol.22%20Issue%20S3%20June%202006/S219.pdf
The question is under debate at Physics Stack Exchange:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6720/why-do-tsunami-waves-begin-with-the-water-flowing-away-from-shore
50.46.72.194 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawback of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on western side 

message: It says the low pressure of a storm causes storm surge. While that is true, the statement implies it directly causes it, it does not. The storm surge is caused by winds, those winds caused by the low pressure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.62.211 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm surge is not directly caused by the low pressure of a storm. 

message: Why is the word tsunami in italics all over this article? 65.92.176.38 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows.  It's fixed now 206.47.141.21 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is (or at least was) a convention of using italics for foreign words in English contexts.  I've seen it used a lot in books more than a couple of decades old, but it seems to be rarer in modern works.  I guess a previous editor was following that convention.  (I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on this). Wardog (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Word Tsunami 

message: 津波tsunami, tsunamis
I have put the other pronunciations here no need for Japanese pronunciation,
;   or   entry "tsunami"
) 
icetea8 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many pronunciations, pick one 

message: Tidal wave is an older term, First Known Use of tidal wave is 1851 according to merriam-webster .
icetea8 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tidal wave reference 

message: Please make the following edits:
* Move the second-last paragraph from the "Warnings and predictions" section down to "Mitigation".  ("It is not possible to prevent a tsunami. However, in some tsunami-prone countries some earthquake engineering measures have been taken...")
* Move the last paragraph down to Mitigation / Natural Barriers. ("Natural factors such as shoreline tree cover can mitigate tsunami effects...")
** (The above changes are probably most easily made by editing the whole article and moving the headings up.)
* Fix the link in footnote 29, the footnote in that last paragraph, for the BBC article "Tsunami villagers give thanks to trees".  The correct URL is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/south_asia/4269847.stm .
* The date for that article should be corrected to 2005-02-16.
Of course, if you disagree, any subset of these changes is also appreciated.  Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  excellent suggestions, all done. Thanks for your request. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: fix broken link 

message: I split the Natural barriers section before I realized I was editting a B-Class article.  Since I've already made the split, I'm going to claim WP:BEBOLD was forefront of my mind.  Truth is, that I overlooked proposing the change because I overlooked the article's class and attention.  If anyone objects to the split, feel free to undo.  I'm going to continue working on the Tsunami barrier article in the meantime.--v/r - TP 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of [[Tsunami barrier]] 

message: book chapter made freely available (but not freely licensed) by the publisher:  -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential source 

message: What is a good thesis for Tsunami's?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.97.5 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsunami 

message: If people happen to be within a zone that is inundated by a tsunami, there is either sufficient warning and high places to seek refuge, or there are not.  Some combination of a very effective extremely rapid warning system and elevated "escape platforms" may reduce some of the casualties.  The platforms would have to be of a sufficient height (or a terraced set of sufficient heights), readily accessible, and large enough for the surrounding population.  The platforms would also have to be designed so that oncoming tsunami don't climb the stairs or ramps leading to the protected height.  I envision 60 to 80 ft high "tear drops" with a prow pointing to the sea, and a large flat area on top.  They could taper gently at the back. 
They would become "escape islands" when a tsunami strikes.The warning system would have to be prompt enough to provide people with time to access the platforms.
A warning system would require a well-defined network of sea elevation sensors in the ocean waters some distance out to sea.  People would be instructed to wait on the platform for an all clear signal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.136.25.253 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of nice thoughts, although Wikipedia is not the place for them. (The Wikipedia discussion page is intended for discussion about the structure of the page, not the topic itself.) But as to substance - a comprehensive system of tsunami detection buoys, even a few deep-sea buoys, already exists throughout the Pacific Ocean. Tsunami waves don't "climb" quite the way you envision it so the teardrop structure would have to be reexamined, but escape platforms could potentially be quite doable. You have found a solid entrepreneurial niche, and, even better, one that genuinely betters people's lives. Do some more research, both scientific and business, and then go for it! - Tenebris 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical designs for tsunami shelter platform and early warning system