Talk:Rogue wave

message: a) this article has been used on the front page as "Freak wave" 
and
b) "Freak wave" is used most often in the journals
so is there some reason why this was moved from Freak wave to Rogue wave??
I propose putting it back to the original name back?
If not, then it should be copy and pasted back to the original article and moved properly to preserve the edit history.  
Mozzerati 06:20, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
 : In the process of reviewing and editing this article I have just read or referenced most journals written in the past 10-15 years and it appears to me that rogue wave is now the most commonly used term.AWHS (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: It seems to me that

message: I think that examples of near shore "rogue waves" could be inappropriately construed as open ocean rogue wave examples.  The probability extremely large, near-shore waves is bathymetry dependent.  The existence of exceedingly large waves near shore isn't questioned by the scientific establishment.  The existence of open ocean rogue waves is governed by different differential equations.  The frequency of open ocean rogue waves is still questioned by scientists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.41.119 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Rogue waves

message: It seems that on May 5th, 2008 there was a rogue wave occurrence in South Korea, resulting initially in nine people confirmed dead and around 15 missing. FFLaguna (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogue wave in Korea

message: Ocean Drauper sank on February 15th, 1982 as far as I know. Can somebody confirm this.
:The mobile offshore drilling platform Ocean Ranger sank on 15th February, 1982.  The Draupner oil rig was around to be struck by the new year's day wave which all sources agree occurred on 1st January 1995. I think you are confusing the two. Benea (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drauper event 

message: (merge into rogue wave cancelled; discussion moved to Talk:Sneaker wave Oliphaunt (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Merge Sneaker wave into Rogue wave
 

message: According to the commentaries on the DVD, the final wave was simply a large storm wave possibly caused by the collision of two other waves and exaggerated for dramatic effect.  However, earlier in the movie, a rogue wave was encountered while fishing on relatively calm seas.  
Amschmid (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Perfect Storm" reference 

message: I removed hundred year wave (which was in bold) from the first sentence, since it is just a statistical measure (a wave with a height which has a probability of exceedance of once per 100 years, on average) and not necessarily a rogue wave (higher than twice the significant wave height of the sea state). Most often, 100-year waves are design waves (since there are no wave records for hundreds of years anywhere), which are computed using linear wave statistics (no rogue waves). Although rogue waves have been measured of a height near the 100-year design wave -- for the offshore structure where they were measured -- this does not imply the two concepts are related.
Despite hundred year wave being a redirect to this article (by lack of a page on wave statistics, or wave forces in structure design), it should not be confused with rogue wave. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting; thanks for catching that. I agree that "hundred year wave" would be best discussed in an article on wave statistics, based on your explanation. But since nobody's written that article yet, I'm in favor of editing Hundred year wave into an actual article; if need be, it can be merged into another article when the time comes. I can start on that later tonight-- I've found a few sources on Google Book Search-- but since all my knowledge on this topic was compiled in the last five minutes, I fear my contribution will be the stubbiest of stubs. Whatever expertise you have would be a great help. Also, I've found at least one source which equates "hundred year wave" with "freak wave", so there probably should be a note of clarification in the "rogue wave" article. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a good approach to me. Books which should contain something on this are (by head): Goda, Design of maritime structures; and Holthuijsen (2007?). Further there should be quite some information in the Shore protection manual of the US Corps of Engineers (free downloads available online). I have to stop now, but will look on it in one or two days. It would be great if you can make a start on this. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And a start has been made. It's not much, but it's better than a redirect. I'd look into the references you suggested, but I'm afraid I'm in a bit over my head; so, rather than continuing to edit the article, I'll start working on a time machine so I can go back and tell my sixteen-year-old self to pay attention in physics class. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundred year wave 

message: The 'Deadliest Catch' reference YouTube link appears to be a copyright violation. John Nevard (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the YouTube link. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: http://www.math.uio.no/~karstent/waves/index_en.html
Excellent source from Norway.  FX (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And from well-known experts in the field. It already appears twice in the external references. -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible reference 

message: The reference didn't actually have any references.
FX (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed claim about shipping losses 

message: This article should mention in the history section how no one believed in rogue waves until someone caught one on a camera on an oil platform only a few years ago. Up until at least the late 1990s no one believed in these waves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.149.130 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, I have added this into the text, but the overall structure of the article still needs work. A lot of people are saying similar things in the articles I have read. AWHS (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical doubt of Rogue Waves 

message: 172.129.15.180 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rogue waves do not cover a large area... It is unlikely any other ship was hit.  Falez (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw one in Cuba 1959 

message: Removed a bit of vandalism (Miley Cyrus fan page link) from the External Links section. I trust that this is something someone was trying to removed at some point but couldn't figure out how (it was camouflaged as a  tag in the edit page of the first group of External Links. I've added the @ to the tag to prevent a link to the same fan page here in Discussion. Please go to the edit tab of this Discussion page to see what the tag looks like and imagine it without the @ sign. Ultatri (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template:Commoncat was vandalized by a spammer. Thanks for pointing the problem out. I will restore the page to what it was. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miley Cyrus Fan Page Link? 

message: In oceanography, they are more precisely defined as waves whose height is more than twice the significant wave height (SWH), which is itself defined as the mean of the largest third of waves in a wave record. Therefore rogue waves are not necessarily the biggest waves found at sea; they are, rather, surprisingly large waves for a given sea state.
::Therefore? It didn't really provide an explanation as to WHY they're not the biggest waves found at sea. In fact it stated that they were twice as large as the largest waves =/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.105.199 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say they're not the biggest waves found at sea, it says they 'are not necessarily the biggest waves found at sea'.  A 10 meter wave in a 5 meter sea state would be a rogue wave, but a 10 meter wave in a 15 meter sea state is nothing out of the ordinary and not a rogue wave. It's not about the raw height of a wave, it's the height of the wave in relation to the average height of the surrounding waves. Benea (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction doesn't really make sense 

message: This should be a no-brainer. The list of rogue wave occurrences is bulky and unnecessary for this article (only the most notable instances should be covered here). The "Reported encounters" section should be split into a List of rogue waves. I'll get to working on it myself eventually, but in the meantime it would be great if someone else could get it started. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of rogue wave list 

message: I would urge fellow editors to try including a few more legitimate photos of rogue waves. Yes, rogue waves are seldom photographed and when they are, it's hard to get a license free photo. But I think that the photo found here () at least is available somewhere (like NOAA) and can be added. In fact I think it was in the article 2 years or so ago with proper licensing.--RossF18 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: In many articles about rogue waves (freak waves) the definition for these waves is that they are higher than twice the significant wave height. I think there should be a minimum height for rogue waves as well. Now, if the significant wave height is 25cm, then waves higher than 50cm are - per definition - rogue waves. This doesn't seem correct to me. Has any research been done on this part?
--FritsKoek (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The probability (per wave period) of encountering a rogue wave of 50cm height -- at a certain location -- in a Hs=25cm sea is the same as that for encountering a 30m individual wave height in a seas with significant wave height Hs=15m. There is no need for setting a minimum wave heigth (as long as the wavelength is long enough for surface tension to be negligible). Note that rogue wave effects are relative: a 10m rogue wave might have devastating effects on a small yacht, while hardly having an effect on a supertanker. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue wave definition 

message: Examination of the wreckage of the tower, which was overwhelmed and toppled by an Atlantic gale, indicates wave damage at 85 feet above sea level.  See L. Douglas Keeney, 15 Minutes: General Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation (New York: St. Martin’s, 2011)
Al-Nofi (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Tower No. 4 -- January 15, 1961 

message: n the list of 20th-century rogue wave examples someone added -- out of list order, which appears chronological -- an incident in which two people were washed off some rocks by a "huge" wave in Australia in 1939. No estimates are given in the source material for the size of the wave, and what appears "huge" to witnesses on shore isn't necessarily a rogue wave. I'm going to delete the item until more information can be offered supporting the wave as "rogue."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGehee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrigal Tragedy 

message: Hello there,
I am new to Wikipedia editing, and tried inserting a reference "Laird1", which somehow screwed up the "Econ1" reference. As far as I can remember, I did not make any changes to "Econ1" and only removed "citation needed" and used the Citation tool to add a citation. 
Can someone please help to fix that Econ1 reference?
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanxue (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in References 

message: Derek1G (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Done. Brycehughes (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Which kind of wave production has been simulated?

message: The article claims rogue waves are uncommon.  Of course that word is subjective.  But I am not sure I would use that word.  For example, a Natl. Geo. article mentioned that scientists found 10 rogue waves in one three week period ( via analysis of satellite imagery.)
75.71.200.117 (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Removed. Brycehughes (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncommon? 

message: In the Background section we have both: "Rogue waves, sometimes known as freak waves or "hundred-year waves"", "Rogue waves should not be confused with the so-called "hundred-year wave",". Is this an error, or is "Hundred-year wave" a nickname for rogue waves and also the name of an unrelated statistical prediction, and our wording isn't making this 100% clear? I don't know enough to fix it/correct it myself.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundred Year Wave? 

message: The lede defines a rogue as a wave "...whose height is more than twice the significant wave height..." The body of the article talks about the RRS Discovery's encounter with big waves "...with a SWH of 18.5 metres (61 ft) and individual waves up to 29.1 metres (95 ft)..." which seems to mean that the 'big' wave was only 1.57 times the SWH. Whilst fascinating, why is this detail in the Rouge Wave article since it does not match the definition presented? 159.53.46.142 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Wave Not a Rogue 

message: The very last sentence in the section "History of rogue wave knowledge" cited the book "Lake Superior Shipwrecks" which has an invalid ISBN. The template of  states that "If a later edition of the source publication has a suitable, valid ISBN, please use it instead." The 1979 edition cited in the article has an invalid ISBN, whereas a revised edition was published in 1990. Since I do not have access to either book, I am unsure about the suitability of replacing the 1979 edition with the 1990 edition. Can anyone who has access to the book, perhaps in a library in the United States, to check about it? --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid ISBN of ''The Shipwrecks of Lake Superior'' 

message: Is piling a loose/redundant term? Does piling refer to the constructive interference of multiple wave front intersections (as paragraph 1 seems to suggest)? Or nonlinear effects, where the energy within a wave set is redistributed to create some larger and some smaller individual waves (as paragraph 2 seems to suggest)? I vote for deletion of paragraph 2, and clarification or deletion of the term piling. Majermike (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Rogue wave. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106002536/http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/18_3/18.3_muller_et_al.pdf to http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/18_3/18.3_muller_et_al.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skuld.com/upload/News%20and%20Publications/Publications/Beacon/Beacon%202005%20185/Freak%20waves.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719032700/http://coast.gkss.de/projects/maxwave/ to http://coast.gkss.de/projects/maxwave/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219163057/http://www.kayotix.com/tmp/newsfeeds/21.08.04/waveresearch/ to http://www.kayotix.com/tmp/newsfeeds/21.08.04/waveresearch/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206165607/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=729 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=729
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113032038/http://www.janson.com/rights/2009/06/25/when-nature-strikes-back-freak-waves/ to http://www.janson.com/rights/2009/06/25/when-nature-strikes-back-freak-waves/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021011540/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~spet1235/Site/Freak_waves.html to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~spet1235/Site/Freak_waves.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rogue wave. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806051946/http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/deadliest-catch-tragedy-at-sea.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/deadliest-catch-tragedy-at-sea.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081112065248/http://www.math.uio.no/~karstent/waves/index_en.html to http://www.math.uio.no/~karstent/waves/index_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rogue wave. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221213453/http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-i-60.pdf to http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-i-60.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160424005636/http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article69818917.html to http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article69818917.html
*Added  tag to http://www.gl-group.com/infoServices/rules/pdfs/gl_i-2-2_e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: We have a section called "Ship failure mechanism". It's mostly bollocks. It begins: "Very few ship-wrecks have ever been fully investigated." 
Utter nonsense. Untrue and unverifiable.
"The most recent bulk-carrier loss on the open seas to have been subjected to thorough investigation (as at March 2011)..." 
How long ago is that? Untrue then; less true now.
"...was the UK-owned M.V. Derbyshire, which sank in 1980. Its entire crew of forty-four, all British citizens, perished. It took 14 years of pressure from the British public and a privately funded expedition to locate the wreck before a formal remote-camera search and investigation was done by the British government. 
Repeats what's in the section above.
"At least a couple of hundred bulk carriers have been lost since 1980 and none have been properly investigated.[citation needed]
"Citation needed." Indeed. No citation has been forthcoming and none will be because the statement is false.
"A survey of 125 bulk carriers that sank between 1963 and 1996 found that seventy-six probably flooded, another four because of hatch-cover failure, the rest from unidentified causes. Nine other vessels broke completely in two. Causes of the remaining forty losses are unknown.[117] Montgomery-Swan has outlined the generic mechanism of ship failure when encountering a rogue wave:"
What survey? The source is little more than a blog.
"The scenario is very simple: the weight of the ship accelerates her down the back slope of the previous wave, the bow sticks into the lower part of the front of the giant incoming wave, and thousands of tons of green water fall onto the fore part of the ship. What happens next depends on the structure of the vessel.[23]"
All very well, but he's discussing powerboats.
"Professor Faulkner who did the forensic independent analysis of the loss of the M.V. Derbyshire explains why this is such a problem for bulk carriers. He states that "It is quite possible that some of the many unexplained heavy weather losses (of bulk carriers) may have been caused by hatch cover or coaming failures because fore end plunging due to flooding of large holds can be rapid." He noted in his report that "because of their high inertias and natural pitch periods, these large ships do not rise to the waves, as appropriately experienced masters have confirmed. They tend to bury into them." Faulkner concluded that "beyond any reasonable doubt, the direct cause of the loss of the M.V. Derbyshire was the quite inadequate strength of her cargo hatch covers to withstand the forces of Typhoon Orchid." He also noted that "It is not possible to say which of the eighteen covers failed first, or from which direction the waves came; but evidence and other arguments suggest that the no. 1 hatch covers were probably the first to yield, probably from waves over the bow with the ship hove-to."[13]"
Quite so, but he's discussing general problems of marine architecture that have nothing to do with Rogue Waves.
None of this is relevant.
: Sorry folks: I wrote the above ages ago and forgot to sign it. It's still a valid proposal. Patrick Neylan (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to delete section (December 2019) 

message: Merge Draupner wave into Rogue wave.
There doesn't seem to be much else that can be said about the Draupner wave that is not already contained in Rogue wave or could easily fit in. The Draupner wave article hasn't got a realistic chance to expand beyond the stub it currently is. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Please see the following page which throws doubt on the claim that there was widespread doubt among scientists, and finds no source for the "30 feet" claim: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4823. I would be willing to edit this article but feel that someone else may be better qualified.
Beeflin (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence that scientists didn't believe in rogue waves 

message: Mallory ought to be given credit for an early and comprehensive explanation of the rogue waves off the South Africa coast. His work predates and is no less important than many of the references in the article. "Abnormal waves on the south east coast of south africa", Mallory 1974  The International Hydrographic Review, 51(2). John Pons (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add Mallory's paper of 1974