Jump to content

Talk:2024 Noto earthquake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NHK source

@Filipinohere I had the source translated: It reads

"Just after 4 p.m. on the 1st, an earthquake measuring magnitude 7 occurred in the Noto region, and a major tsunami warning was temporarily issued. According to the National Police Agency, two people have suffered cardiopulmonary arrest in Nanao City, Ishikawa Prefecture. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hayashi also stated in an emergency press conference, ``We have received reports of six cases of people being buried alive due to collapsed buildings. In Wajima City, Ishikawa Prefecture, there was a report that ``a building collapsed and crushed the building next door, and two people who were there were unable to escape and were left stranded.

NHK interviewed local fire departments and hospitals and found that as of 10 p.m. on the 1st, multiple people were injured in five prefectures: Ishikawa, Niigata, Fukui, Toyama, and Gifu. There is also information that residents who were unable to escape were left stranded in collapsed houses."

Borgenland (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"cardiac arrest"

Please note that the Japanese police don't officially report deaths, so they always say "cardiac arrest" even if the cause of death is falling off a building, burned to a crisp, gunshot to the head, etc. Abductive (reasoning) 15:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Measurment correction

The Japan Meteorology Agency held a press conference where it said that the reading included with initial reporting on the earthquake was incorrect. JMA corrects intensity of a quake | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News ArguaBILL (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It said it was referring to an earthquake that struck at 11 pm. The real earthquake struck at 4pm. Borgenland (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding/ ArguaBILL (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Geothermal in Japan

Has anyone been monitoring the fractures from Japan's geothemral plants? It is a well known fact that geothermal plants induce seismicity and after decades it is possible that it weakens the underlying ground and also it is a well known fact that injection wells can cause earthquakes many miles from the injection site. Where is the map of the natural fractures of Japan and where are the geothemral plants located? 2603:800C:400:2C71:C820:13C1:E128:2C19 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a place where there is a fault line and where earthquakes are frequent, though usually not of this magnitude.
This is not too far from the line of the Eurasian Plate and North American plate.
You might want to reference the 2007 Noto earthquake which occurred at almost exactly the same place and was M6.9.
Although it is worth investigating the effects of geothermal plants, it is not that likely that it was a major influence.
In general earthquakes caused by this are verry weak, at least in comparison to this M7.6.
I do recall however in 2017 in South Korea there being an earthquake of M5.4 (Richter) that might have had a geothermal plant as trigger.
Either way, even without a geothermal plant there, the earthquake was likely.
For these maps, you can likely find them on the official government websites'. A potential place might be www.gsj.jp. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Duration

Anyone have a source for the duration of the earthquake? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

i can't find one so far, unfortunately. Filipinohere (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
USGS finite fault source-time function suggests just over 40 seconds for the rupture process. Similar to IPGP's Geoscope m-r function. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Deaths

This article (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014306831000.html) from NHK reports eight deaths in Wajima (only one death is confirmed there). I'm not gonna put it in the article because of uncertainty so I leave it to whoever finds this. Quake1234 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be okay with 8 as an updated number. Also where did you see that only one is confirmed? Doesn't the article say 8 confirmed (8人死亡確認)?
Here are some places referencing the 8 deaths:
- https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20240102-OYT1T50024/
- https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014306401000.html (more recent report)
- tw.news.yahoo.com/不斷更新-日本7-6強震-死亡人數增至8人-海嘯警報解除-011511453.html IDon'tFindAName (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to propose 8+ instead of the current 16.
The current number is in reference to the following article: https://mainichi.jp/articles/20240102/k00/00m/040/120000c
It does say 16 confirmed in the title, but the numbers don't add up in what they write:
- 8 people died after being transported to the municipal Wajima Hospital.
- 3 deaths have been confirmed in Suzu City.
- 3 people have been confirmed dead in Nanao City.
- 1 person has been confirmed dead in Wajima City. (Is this one counted in the first 8 they said?)
- 1 person has been confirmed dead in Hakui City.
- 1 person has been confirmed dead in Shika Town.
Until we have a few more reports, I do not think it is right to claim 16 deaths yet, however likely this is to be exceeded.
Here are some other sources (about equally recent that claim other numbers):
- https://www.iwate-np.co.jp/article/kyodo/2024/1/2/1229426
- https://www.topics.or.jp/articles/-/1017414
- https://www.hokkoku.co.jp/articles/-/1279854
- https://www.sankei.com/article/20240102-LLZ7KVX6EFIZ5IXIJKDUTZTAZY/ IDon'tFindAName (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but I wasn't the one who added the 8 deaths info: I think it was User:Dora the Axe-plorer. Filipinohere (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
As of writing this, 30 have died. the details clarified here [1] Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Largest in Japan since ...

It is mentioned that the earthquake was the largest in country since the Great East Japan earthquake of March 2011. However, the source [2] lists only those earthquakes in which intensity 6 Lower or more was observed. The 2015 Ogasawara earthquake (Mw=7.8) is probably worth considering. 95.26.68.151 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think whoever put that in the article meant "largest" in terms of casualties and deaths, not in magnitude. GarethBaloney (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

Is there any way we can get images in this article? So far this article only has related maps. Sapiann (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we can most likely get some images relating to damage and stuff. I'm not too experienced in knowing how to upload images and all that though. Sadustu Tau (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
As long as they add value, you can add images, just make sure you are allowed to do so.
For reference, please read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images
Especially make sure you comply with this.
Allowed copyright statuses include (in descending order of desirability):
IDon'tFindAName (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Long Period Ground Motion Scale

I have got details of where we saw the LPGM recorded in various parts of Japan due to the earthquake. LPGM 4, the highest level on the scale occurred in the Noto Region of Ishikawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? Sadustu Tau (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/eew/data/ltpgm/event.php?eventId=20240101161010
Here is the source.
Sorry the source is in Japanese Language. Will help ya out in generating the table and ensuring the region naming is accurate Hanami-Sakura (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm looks like there's also the Shindo intensities which we already have as well. I'm not too sure, so I'll wait for someone more experienced to have a look as well and see their opinion. Sadustu Tau (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I am dealing with the table creation now Hanami-Sakura (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Source on english language:
https://www.jma.go.jp/bosai/map.html#6/37.522/136.995/&contents=ltpgm&lang=en Niko Iwamura (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh thanks!
By the way, looking at two recent high profile quakes in the Tohoku region in 2021 and 2022, the Japanese version had the LPGM table for which areas had levels 1 to 4, so I thought it deserved its place in the English version and hence these two articles have the LPGM table. Both events had LPGM 4, so did this quake
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2021_Fukushima_earthquake#Long_period_ground_motion
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2022_Fukushima_earthquake#Long_period_ground_motion
The 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake registered a LPGM 4 in the Noto Region of Ishikawa Hanami-Sakura (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

information sources

Some information sources about the event: Japan Metereological Agency entry. livestream of Wajima during event. Noto-Chirihama Live Camera. NHK tsunami warning page (IA snapshot) Baltakatei 08:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

AgendaFree TV LiveStream:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMXwBkzU_m4 203.166.238.2 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thank you so much Jyor6696 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Change the main image for consistency?

The main map-based image used in the infobox does not line up with the majority of Japanese earthquake articles, which instead use the USGS ShakeMap as the main image (aside from pictures of destroyed buildings and such, which surprisingly this article does not have).

Here are a number of examples backing up my argument:

2023 Ishikawa earthquake (which struck the same region this earthquake did)

2022 Fukushima earthquake

March 2021 Miyagi earthquake

2016 Kumamoto earthquakes

2015 Ogasawara earthquake

2011 Shizuoka earthquake

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami GarethBaloney (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, change should be done. Kakan spelar (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:GOFORIT DarmaniLink (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Having the USGS ShakeMap or other related products is not a must in earthquake articles, neither is it a consistent feature. It's not a standard practise across the project but editors seem to be picking up this behavior. Typically, I'd avoid having the ShakeMap inside the infobox when another map of the epicenter exists and seems decorative, but the ShakeMap does hold more information. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Current magnitude map is not "image" but "map". Currently "image" in infobox is absent. Please find an appropriate image and add it to infobox.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Change name of aircraft collision heading ("aftermath")

The collision isn't an aftermath (consequence) of the earthquake, it is a related incident. The aftermath section should include the economic/humanitarian damage etc. Not sure what the heading name should be changed to though. Tanaya001 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have made an edit for this ^ Tanaya001 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Listing of names in reactions heading

Is there any point listing ALL the names of leaders/countries that have offered their condolences? A suggestion would be to give a number of the countries instead, and specify by name only those that have specifically offered aid. Otherwise the list would be endless and random. To illustrate this point, Greece and Iran are two other countries that have also offered condolences, do we add them to the list? Tanaya001 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

Did it strike the Sea of Japan or was it based on Japanese soil itself? Borgenland (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The epicentre of the quake was on Japanese soil, if that's what you meant. Sadustu Tau (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we change the earthquake name? Reiwa the 6th Noto Peninsula earthquake were announced, and the Sea of Japan and East Sea markings are also sensitive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:6A5D:DBCC:543:E779:F182:E57C (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No. of Aftershocks Change

1,200 is unrealistic. Please change to ~172. Sourced from USGS. Waitwott (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

1,200 is what the JMA says. The JMA has been pretty reliable so far, so I see no reason to not believe them. Sadustu Tau (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The USGS does not record earthquakes below magnitudes 4.0 outside the US so many smaller aftershocks won't be listed. The JMA is an authoritative source for recording earthquakes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe a nice read on this: https://www.nikkei.com/telling/DGXZTS00008630S4A100C2000000/
It mentions 1200 earthquakes in 1 day, some of which could not be felt by people but were still recorded by seismographs. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The JMA epicenter lists recorded 575 earthquakes on 1 January and 1672 earthquakes on 2 January around Noto region. Click "クリックするとリストが開閉します" (Click to open/close list).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah okay, Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. Waitwott (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - The number of aftershocks is meaningless unless you include the lower magnitude cut-off and the date to which the number quoted refers i.e. 1,200 aftershocks of M>3.0 as of 4 January - although I actually don't know what the minimum magnitude or the exact date are, this is just an illustration. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Other foreshock

Is there any reason that we are not adding these as a foreschock? 16:08 11km 4.6 石川県能登地方 IDon'tFindAName (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned a few sections up, we need a reliable source to confirm any suspicions that we might have. Mikenorton (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This one is from the JMA, reference 51, I don't have the link at hand. Geographically it is also in range and 2 minutes before the main shock if I'm not mistaken. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Source: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/eqev/data/daily_map/20240101.html
Relevant data:
Main fore.: 16:06 | 37°30.6'N 137°14.7'E | M 5.5 | 石川県能登地方
"My" shock: 16:08 | 37°29.7'N 137°13.1'E | M 4.6 | 石川県能登地方
Main shock: 16:10 | 37°29.7'N 137°16.2'E | M 7.6 | 石川県能登地方 IDon'tFindAName (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox map

This looks ridiculous. Including magnitude less than four is unhelpful. Mikenorton (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I also think we should move the map down to Aftershocks and have the USGS shakemap there instead. Kakan spelar (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the USGS shakemap being there. Sadustu Tau (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Temblor publication

Here's a link to a post on temblor.net concerning this earthquake by seismologists Shinji Toda and Ross Stein. I'm too busy today to do anything about this (twelfth night party coming up), but I will think about what we can add tomorrow if no-one else beats me to it. Mikenorton (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a typo with the url: Intense seismic swarm punctuated by a magnitude 7.5 Japan shock Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ITN Ongoing nomination

The blurb for this article rolled off ITN too soon amidst the ongoing aftermath and rescue efforts so I'm nominating it for ITN Ongoing item. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

International reactions section

This section is really getting out of hand and difficult to verify. There is a trainwreck of sources piling-up behind that one line right now. I really want it removed but at this moment, new additions should be directly verified by a source behind the world leader's names. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous earthquakes have had only the number of countries listed, I think that may be better than listing each of the countries. Notable reactions could be written separately (such as the recent North Korean reaction, which is extremely rare) Tanaya001 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Condolences are a pretty routine occurrence after major disasters so I don't see why we have to put it. Over time it'll become excessive. North Korea's response is quite rare, coupled with the recent bombardments in South Korea's border islands, seems borderline notable Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of injured verification

I can't find a proper source citing the 611 injured, my best find is Times-Standard. The best reliable info I found is https://www.fdma.go.jp/disaster/info/2024/, this is also used by the Japanese Wikipedia page. Numbers listed in the PDF, table in section 2 on page 2 on 20230101notohanntoujishinn20teisei.pdf Officially 128 deceased, 1 missing, 34 seriously injured, 479 with minor injuries, total 513 injuries. (642 is all deceased, injured and missing summed-up) This info if from Sunday, 7 January 2024, 16:00. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2024 Noto earthquake. There's a clear consensus for moving the page, but !voters were split between 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake and 2024 Noto earthquake (with some other less popular options thrown in). Per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, I've picked the latter title, as it's consistent with not only 2007 Noto earthquake but with other recent earthquakes as well. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Sea of Japan earthquake → ? – In that case (see discussion on Title) the current title needs to be changed. Preferably 2024 Japan earthquake Borgenland (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

An earthquake of this size expecially, would not be limited to its immediate epicenter area when defining "struck". These would be characterized as rupture across a broad area of a fault; it would have dimensions to it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The USGS and Japan meteorological agency both have the epicenter on land. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
While the main earthquake has it's epicenter on the Noto Peninsula, the numerous foreshocks and aftershocks are both on land and sea. As @Dora the Axe-plorer mentioned, this event is over the area of a large fault. Given the large geographic distribution of these related quakes and precedent of naming earthquakes after the prefecture where (or near) it occurred (see 2023 Ishikawa earthquake and List of earthquakes in Japan), I believe the name should be changed to "2024 Ishikawa earthquake" Sapiann (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The latest finite fault by USGS shows a rupture extending to Sado Island; that's about 200 km. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
They do have a point as the Japanese name is Noto earthquake (2024). But I support the current sea of Japan title due to the fact that this event has a large area of fault. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess the Sea of Japan name makes sense with the faulting but considering its inland epicenter and likely devastating impact on the Noto peninsula, I would prefer the name "2023 Ishikawa earthquake" or because of the wider impact compared the 2023 event, the name "2023 Noto" or "2023 Noto Peninsula earthquake" would make a bit more sense. Quake1234 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This event has officially been named the 令和６年能登半島地震, or "Reiwa 6 Noto Peninsula Earthquake" by the Japan Meteorological Agency. Given Reiwa 6 (Japanese calendar) coverts to 2024, this article should be named "2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake". This was discussed on the notes (talk) section of the Japanese version of this page.
Japan Meteorological Agency Source #1 (Japanese): https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/2401/01c/202401012130.html
Japan Meteorological Agency Source #2 (Japanese): https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/2401/01c/kaisetsu202401012130.pdf
Japan Meteorological Agency Source #1 (Auto translate to English by Google): https://www-jma-go-jp.translate.goog/jma/press/2401/01c/202401012130.html?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Sapiann (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
the name should be changed to 2024 noto peninsula earthquake as jma named it that plus its not overseas its on the japanese soil Scrub Mommy (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Article should be renamed to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake in accordance with the name given by the JMA. Tofusaurus (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe shorten it to 2024 Noto earthquake? Feel like adding the peninsula part makes it too long. Plus when you type "Noto, Japan" on Google the first result is the peninsula so it could be done. Reego41 17:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this decision from Reego as dropping the 'peninsula' would make the name more consistent with the names of other Japanese earthquakes, as seen in these 3 examples:
2023 Ishikawa earthquake
2022 Fukushima earthquake
2021 Chiba earthquake GarethBaloney (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe name it as 2024 Ishikawa earthquake in accordance with naming earthquake articles after their prefectures? 108.160.120.91 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, would be much better and look more organized probably. Should be renamed to 2024 Ishikawa, or the 2023 one could be named to 2023 Noto. Reego41 19:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, this seems like the most logical decision Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
+1. This is the appropriate title for this article. Awesome Aasim 21:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Either this, or the abbreviated 2024 Noto earthquake, which is my preferred title, as per for example 2007 Noto earthquake. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
+1. Matches other similar articles. Good idea. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
We should follow official authorities' naming of disaster events, so if JMA did say 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake, the article's name should be named as such.
We should always toe the authorities' naming system for earthquakes Hanami-Sakura (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Earthquake per 2007 Noto earthquake. Yeeno (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake per above, if there isn't a clear common name makes sense to use an official one than deciding how Wikipedia should describe earthquake, plus the epicentre is on this peninsula, while "Sea of Japan" can mean the earthquake can be from the coasts of Korea and Russia, so too vague a name, unless sources commonly use it. While I understand the shortening to Noto, that article is for (also earthquake-prone) Italy city, so better to be WP:CONSISTENT with Noto Peninsula (the 2007 one may need a discussion too). Although as this is a developing situation, best wait for more details. Also open to "2024 Ishikawa earthquake" if the impact on the wider area becomes more reported and if that term also used by sources. DankJae 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Earthquake. While I agree that damage and casualties were quite significant outside Ishikawa, the Noto Peninsula recorded the most widespread damage and all of the deaths (as of me typing this), it's like how the 2023 Badakhshan earthquake's title refers to only the epicenter area in Afghanistan, yet the impact was still serious in Pakistan and India. Quake1234 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake. The JMA has officially called it 「令和６年能登半島地震」(2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake), but to match up with the 2007 Noto earthquake (also called 「能登半島地震」), I am for renaming to "2024 Noto earthquake". Seismologist76 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Earthquake, however if there are another earthquake near Noto during 2024, this article should be renamed to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake to avoid confusion. Kakan spelar (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake, per all above reasons. Mainly to adhere to precedent of articles for similar earthquakes. While the official JMA title includes "Peninsula," I agree with other users' arguments towards dropping it. The official Japanese name of the 2007 Noto earthquake also includes "Peninsula," but was dropped in the article name. Note all referenced articles have the word "earthquake" with a lowercase 'e'. Sapiann (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake, even the name "Sea of Japan" is controversial by itself. Also, virtually every earthquake in west Japan/east China/Korea will have aftershocks and effects like tsunamis that spread into the Sea of Japan. Broadening their geographical descriptor to all be "Sea of Japan" would leave readers with only dates (which are much less memorable) to differentiate them. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake per above. Maanshen (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake, as per what the JMA has officially called it, and also per above. Sadustu Tau (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, per above as the JMA officially called this earthquakes. HurricaneEdgar
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake per all of the above and the JMA. Hansen SebastianTalk 05:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake seems appropriate and per discussion above. Leoneix (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake or 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake (although leaning towards the former for consistency).
MiasmaEternal☎ 07:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
It should be named 2024 Ishikawa earthquake, following suit with the 2023(?) Fukushima earthquake. This would name its prefecture of where the epicenter is located. 2001:448A:3020:5C91:65DE:B964:E454:AADF (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake per above. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not necessary a major point but I happen to live in the area. (It was 6 here but got fortunate). I thus have a bit of feedback about how local people - both English speakers and the Japanese community at large talk about it. The earthquake is very strongly associated with Noto in everyone's mind: not Ishikawa as a whole. Noto has had many earthquakes over the last decade or so, and the rest of Ishikawa is relatively earthquake free, and there was comparatively little damage outside of Noto (the worst was houses build on a ridge in Kanazawa). Noto is geographically somewhat isolated and this earthquake will be something Noto will be dealing with for years if not decades. Noto Earthquake vs. Noto Peninsula Earthquake. At first, I was leaning towards the latter but now the former. Technically the latter is correct as it is what the JMA call it, but I have been listening to locals (and the English language community) and plain Noto ( 能登）rather than Noto Peninsula 能登半島 is what people are saying (I was mistaken in a comment above). I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it needs to have Noto in the title. If you said the Sea of Japan Earthquake here in English or Japanese, people would not know what you were talking about - really - and would assume you were talking about a different earthquake. If people who lived through it (in English or Japanese) don't know what you are talking about then it's probably wrong. Macgroover (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake

We must stay consistent with what the authorities name this event, especially since this earthquake is so significant. Hanami-Sakura (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment We may adopt the official name, but there is no requirement to do so. Eventually another common name may become established and that's the one that we'll use. Mikenorton (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake per above and consistency with 2007 article. What the JMA says is not determinative for the name of the article. Yeoutie (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake as is has been designated by the JMA as such. I'm also supporting the renaming of the 2007 Noto earthquake to the 2007 Noto Peninsula earthquake to not confuse it with the Italian city Noto.  √2 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake per JMA and corresponding Japanese wikipedia article title. JRHorse (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake per arguments above. Tanaya001 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake as said, this is an inland earthquake, not sea earthquake, every earthquakes at coastal regions may also result tsunamis, but is this a reason we name an earthquake with a sea name? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    An earthquake of this size is not limited to the epicenter location in the aspect of affected area and geophysical characteristics. This particular event occurred over a broad area of fault extending about 200 km offshore despite its epicenter location. Note a 7.5 is a very large quake with rupture across a large fault just like we saw in Turkey last year.
    The definition of "inland" is "relating to the part of a country away from the coast or boundaries" acc. to Merriam-Webster, so I think the word here is misused. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Dora the Axe-plorer So under your criteria, 1976 Tangshan earthquake should be renamed to 1976 Bohai Bay earthquake, as Tangshan is also a coastal city and that earthquake also made tsunamis in Bohai sea, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226 The name "Tangshan earthquake" for that particular event is well-established in literatures in Chinese and English language. That is a common name established long before the existence of Wikipedia, even if its effects were observed in the sea. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    Forget that, the Sea of Japan is such a generalized region name. One might think it’s in the middle of it, or one might think it’s near another country instead of Japan. The area of impact is limited to the Noto region and surroundings too, not even in any other country bordering the Sea of Japan. All these reasons that have been listed under this renaming discussion just leaves zero reasons for the name to stay. Additionally, tens of people have agreed for a rename already. Reego41 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    "...tens of people have agreed for a rename already." Make that hundreds. Hansen SebastianTalk 04:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    The earthquake is only as notable as it is because of it's impact on Japan, and more specifically Noto Peninsula/Ishikawa region. Let's not be pedantic about where exactly the fault is. The Tohoku Earthquake is not called the Northern Pacific Earthquake even though the fault is undersea. Meeepmep (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. Call it what its called in Japan: 2024 Noto Peninsular Earthquake. It's Noto Peninsula and that's signficant because Noto is also a city on the peninsular. The peninsular is a visually identifiable place on the Japan Sea Coast, and maybe the geology of the Peninsular is significant. Furthermore, *everyone* who lives in the area calls it "Noto-hanto". (The 2007 article should be renamed too). Japan Sea Earthquake is clearly wrong as it's a huge area. Macgroover (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
"Everyone" living in the area i presume is the Noto Peninsula does not represent the views of readers visiting English Wikipedia, I want to put out that, not just in the context of this earthquake. Same goes for what it's called in Japanese; there is no urgent requirement to rename it according to JMA.
The earthquake clearly ruptured into the Japan Sea, so the basis of being a huge area isn't a strong argument, neither is it "clearly wrong". Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no urgent need to rename the article however the name is misleading, the Sea of Japan is a large body of water bordering multiple countries, not just that but also in the context of some earthquake articles being named after the region they affected (eg. 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes) it is also misleading in the way of making readers think the area of impact spanned across a whole large sea (it would also stand way stronger than your whole argument to keep the name). No one disputed that the earthquake ruptured into the Sea of Japan and whether it ruptured or not has no relevancy to this case. Even if the earthquake didn’t receive “official” naming from JMA it would still be named “2024 Noto earthquake” or “2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake”, again for the same reasons: because the earthquake occurred there and the most impact took place there. Additionally, there’s a lot of other names that could be used that would still be better than the current “2024 Sea of Japan earthquake”, for example “Ishikawa” and “Western Japan” which would prove how unnecessarily large the area being talked about in the title is. Reego41 18:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Reego41 I suggest you keep your comments civil and not raise "it would also stand way stronger than your whole argument to keep the name" in this discussion. If you want to reason with me or any editors who disagree, use words wisely without personal comments. Your personal comment on my reason is unnecessary and makes anything you say dismissive. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
True, but since Noto is the name of a town on the peninsula and also the name of an earthquake prone Italian city called Noto, Noto Peninsula makes sense. But point taken about the local name. Macgroover (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The earthquake clearly ruptured into the Japan Sea. Is this actually true? It was 4km inland. It would be odd to call an Earthquake whose epicenter was inland, after the nearby sea given. People searching for information about this earthquake are likely to use Noto. Macgroover (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The Earthquake section of this article details this part. An epicenter is just point on the surface vertically above the focus of an earthquake. It is not the only aspect of this earthquake, especially one this huge. A significant portion of the rupture extends outwards, almost reaching Sado Island based on the Finite fault model presented. Since most readers most likely are unaware about the earthquake's geophysical characteristics, I can see the rationale for Noto Peninsula Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Of course, the rupture extends further out but that doesn't mean the slippage was there, and also the rupture extends into Japan but we wouldn't call it the Japan Earthquake. Amongst the English language community in Japan, if you said "Sea of Japan Earthquake", people genuinely would not know what you were talking about. I'm ambivalent between Noto and Noto Peninsula. I'm leaning towards the shorter now as that is what people seem to be saying in English. Newspapers in English (both in Japan) and overseas call it the Noto (Peninsula) Earthquake (or variants such as Ishikawa). The JMA's English site lists the aftershocks. There are 600 instances of Noto, and zero of the Sea of Japan. The earthquake is strongly associated with Noto. Literally, no one in Japan (English speaker or Japanese) or here in Ishikawa (where I happen to live) or indeed any news outlets are calling it the Sea of Japan Earthquake.
The earthquake's epicenter occurred in Noto, it's affecting the people of Noto , it's generally referred it as the Noto, the JMA calls it the Noto ... Earthquake, newspapers refer to Noto/Ishikawa, there have been hundreds of aftershocks in Noto itself, and it will affect Noto for years to come. Initial reports referred to the Sea of Japan as there was a threat of Tsunami and had that happened Sea of Japan would be an appropriate name but in the context of what happened and is happening the Sea of Japan name is not appropriate. Macgroover (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake (or if a slightly broader title is desired, go for 2024 Ishikawa earthquake, after the prefecture). While the tremor was felt across Japan, it was the epicentre – the Noto Peninsula – that felt it the most; the worst affected towns and cities (particularly Wajima and Suzu) are all located on that peninsula. Not to mention that although a tsunami occurred, the epicentre is located on land, thus making the "Sea of Japan earthquake" title a misnomer. Vida0007 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, per arguments above. Please consider a snow close. Moncrief (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake. The only minor difference in argument I see is someone wanting the name to be consistent with 2007 Noto earthquake, however the same argument can be made to rename 2007 Noto Peninsula earthquake. Noto region overlaps with Noto Peninsula, and the earthquakes are named after Noto Peninsula officially and in non-English Wikipedia. It's notable the number of people who agree on the rename. 13:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidaana (talk • contribs)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake

I suggest moving this page to 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake. All the recent comments on the previous move discussion were requesting this page whereas the majority of the early comments gave their opinion too early. User:Hilst seemed to have ignored this point.

I couldn't find any source calling it just "the Earthquake in Noto" or some variant of that without mentioning that it's a peninsula. Google also calls it the "Noto Peninsula earthquake" when looking for it. Every single Japan-based fundraiser page I could find universally called it the "Noto Peninsula Earthquake".

Here's a few other sources that all call it Noto Peninsula Earthquake or mention some variant of "earthquake in the Noto Peninsula" in the article:

https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/noto-peninsula-earthquake/

https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/News/Press/202401/24-003E/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/2/how-devastating-was-mondays-earthquake-in-japan

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67909286

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-japan-coastline-recedes-after-quake-2024-1

https://apnews.com/article/japan-earthquake-ishikawa-disaster-evacuation-rescue-snow-c09c02361314860712ca5a5e9f52d3a5

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/world/asia/japan-earthquake-survivor-rescued.html

Ergzay (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland If you (or someone else) could turn this into a proper move discussion that would be helpful. I'm not very familiar with the procedures. Ergzay (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I evaluated all comments equally. See WP:RSPM for instructions on how to start a move request. – Hilst [talk] 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Must remain Sea of Japan Earthquake

It happens not only at Noto, but also wide area along Sea of Japan coast. So, we should name Noto earthquake as tentative name for easier understanding because Sea of Japan is world-wide known name. 2400:2410:8182:A00:705D:6381:4D22:70DA (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In case you missed it, there was a big discussion at the section above titled "Requested move 1 January 2024" where a vast majority agreed it should be named 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake.--Nidaana (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting to lock the articles

Someone earlier has messing up the articles, which lead to the page errors, including the preview. This need to lock up the articles to avoid unregistered users getting touch on this mess-up. VernardoLau (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@VernardoLau, if you're referring to page protection, please raise it to WP:RFPP DankJae 23:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 ishikawa event is a foreshock?

is the 2023 ishikawa m 6.3 event the foreshock? theres a high possibility... Scrub Mommy (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How could it be a foreshock when it occurred 9 minutes after the 7.5??? Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
They're talking about this one. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies. My eye probably got strained. Borgenland (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
We need reliable consenus from scientists to present their views about the preceeding 6.3. There are a few examples of foreshocks happening years before the mainshock, one includes the 2002 Sumatra earthquake which is a foreshock to the 9.2 in 2004. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually a foreshock of 5.7 did happen a few minutes or so before at 16:06 with the major one happening at 16:10. The 16:06 was definitely noticeable in Kanazawa. (Note there can be discrepancies in time on the JMA site between 'observed time' and 'issued time'. The former being the actual time.) Macgroover (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
See Noto earthquake swarm 93.103.223.236 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Noto_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=1231168417"