A fact from 1703 Genroku earthquake appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that uplift data and tsunami wave heights indicate that the 1703 Genroku earthquake was probably caused by the rupture of three separate segments of the Eurasian–Philippine Sea Plate boundary? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1703 Genroku earthquake.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Earthquakes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Japan: Geography & environment / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:16, December 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

A quick review of relevant factors in the naming of this article and others like it were considered in some detail by interested editors in December 2007. For more details, see the threads which developed at

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

As I understood it, the general consensus seemed to be trending towards something like this:

• 1. MOS:JA should be modified to incorporate the guidelines suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, but with a modest exception-to-the-general-rule variation -- that disasters in Japan during the years 645 through 1867 are more fully described in this format: <<year>><<nengō>><<place>><<event>>.
• 2. MOS:JA suggests that an explanation and internal link to Japanese era name should be incorporated into any article with a nengō in its title.
• 3. When the name of a disastrous event seems historically well-settled, as in the Great Kantō earthquake, that familiar identification will remain unaffected by any contrived Wiki-standards, but plausibly redundant redirect-links should be created to help all users ....

ILLUSTRATIONS OF PROPOSED NAMING

• 887 Ninna-Nakai earthquake
• 1361 Shōhei-Nankai earthquake
• 1498 Meiō-Nankai earthquake
• 1605 Keichō-Nankai earthquake
• 1703 Genroku-Edo earthquake
• 1854 Ansei-Nankai earthquake
• 1855 Ansei-Edo earthquake

___________

• 1923 Kantō earthquake <<--- REDIRECT Great Kanto Earthquake
• 1923 Kantō earthquake <<--- REDIRECT 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake

As a practical matter, I would be prepared to do the necessary work to move

• 1703 Genroku earthquake MOVE TO --->> 1703 Genroku-Edo earthquake

As a practical matter, it would probably not be a good idea to move

• 1703 Genroku earthquake MOVE TO --->> Great Genroku earthquake
• 1703 Genroku earthquake MOVE TO --->> 1703 Great Genroku earthquake

Any new articles I create will only follow the guideline-#1-above; and I'll create redirects whenever any source calls any particular fire or earthquake "great" .... In other words, despite the fact that I've read about the "Great Ansei earthquake" and "Great Ansei fire" in more than one reference source, and despite the fact that the 1703 earthquake in Edo is said to have mesured 8.3 on the Richter Scale, I guess I would probably ignore the "great" when creating a new article. In other words, that's what I'm taking away from the discussion thread, e.g.,

• 1703 Genroku-Edo earthquake <<--- REDIRECT 1703 Great Genroku earthquake
• 1854 Ansei-Nankai earthquake
• 1855 Ansei-Edo earthquake <<--- REDIRECT Great Ansei earthquake

If someone else wants to do the work of moving things around for any reason, fine -- good. But for me, the User:Hoary re-statement of guideline-#1-above seems to have articulated a credible standard, as long as there are appropriate re-direct links. The consensus seemed to have focused on "great" in 20th century contexts, but with much less engagement in pre-Meiji period disasters which would have been called "great" ....

Tentative bottom line: I'm posting these thoughts here as an indication of my current thinking; but I'll re-visit these ideas again after the first of the year. This is something like a public space, but it's not likely to be noticed by anyone other than those who are already in the process of working through how to resolve these kinds of issues, I reckon. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites two references, one of which claims 10,000 deaths from the tsunami; the other, 100,000. The article claims 10,000 but the table in [of earthquakes] says 100,000. Which is it? Dricherby (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the University of Washington, 10.000 or less deaths are listed: http://fohn.net/biggest-tsunami/awa-tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.1.173 (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded that article and included the full range of numbers that seem to have some sort of reasonable source - one in a reference book that gave 37,000 deaths was using Wikipedia as a reference of all things. I've also seen up to 270,000 on some webpages. The NGDC don't exactly help by giving a figure of 200,000, referencing a U.S. Congress report from 1888. I may include the University of Washington ref mentioned above to indicate a preference for the lower estimates, which looks good, but may not be acceptable as a reliable source I suppose. Mikenorton (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1703 Genroku earthquake. 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/20070712164005/http://www.stfrancis.edu/ns/bromer/earthsci/EarthScienceMon/student5/WEBPAGE/1703.html to http://www.stfrancis.edu/ns/bromer/earthsci/EarthScienceMon/student5/WEBPAGE/1703.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/ssj/publications/HIGAI/1601-1800.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]