Talk:2024 Noto earthquake

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)

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)

Requested move 1 January 2024

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)

• 2024 New Year's Day Japanese earthquake would make it recognizable, as it was the significant New Year's Japanese family holiday and worldwide holiday -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  It should be temporary used Sea of Japan earthquake because epicenter is Sea of Japan near Noto Peninsula or Sado Island. 2400:2410:8182:A00:C54D:6EBC:7CE:F2CC (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  It has been reported that some effects will also hits parts of the Korean Peninsula and eastern Russia later on. I suggest the more geographically neutral title of 2024 New Year's Day earthquake at a later date after the major effects have finished and people can confirm that no other earthquakes took place on January 1st. GarethBaloney (talk) 12:20, 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)

Rename "2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake" as it is more clear, and is the name officially given by JMA. Xenryjake (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename "2024 Noto earthquake" as it is just as clear and is in line with others such as the 2007 Noto earthquake. Xenryjake (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake designated by the Japan Meteorological Agency. The epicenter is on the peninsula, not out at sea. Per WP:Accuracy. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:42, 1 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 Peninsula earthquake. It is clear the earthquakes occurred on the Noto Peninsula not in the Sea of Japan. See USGS Search Results ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake or 2024 Noto earthquake. Sources attesting to these names are abundant and growing. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, although 2024 Ishikawa earthquake would also be fine and the existing name isn't terrible, the fault that moved extended well offshore - we don't need to rush. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Quake1234 why are you moving the article when the discussion is open. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake on the basis the earthquake's damage and casualties were also reported outside the peninsula. Although the current title doesn't seem problametic. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dora the Axe-plorer Why oppose? This earthquake is happened inland, not on sea. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:12, 3 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 Sebastian^Talk 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)

• Could those voting here please note that the word "earthquake" will never be capitalised in an article title? Schwede66 07:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed my comment. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to 2024 Noto earthquake and tsunami or 2024 Noto earthquake Tespi40 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are there reports of significant damage attributed to the tsunami (as opposed to the earthquake)? Unless this can be shown to be at least close to the earthquake damage, the tsunami shouldn't be mentioned in the title. Animal lover |666| 08:32, 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 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: Plenty of reasonable suggestions so far; I'll just say that I wouldn't put too much weight on being WP:CONSISTENT with 2007 Noto earthquake. It's just a single other article, not an established pattern of many articles, nor something at a higher level of consensus. (Indeed its title has never been discussed before, from what I can tell.) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake Per official name recognition by Japan Meteorological Agency. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Rename to 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake because of the official name issued by the JMA. The 2007 Noto earthquake should also be renamed to 2007 Noto Peninsula earthquake because the JMA's official name for the 2007 earthquake is also "Noto Peninsula earthquake". Kakan spelar (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, Noto also generally refers to a town called 能登町 in Ishikawa perfecture, not the area/peninsula as a whole. Further, it follows the official naming issued by JMA. 60.124.186.140 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• It appears that Japanese media is dubbing it the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake although some are also calling it the 2024 Hokuriku earthquake. 70.108.1.24 (talk) 15:30, 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)

  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)

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)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Fukushima_earthquake#Long_period_ground_motion

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)

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)

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images

Especially make sure you comply with this.

Allowed copyright statuses include (in descending order of desirability):

• Public domain (expired copyright or public from inception) (see here)
• One of various licenses listed in this Wikipedia resource page
• Claimed as fair use under Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines

IDon'tFindAName (talk) 13:17, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

Change "The earthquake was also felt by residents in Tokyo and across the Kanto Region[5] and as far as Aomori Prefecture in the northern tip of Kyushu to Honshu in the south of the country."

to "The earthquake was also felt by residents in Tokyo and across the Kanto Region[5] and as far as Aomori Prefecture in the northern tip of Honshu to Kyushu in the south of the country.", as Aomori is located on the northern tip of Honshu and not on Kyushu, whilst Kyushu is in the southwest of the country. 49.228.240.242 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Probably a typo. Borgenland (talk) 08:26, 3 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)

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)

See Noto earthquake swarm 93.103.223.236 (talk) 02:30, 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)