Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Boxing Day Tsunami?

From the second paragraph:

A massive tsunami with waves up to 30 m (100 ft) high, known as the Boxing Day Tsunami after the Boxing Day holiday, devastated communities along the surrounding coasts of the Indian Ocean, killing an estimated 227,898 people in 14 countries in one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history.

Boxing Day is celebrated in the United Kingdom and in a handful of its Christian-majority former colonies, such as Australia. The event is known as "the Boxing Day tsunami" solely in those countries (which isn't made clear in the text above above). Since the holiday is not celebrated in any of the countries affected directly by the earthquake, and is unlikely to be familiar to many other English speakers, why is such prominence, along with a misleading implication of universality, given to this term? Yes, it makes sense for this regional moniker to be mentioned somewhere in the article, but as it stands now, the article seems to be inappropriately applying one country's Christmas-related celebrations to describe an event on the opposite side of the globe. 104.153.228.206 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As there appear to be no objections, I suggest that the paragraph above be changed to the following:

A massive tsunami with waves up to 30 m (100 ft) high devastated communities along the surrounding coasts of the Indian Ocean, killing an estimated 227,898 people in 14 countries in one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history.

This also makes the sentence flow better, since the mention of Boxing Day in this context seems forced. A mention that the event is known as the Boxing Day Tsunami in some countries (with the emphasis on some) can be added further down in the article. --104.153.228.206 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's in the correct place which is the summary at the top. Almost every article I've read has alternate names of events in the summary. It's not forcing a religious belief on the reader, it's simply saying it's known in some parts of the world as the Boxing Day tsunami, which it is. 2A00:23C7:1620:F301:F5FC:E6ED:514F:7FC3 (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not that the term is a religious one, but rather that it's used only in the UK and a small number of other countries (none of which were directly affected by the tsunami). It is by no means a universal English term for the event and this should be noted if the mention of Boxing Day remains in the introduction. --104.153.228.206 (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we at least get the phrasing changed to the following?

A massive tsunami with waves up to 100 m (30 ft) high, known in some countries as the Boxing Day Tsunami after the Boxing Day holiday, devastated communities along the surrounding coasts of the Indian Ocean, killing an estimated 227,898 people in 14 countries in one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history

The current phrasing (without "in some countries") makes the article strongly UK-biased (culturally speaking) in the context of an event that did not directly impact the UK.-104.153.228.206 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. The issue here is partly that the manual of style requires that alternative names be given in bold in the lead per MOS:BOLDSYN. Usually this isn't much of an issue as the subject's most common name will be the first bold item, preceding the alternative name, so there's no overemphasis. But here the tsunami doesn't have a common proper-noun name, so there's nothing to put in bold (per WP:AVOIDBOLD), leaving the alternative title as the only bold item. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!104.153.228.206 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Please change "Ayeyarwaddy" to "Ayeyarwady". Periphyseon (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  14:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"2004 Indian Ocean earthquake." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 3 § 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. until a consensus is reached. Ost (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Under paragraph heading Meulaboh, sentence reads: "Helicopter surveys showed entire settlements virtually destroyed with destruction within miles inland, and only some mosques left standing." This is a run-on sentence with redundant word usage. Change to "Helicopter surveys showed entire settlements destroyed. Destruction continued miles inland, with some mosques being the only buildings left standing. 50.239.26.178 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done but reworded.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

There is a paragraph under the heading Tsunami, sub-heading Early Signs and Warnings, talking about how in some places the waterline receded and caused fatalities due to people picking up fish from the beach and being hit by the tsunami. This should be changed to include the reason for this, Positive and Negative parts of the tsunami wave. The waterline receded because the negative part of the wave hit it first. Jalapenosz (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. DrowssapSMM 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)