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

Merging[edit] 21:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC): a good case could be made for merging the minimal detail from mudslide here and turning mudslide into a redirect.

I am not sure about this, but maybe "ice floes" should be ice flows. I've never heard of a floe. Also, this should be merged with mudslide. 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)lotusduckReply[reply]

  • Floe looks ok to me (from Australia, so probably a regional thing) and agrees.
  • Indeed, Mudslide should be merged into this page - a mudslide is just a landslide with mud afterall. I'll wack on a merge tag now, and get around to it later.--Commander Keane 16:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it should be merged.
Since they both are sudden movements of roks down a hill and cause heavy damage.

  • AFAIK, technically, there is no such thing as a mudslide or a landslide, there are mudflows and rockslides both of which are different and deserve there own page. Mud only flows and a lanslide is a rockslide. I think that only the technical terms should be used and the colloquial terms shoud be redirects. I'm not sure where lahars fit in though. See mass wasting for more info. --Mdhowe 04:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It looks to me that Landslide "includes a wide range of ground movement", including mass wasting. I still think that mudflow==mudslide should be on this Landslide article.--Commander Keane 05:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • A "landslide" is a type of mass wasting, and a landslide is technically a rock slide. A mudslide is a mudflow (I've already fixed this), and is not closely related to a rock slide. If anything, this page should redirect to rock slide and rewritten as it has very little factual information in it. Did that confuse you, cause it confused the hell out of me. --Mdhowe 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The Mass wasting says it's only about rock, whereas a landslide is soil, mud or rock. But then again, if mass wasting is concerned with rock, why does it mention angle of repose - which has bugger all to do with rock.--Commander Keane 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It says rock and regolith. --Mdhowe 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • From the article it seems regolith is crushed rock. I'd say many landslides are soil/mud based. So landslide must be the parent of mass wasting.--Commander Keane 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • The wiki is wrong, regolith is all layers of rock, sediments and soil material covering the surface of a planet and landslides are definitely a type of mass wasting, not the other way around. It is quite obvious that you haven't studied geology so I won't bother discussing this with you anymore, I will just go ahead and fix the errors. --Mdhowe 14:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • I studied one semester of geology, with a civil engineering emphasis. So no, I don't know what regolith is, I was just using the wiki article. Having said that, there's no reason why some practical (ie: non-geological) information can't be included in the articles. I know how to relieve soil that's about to become a landslide, and I didn't need to know what a regolith is to know that. Wikipedia is for people generally, not just geologists. Finally, I think the main reason why I kept up participation in this discussion to see how many leading bullets points I could rack up.--Commander Keane 16:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Mudslide is a type (subset) of landslide. A mudslide moves by flowage of unconsolidated soil. A block glide type of landslide moves by failure of soil or rock along a discrete failure plane (slide plane). A block glide may be a rotational failure (failing on a arcuate slide plane) or a translational failure (non-rotational failure) that fails along a planar surface. 11-19-05. By an engineering geologist.
If mudslide is redirected to landslide, then so too should all other geomorphological processes under the banner of landslide. That's probably a good thing, because juxtaposition is a powerful illustrative tool, and the processes are pretty much the same. However, it should be done mindful of the fact that mudslides and landslides are not synonymous. The rheology of mudslides is quite particular - mud. Not all regolith is mud, or capable of forming mud, but the term landslide does refer to regolith in general. I should also add that landslides are not all rock slides. The landslides so frequent in California involve rock and soil. Daniel Collins 04:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Content of mudslide is very likely to grow because of its importance to certain areas such as the south and west slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains north of Los Angeles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Mudslides are a sub-set of landslides. --Ray 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. - Eagleamn 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two articles are better. In theory there are a few common aspects, but neither in rheology, reasons and material, nor in practice. Additionally one should look at the "handling" differences e.g. in warning, surveying or protection, for appropriate monitoring etc. In the Alps also geomorphology is extremely different between a "classical" Landslide and very quick mudflows. Therefore we have to distinguish strictly between several geodynamic processes and phenomena. By the way: does anybody know the english word for the german/austrian "Plaike", an usual phenomenon at grassy alpine slopes? --Geof 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is a lively, ongoing chat, here's some meat, from Hillslope Materials and Processes, Selby, 1993. Landslides are types of mass wasting that have a distinct plane or zone of sliding. This exlucdes falls, topples, creep, and flows. (This contrasts with what I previously wrote.) Et voila! No merge. Daniel Collins 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Mmm, it seems the consensus is for no merge. I tend to agree with that. My argument was rather flawed, basing it on incorrect WP info, sorry about that. I'll removed the merge tags, so the discussion is complete.--Commander Keane 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture location[edit]

Surely, that picture is not taken in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil! --Drdan 07:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The term Landslide is a general term for a perceptable movement of material down a slope. It is a type of Mass Wasting. There are lots of different types:

Creep, Solifuction, A Fall, Slumps, Slides.

Also includes "flows" eg:

Debris and slurry flows (Water-saturated sediment), Mud Flows (Lahars, Granular Flows etc), Debris Avalanches.

Scree, anybody? I have searched the entire page and no mention of the word scree. In any case, there are published classifications of mass movements and Wikipedia should try to stick to those, IMO. Basically a distinction has to be made in block movements on the one hand, and screes and flows on the other. Screes are particle supported while flows are liquid supported. A landslide is a slide, that is a block movement over a failure plane (which can have different shapes). The generic term is mass movement, not landslide. Then, let us not forget mass movements under water, sub-marine slides, sub-marine screes, and - no, not sub-marine flow, but turbidity current. This is a whole science. (Incidentally, it is called geomorphology or geology, depending on your POV.) --Lindorm 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mitigation strategies of landslides are not there Abhirup Mistry (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


can you show me a graph of increase and decrease of landslides —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]


It looks like this (Landslide) article and Landslide classification have been evolved surprisingly independently and there are both overlaps and inconsistencies. In addition, the above opinion of User:Lindorm remains unaddressed for over a year. I am placing the tag "expert". Laudak 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists of Landslides[edit]

The current lists of landslides are getting out of hand. Most of the 20th century and 21st century ones are unsupported by any sources. Ideally we should end up with no lists here at all, they should have their own articles. This is what happened with the various earthquake lists in the earthquake article as the lists dominated the page. When transferred to lists, sources will be needed (as they should be here). It would be quite reasonable, if a little harsh, to remove all unsourced landslides from the article as it stands. Better probably to allow these to stay for now as the basis for separate list articles. Mikenorton (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the overwhelming and immediate level of support for this proposal (sarcasm warning), I've gone ahead and created a List of landslides article. It contains all of those from before the 20th century and I've made a start on more recent ones. I will be adding those from the current article that have sources or their own articles. Finding sources for all those with a 'citation needed' tag is a major task that I will probably spend some time on but how far I get depends on how much time and energy I have, but if anyone else wants to lend a hand..... Mikenorton (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An exceptional video of a one-day landslide has been circulating on the web for some long time... ...and would seem to be an excellent candidate for inclusion at List of landslides; however, the citations that show up in searches do not provide specifics about location and date.Paul Niquette (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to my entry at 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC), I have received information, not yet confirmed, that the landslide occurred on Feb. 16, 2010 in Madeira, Italy with 32 people lost. For sensationalized coverage of a number of landslides, a Mike Norton might consider reviewing a collection of landslide videos at Paul Niquette (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a start at checking the mass of uncited landslides - if I find a source then I add them to the list of landslides, if not, they go. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful website with many photos and videos[edit]

I have linked to the blog written by Professor David Petley, who is the Wilson Professor, Department of Geography, Durham University, England [1]. Durham is one of the top UK universities [2], and Prof Petley an academic with a long history in the field, so the source is completely reliable. I'm not sure what the rule is on blogs - if it was published as his own website rather than a blog I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem with including it in the external links. Anyhow, enjoy! It has lots of links to PDFs of articles etc. (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that info, which helps. Blogs by recognized experts are a special case and are usually allowed.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NASA quotes from his blog ([3], [4] and other examples) so there shouldn't be any problem with accepting his blog as a source. (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how landslides created

Useful pictures?[edit]

The small landslide in the Aille River Doolin.JPG
The big landslide in the Aille River Doolin.JPG

Two pictures of landslides in the Aille River at Doolin, County Clare, Republic of Ireland. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great PD 1800s before/after pic in India; maybe upload?[edit]

Link here, bottom of page: MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are already uploaded from another source, unfortunately watermarked. Used in Nainital. jonkerz 22:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing explanation of differences between landslide and mudslide/mudflow[edit]

This article needs to explain the differences in meaning of similar terms and whether they are used as synonyms in the media.

See also --Espoo (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Landslide. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018[edit]

Hello, I wanted to add a citation on the first line. The link talks about how mudslides are formed. Here's the link: ItsRainin'Sushi (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: Thank you, but the source does not seem to be reliable enough. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"The term landslide or, less frequently, landslip,[1] refers to"
Should there be a comma after "landslip"? Or before "or"?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaning up major ambiguities[edit]

Landslide classifications are all over the place in the scientific literature, and this article as it was reflected that. I've made some pervasive changes (though still not really enough) to make the ambiguities clearer, and to be more explicit about the actually robust Varnes-Hungr scheme. I've also propagated these changes over to landslide classification, which is also a disaster zone. DanHobley (talk)


As far as gravity phenomena classification on Mars planet is not a hot topic (not a troll, but sorry, I don't understand the problem that came to the article semi-protection…), the last image in the present article is captioned as "landslide". But in its commons title &caption it is named "avalanche", following the title of the original NASA article. I don't know the english geologists positions in the current debate, but as a (french) geologist and exo-geologist, I use to make a little difference between avalanche and landslide ; the left part of the picture, which shows the upper layers of the scopulus/cliff, does not show any deep scar ("niche d'arrachement" in french), but a surficial one, visibly only involving the upper layer, therefore the name choice. Best regards. -- Eric.LEWIN (d), 2020-11-19, 23:47 CET. — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]