Talk:Pre-1890 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons

Weather: Tropical / North Indian Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the North Indian Ocean work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Got sources? Jdorje 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see cyclone 16 of 1972 on

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneSpin (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy weather

Was the 1963 storm (among others...) not named? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Recovered annual summaries from 1891 to 1970 that include wind, pressure, and tracks for tropical systems. Supportstorm (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The article will remain a stub class until it is finished, which theoretically would be an article on Pre-1900 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. If anyone has the time, they could create the season articles going back to 1960 – there is certainly the information. Before 1960, there could be decade articles at the very least going back to 1900. Now that the basin is in better shape, it's time to expand the number of articles within the basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. 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/20110709085830/http://www.ndma.gov.pk/Publications/livingwithdisasters.pdf to http://www.ndma.gov.pk/Publications/livingwithdisasters.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. 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/20071102075355/http://www.imd.ernet.in/section/nhac/static/cyclone-history-bb.htm to http://www.imd.ernet.in/section/nhac/static/cyclone-history-bb.htm

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) 17:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-1940s North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pre-1940s North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Pre-1940s North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bombay Cyclone of 1882 (hoax)?

The supposed cyclone doesn't have any good evidence of its existence. I think it deserves, at best, a one or two sentence mention in this article. Something like: "There were unsubstantiated newspaper reports of a deadly cyclone hitting current-day Mumbai on June 6, 1882, but meteorological records and weather reports shows no contemporary record of the event. A 2019 study concluded that the cyclone was a hoax." That way there is a mention of the event in the appropriate place, but it doesn't mention the death toll (no need to reintroduce the false information), and it covers the fact that it was a hoax. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: The false information is that a tropical cyclone impacted Bombay, yet alone that it killed 100000 people and is covered from time to time in reliable sources. You state that the cyclone does not have any good evidence to prove that it existed, except an article from the hindustantimes from 2020 shows that newspaper reports at the time were the originators of the system. I also note that Wikipedia has various articles on hoaxes such as the Dreadnought_hoax, Morristown UFO hoax, Mars hoax. As a result, I feel that it is our job to present the information on this system and inform the reader about why it is a "hoax" and feel that it is worthy of more than two or three sentences. Also I feel a courtesy ping to @Alarichall: is in order here.Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I'm not sure we should be perpetuating falsehoods, like a storm that did not kill 100,000 people. The hoaxes you mentioned seem more notable as hoaxes. Regarding the newspaper bit, I adjusted the wording for what a proposed merger might look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose the merger as I strongly feel that if we presented the evidence in the right way, we would not be making people believe or disbelieve the falsehood that this system killed 10000 people. I also look at Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes which states that a hoax should have been believed for many years, which the reliable sources show that it has been. I also note that the 2019 study into the system was not the first study into the system, with the IMD presenting quite a bit of evidence on it in this source.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging me, Jason! I created Bombay Cyclone of 1882 (hoax) in order to help dispel the widespread belief in this disproven event. The point of the article is that people searching Wikipedia (or the Internet generally) for the 1882 Bombay Cyclone will readily find that despite being mentioned in many authoritative-looking sources, the cyclone did not actually happen. Pre-1890 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons only lists real events, as far as I know, so I'm not sure that it would be wise to include the fictitious 1882 cyclone in this article. Meanwhile, as Jason Rees indicates, Bombay Cyclone of 1882 (hoax) meets both the notability requirements for an independent article and the other criteria for an article about a hoax. So I don't think we should lose Bombay Cyclone of 1882 (hoax). If you think it's important to mention that fictitious event in pre-1890 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons you could, but in my view it would be useful to be able to link to the full article so that readers can fully understand the problems here. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any issue with an article on a hoax. However, I am a little worried about the limited number of sources that provide much descriptive information about the hoax itself and possibly original research (specifically original synthesis of information) in the current article. — TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 12:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would be, to my thinking, like adding discussions of Bigfoot and Yeti to Hominidae. The content is not legitimately part of an article on real events. It might fit into Tropical cyclones in popular culture, but I would first want to see an effort to improve the article as it is. BD2412 T 05:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]