Talk:2006 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/Archive 1

Names

Wouldn't it be better if we just put one line of names in this article instead of the four lines it has now? The same has been done in the Southern Hemipshere cyclone season articles, where just 5 names have been listed from the circular list. It just looks much better that way.

Good idea. Everyone OK with that? Hurricanehink 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The current list of names is obnoxiously long, yes. However the section should use {{seealso}} to point readers to an article that does have the full list. — jdorje (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Numbers

The first Deep Depression was ARB 0601 and Mala was BOB 0601. See point 6 [here ] to show this is correct. The term tropical storm is not used here. Old advisories showing these numbers can be found in this first page of this thread [here ]. Finally Mala reached 100-110kts (Also in that link above). 110kts is 177km/h, which when rounded to the nearest 5km/h is 175km/h and not 185km/h. I have therefore reverted it back to how I edited it. P.K.

Look at all the previous years' articles here; they don't have the special numbering, and therefore I believe neither should these. Also, please don't put "corrected spelling mistakes" in the edit summary if you're changing American spelling to European/etc spelling ;) -- RattleMan 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I only know English English so they look wrong to me ;). The fact they have the incorrect numbering before doesn't mean you can't put the correct ones in now.

Sorry about forgetting to put the signature bit in, it is getting late here. P.K. 23:15, 29 May 2006 (GMT)

Minimum Pressure

Where do you look for the correct readings for the central pressure of cyclones in the IO? For all basins, do we use Gary Padgett's summaries and tracks as the source? I'm just trying to bring some of these other basin pages up to the format used in the ATL pages. I just wish that the small infobox template was as adapted to other basins as the large one. Good kitty 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storms or Cyclonic Storms?

I'm confused for Tropical Storms 01A, 03B, and 04A, they all have around 35-45 kt (40-50 mph) sustained winds, but dosen't that make them as cyclonic storms since cyclonic storm winds are 34-47 kt? — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, since they weren't recognized by IMD, they should be labeled "Tropical Cyclone 01A", "Tropical Cyclone 03B", etc. 04A is recognized by the IMD, but as a deep depression. --Coredesat talk! 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't 04A be a cyclonic storm cause its got sustained winds more than 33 kt. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a deep depression by the IMD. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One way of explaining this is that IMD uses 10-minute winds. – Chacor 03:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, the reason why 01A, 03B, and 04A don't have 10-minute winds listed is because...well, IMD didn't give any. If they upgrade 04A to a cyclonic storm, they will start giving 10-minute winds. --Coredesat talk! 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder. Well thanx for my answer. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New Idea

When Cordesat mwntioned that 01A and 03B weren't reconginized by the IMD, how about making a sepreate sections for "other storms" for storms/depressions that were not reconginzied by the IMD. And also, that should include several unnmaed depressions that were not detected by the JTWC as a NONAME. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 06:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the WPAC, there's probably no need to do that here. There's just so few storms in this basin each year that separating the list wouldn't improve the article much. It's a good suggestion, but probably not one worth the trouble of doing. Also, so far there haven't been any depressions the IMD detected that the JTWC or NRL didn't. :/ --Coredesat talk! 06:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Second new idea

I also have another idea or suugestion; like the AHS have articles for every storm, how about making articles for every storm that at least makes it to cyclonic storm status, gets an official storm name, and is monitored at least by the IMD, unless for other special occasions. But this dosen't include storms that are monitored by the JTWC alone, or INVESTs that have TD/TS force winds. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem here is that unless a storm has significant impact (such as Mala), there just isn't enough information to make any articles. The IMD doesn't archive its information, and impact information for NIO cyclones is very difficult to find. If it were easier to find this information, then maybe we could make articles for the truly notable ones, but unfortunately, it's not. --Coredesat talk! 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

IMD Storm Number

I think the system must be clarified.

While deep depressions were numbered in the past, they aren't in recent years. As to be consistent with other basins, the panel had changed to use 34kt (instead of 30kt) as the thereshold for inputting a storm into the TC database. Thus, the numbering citeria changed to 34kt. We won't have something like "depression BOB0601".

Last year, the panel changed the operational plan again and the naming system overtook the numbering system. Therefore, it is meaningless to include an IMD storm number for all cyclonic storms since then.Momoko 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Data Archive North Indian TC

Is there a link to RSMC New Delhi data archive for North Indian Tropical Cyclones?--Ugaap 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

92B.INVEST article

While I find 6 tropical cyclone systems (including the destructive INVEST), it seems like an above-average seaon while the IMB was only able to identify 2 cyclones which is odd between the JTWC and the IMB. But anyhow, I have a question about 92B.INVEST and its warranting article. Comparing 92B.INVEST with Mala, shouldn't the blob receive an article, even though it made 170 deaths because Mala only killed 22 people and still got an article. Usually in most tropical cyclone basins, storms only get articles if their death tolls are from 50+ people. But I'm not saying to remove Mala's article, but to make an article for the destructive disturbance. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 08:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound like I'm always shooting your ideas down, but the only thing really holding us back from making an article on that depression is the sheer lack of information on it. It was very short-lived, and despite its impact, there aren't a lot of sources that provide a good amount of information on preparations, impact, or aftermath. --Coredesat 08:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the news item that appeared in BBC NEWS [1] for details of loss of life and property--Ugaap 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That one article is far from enough. – Chacor 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Atleast it could be used to begin some work on 92B.INVEST--Ugaap 17:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)