This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, I nominated it for moving due to WP:NWEATHER, which states that "However, it is worth looking at the overall weather event at times and seeing if the content is best served elsewhere. For example: January 2009 Fiji floods instead of Tropical Depression 04F (2008–09) and Tropical Depression 05F (2008–09)."Tavantius (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NWEATHER is not a policy or even a guideline, it's an essay that was proposed for acceptance as a Policy, Guideline, or Process but that proposal was withdrawn after the !votes there were nearly all negative.
Like many essays, it reads rather like a policy, but it's not, it's just the opinion of a small group of Wikipedians, and while I think that it is helpful advice, again like many other essays and hopefully including the many I have written myself, it can't be relied upon in the way a guideline or policy can be. In that it has been proposed and rejected, it ranks close to bottom (again like some of my own proposals).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.