Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Jal

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

Jagan's troubles

[edit]

I have gathered information about some events partially related to the cyclone, it is about YS jagan and his campaign which caused difficulties to the citizens of Nellore in preparing for the cyclone. If you like it, i will merge the sandbox into the article. --Anirudh EmaniSay something 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im adding it for now, remove it if you feel it is controversial. --Anirudh EmaniSay something 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Thailand Floods

[edit]

There should be a article about thailand floods too in cyclone jal article......when jal was just a baby..it caused havoc there....killing 181 people..15jan19932010 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Jal killed 181 people there!!! --Anirudh EmaniSay Something 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The floods in Thailand have been going on for nearly a month. It's doubtful Jal played any role in the disaster. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just correcting myself here. The flooding in Southern Thailand was from the precursor depression, 59 people died in the region. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I've tagged the article for neutrality. Words such as "with his childish acts" doesn't seem neutral. Please do not remove that tag until that section is properly rephrased in a neutral manner. Rehman 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial. But that is what the people claim. I have rewritten that part of the section for now. --Anirudh EmaniSay Something 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not being neutral. You changed the text to point to "people claim...", which is WP:WEASEL. Please give references, or remove the entire text; if info is missing, its bad, but if we put up bad info, its worse. Rehman 15:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If im being honest i doubt the the section is really needed, as it seems all he did was be idiotic and go to an area affected by Jal to try and campaign as he didnt believe the IMDs reports about the cyclone coming.Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, shall we move it to Jagan's article. --Anirudh EmaniSay Something 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good place for it but id check with the primary authors of that page first.Jason Rees (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allright then, we will be waiting for it to be solved as soon as possible. --Anirudh EmaniSay Something 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're running out of time

[edit]

Hey, it is peak season and just now another low pressure area is moving into the Andaman sea. The Meteorological history of the storm needs a lot of expansion and the time is running out. I am not much talented to expand that. I can only expand the impact section which is already big enough. Intelligent members like Jason Rees and Cyclonebiskit can do it, please finish it off. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, how is time running out? I don't believe there is a time limit for how long it takes to add in the meteorological information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No its not like having a deadline for it, but before the storm becomes quite famous enough that readers consult Wikipedia, it should be completed. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on the MH for a couple of days now in a sandbox though it isnt completed yet i will merge it with this article later.Jason Rees (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Jal mess

[edit]

This article is seriously very ugly in looking and the information of india is too much and childish... Why dont we make a article called "Effects of Cyclone Jal on India"???... 15jan19932010 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But I don't think a separate "ugly" article is a good way to go. Instead, it would be much better if we could cut down and cleanup the necessary sections. Rehman 11:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that the information was added as it came out, thus it wasn't condensed as most articles would be. The best course of action (in my opinion) is to undertake a full-scale rewrite of the article. In general, storms like this don't warrant a sub-article since the damage is limited to a few countries (albeit severe damage). Additionally, for two of the countries, the damage was associated with separate flooding events so with that already there, the info can be somewhat limited. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted several lines from indian section and picture...i Think now the article looks a lot better...15jan19932010 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Good work! Rehman 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont feel any good as much of information is removed and the article looks like it was robbed. I felt like crying for a minute when i saw all my words being killed. As Cyclonebiskit said, we shoudl rewrite it to make it much readable, not kill it so that only a few words are there. I am putting back everything and rewrite it if you want, dont delete. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry you felt that way. But 15jan19932010 is right, the article was quite a mess. You are, of course, welcome to expand so long as you keep the right info on with sufficient references. As a side note, I don't think undoing the entire bulk is a good idea. Rehman 13:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we have to rewrite this article we have to kill many lines and sentences...I think what i did was precise and resonable since Jal didnt created havoc or any crisis in India....15jan19932010 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having much information is a better factor ain't it?? If readers find more information on wikipedia, they would trust the website and come here for anything else they want. if a short paragraph gives a VERY brief description of the impact, then what exactly is the use of the article. To be frank, over 99% of the readers dont care about the meteorological history. They just have a glimpse at the impact and mainly concentrate on the info-box. If they find MORE information in the impact section, they would have a good information about Wikipedia's coverage. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving reasonable things into a preparations and aftermath sections. I can quite easily dig up the warnings for Thailand and Malaysia.Jason Rees (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jason is the only one who understands me. However, i am resigning from making storm articles. I will put everything back as you wanted. Goodbye everyone. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont resign - we need all the editors we can get. Impact whcih seems to be your main issue is always tricky to get the right amount in.Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jason; you are more important here than you think. I went through such stuff during my early days here too; its just a matter of understanding what goes where. ;) Please stay. Rehman 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to breathe the Wikipedian air. But i am not editing, i will collect all the links to the news articles covering the event and inform you on the talk page, then you can use them to make the article. I will NOT write the article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see my version of cyclone jal article has been restored...15jan19932010 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a sisyphus victory... The article is not much better now but as well not less ugly and the main issues havn't been addressed so far, e.g. a week later we still report the system "currently lying over the Arabian Sea where it might re-intensify and other similarily outdated information. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll in Thailand

[edit]

The toll of 59 lives in Thailand is unsourced, maybe as a result of rewriting and editing and no, I won't go through the revisions history for finding out. However, in the press are floating somewhat confusing information. It seems that the number of 59 denotes the number of persons having died in the Thailand floods before the pre-BOB05-event as well as the number of victims in South Thailand which are most probably a result of that depression. See exstracts of some of the news reports:

  • hxxp://www.examiner.com/world-news-in-national/59-dead-after-weeks-of-flooding-thailand (blacklisted but why?) 59 dead after weeks of flooding in Thailand, National Examiner, 27 October: 59 people have died and over 3 million people have had their lives and livelihoods affected by what government officials in Thailand have called the worst flooding in 50 years.
  • Thai Flood Death Toll Rises To 59 In 18 Provinces, Bernama, 27 October (w/o subscription only title available)
  • Flooding near Chao Phraya River, Bangkok Post, 27 October: The Emergency Medical Institute of Thailand reported that the death toll from flooding throughout the country from Oct 10 to 27 reached 59 on Wednesday, up from 56 reported on Tuesday. (…) Of the 59 people killed in the floods, 46 were men and 13 were women.
  • Thailand flood death toll hits 181, Press TV, 10 November: Deputy director of the Flood Alleviation Coordination Center said that 59 people were reported dead in the flood-hit southern region alone, while 122 people have lost their lives in protracted flooding in northern, northeastern, eastern and central regions, the Thai News Agency reported on Tuesday.

--Matthiasb (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Cyclone Jal. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Cyclone Jal. 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, 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) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Jal&oldid=1211215871"