Talk:Cyclone Mocha

Too Soon - reason for moving to draftspace

At the present time, I think the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Cyclone Mocha has nearly 0 impacts so far and at the present time is a fish storm not expecting to make landfall until the 14th. A lot of editors started getting together about not moving weather-related articles (ideology started with tornado articles) into mainspace until notability could be proven. For this reason, I am going to move it back into draft space and it should not be moved back into mainspace until it passes the notability requirements. Hurricane Ian was nearly the same way, where it was not moved into mainspace until after its landfall in Cuba, which was a notable landfall. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh? If the cyclone had an effect on land, why has Cyclone Freddy been moving forward without waiting for its impact? HurricaneEdgar 00:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That was a mistake. The same type of arguments were going on with tornado articles this year. A lot of quick stub/start class articles were made about things that hadn't truly gained solid notability yet. A solid discussion took place about the April 19-20, 2023 tornado outbreak (Talk:Tornadoes of 2023/Archive 2#Are We Jumping the Gun again?). Editors jumped the gun and created the article in mainspace before much information about the true impacts had come out. Once the dust settled, a discussion merged it back into the parent article. There is no difference in this situation. A cyclone is forecasted to make landfall, but hasn't and might not. That is why WP:CRYSTAL exists. Just like a tornado outbreak. Sure, the impacts from that April 19-20 outbreak were bad (even a deadly tornado). But before the ratings released and NWS had truly posted the impacts, it was all speculation through RS articles on notability. Right now, if this was taken to an AfD (if it was in mainspace) most editors would agree to delete. If that is the case for any ongoing weather event, then it should be in draftspace until multiple editors can agree that it deserved to be in mainspace. That is a stance being taken on tornado outbreak articles now, where multiple editors have to agree before the draft is moved into mainspace. I hope that answers your question. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If the article deserves to be WP:GNG, it should be expanded further? HurricaneEdgar 00:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The preparation and impact section should be expanded to the point where this could convince editors that it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. At the present time, that section has 2 sentences. The meteorological history is what is normally added to seasonal articles (i.e. 2023 North Indian Ocean cyclone season). A merge would easily be possible, which is why it would fail WP:GNG. If that section is expanded more and the meteorological history section is expanded a little more than it is now, then this would probably be ok for mainspace. The easiest way to expand the Preparations and impact section is to wait for landfall. By then, articles will start coming out about the impacts of the storm rather than preparations for the storm. Basically, wait until it does something notable for mainspace. Simple as that. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The storm that would make landfall should be back into the article or WP:BOLD HurricaneEdgar 13:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe about time to move back into the mainspace. The article has been significantly expanded since it was move to draftspace. Landfall is inevitable and will occur within the next 6-12 hours and reports of impacts will occur very soon. Infinity (talk - contributions) 01:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

To get back to the mainspace, the redirect must be delete. HurricaneEdgar 01:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Downgrade

The Bangladesh Air Force published an update for the cyclone 40 minutes ago (0200 BST on 14 May 2023) which stated it was a "Very Severe Cyclonic Storm". Discrepency with India and JTWC. It is at least worth mentioning in the article somewhere since Bangladesh is considering it equivalent to a cat 3 hurricane when JTWC is saying equivalent to a cat 5. Maximum Sustained Winds of 190 kph. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be considered confirmed as a saffir-simpson cat 5 landfall. Mimic Imagery had it as at least 130kts or 150mph initially at landfall, but IMF had it as 135mph 3-minute winds which is typically 160mph 1-minute winds.

Don't be deceived by bamboo huts being destroyed. Bamboo is twice the tensile strength of pine or oak wood, so when it disintegrates a bamboo hut there's not much else you can do about it. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I'm not a professional meteorologist yet, but I am planning to get a met degree in the near future. i've been studying tropical weather for 30 years and spent 10 years studying it on Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderground site, so I'm pretty skilled as an amateur. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and the Washington Post are both reporting it as 155mph landfall, or max Cat 4. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe JTWC will update it in reanalysis on a later date. I guess we'll find out eventually. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add China to the preparations section

I heard that the rainfall impacts wont be limited to India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, I also read up online about Yunnan and Tibet of China, that possible rainfall and mudslides could occur there. Can I add that source please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Please feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia in a fair and accurate manner. HurricaneEdgar 09:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Death toll discrepancies

This NYT article states two different death tolls – the Myanmar government is saying 5, while the National Unity Government of Myanmar is saying 18, with the latter having the qualifier of "hav[ing] more sources in the country’s remote conflict zones". Our article currently has 12, being reported from The Irrawaddy, but that's an older source by a few hours. Which number should we go with? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The MYT article also states 0 deaths for Bangladesh, though the three deaths we have might be indirect (they died by "stroke" caused by working in the cold rain, not sure if that's an accurate translation since I'm working with google translate). Can someone else chip in to tell me whether they think the three Bangladesh deaths are direct or indirect? I'm not sure at the moment. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Reuters now gives "hundreds" and "at least 100". Not sure if all have been verified or if these are estimates, but still... Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"A spokesperson for the pro-democracy shadow National Unity Government told Reuters: "We received confirmation of about 400 Rohingya deaths, mainly around Sittwe area"."

This is the quote that I'd trust the most, because it's sourced to an actual government organization (the one in exile right now)... yikes. That's also only among Rohingya. That's also a huge jump from what we do have in the article right now, it's probably worth trying to see if we have other estimates that confirm that number. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

More death toll discrepancies

The 400 deaths figure used to just be from local civilians who assisted in relief operations but according to this news article, this death toll is now being reported by the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation, which is likely more credible. Which figure should we go with? The ARNO death toll or the other one that's currently being used on this article? Quake1234 (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Category 4 and 5 death tolls are hard to reliably calculate even in western nations. I'd give it a few more days and see if the numbers become more consistent. I too have noticed some unreliable totals being reported, but it looks like there are only another 100 or so people unaccounted for, so the death toll shouldn't rise much more. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The 400 death toll figure was reported by the National Unity Government of Myanmar as well (see the previous section). I'd go with it, as ≥400. (I'm forgetting what the abbreviation used for estimates in this scenario is (est. maybe?), because the NUG quote states "about", but ARNO says more than 400. We could go with est. 400 as well.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Intensity dispute

This page produced fully incorrect information. Cyclone Mocha peak intensity at 115 knots and if you don't believe this then you change Mocha's intensity at 120 knots to 2023 North Indian Ocean Cyclone Season page, then they will show that Mocha was Super cyclonic Strom at 120 knots..this is not true as Mocha is a Extremely Severe Cyclonic Strom.😡😡 So please introduce exact information about cyclone Mocha's wind speed 😤 45.250.246.62 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok what is going on here? @JCMLuis and RandomInfinity17: I recall Hurricane Noah said the 120 knots in the IMD bulletin cited was a typo because the rest of the bulletin stated ESCS (whereas 120 knots would mean SUCS) and other IMD products at the same time stated 115 knots. I'm inclined to believe this was actually the case since their table did state 210-220 km/h, and the midpoint of 215 km/h would convert to 116 knots - not to mention the rest of bulletin maintaining ESCS status. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary report states 115. Noah^Talk 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Guess that settles it... updated accordingly, along with the higher minimum pressure of 938 hPa that's stated in there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Should "depression" be linked to Low-pressure area?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)