Talk:Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cyclone Bulbul)

Requested move 10 November 2019[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Bulbul → Cyclone Bulbul–Matmo – The issue we have here is that the IMD does not recognize any remnant lows that enter their basin and renames the storms once they reach gale force. As such, the IMD recognizes this as Cyclone Bulbul. The JTWC recognized the remnants and called this Cyclone Matmo. The SAB (intensity and floaters) have this as Bulbul-Matmo. Due to the conflict amongst the agencies as well as many news sources reporting them as the same system, I say we need to change the title. This is a WP:COMMONNAME kind of issue in which we need to ignore "official names" and make a compromise between the sources. We have numerous news sources stating one or the other as well as using both names. We need a commonly recognizable article name. NoahTalk 04:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see search results heavily going on Bulbul (from the title), but looking at the content shows articles mentioning it "also known as Tropical Cyclone Matmo". NoahTalk 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah, did you mean to withdraw this RM discussion? If so, the best course of action is to close it, which I can do for you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Yes, I did... Appears we need to completely ignore them being mentioned as the same system (in news sources) due to the official source. Despite them doing similar damage in both basins thus far, some senior project members have stated we need to count them as entirely different systems. NoahTalk 05:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Hurricane Noah and Coffeeandcrumbs: I see the move request has been withdrawn but I am not sure it should have. Just because IMD is the "official" source does not automatically mean that all other sources on the topic can or should be disregarded.
That, and does IMD actually treat Matmo and Bulbul as independent systems or does it simply disregard Matmo? I admit that I find IMD's website to be hard to search, but that would be an important question to answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one had !voted yet and the OP no longer supports the move they suggested, I don't see an issue with withdrawing it. You are free to start a new discussion at any time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I believe the IMD just ignores Matmo since AFAIK they didn't mention Matmo at all in their bulletins (which they are supposed to archive but haven't done so for quite a while). Their extended range cyclogenesis outlook covers Bulbul's origins but does not indicate whether the precursor low-pressure area formed from Matmo's remnants or arose separately. On the other hand, the JTWC and other US-based agencies believe that Matmo's remnants survived crossing Southeast Asia and directly developed into Bulbul and thus continue to refer to the system as Matmo. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly decided to move this article to Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul, since the IMD says that Bulbul formed out of the remnants of Matmo. I also note that the JTWC called it Matmo all the way through to its eventual landfall on India/Bangladesh and will probably either just use the name Matmo or both names in their post anaylsis. I also note that ReliefWeb calls it Tropical Cyclone Matmo/Bulbul and that we have some impact reports stating that Matmo impacted India not Bulbul. As a result, I feel that the best name is Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul even though it isnt official.Jason Rees (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. We never reached a WP:CONSENSUS on this, did we now? I don't think that constitutes a redirect from Bulbul to Matmo-Bulbul (a change I would otherwise agree with) and either way it probably circulates still around Bulbul. \_o_/ ~ AC5230 talk 00:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: I strongly disagree with you moving this article back to Bulbul, just because you think that the official RSMC and WMO do not recognise it as the same storm. In this case we have the JTWC monitoring the system as Matmo all the way until its ultimate landfall in India/Bangladesh. The IMD state that Bulbul formed out of Matmo's remnants and we now know that they would rename a TC if it moves into the basin as a Deep Depression or below which is what happened in this case afaik. I also note that Reliefweb calls it Matmo-Bulbul and that the JTWC will in all likelyhood call it Matmo-Bulbul when they get around to sorting out their BT for the system. As a result, I feel that this is an obvious case of where we should use the unofficial title and combine the two systems in one article rather than having two seperate articles. I note above that @Hurricane Noah: stated that this is a WP:COMMONNAME kind of issue in which we need to ignore the "official names" and make a compromise between the sources. Also @AC5230: see WP:Bold, which gives us the right to move articles when they are not controversal and make sense, which i felt was the case in this situation. Pinging @Cyclonebiskit, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: for further opinons.Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. Then you do that. Even then, you've cited there is NO PROBLEM doing this- why should I object? ~ AC5230 talk 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees:In the same report, IMD stated that Matmo lasted until November 2, and Bulbul's Low Pressure Area formed on November 4, so between these two days there were no LPAs on Matmo's remnants, so they were two distinct LPAs, consequently two different systems. No part of Matmo's track is included on Bulbul's Best Track either. Also, when it comes to WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RELIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT, IMD > JTWC since the former is a RSMC, thus having the official authority over that region's meteorological forecasting and monitoring, also having the WMO's back-up, which the JTWC doesn't have much. About the other sources, most of them aren't that much notable, and most of them are american/european news sites that tend to follow more the info that come from american-based agencies, which is the case of JTWC, and there comes the case of WP:WEIGHT, which can overcome other guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME, which IMO is the case here. Also, Matmo doesn't even have it's own article and doesn't have enough content or notability to warrant one, but I'm not against citing it here as a mere percurssor of Bulbul, but no more than that. ABC paulista (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinions:
  • From Googleing it seems like "Cyclone Bulbul" is more frequently used than "Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul", so per WP:COMMONNAME the title should not contain "Matmo-Bulbul". Using Google Scholar yields the same pattern. Note that I searched "Cyclone Bulbul" rather than just "Bulbul" as that would pick up "Matmo-Bulbul" as well.
  • Some reliable sources use the name "Matmo-Bulbul" and "Bulbul-Matmo" so the names should be mentioned in the article IMO.
  • Given that IMD literally says that Bulbul formed from Matmo, and JTWC literally treats them as the same storm, the article ought to discuss both.
  • Regarding whether we should call them literally the same storm or one as the derivative of the other, perhaps a formulation like "The IMD states that Bulbul formed from Matmo's remnants, while the JTWC treats them as the same storm" (wordsmithing welcome) would work.
  • I know that the NHC (Atlantic and East Pacific) does treat storms as being the same if they dissipated then reformed (e.g Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Beryl (2018)), unless there were other synoptic systems that played a role during the regeneration (e.g the discussions about which tropical depression gave rise to Hurricane Katrina). Not sure if this should be a consideration here.
  • I don't think notability is really relevant in this context. The main question is how to prioritize between two sources that slightly disagree with each other.
  • In my opinion, that IMD is the "official" WMO-approved weather service, is reason for giving it priority but it does not mean that any contradicting source can be disregarded. WP:WEIGHT is not simply a matter of official-unofficial.
My 2 Rappen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think name frequency should be too big a factor. Perhaps the best analogy would be Tropical Storm Hermine (2010), which was a tropical depression in the EPAC, crossed Mexico, lost its low-level circulation, and then reformed into Hermine in the Gulf of Mexico. They were the same general weather system. I don't think there's any getting the amount of detail you need on Matmo to be comprehensive. The beginnings of Bulbul really was from a disturbance east of the Philippines. The same weather system eventually struck Bangladesh. I think it should be moved to Matmo–Bulbul. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Except that 11E never lost its low-level circulation over its lifetime, according to Hermine's report. It remained intact, albeit weakened, during its crossover, but managed to reestrenghten over the Gulf of Mexico, later becoming Hermine. IMO, both Hurricane Ida and Typhoon Nuri (2014) are better analogues than Hermine, since both spawned extratropical cyclones (November 2009 nor'easter and November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone, respectively) that were preliminarly considered part of the same system, but later were deemed to be distinct systems by having distinct low-level circulations. And in both cases, their articles were kept separated. ABC paulista (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista, in those cases, I think Ida and Nuri should be merged with the extratropical storm articles, since they are the same weather system. Remember the reason why we would merge them - it's because they would represent the same entity in an encyclopedia article about those storms. I think Bulbul and Matmo should be discussed as parts of the same entity, since they were the same general weather system. Before my words here get applied to ATL/EPAC storms, I don't think every storm generated from remnants should be part of the same entity, but that's because you don't often have storms in two basins, named by two different agencies, and they both affected land. It's plausible Matmo would get an article someday, given its effects in Vietnam. Rather than forcing it to be split off by the article title, I think it serves readers better including both storms in one. We don't just have rules to enforce article titles. We have rules to codify what we generally do. What we always need to do though is service the readers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: How do you define "being the same weather system"? Were Alma and Arthur the same system? Were Cosme and Allison the same system? And what about Katrina and Victor-Cindy? Vardah and ARB 02? What about Bret and Greg, which at the time you had a opposite stance, on a similar discussion that you are having now? How can you create a coherent, objective definition without falling on WP:OR? Also, why do they have to represent the same entity in an encyclopedia article, instead of being two distinct ones, with their own stories told, with some notes alluding one to another, like we already do with such cases? Also, I don't see how Matmo getting an article is of any relevance for this matter (although, it's worth noting that you had a opposite opinion that you are having now when discussing about Hermine and 11E) and I don't see how misleading the readers to believe that they are considered to be the same cyclone, when the official data and agencies tell that they aren't, would be of any service for them. ABC paulista (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Matmo-Bulbul's case, we do not have the IMD saying that Matmo's remnants dissipated, but instead they state that Bulbul originated from the remnants of Severe Tropical Storm Matmo which emerged into the Andaman Sea and renamed it in accordance with their rules on crossovers. We also have the JTWC calling it Matmo all the way through to landfall and treated it as a regeneration and in all likelyhood will attach the name Bulbul when they publish their ATCR. We also have Steve Young who as an indpendent anaylist bizarely enough tracked Matmo-Bulbul as a single system. As for Katrina-Victor-Cindy the BoM states that Victor "was most likely the remnants of former TC Katrina in the Coral Sea" which is not good enough for me to combine them into one system.Jason Rees (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees, in Bulbul's report, IMD reported that Matmo dissipated on November 2, and that on November 4 a new LLCC formed from it's remnants, and no other evidence that IMD could be considering that Matmo was a crossover. It's worth noting that since 2013, WMO implemented a policy for all basins that crossover cyclones shoudn't be renamed from now on, and IMD has been following this policy, like shown with Tropical Storm Pabuk (2019). AFAIK, IMD never renamed a crossover system.ABC paulista (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of the WMO Operational Plan i linked above - you will find that the IMD will rename crossover systems if it is below cyclonic storm intensity which is what Bulbul was and Pabuk wasnt. Also the IMD doesnt say anything about a new LLCC forming or Matmo dissipating in their report.Jason Rees (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista brings up good points that we aren't always consistent, and I think that's reflective of the types of storms we're dealing with. Yes, my thoughts on where the articles should be has evolved over the last 15 years. Alma-Arthur is a really good example - neither article would be complete without discussing the other, and perhaps those articles would be better served as one, but both articles are well-developed anyway, so it's not a huge issue. Ditto Cosme-Allison in a way (although the Allison article is woefully incomplete). I don't know if there is going to be some clear definition though, especially when you say - I don't see how misleading the readers to believe that they are considered to be the same cyclone. I don't think it's misleading, not if we explain the progression of the storms, and who named them, and why they should be part of the same encyclopedia entity. The main reason most of these storms have articles is due to their land impacts (and thus human impacts). For the Bret-Greg example, the Atlantic tropical storm was deadly and impactful, but it dissipated after reaching the EPAC, and didn't become Hurricane Greg for four days (which, I should note, is less time between Matmo's dissipation and Bulbul's reformation). A similar example is Tropical Storm Earl (2004), which eventually became Hurricane Frank in the EPAC. Should these articles all be renamed just so we can be consistent? Perhaps, but it would be better to handle on a case by case basis. As for the point at hand, we have to consider: would the readers be better serviced by the article solely focusing on Bulbul? Or would they be better served with a more comprehensive article on the full history of the weather system? I happen to think it's the latter, but that's what this discussion is for. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I really, really dislike the whole "case-by-case basis" because it'll only generate even more inconsistencies. Also, IMO one of the biggest problems that the whole project have is that, although the project is meterological-based, its articles and info put way too much emphasis on impacts, subjects that are not relevant in a meteorological standpoint. I'm not saying to disregard impacts altoghether, but we, as a meterological-based project, shoud put more effort and weight and the meteorological aspects of the storm, and leave some more responsability on the impacts' sections for other projects that might be involved in it, info that should be more relevant to them than it is for us. Like I said before, I don't see how combining two distinct systems into one encyclopedia entity would do any favor for either systems or for the readers, since Matmo's impacts are irrelevant for Bulbul's scope and vice-versa, and treating them as the same "weather system" when they share little meteorological features (even the LLC were distinct) is kinda wrong. About Bret and Greg, NHC consider them as distinct storms, so there's no reason to join them in the same article, the same for Earl and Frank. In both cases, the Atlantic storms lost their LLCs and a new one formed in the Pacific, with the NHC deeming them as not a continuation from one to another, a similar situation of Matmo and Bulbul.ABC paulista (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. We put emphasis on impacts because that is the reason most storms get articles, why storm names get retired, why people would want to read about the storm. People might well look up "Cyclone Matmo" expecting to find the storm in the Bay of Bengal, since that is what the JTWC called it. It's not ideal doing case by case, but I can't think of another storm's remnants that was named one storm by one agency, and the other name by another agency. Sure JTWC isn't an RSMC, but it's well-known enough to get mentioned in a variety of sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I understand this point, but I don't like much how this point-of-view is guided by what the reader's looking for instead of collecting the proper info in the various matters that compound a particular subject, and from a information-centered standpoint, meteorological info can be seen as being as important as impact's info for the knowledge's collection and sharing. About the "Cyclone Matmo" question, I think that a simple redirection or disambiguation can be enough to solve it. About similar cases of Matmo and Bulbul, I know at least another one: In 2000, JMA's Chanchu developed from CPHC's Upana's remnants. There were others, for sure. ABC paulista (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should always format our articles to guide the reader. Yes, the information therein should describe the subject matter in a good amount of detail. As for Chanchu-Upana, yea, that's correct, but neither storm has an article. As for the redirect, Tropical Storm Matmo redirects to 2008 PTS, for what it's worth, but yes you're right, it could be solved by a redirect. For perspective, this talk page now has more bytes than the main article. I don't think I'm going to convince you. If there's a consensus to keep the title just at Bulbul, that's fine. I don't want this discussion to generate any ill feelings though. It's an unusual circumstance, so I'm fine either way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guide, yes, but not be guided by them, we should always try to balance content and viewership without having to sacrifice accuracy or quality. As for the whole discussion, I still stand in the opinion that citing Matmo as a meteorological feature that aided on Bulbul's formation is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2022[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul → Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul – As the IMD notes in its TCR on Bulbul that it originated from the remnant of severe Tropical Storm ‘MATMO’ (28th October - 2nd November) over west Pacific Ocean that emerged into north Andaman Sea, the system is, at least officially, one system rather than a pair (from the lede) of tropical cyclones, and the article and its title should reflect that. JavaHurricane 13:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 10 September 2022[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing to prevent further disruption from IP, a blocked sock. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul → Cyclones Mario and Bulbul – Precedent was established at Talk:Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal, and reinforced with Cyclones Gulab and Shaheen, to use the word “and” and not a dash. The previous RM goes directly against that. Since the system denegrated and redeveloped across boundaries, it isn’t quite the same. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the IMD notes in its TCR on Bulbul that it originated from the remnant of severe Tropical Storm ‘MATMO’ (28th October - 2nd November) over west Pacific Ocean that emerged into north Andaman Sea, the system is, at least officially, one system rather than a pair (from the lede) of tropical cyclones, and the article and its title should reflect that. So I disagree with you brother.

Oppose Jupiter50 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What follows are two comments on a second requested move opened while this one was. I've merged them here for closer's consideration. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul → Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul – Because IMD release they are TCR and say bulbul was born form matmo so that are the same system. 103.120.36.167 (talk) , 11 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Support Jupiter50 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, that's the title. And NOT what the RM is discussing. As I (same IP as above) indicated, Bulbul redeveloped off of Matmo, but this doesn't make it the same. This is not Hurricane Cesar–Douglas, which was the same storm that changed lines when it crossed into the Pacific Ocean. This reminds me of Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. There are numerous discussions on that talk page, and the general consensus was that they're should be an "and", because the renmants redeveloped. This is the exact same case here. Please see this discussion from October, and, in addition, another RM from October further contributed to that precedent, as yet again, the remnant low redeveloped. The RM above completely failed to grasp that. --47.16.96.33 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Mario? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose see above move request --🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a somewhat clear example of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. While usually it's bad taste to start an RM so quickly, a precedent established wasn't followed, one that, if this fails, will require an RFC on this precedent.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, it is not "stonewalling". The consensus found in the previous move request was that the two names belonged to the same system, and that consensus is still relevant now. Also, no one is obligated to satisfy you. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING every comment in this discussion. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but so is Amanda and Cristobal. In fact, there were no less then 6 discussions about splitting and trying to get it hyphenated. Also I didn't bludgeon every comment, so lower weight should be added as a result as that isn't true.Now you're getting deceptive. --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I carefully looked at the best track data for all involved storms. This is not like Amanda/Cristobal or Cyclones Katrina and Victor–Cindy, in that in those cases the best track data stops. However, it is like Gulab/Shaheen and Tropical depressions Wilma and BOB 05. This probably won't influence the RM, but will be needed in later discussions about those titles. --47.16.96.33 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 26 October 2022[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Given opposition expressed above, as well as here, there is a consensus against moving at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul → Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul – The main reasoning presented so far for mantaining the current name is that since IMD's report state that Bulbul formed from Matmo's remnants, so they are automatically considered to be the same system, and such assumption is untrue since there are dozens of examples of systems that formed from other's remnants and aren't considered to be the same. So the current article is plain WP:OR, and mislead the readers into beliving someting that is not supported by the RSMCs. ABC paulista (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose

Brother, let me tell you something. If you think your name is ABC paulista and I call you CBA paulista how will you feel then you must be in a lot of trouble. Because I am making fun of your name and also saying that you think my name is Jupiter50 but you are calling me piterju50 then I will suffer a lot. Now let's talk about RSMC IMD. RSMC IMD is my most hated RSMC because they give names to tropical cyclone who already have names. And does not name those who deserve to be named. Jupiter50 (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems me that that's your own personal view on the subject, but since you aren't a third-party highly regarded expert on the subject, your WP:POV has no weight on this, then I think that this argument of yours have no validity without a reliable source backing this up. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista Brother maximum website news and tv use the both name like matmo (bulbul) or matmo-bulbul cyclone matmo-bulbul is the best article name in the article we not use cyclone matmo-bulbul we use severe tropical storm matmo and very severe cyclonic storm bulbul and it's a pair Jupiter50 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these news outlets used such terms to refer to these systems this way at the time it was still active and everyone believed that it was indeed a crossover, but nowadays they fall on WP:OUTDATED. Also, some of them are US-based, or use US-based sources like the JTWC to gather info on the systems (and JTWC still refers them as the same system), but JTWC is an unnoficial agency regarding Tropical Cyclones, so their info should never supercede the official, WMO-endorsed ones. I still hold my view that dashed names should only be used for systems that had 2 official names, and that the current format misleads the reader into believing something that's not true or supported by teh most reliable sources. The inconsistency between the title and the article's contents is also not desirable. ABC paulista (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the two previous RMs above. This is becoming a perennial proposal. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising how you just managed to jump into this discussion to rebutt my comment. Your behaviour reminds me very much of an IP above. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, what can I say, let's see what other users say.Love you ABC paulista Brother and Goodbye 🌀🌀🌀🌀🌀❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ Jupiter50 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Let's take a step back and consider the facts here, as there are a few things that need to be taken into account.
!) The WMO Panel on Tropical Cyclones for the Indian Ocean (Of which the IMD is a member) has decided that any tropical cyclones that move into the Indian Ocean from the Western Pacific below tropical storm strength will be renamed if they become tropical storms again. (Source: Page 21 WMO TCOP for the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea)
2) The JTWC considered Matmo-Bulbul to be one continuous system that weakened over land below tropical depression strength and has never recognised the name Bulbul. (Source: Personal Knowledge/JTWC ATCR 2019)
3) RSMC New Delhi has stated in their TCR that Bulbul formed from the remnants of Matmo and that it formed as an LPA on November 4 over the Andaman Sea as an LPA on November 4, (Source: IMD TCR)
4) RSMC Tokyo has stated in their ATCR that Matmo dissipated on November 1. (Source: JMA ATCR 2019
5) The HKO has stated that Matmo degenerated into an area of low pressure over Indo-China on October 31. (Source: HKO ATCR 2019 pg: 41}
6) The IBTRACS file for Matmo-Bulbul is entitled Bulbul:Matmo, however, my feeling is that they are being neutral here and presenting both names as well as tracks from the JMA, IMD, CMA, HKO and JTWC (Source: IBTRACS).
My inkling here is that Matmo and Bulbul were the same system that just regenerated based on the JTWC idea, however, the majority of the reliable sources that I have just presented do not prove it and show that they were two separate tropical cyclones that are linked just like Karl played a role in the formation of an EPAC system recently.Jason Rees (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Matmo-Bulbul is the best name in my opinion Ariyanalam Khan (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Matmo–Bulbul&oldid=1206473572"