Talk:Cyclone Montha

Feedback

I'm not really experienced with cyclones and hurricanes, but I saw another similarly-named article, Cyclone Monica, whose lead summarizes key events, reactions and records of the cyclone. It might help give you some ideas - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw the lead. Good job! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cyclone Montha

• ... that 680 drones were deployed as part of rescue efforts after Cyclone Montha (pictured)?

• Source: https://archive.ph/AA1ZZ (about the drones) and https://archive.ph/nB7wA ("Notably, 680 drones were deployed for real-time flood monitoring and coordination.")

• • Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by HurricaneZeta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Z E T A³ 19:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @HurricaneZeta: Article looks good, but it needs categories. Other than that, the image probably isn't necessary but good nontheless. Good job on this article and I'll approve when categories have been added. TheBritinator (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saw you added them. Thanks for fixing that up. TheBritinator (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's SYNTH to take one source that says that 680 drones were deployed for real-time flood monitoring and coordination and another that says that The State government officials used drones extensively to carry out relief and rescue operations following Cyclone Montha. The drones helped officials in rescuing stranded people and livestock swept away by the floodwaters. and put them together. "Coordination" is such a vague term, and flood monitoring is such a different task entirely, that it's plausible that there were separate drone deployments. (In fact, the source with the 680 then goes on to mention a bunch of other assets and people involved in rescue and rehabilitation, but doesn't include the drones.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron What about just removing the number from the hook? Didn't realize that it was worded like that in the other source. HurricaneZeta^C 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta: I think that would work! would you be willing to write the new hook and rephrase the article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done and ALT2: ...that drones were deployed as part of rescue efforts after Cyclone Montha? (same source) HurricaneZeta^C 20:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

gtg :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge avalanche article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merge the article for now. (non-admin closure) Accordthemusician (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

---

I don't want to start a formal merge proposal yet, but there is some precedent to having a cyclone article containing the avalanche - 1995 India cyclone. Unforunately, I kind of set that precedent, as there was a separate article for the 1995 Gokyo avalanche until after I published the cyclone article. Still, I think these events are better to be linked to what caused the disaster, unless there's sufficient information to split it out. Just some thoughts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to merging, but the avalanche was only tangentially related, and it had already been published when I moved this article to mainspace. Z E T A³ 19:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The exact same thing happened with the 1995 India cyclone. It seems that the storm produced the rainfall that led to the avalanche, right? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it does feel weird merging it which would make the avalanche section larger than the rest of the impacts section. Z E T A³ 16:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I do think all of the information could fit, and if formatted the same way as the 1995 cyclone, I think it would fit in well. I suggest withdrawing the GAN. Due to post-season analyses, generally it's a good idea to wait to nominate anything for GAN until the RSMC report comes out, which should be in a few months. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you withdraw it completely? I can withdraw it from the review circle and it probably won't get picked up for a few months. Z E T A³ 17:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You can just remove the GAN template at the top of the page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I withdrew it. Z E T A³ 19:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Furthermore it is still ongoing, the recovery of the bodies of those buried under the avalanche is still pending.Dorian88A (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)