Talk:Tropical cyclones in Bangladesh

Todo
Finish it. Hurricanehink 21:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this article is misnamed. It should be List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones, like List of New Jersey hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, true. Given that no one has probably seen it and how little is actually here, I didn't bother doing anything. Should we just delete it? It could be potentially a good article, but it overlaps with the storm articles too much, in my opinion. One could just explain why Bangladesh was so vulnerable in the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone article. Hurricanehink 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is irrelevant, or misnamed. Cyclones are a big issue in Bangladesh, and this article is supposed to be one on that. I haven't been able to expand this, but the article in my opinion should have the following structure: causes, effects, notable storms, preparedness. The preparedness issue is missing, but quite significant. You might notice that the number of deaths in the 1991 storm was one-fourth of that of the 1970 storm, despite increased population in coastal areas. Better preparedness, storm shelters, communications, etc. are various issuses that contributed. So, those issues need to be discussed here. A List article is not a bad idea, but that's only a list ... not the cause-effect-prevention discussion. We can have both. I'd like to emphasize that, like Transport in Bangladesh, Economy of Bangladesh and so on, this article is part of a series of Bangladesh related articles, rather than just a list.

The other thing is, most of the storm related articles are a bit technical in the discussion. Lay people, who are not climentologists, or are looking into the main Bangladesh page to learn about the disasters, need something to give them an overview. *This* is exactly that, an overview without the jargon. Thanks. --Ragib 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good points. I still think that this should be on the list of page. Other areas have list of articles, like California and New Jersey, and they explain tropical cyclones affecting the area. California and New Jersey emphasize on the rareness of the areas, while this could explain how they are as destructive as they area. Provided this is done as you explained, it should be kept, but be sure that someone expands it eventually. Hurricanehink 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be deleted, nor do I think its misnamed. Other articles on previous cyclones dicuss death tolls, dates and efforts - this article should be discussing why Bangladesh is vulnerable to cyclones, where its most vulnerable and how this has hampered development.

"Bangladesh is historically vulnerable to typhoons, tornadoes and cyclones due to its physical location. Being only a few feet above sea level, the low elevation allows for storms to travel far inland into its most populated areas on the coast of the Bay of Bengal. The areas near Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar are the most high risk areas, with a fatality rate of 70%." -- Jenn, 27 Nov 2006

Merge?
Do we need this article and List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones. I think this is the less useful of the two articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've personally thought that all along. There's no need for both. Make it like California or New Jersey, which have the climatology along with details specific to the area. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)