# Talk:2002 Oman cyclone

It says ARB01A at the top and I know it says it in the report. I think someone confused the numbering with JTWC's. Keep in mind that before cyclones were named in this basin, IMD used a very confusing numbering scheme that all the other members of the panel were unhappy with. This section was included in both the 1999 and 2004 Operational Plans, and I assume that it was unchanged throughout:

As soon as wind speed in a cyclonic disturbance attains a 34 kt threshold value it will be given an identification number by RSMC - tropical cyclones New Delhi. The identification system will cover both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. They will be serially numbered 
each year starting from storm No.1 and ending the series at the end of the year. For quick identification in messages handled by the GTS, a simple code will be used. For cyclonic disturbances of this category in the Bay of Bengal the identification code will be BOB and for those in the Arabian Sea it will be ARB. These codes will be followed by a year identification and a serial number identification number (in two digits each). For example, the first cyclonic disturbance attaining the 34 kt threshold value in 1985 in the Bay of Bengal will be identified as BOB 8501 and that in the Arabian Sea will be identified as ARB 8501. This will be followed by a month and date identification number (again in two digits each), for example, the fourth cyclonic disturbance satisfying the definition in the Bay of Bengal on 14 October 1985 will be identified as BOB 8504 1014.

Figuring out the last four digits will be maddening, but I think it is okay to simply leave out everything but the basin and the number that identifies the sequence. I'm not sure that telling people that BOB 8504 1014 is coming their way was the most effective way to get warnings out.Potapych (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. However, I have a hard time believing that the WMO would confuse it with the JTWC, given that agency is never mentioned, and the IMD is mentioned a few times. Additionally, how do we know the IMD did not retroactively naming previous storms with the newer system of naming? Until I see another source that confirms a naming such as ARB 0201 0506, I don't see why ARB01A should not be in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Oman cyclone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Well done, as always. A little short, but it's well-written, well-referenced, the whole lot. It clearly passes. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)