Talk:2005–06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season/Archive 1

Indian Ocean

(This will be crossposted to the Atlantic season talk page, since that's the "parent" article of all of these, and has the most people watching it)

We now have articles for the Atlantic hurricane season; the Pacific hurricane season; the Pacific typhoon season; and the Southern Hemisphere in general. But what about the Indian Ocean? These storms traditionally are the worst killers, and it doesn't fit into any of the above definitions. Perhaps we should have a 2005 Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season article? --Golbez 21:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was feeling kind of lonely over here. :) --Holderca1 00:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Southern hemisphere indian ocean should be part of the southern hemisphere article. Northern hemisphere indian ocean is its own basin (though a small one...and it has a fair bit of crossover with the wpac). Jdorje 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look on what i found at the darwin 3 day outlook page. ----

TROPICAL CYCLONE OUTLOOK
FOR THE AREA BETWEEN LONGITUDES 125 EAST - 142 EAST
Issued by the BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY, DARWIN
at 2:15 pm CST Friday 6 January 2006

A weak low, 1005 hPa, is in the TIMOR SEA near the north coast of Bathurst
Island. The low pressure is expected to move towards the west and further into
the Timor sea.

The potential for development into a Tropical Cyclone over the next
few days is estimated to be:
    
     Saturday: Low,
     Sunday: Moderate,
     Monday: High.

NOTE: Development Potential is an estimate of the probability of tropical
cyclone development for each day... Low = 10% or less, Moderate = 20% - 40%,
High = 50% or more.

DARWIN Regional Forecasting Centre.

Names

Check out what I did with the Coral Sea section. There's no reason to list all of the unused names from last year because 1) We may not get even close to the end of that list, and 2) We might reach the end and cycle around. I see no reason to mention more than one or two (maybe have two "unused" names at the list at all times, adding more as needed, just to give a buffer time). That's how I originally planned the 2004 typhoon article. --Golbez 21:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I trimmed them down quite a bit, the names section is now about half the size. I don't know about taking it down to one name though, I think I would get tired of looking up the names. I trimmed down the sequential list down to about 18 names each, we can probably go further than that even. --Holderca1 21:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I was just concerned that if we had too many, people would think that was the whole list, like the Atlantic/Pacific lists. On the other hand, maybe just one is too few. Maybe a buffer zone of five? Like let's say we were halfway through the season (these names purely hypothetical of course; season started at Charlie):

• Charlie
• Denise
• Edgar
• Faith
• Greg
• Heather (unused)
• Irwin (unused)
• Joseph (unused)

And that would be the whole list, if we used a buffer of three. Then when another formed, we'd bold Heather, and add Karen (unused) to the end. As I said, my Coral Sea bit was an experiment; I think it's safe to say that, for now, this article is somewhat of a sandbox. :) --Golbez 21:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can go for that. I agree, I think I am the only one that looks at this page. Not too many may be even aware of its existence. I am sure there are some Aussies that contribute here that would be able help out quite a bit as far as the localized affects of landfalling storms. --Holderca1 22:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye. When I started the E Pacific season page, it was essentially my project. A few people trickled in, but no one really did much, but we made a 2005 article anyway. Then Adrian happened, and suddenly the EPac was big news, so I was very happy I'd made the article. I had much less success with my 2004 WPac article, and I ended up VfD'ing it. It was too much for one person to handle, and I didn't know what sources of information to use - and it really didn't help that I started work mid-season, so to get archived info I'd have to wade through Unisys's archive of all the tropical cyclone advisories issued every day. But I see a few people have taken on the task for 2005 and are doing a pretty good job of it, much better than I did. So hopefully we can get the same result here, if not this year then perhaps next. We do have the benefit of starting at the start of the season. If a big storm occurs, that will probably bring a lot of needed people to this page, especially Australians. --Golbez 22:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I found several good references in regards to tropical cyclones everywhere really. The first is the Weather Matrix Tropical Summaries, more or less is what I have using for the 2004-05 S. Hemi season page. Also, I just came across these, the Navy's annual tropical cylone reports. Very good info as well. --Holderca1 22:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mauritius AOR

there is no Mauritius AOR

If any country/region is resposible for issing certain international bulletin, it will certainly have an area of responsibility. As Maritius is the Sub-regional Tropical Cyclone Advisory Center, it definitely has an area of responsibility. The AOR of Mauritius, as defined in the Tropical Cyclone Operational Plan for the South-West Indian Ocean, is 55-90E. Momoko 07:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cocos cyclone: RSMC La Reunion warnings?

RSMC La Reunion has released their first warning at 0000UTC, six hours after the final warning from TCWC Perth.

NEAR GALE WARNING FOR METAREA VIII (S)

ISSUED BY METEO-FRANCE/TROPICAL CYCLONE CENTRE/LA REUNION 07/11/2005

AT

0000 UTC.

WARNING NUMBER: 001/04 (SOUTH-WEST INDIAN OCEAN)

PHENOMENON:        TROPICAL DEPRESSION 4 995 HPA

POSITION:          WITHIN 30 NM RADIUS OF POINT 11.8S / 89.5E

MOVEMENT:          WEST-SOUTH-WEST 12 KT


OTHER INFORMATIONS:

SYSTEM HAS RECENTLY CROSSED 90E AND QUIT AUSTRALIAN AREA TO ENTER IN

THE SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS BECOME FAVORABLE AND SYSTEM IS EXPECTED

PROGRESSIVELY INTENSIFYING DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS. 

THEN, ITS QUICKLY SOUTHWESTWARDS TRACK WOULD SHIP IT OVER AREA WITH

COLDER SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UNFAVORABLE FOR INTENSIFICATION.

SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO DISSIPATE WITHIN 60 TO 72 HOURS.

So TD4 is the Australian cyclone? NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 11:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

button bar?

should we be on standby for a button bar in case this season intensifies? By the way, i'm australian. ----

The problem with a button bar is that there will likely be many storms in the South Atlantic with their first letter in common with at least one other storm. While we could make button bars for each individual part of the basin, no more than five to six storms form per basin per year. - Cuivienen 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

JTWC?

Again, why does JTWC take a backseat here. They have 60 years of experience monitoring nothing but tropical cyclones, yet all these lesser RSMCs have taken over. Why? I trust NHC, CPHC, JTWC, JMA, PASAGA, and often the Australians but not always. The New Zelanders are frequently reliable as well. Those are the only forecasters I trust because they have the most experience. The other RSMCs have less experiance and or less equipment to make accurate forecasts. The Indians are really smart, but they don't have the right equipment. They're getting there. The French are ok, they've just made too many obvious mistakes. There was some Category 5 not long ago (I think it was Bento) that they designated a Cat 2 or 3 at peak intensity! They once named a little disturbance a Category 1 hurricane! That's why I'm hesitant to trust them. Nor do I trust Fiji. No offence to them, but Olaf was not a 3, sorry. They have designated all these non-tropical lows, disturbances, and thunderstorm clusters as tropical cyclones that I have lost all trust in them. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reason that some storms are considered to be of one intensity by the JTWC and a different intensity by some other RSMC is because of the definition of sustained winds. The JTWC, NHC, CPHC, US Territories (and presumably most of N. America) use 1-min average. Most other places use a 10-min average. 10-min averages are somewhat lower than the 1-min averages. Since a storm may need 10-min average sustained winds to reach Category X on one scale, but only 1-min average sustained winds on the SSHS, the 10-min average scale's will always have a lower ranking than a 1-min average scale.. Australia ranks its cyclones by the highest gusts, I believe, which is different from sustained winds. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

JTWC is not an official center. Their only responsbility is US Department of Defense. - senorpepr 70.187.27.95 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

templates for storm names

I highly recommend the use of templates - {{tcname unused}} and {{tcname active}} - for controlling the formatting of unused and active storm names. These are already used in the AHS articles, and using them everywhere ensures that the same formatting is in place in all articles. — jdorje (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll make sure these templates are used in this article Yarrah 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RSMC storm numbers in SW Indian Ocean

Officially, RSMC storm numbers in SW Indian Ocean don't have suffix. However, the unofficial tracking charts(an example) drawn by www.tropicalcyclone2005.com added suffix M in last season and 2004-05 season page used this suffix.

This season, www.tropicalcyclone2005.com changed to use suffix R. Should we use suffix M, suffix R or not to use suffix? Momoko

I think suffix R is the most logical one, because it is Reunion's AoR - Yarrah 12:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

R has been the standard practice for Reunion. M was reserved by the UK Met Office for the Mediterranean Sea. - senorpepr 70.187.27.95 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

06-07

What's up with the 2006-07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season article? Some anon keeps changing the names every day. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One of you guys fixed it but the bizarre editing continues. I suggest those of you working on this article add it to your watchlist. We could consider renaming it to Post-2006 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons, like we did with the Atlantic (if there's information to be added about future seasons it should all be done in one article). — jdorje (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I like the post-2006 six article about the atlantic seasons - Yarrah 11:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shall I change that article into the Post-2006 article? If so, anything important I need to know before changing the article? - Yarrah 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you like, go ahead. I'm sure there is some more information that can be added then...likely about names to be used for future years. — jdorje (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done - Yarrah 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My View

I have been thinking, the article is a little messed up in a way. Here are some reasons:

1. As yet, there are no track maps, like the ones seen on the 2005 atlantic hurricane season page.

2. The article does not stand out. I know, the southern hemisphere's season is not like the atlantic in terms of worldwide media attention (the only media attention being local media), but it is still notable. There are no pictures in this whatsoever.

3. I think, there should be a seperate article for the australian season. I think that there is enough cyclones to produce a seperate season article for the australian cyclone season.

Sorry if i was a bit over the top there, but, that is my honest (and polite) oponion on what should be done, and hopefully, make this article to featured article status! M cappeluti

I don't know about a separate Australian page, because if one looks at the globe, there would be the Southern Indian Ocean (between Madagascar and Australia) then Australia (which wouldn't be there) then the Southern Pacific. There would be a massive hole. Also, these storms tend to run between AsOR, unlike the Atlantic, where storms usually stay IN the Atlantic and don't often cross Central America. It would only be more confusing if an Australian article was added. Also, if you can find any pictures available for use under the GFDL, feel free to add them in! -- Sarsaparilla39 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot make track pictures for the southern hemisphere 2004 or 2005 because there is no tracking data available for them. If you can find files containing tracks for the storms, I can easily put together the pictures. Jdorje 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I need text files with the raw data: like what s:Atlantic hurricane best track provides. Jdorje 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Will the Unisys data give you what you need for that Jdorje? This is Larry's. [1] --Nilfanion 15:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can certainly find satellite images at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/gibbs.html, although they may not be as high-quality as you'd like. Here is an example for Clare (I think): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/2006/009/img-2006-01-09-00-mts-1-ir.html. Jdorje 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look through JTWC archives, perhaps? NSLE _(T+C) 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We all thought Glenda could become the next Zoe, but for Monica to be at the same intensity right on top of the Northern Territory of Australia is just wild.Omni ND 10:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Making this Article better

I really wonder what needs to be done to make this article a B or A-class article? Is it just more information, better looks, more pics or something else? I'd like to hear your opinions about this, because I'd love to help make this article higher-rated Yarrah 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't rated any {{current}} articles as higher than start-class, since they are generally very unstable. This article will surely be a B by the end of the season, but it will be hard to make it an A-class article since it is just a list of storms and has no guiding narrative thread. As for things that need to be improved: the intro currently has no useful information. — jdorje (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something could be done about that Southern Hemisphere Cyclone Scale infobox on the top of the article. Maybe it could be divided across the different regions; the Australian Cyclone scale infobox at the beginning of the list of Australian region cyclones along with a short intro about Australian cyclone seasons (for example: a few lines about the forecasts the BoM makes at the beginning of a new cyclone season). And a hurricane infobox, like the one on top of the 2004 Antlantic Hurricane season, would be nice too, because it would give a short recap about the cyclone season Yarrah 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm images

There's a really nice satellite image of tropical cyclone Kate (Image:Kate (23 February 2006).jpg). But since Kate was a really small storm, I'd like to know if you think it's a good idea to put an image of her in the article. - Yarrah 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Improvement of article

I believe there is a lot more info on these Southern Hemisphere storms than what people may think. And I bet that this article can really be turned around. My hope is that this basin's articles (and the other basins) will look like the 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles. And if we get enough info for each area of responsibility, we may be able to brake ub the article into the areas of responsibilities.

• I believe that we can make track maps for the storms. And if there is best track data, we can just update it when it comes out
• I also believe that if the articles are broken up, then you could make button bars for each basin.
• There should also be those templates you put around each storm on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms article. Without them in other places, it is very hard for me to find data with ease.
• It would be nice if there were images for every storm.

I will add more things if I think of ones. Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the kind of data you need to make track maps? - Yarrah 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the best bet is likely to be this. But there's so much data there I don't know where to begin. Plus it only goes through the 03-04 season. — jdorje (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Start as recently as possible, then go backwards. It would look odd to non-user people on Wikipedia if the earlier seasons were better than the more recent ones. Plus, you can do the one for this season because with the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article, you just updated them when the TCR came out. I'm sure you could do something similar. Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, only Australia's BoM issues TCR's about landfalling cyclones, so there is very little data available from cyclones that never made landfall. - Yarrah 11:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you just have to use what you have; if they only do TCRs for landfalling ones, making tracking maps for them. Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming conflicts in SW Indian Ocean

We saw two naming conflicts in SW Indian Ocean in this season, 12S and Diwa. I found an interesting document cocerning such conflicts between Reunion and Mauritius. [2]

In that year, I was quite surprised that RSMC issued an advisory on an unnamed severe tropical storm. As far as I remember, the same thing did happen a few times in Northwest Pacific when JTWC was responsible to name TC and RSMC issued seperate advisory. The problem was solved when RSMC Tokyo/Japan Meteorological Agency started to name TCs in 2000. Should the same thing be done in SW Indian Ocean?

Split the article up?

I think we would do a better service to tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere if we split this article up. This article is trying to do way too much, imagine an article on the "2005 Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season". Also the "Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season" doesn't even exist. Judging from the WMO operational plans; there are two regions - the "SW Indian Ocean" and the "S Pacific and SE Indian Ocean". I think splitting this article into its components would improve this topic greatly (my philosophy from the 2005 Atlantic carries over). My proposal is we split this into "2005-06 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season", "2005-06 Australian cyclone season" and "2005-06 South Pacific hurricane season". What do people think? --Nilfanion 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you - although the South Pacific and Australia overlap. CrazyC83 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree there is a significant overlap there but in terms of number of storms they can each stand up on their own and there is the side benefit of all Australian scale storms are together with only Australian scaled storms. I would say with cross regional storms use a mention in each season, with the main discussion going in the significant region, like with basin crossers in the north. Also note that the article itself says these 3 basins. --Nilfanion 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. This article is can't accomodate three basins without growing very large and becoming hard to navigate. —BazookaJoe 23:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, agree, agree! This aricle is very hard to navigate. It would make this page easier to naviagate! M cappeluti 08:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3 separate pages might be a little much. What about splitting into two- Southwest Indian and South Pacific/Australia? Hurricanehink 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we split the SW Indian off, it is a seperate season from the SE Indian and S Pacific. Then if we think a further spilt is useful we can implement that at a later date. --Nilfanion 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, simply because for the SW Indian and S Pacific (non-Australian TCWC area) Oceans, there just isn't enough information on storms (rare landfalls, if there ever are any, so no damage figures). You're just going to end up with a short article describing the dates the season runs, the table of strength categories, and short two-liners on each storm. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:57 UTC (2006-04-24)

Um, the SW Indian section here has something much larger than "short two-liners" it has a mature section, comparable to the East Pacific (in quiet seasons). And there is no such thing as the "2005-06 Southern hemisphere tropical cyclone season".--Nilfanion 11:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If we do split this article up (which I hope we will), do think that on each new page, we could have a map of the area of responsibility? I think that would help a lot of people know where exactly they're looking. Would do you guys think of it? Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a map for Brisbane's area of responsibility;

File:Brisbanecyconemap.jpg

Brisbane

Or we could get a map of the whole world and shade in the article's are of responsibility. This could go on all seasons around the world. Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The modification of the WMO map (the world one) and adapting it to all basins to show the area covered seems a good idea. (If WMO uses an unfavorable copyright we can make our own). --Nilfanion 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Allseasons.jpg

Okay, how about these divisions, using 2007 as an example:

• 2007 North Atlantic hurricane season
• 2007 Northeast Pacific hurricane season (Northeast and North-Central)
• 2007 Northwest Pacific typhoon season
• 2007 North Indian cyclone season
• 2007-08 South Pacific cyclone season (Nadi and Wellington)
• 2007-08 Australian cyclone season (Perth, Darwin, Port Moresby and Brisbane)
• 2007-08 South Indian cyclone season (Reunion)

Obviously there will be some crossing over between the South Pacific and Australian areas (and less but some between the Australian and South Indian), but not so much as to be unmanageable, and only somewhat more than between the Northeast and Northwest Pacific. Does this plan sound good? —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:34 UTC

I think those divisions are fair, just on naming; we retain the existing naming for N hemisphere seasons, and the S Pacific is a hurricane season [3]. --Nilfanion 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That works well Cuivienen. Come to think of it, there's no harm in splitting it into three. That could work well back to 2000, but only then for now. More content would have to be added if it were to go any further, because anything before 2002 is pretty low in content, mainly because much of it was done by one person (Storm05). Hurricanehink 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is one thing here; what do we rename the Northern Hemisphere Pacific hurricane seasons to? We cannot call them the "Pacific hurricane seasons", how about N Pacific? --Nilfanion 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pacific hurricane season" is the correct name for the NE Pacific. Nothing in the south pacific could be called a hurricane, so there is no "Pacific hurricane season" in the south. — jdorje (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jdorje you are wrong there, see the NOAA FAQ. TCs E of 160E are hurricanes in the South. --Nilfanion 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but hurricanes are very rare. A denotion could be made that storms exceeding 74 mph east of 160º East are called hurricanes, but still be in the 2007-2008 Cyclone Season. Hurricanehink 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm missing the point aren't I. "2005 Pacific hurricane season" is still unambiguous, even if 10 hurricanes form in the south in 2005, as they are part of the 2005-06 season. Still its probably best to call the S Pacific season a hurricane season.--Nilfanion 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But half the area is in cyclone territory, and majority of the storms are cyclones, not hurricanes. Hurricanehink 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is it about the S Hemisphere seasons and WP violence (check Larry and Monica). Hink, check the map, if we are doing the 3-way split the border is the one between the Aussie AoRs and the Nadi/Wellington ones. That line is 160°E, so all storms in the S Pacific as we will create it are in a hurricane region. If we do a 2-way I agree with what you said. On how we handle the crossovers, how do we treat dateline crossers?--Nilfanion 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I was looking at 160º East. In that case, it should be called a hurricane season. However, you should first find evidence that an official warning agency called them hurricanes down there, just to make sure. Everything I've read called them cyclones. Hurricanehink 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really confused now actually. The evidence I found on the WMO site [4], shows that RSMC Nadi called these storms Tropical Cyclones (not Severe TCs as they would be if they passed into the Australian AoR) in its official report. However on page 7 of the document (8 of the pdf) in section 4.10, it says "Ami, Erica and Eseta were all hurricanes...". That is really unclear, direct contact seems the only option. --Nilfanion 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the JTWC (which is unofficial for the area) called a tropical cyclone with 74 mph winds a tropical cyclone, as seen in this TCR. Hurricanehink 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Indent reset) It is totally unclear. The countries of the region reported on hurricanes (NZ and American Samoa), Tropical Cyclones mostly and even typhoon by Niue. I say what we should do is call it a cyclone for now, and contact the relevant organisations (the WMO and Fijian weather services) to see what they actually are.--Nilfanion 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the Fiji Meteorological Service site, it looks like they do not consider them hurricanes (and so the NOAA site is out of date). My best guess is they are NOT hurricanes, but we should try and find out. I have a feeling that historically they were hurricanes, but they went to TCs to stop confusion. That means clarification of when the change was made is important, and whether it was retroactive, in case we get information on a storm there in the 80s say.--Nilfanion 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. I think it is more likely that no one ever thought that there might be a reason to have a distinction between a "hurricane" a "typhoon" and a "cyclone" in the South Pacific, so they use the terms interchangeably. Also, related to the far above, I would rather rename seasons to be more specific in location: "North Atlantic" tells an uninformed reader immediately that South Atlantic storms will not be mentioned, and "Northeast" and "Northwest" Pacific disntinguishes basins before the reader learns form the articles that typhoons are northwest-only and hurricanes are northeast-only. That, however, is a debate for a different time. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 @ 03:57 UTC

In the operation plan, Fiji did quote an advisory calling a storm "Hurricane Zena".

TROPICAL DISTURBANCE ADVISORY NO B3 ISSUED BY RSMC NADI AT 290745 UTC JANUARY 1986. HURRICANE ZENA CENTRED WITHIN 60 NAUTICAL MILES OF 11S 162E AT 290600 UTC. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WIND SPEED ABOUT 65 KNOTS. ANALYSIS BASED ON PERIPHERAL SURFACE OBSERVATIONS AND INTENSITY ESTIMATED USING DVORAK TECHNIQUE. CONFIDENCE IN POSITION OF CENTRE FAIR BASED ON CLEAR EYE VISIBLE IN SATPIX. SYSTEM EXPECTED TO MOVE SOUTHEAST AT 12 KNOTS AT FIRST BUT ACCELERATING TEMPORARILY LATER TO ABOUT 17 KNOTS AFTER 12 HOURS. APPEARS TO BE STEERED LARGELY BY NORTHWESTERLY STEERING FIELD ABOVE SYSTEM. VERTICAL SHEAR ABOVE SYSTEM EXPECTED TO INCREASE SLOWLY AND FURTHER INTENSIFICATION UNLIKELY. THE NEXT ADVISORY ON THIS DISTURBANCE WILL BE ISSUED AT 291945 UTC.

However, it was issued 20 years ago. Nowadays, I can only see Fiji issuing "a hurricane warning" and calling the storm "a tropical cyclone". I think the term "hurricane" was used in the past, but not now. Momoko

Also, the term "Severe TC" is not used in Fiji operationally, but it is used in the Global Summary.[5][6] I think this is possibly because the operation plan requests Brisbane, Darwin and Perth TCWCs to prepare the Regional Tropical Cyclone Summary and the term Severe TC is used by the three TCWCs. Momoko

So are we gonna split the article up? Should I do it, or wait for someone else to do it, or don't do it at all? Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 11:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to split this article up. So go ahead. I just don't know if the others agree with me. -- Yarrah 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, there is no such thing as "Southern Hemisphere cyclone season". The categories suggested by Cuivienen are very good. Why hasn't the page been split yet?? By the way, is there anybody here who significantly contributes to Southern Hemisphere cyclones????? RaNdOm26 05:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing '2005-06 storm names' section

How about removing the '2005-06 storm names' section from this article, like it was done in the 2004-05 article? It is not needed and would make the article a bit more surveyable, since it is probably not going to be split up. -- Yarrah 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, since I removed the storm names from the 04-05 page, I will go ahead and remove them from this one as well. --Holderca1 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)