Talk:2006–07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Outlooks for Australia

For those who are interested, particularly those from Western Australia (IF THERE ARE ANY!), here is the first season outlook for northwest Australia. Hmmm, interesting forecast!!! RaNdOm26 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here's also the outlook for the Northern Territory too! RaNdOm26 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And, here's the outlook for Queensland. RaNdOm26 10:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles

Should we make separate articles for each area of responsibility before the season really gets a lot of storms? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think this is needed. Another potential problem is the extremely high number of area-of-responsibility crosses (within Australia, as well as Fiji -> Wellington (or vice versa), and Perth -> Réunion). Given this year's outlooks aren't very high, it may be okay. – Chacor 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, have we even decided where they would be split? I seem to remember splitting it into three; west of 90º E (SW Indian), 90º E to somewhere (Australia), and east of that somewhere. Sure, there'll be cross-overs, but I can't think of another way. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Réunion is Indian Ocean east to 90°E, Australia is 90°E to 160°E (but TCWC Port Moresby have a small area within this), Fiji is 160°E to 120°W south to 25°S, Wellington is 160°E to 120°W south of 25°S. – Chacor 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So what if we do one for Réunion, one for Australia, and one for Fiji and Wellington? Sure, there'll be some overlappage, but that probably is the best solution for older, more active seasons. So, yea, I think we should make separate articles for the three areas before the season starts getting active. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Split the article to the three areas. How are you gonna name them? Should it be 2006-07 Southwest Indian tropical cyclone season, 2006-07 Australian tropical cyclone season and 2006-07 South Pacific tropical cyclone season. RaNdOm26 06:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Australian" should be more like "Australian Region" because some TCWC Perth storms don't affect Australia, as well as the TCWC Port Moresby area. – Chacor 10:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And IMO we should give this a try with the older seasons first. Split the older years up where possible, fix all links, and see whether the idea is actually practical rather than just seeming a good idea, as it may turn out to be more difficult to handle. – Chacor 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Current storm info standard

Section split off from the Tropical Cyclone Xavier section.

Has it intensified at least 2.5 mb per hour for at least 12 hours? Tennis expert 03:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The term used by RSMC Nadi here was "explosively developing". One shouldn't rely on the exact definition of the term, as it is used liberally. – Chacor 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you include a link to the definition? Tennis expert 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the idea of rapid deepening is there. – Chacor 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Tennis expert 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The idea of rapid deepening is there. A link to describe "explosive development" is helpful here. – Chacor 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exact term used by RSMC Nadi is "explosively developing"; JTWC says "rapid intensification trend". – Chacor 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the exact term Fiji is using is "explosive development." Clearly, Fiji is not using that term in the same way that it's been defined in the article to which you linked. Your link erroneously and needlessly implies otherwise. Tennis expert 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rapid intensification does not have to adhere strictly to the definition given in the article. --Coredesat 04:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about "rapid intensification." We're talking about "explosive development," as that term is used by Fiji. The system has not undergone "explosive development" as that term is described in the Wikipedia article. Clearly, Fiji does not define "explosive development" in the same way the article does. Yet, Chacor insists on linking to that article without explanation, which needless and erroneously implies that the system has undergone "explosive development" as the article describes. Tennis expert 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not argue over such a small matter. →Cyclone1→ 14:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

When a tropical cyclone warning center says that there are "indications of a developing eye," is it accurate to say in this article that an eye was actually seen? I believe that statement is an unwarranted assumption. If the warnings issued by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) are unofficial and, therefore, unreliable (as Chacor claims), then why are those warnings mentioned in this article at all? They shouldn't be. I tried to clean up the first item to more accurately reflect what Fiji said. I also tried to add the JTWC's latest information. But Chacor deleted or reverted both. The bottom line effect is that Xavier is described here in more sensationalized terms than is warranted by what Fiji and JTWC actually said. More troubling is that Chacor wants some of JTWC's information to be presented in this article but not all of it. What are the standards for deciding which information is presentable and which is not? Tennis expert 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually bothered to study and learn our standards it would help. JTWC info is unofficial and provided as additional information in the current info paragraph. As for the eye, the Australian BOM mentioned an evident eye in their Solomon Islands advisory[1]. – Chacor 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find those standards? How do you decide which JTWC information should be noted here and which should not? Are the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's Solomon Islands Advisories "official" concerning Xavier given its current location? If not, wouldn't they be just as unreliable as JTWC's? Tennis expert 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

JTWC unreliable because they only issue two advisories a day while Fiji issues every six hours? -- グリフオーザー 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then if we had a situation where JTWC and Fiji had issued an advisory at the same time or where JTWC's advisory was more recent than Fiji's, wouldn't JTWC's advisory be at least as reliable as Fiji's? I'm sorry, but I don't see a connection between "official" or "unofficial" and "reliable" or "unreliable." Tennis expert 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you once again deleted part of an edit that reflected information provided by the JTWC. Your reasoning was "JTWC uses a different measurement standard. their version of events re strengthening is not official; neither is it current." What do you mean by "different measurement standard"? Do they use a different measurement standard when explaining why a tropical cyclone has been slow to strengthen? If so, is their standard inferior to the one used by Fiji? And finally, if JTWC's advisory is later in time than Fiji's, why wouldn't JTWC's be "current"? Tennis expert 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the timestamp, we use the 0000/0600/1200/etc timestamp for all the basins. We do not (nor have we ever) use the actual issuance time (for instance, if an 11 a.m. EDT advisory for an Atlantic storm is released at 10:34 a.m., we don't say "1434 UTC"). JTWC advisories come out on a different schedule from RSMC Nadi's advisories, so they're usually not current unless they change the schedule. As for standards, JTWC uses the US 1-minute average for its wind estimates, which is usually different from the 10-minute average used by non-American RSMCs. Since the estimates are different, their reasoning will likely also be different, and it's unofficial anyways. --Coredesat 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the wind reporting standard relevant to whether the strengthening of a tropical cyclone is being impeded by an anticyclone to its northwest? My edit to include JTWC's reasoning about this was deleted by Chacor purportedly because of a "different measurement standard." I do not understand the connection between whether a 10 minute or 1 minute wind speed is used -and- how a tropical cyclone's strengthening is being impeded. Tennis expert 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'll ask you the same question that I asked earlier and that went unanswered. If some of JTWC's information is not worth adding to the article because it is "unofficial," why is any of JTWC's information worthy of being included in the article? How should editors determine which of JTWC's information is worthy and which is not? Tennis expert 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worthy of inclusion because the JTWC provides NOAA-compatible data that, while not official, is useful if for some reason the official data is or becomes missing (for instance, in the North Indian basin, where JTWC advises on several cyclones a year that IMD doesn't pick up on). It also provides a 1-minute standard, since converting all the speeds from 10-min to 1-min averages ourselves could be considered OR by some. --Coredesat 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, which of JTWC's data is worthy of inclusion? Because of earlier edits, JTWC's opinion about why a tropical cyclone is not strengthening rapidly is not worthy of inclusion. On the other hand, JTWC's latitude and longitude fixes and wind estimates are worthy of inclusion. Because of the lack of objective standards presented here, I am struggling with determining which data is worthy and which data is not worthy. Tennis expert 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We generally include the JTWC's proximity and movement information, and the 1-minute average sustained winds if a RSMC (like Nadi) is issuing advisories. If no RSMC advisory is available, we also include their latitude and longitude position (from the JTWC advisory), and pressure as reported on the Naval Research Laboratory website. --Coredesat 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific typhoon season example. – Chacor 10:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this standard needs to be revised because, based on what I have been told so far, the standard is illogical and arbitrary. The only reasoning provided so far for not including all the information provided by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) is as follows: (1) it is unreliable; (2) it is unofficial; and (3) we just don't do it. If JTWC information is unreliable, then NONE of its information should be posted in a Wikipedia article. That is the unavoidable logical result unless we know that some types of JTWC information are historically unreliable, i.e., faulty, and other types of JTWC information are historically reliable. If only official information is includable in a Wikipedia article, then NONE of JTWC's information should be posted. That, again, is the unavoidable logical result. If the real reason for the current standard is "that's just the way we've always done it," then we need to explore improving the standard. It is my strong opinion that if JTWC's information has not been found to be historically unreliable and if we are unwilling to exclude all JTWC information because it is unofficial, then the standard should be revised so that all of JTWC's information is postable in a Wikipedia article. Tennis expert 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you said the following in reverting a reasonable edit I made: "that is not our standard. perhaps you should learn it before making drastic changes to it. likewise removing lat/lon from JTWC reading (standard is to use just JTWC dis." You did not answer my earlier question about where I can find these standards. Yet, you continue to publicly criticize me for not knowing them. Please tell me how I can learn the standards if I can't find them anywhere on my own and you are unwilling to tell me where I can find them. Tennis expert 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument? If they said Xavier explosively intensified, at least mention who said it did and link the article that says so. Jake52 My talk 13:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the RSMC Nadi advisory that said it was explosively intensifying. If you look through the advisory archive, Xavier clearly meets the definition of rapid deepening and explosive intensification, dropping in pressure from 995 to 935 hPa in 24 hours (a rate of 2.5 hPa per hour, exactly as stated in the article). --Coredesat 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But at the time the "explosive deeping" language was first posted in the article, Xavier clearly had not undergone rapid deepening, much less explosive development, as either of those terms are defined in the Wikipedia article. That was the point I tried to make several times and the reason that I wanted to add the language about Fiji calling it "explosive development" instead of implying in the article that Xavier had undergone explosive development under the criteria set forth in the Wikipedia article. This was a substantive difference, not a mere disagreement about style or standards, whatever they may be. Tennis expert 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Category numbers in infoboxes

May I ask how do you justify what are the category numbers for these cyclones. How did you get Xavier to be a Cat. 4, and Yani to be a Cat. 1? The Fiji Meteorological Service does not use 1-min wind speeds for measuring cyclones, it uses 10-min. You can't just simply convert 10-min speeds to 1-min speeds, because its original research, I think. RaNdOm26 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the JTWC category, which is what we usually put there because that part of the infobox doesn't work well with 10-min speeds at the moment. --Coredesat 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the JTWC category, yes. Same thing occurs with infoboxes at the typhoon season. When we add on to the current infobox to add capability to support SHem storms it'll be changed. – Chacor 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't we think we should begin changing the infobox then to accommodate with the specific categories for Fiji, Australian and Reunion centres? RaNdOm26 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that, many templates will need to be changed. I'm working on it in my sandbox. – Chacor 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Southern Hemisphere" should not be capitalized

I edited this article to make "southern hemisphere" lower case, which is consistent with everyday usage and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. User:Chacor reverted my edits. I added the edits back. Chacor then reverted my edits a second time. I was then ordered by User:Coredesat not to make the edit again without talking about it here first. But the first time I tried to talk about it here, my post was deleted by Chacor as "irrelevant trolling." So, here I am again with a revised post that hopefully constitutes neither irrelevancy nor trolling. It is clear to me that "Southern Hemisphere" in this article needs to be changed to "southern hemisphere." By the way, the main Tropical Cyclone article inconsistently uses both cases. Tennis expert 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't order you to do anything. Secondly, we've capitalized it for a while, so it's a better idea to at least bring it up here first before going off and making changes that people may not agree with. I had a discussion with several people on this subject, and I was told that both the capitalized and decapitalized forms are acceptable depending on the context. I also did searches for various style guides, and when referring to it as a basin or region, it should be capitalized. Since we're referring to the region on Earth and not a general southern hemisphere (any spherical or near-spherical object can have a southern hemisphere), it should be capitalized here. --Coredesat 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is exactly what you said, "Don't change it without discussing it first." Maybe there's an implied "please" that I was clueless about. If so, I apologize. Anyway, could you please cite the source for capitalizing "southern hemisphere" when using the term to refer to a basin or region or when referring to the Earth's "southern hemisphere"? I'd like to read up on this. Thanks. Tennis expert 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I wanted to refer to your leg (as opposed to a generic human being's leg), should I say "Coredesat's Leg" or "Coredesat's leg"? I'm wondering where this capitalization principle should end. Tennis expert 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A leg isn't a region of the world, and wouldn't be a proper noun in any case. You can't really compare the two. --Coredesat 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No separate basin pages?

Is there any reason why you don't give the three separate basins (SW Indian, SE Indian and Australian region, and the SW Pacific) separate pages as you do for the northern hemipshere basins? Apart from the central north Pacific however which seems to be in the NE Pacific page. It looks rather odd to be honest. P.K. 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. its a large area and is lumped together as one seems a bit strange AussieMark 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times, though no clear plan has ever been formulated. Supposedly we were going to use 1999-00 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season as a testbed, but that didn't happen. --Coredesat 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think that will be a project I will attempt before the new year (if I ever get 1999PTS done)...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of headings

The heading for Isobel is unequal with the heading for the other cyclones (eg. Clovis). The headings should be modified to the same level of heading for all cyclones. In my opinion, the heading "Australia" should be removed (also, that basin also includes parts of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, so the heading isn't completely true). RaNdOm26 10:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinda difficult due to the different naming schemes within the South-East Indian Ocean and South Pacific, and how storms cross over so easily. The best way to solve this would be to split the article up, but that's not a real priority at the moment (and is best tried with an older season [see above - 1999-2000 has been suggested] before making such a move with an active season that is also linked on the TC portal, and the current events portal, and elsewhere). I really can't think of any other solution to this, but I don't think removing the Australia header would be a good idea (for now). – Chacor 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but what was wrong with last season's format? QazPlm 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the format for that article. I don't see why Isobel has to be in a smaller heading than the rest. RaNdOm26 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it based on 1999-00 Australian region tropical cyclone season, it should be better now. – Chacor 08:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

summuary boxes

i have added a summuary box for clovis. ihave found an image for it and uploaded it to wikipedia commons but could not get it to add to the summury box if someone could add it i would be gratefull Link to clovis picture -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clovis.JPG Jason Rees 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I Can understand the fact we are not doing summuary boxes for disturbances but we should do them for tropical depresions as we are on other pages including Wpac & Epac Thoughts???Jason Rees 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Be carefull

When writing the article at the minute to make sure you know which storm you are talking about as i noticed earlier that soem infomation on Arthur was incorrecty named Zita Jason Rees 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur/Zitas cat

Before i made the change to the articale Arthur was listed as Cat 1 where as Zita was a Tropical storm where they both had exactly the same wind speed (10 Mi. I Checked 60 MPH against the equivlent on the SSHS and it said it should be a Tropical storm Any Probs with this please leave a note here Thank You Jason Rees 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Those categories use JTWC advisories.

1. TROPICAL CYCLONE 09P (ARTHUR) WARNING NR 002
   01 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONE IN SOUTHPAC
   MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
    ---
   WARNING POSITION:
   250000Z --- NEAR 15.7S 160.7W
     MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 105 DEGREES AT 23 KTS
     POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 040 NM
     POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
   PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
   MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 065 KT, GUSTS 080 KT

Reverting... – Chacor 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ok thats fine but im just going to bump Arthurs max wind speeds up too 65 KT then Jason Rees 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we only list 10-minute max winds. There is work in progress that will show more than one categorisation in the infobox. But until such time that is completed, this is what we'll do. – Chacor 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerical designators for named storms in SW Indian/SE Pacific

I've removed the number designators from the section headings for named storms in the Southwest Indian and Southeast Pacific basins. I'm doing this because they are essentially redundant - we generally only refer to storms by their numbers if they're not named, and the RSMCs . In other basins, we do not refer to, say, Hurricane Katrina as "Hurricane Katrina (AL122005)" (or 12L) in its section heading. JTWC storms can just have "JTWC" in their section names (like, say, "JTWC Tropical Cyclone 50P", or something like that), as is the case in the Western Pacific season articles. --Coredesat 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isobel declassification

I contacted the BoM about what would happen should another tropical cyclone have to be named, since Isobel was determined never to have been one. The reply stated that Isobel will not be used again (after all, it was already used operationally) - the next cyclone will be named Jacob. --Coredesat 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's normal. Any post-analysis should not affect the naming of a tropical system. BoM will just treat Isobel as a tropical low (without name), just like what they did for Ken. Actually, the heading "Tropical Low Isobel" is somehow not consistent with the BoM nomenclature. Tropical Low is either follwed by ex-[name] or not follwed by name. As that system was not considered as tropical cyclone Isobel for its entire life in post-analysis, it doesn't make much sense to call it ex-Isobel. It is very likely that BoM will simply call it a tropical low (without name) rather than Isobel or ex-Isobel, just like what happened to Ken.Momoko 12:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem here is that if the name is simply left out, readers will be confused over why the name is being shown as used on the list. We did this for an Atlantic storm that was downgraded in post-analysis (granted, that heading used to be "Tropical Depression Kendra", not sure why it says "Cyclone Kendra"), so I simply applied that solution here. --Coredesat 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kendra was changed to Cyclone Kendra because it was not tropical; thus calling it Tropical Depression was incorrect. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Still, Isobel was named operationally, so it might still be a good idea to leave it as is. --Coredesat 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

George

Radio reports 10:00 perth time (utc+9) that Geogre was category 4 borderline 5 that there has been 3 casualties source Gnangarra 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Geogre? ;) – Chacor 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BOM just created a cyclone report on George, though there's not much info in it right now. Have to wait until "post-analysis" if George indeed reach Cat 5. RaNdOm26 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I'm not sure how this works, so better to ask before doing anything. Given that there are two different cyclone category scales, it seems that even though we're using the Australian categories in the write-ups (ie: George being a category 4) the category in the infobox for each cyclone is referencing the other scale (ie: George is listed as a 3 there.) Shouldn't all the Australian cyclones be listed with their Australian categories in the infoboxes? I recall seeing an earlier cyclone season listing both intensity levels for each cyclone. Orichalcon 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't remember an earlier cyclone season using both intensity categories. Which one is it? I also do agree that there should be an Australian category listed in each infoboxes, rather than just written in words. RaNdOm26 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember which article. It might've been an edit that was later removed for some reason. I just want to know if there's a consensus on this somewhere. Orichalcon 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there hasn't yet been a consensus, and there really should be one. A user simply added in the cat numbers out of nowhere, and everybody else didn't care or bother about it, except me. RaNdOm26 10:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought of something that could be better. As well as using category number using the Saffir Simpson hurricane scale on the right hand side, add a category number on the Australian scale on the LEFT hand side, with a link to Tropical cyclone scales#South Pacific. That would probably look neater. This would have to modify the Template:Infobox hurricane small so that it will work, which is gonna be hard. RaNdOm26 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a better idea to me. Perhaps make a new template to be used specifically for the Australian cyclone articles. Having a look at how detailed that template is, I imagine it would be quite a bit of work. Is there something easier or even temporary that can be done in place? And who would have the knowledge and time to properly create the appropriate template? Orichalcon 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RSMCs and TCWCs

I noticed the article lacks some info about how cyclones are monitored by different RSMCs or TCWCs. I couldn't find anything in the article that says cyclones are monitored by Wellington, south of 25 S and east of 160 E; and Fiji only monitors cyclones north of 25S. Maybe there should by info added about how cyclones are being tracked by different agencies. The Australian region section should also have info about the different area of responsibilities from the four centres: Perth, Darwin, Brisbane and Port Moresby, and the area of coverage. RaNdOm26 06:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, have a go at working that into the 1999-2000 seasonal articles. That is a typical sort of thing our SHem coverage struggles with, as this is doing too much. /me pokes Coredesat.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now another question. Can we split this article soon, as its current size is HUGE (61 kB). RaNdOm26 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, soon, but preferably not while the season is active. - SpLoT // 12:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be able to do it as soon as we have no active storms. Unfortunately, MF just declared Jaya to be a TDist again and is issuing advisories :S – Chacor 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will make split articles for 2007-08 about a week after MF decides to stop carrying Jaya. --Coredesat 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we can do most of the work for this season at any point. Just create all the text in the new articles (except for the active systems) then redirect back to here. The instant there is no activity we can change this to dab and remove the redirs.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What about talk archives? - SpLoT // 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archives could either be left on here or split in to the regions. Also if we do split this articale in to the sections could we please use Nadis predictions for this season contained within the Media Brefing Section on the RSMCs Website Jason Rees 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and perhaps use BoM predictions from their website too. RaNdOm26 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my question, Jason :P Leave them here or split them? Mostly referring to event archives. - SpLoT // 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Splot i dont think i made myself clear i meant Questions that could not be given a basin could be left on here and things that could be given a bsin be put into that baisn Jason Rees 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty hard to do however. If there happen to be some crossover storms (perhaps not this year, but storms like Bertie-Alvin in 2005), how are we gonna deal with that? Only in my opinion, it's probably better to leave them as it is now, then add links to the event archives in each split article. RaNdOm26 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up, Jason. Didn't quite understand, sorry. Perhaps we should split as much as possible, then. - SpLoT // 07:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Random Maybe we could put the Archvie for Split Basin Storms like Bertie Alvin in the Basin where they had their highest Peak wind speeds. For Example Bertie alvin would be Southwest Indian (La Reunion) and Splot its ok Jason Rees 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The season has gone quiet and it's nearing the end so can we consider splitting this article as well? RaNdOm26 06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of it later today. --Coredesat 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I have gone ahead and being bold. So far, I did the Indian Ocean one. Unless you don't want or like me creating them, I'll go and do the others....:) RaNdOm26 06:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now created this a dab page. I don't know what to do with this talk archive. I'll let you all to decide. RaNdOm26 07:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)