Talk:2005–06 South Pacific cyclone season

Todo

Sources and impact. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Disturbances

There were seventeen numbered but the season summary says there were only 15. So two were later downgraded in their analysis? Good kitty 18:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

im not sure but The seasonal Summuary on Nadis website for 05-06 says there were 15 but also says that Wati was 16F and so does Padgett Jason Rees (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wati: 1 or 2?

It says here that Wati had sustained winds of 155 km/hr using the average of winds over 10 minutes. It also says that Wati was a category 1 on the SSHS. But doesn't that mean that using 1 minute average sustained winds would place it at 175 km/hr? That would mean it's a category 2, as the SSHS relies on 1 minute average winds and not 10. Most articles go by that policy. Shouldn't it be changed? --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep the article is correct Wati was a cat 1 on the SSHS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would take up a lot of room to show both, so only the winds from the RSMC are displayed. The 1 min wind average is not adjusted from that - the number comes from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. It is a Category 1 on SSHS and a Category 3 using Australia's scale. Both are virtually the same. Potapych (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So Nadi and the JTWC don't only use different measurements, but they don't even have equal values. OK. Thanks for clearing things up. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The JTWC never have the same wind speed as the RSMC except sometimes when they do the EPac as they just C&P the NHC advisories Jason Rees (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this always causes confusion. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Tropical Depression 01F

2005-11-30, 2005-12-01, 2005-12-02

Tropical Depression 02F

2005-12-03, 2005-12-04, 2005-12-05, 2005-12-06

Tropical Depression 03F

2005-12-09, 2005-12-10, 2005-12-13, 2005-12-14, 2005-12-15, 2005-12-16

Cyclone Tam /Tropical Depression 05F/Cyclone Urmil

2006-01-09, 2006-01-10, 2006-01-11, 2006-01-12, 2006-01-13

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2005–06 South Pacific cyclone season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.met.gov.fj/2010_2011%20TC%20Guide.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wamis.org/countries/fiji/fiji200510.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/pacific-rim/publications/all/icu/2005-10/article
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64F7esNTE?url=http://www.met.gov.fj/documents/TC_Seasonal_Summary_05-061190690520.pdf to http://www.met.gov.fj/documents/TC_Seasonal_Summary_05-061190690520.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807181434/http://www.afap.org/apcedi/2006/01/apcedi-alert-spsm-cyclone-urmil-06f-2.html to http://www.afap.org/apcedi/2006/01/apcedi-alert-spsm-cyclone-urmil-06f-2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/2006/summ0602.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/2006/summ0603.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/2006/summ0604.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Temporary cyclone south.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge Cyclone Tam?

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge Cyclone Tam into 2005–06 South Pacific cyclone season. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Even though Tam is a good article, it was not retired. Also, the season article is start-class, so it would be improved by the additional content. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOPAGE, it is preferable to cover the entire season in one place if feasible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Cyclone Urmil?

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge Cyclone Urmil into 2005–06 South Pacific cyclone season. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Same rationale for Tam. The season article is start-class, so it could handle the additional content from one of the few storms that existed during the season. Also, Urmil was not retired. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

A storm doesn’t have to be retired to be notable, but I agree for both of them to be merged. 210.3.50.94 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOPAGE, it is preferable to cover the entire season in one place if feasible. Also, the IP editor is correct that retirement isn't a factor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Cyclone Vaianu?

It's the only storm in the season that still has an article. The storm also wasn't retired. So the article should be merged, and then after turned into a disambiguation article (given the current Vaianu). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree Makes sense and I get where you’re coming from with the points provided, the Vaianu article is also a bit bare anyway and doesn’t seem to be an incredibly significant storm to receive a standalone article, so just merging what’s already from that article into the season article is an agreeable move. ViridLeWiki (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. I think this is going to be pretty uncontroversial so I’ll likely go ahead and make the merge later on unless anyone else wishes to. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I have completed the merge per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. I will leave closing this discussion up to an uninvolved editor. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Carolina2k22: there is a lot involved in merging an article, such as updating the talk page and removing it from the good article list. In the future, you can let others handle the whole process, there was no need to rush, and you didn't need to invoke WP:SNOW as one of the commenters. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! As far as I am aware I followed the WP:MERGE#Procedure page but in hindsight forgot the optional steps. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)