Talk:List of Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

Article naming

Note that individual seasons should not be plural; i.e., 2004-2005 Southern Hemisphere cyclone season. Jdorje 06:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere Articles

I've made more articles for the S.H. cyclone seasons and ive added more years extending back to 1977. If you have questions or comments please ask imeditely. Storm05 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the addition of stub articles like 1977-78 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. Why can't we add more content instead of adding more stub articles? Jdorje 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should only go back to 1980 (or maybe 1990) for now. All previous seasons should be covered by Pre-1980 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Jdorje 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I merged together a bunch of stub articles. If these articles ever become too large for a single article we can split them up again (as we did with 1880-1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons). — jdorje (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the pre-1980 article is too big. We should atleast remove the last 5 seasons and make them into their own 5-year article. Then maybe we could do more later. íslenska hurikein #12_(samtal) 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look what I found!

I found this website. It's pretty cool. The southern Hemisphere seasons go all the way back to the 1906-07 Season! And they have names, too-or atleast back to the 1963-64 Season. Maybe we'll be able to make a couple more season articles from this. Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Split

This article should probably be split to List of South-West Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, List of Australian region cyclone season, and List of South Pacific cyclone season, with all of the existing articles split as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. RaNdOm26 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, and think that it should be done as soon as possible before the start of the seasons on November 1.Jason Rees (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming of storm articles

I had this question for some time on Wikipedia; why do some tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere have articles named "Severe Tropical Cyclone Laurence" or "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi", while others have articles simply as "Cyclone Larry" or "Cyclone Orson"? I'm kind of confused on this.

Should we name all articles in the SHem the same? I believe cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere should have articles just like "Cyclone Larry" or "Cyclone Monica". I don't believe we need to include their intensity on the Australian scale, South Pacific or SWIO scales because we don't name cyclones in the NIO "Super Cyclonic Storm Gonu" or "Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Nargis"; the articles are just named "Cyclone Gonu" or "Cyclone Nargis". In the same way, we don't name storm articles in the Atlantic or eastern Pacific "Category 5 Hurricane Celia" or "Category 3 Hurricane Karl". We just leave them as "Hurricane Celia (2010)" and "Hurricane Karl". Should we name storm articles in the SHem just "Cyclone name (Year)"(If they weren't retired or the primary topic) just like we do in the other basins? I find it rather confusing to read an article's name like that. Storms in the southern hemisphere are just called "Cyclones", not "severe tropical cyclones" or any other name like that. What is the general opinion on this? Rye998 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See here. Personally I prefer just "Cyclone Larry". The long title is on the excessive side. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My question is, should all storms have titles like Cyclone Larry? It would make more sense to put storms like "cyclone name (year)" than "severe tropical cyclone name". Should all storms be given this? It makes no sense to name some storms "Cyclone Name", and others "severe tropical cyclone name". I wanted to know if all storms should take after a specific name, rather than just some. Even so, the current discussion on WPTC's talk page does follow the same general view toward what I am saying, but many people who read Wikipedia want to read articles as "Cyclone Yasi" rather than "severe tropical cyclone Yasi". It makes more sense. I also believe this discussion should be here rather than there because it applies to all of the SHem articles with storms like Yasi or Vania, not to every tropical cyclone season in the world, since this problem is not an issue in the NHem seasons. Also, mentioned on the talk page, per WP:COMMONNAME, storms, or any articles, should be named according to what people want them to be, or what commonly type in on Google. Although the storm may technically be reffered to as "severe tropical cyclone name", many people looking for the storm on Google, for example, want to look for just "Cyclone name" not "severe tropical cyclone name", and that's what they probrably will type in. It makes more sense, and it's why we might not show up first because we don't name all of our articles "cyclone name". Also, as I mentioned, because we don't do this in the NHem, why should we do it in the SHem? Rye998 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONCEPTDAB

I removed the {{disambiguation}} template from this page, because the page is a list of lists on a single topic; it is not disambiguating distinct topics that have an ambiguous title. Jason Rees reverted this edit, with the comment "Its not designed to be a list and isnt a list it is nto a broad concept." Well, obviously it is a list, which is "an enumeration or compilation of a set of possible items"; even a disambiguation page is a list of titles, so that really doesn't make any difference. The point that does make a difference is that this list has a single topic -- Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. There aren't several different "Southern Hemispheres"; nor are there several different things called "tropical cyclones." (Contrast, for example, List of rivers of Georgia, which is correctly a disambiguation page because there are two entirely different places called "Georgia," both of which have rivers.) Now, of course, this single broad topic does contain sub-topics (which is why this list exists in the first place), but that doesn't make the broader topic ambiguous, just broad. This list should not be marked as a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly a list of subtopics -- not a list of ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It might better be restored to the previous version, but splitting that article (if that's what happened) doesn't make this a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have always been told that as we split the SHEM TC pages, that we are to split them into disambiguation pages, which is what i did here as we dont need a list of the Shem seasons and the subpages have been developed sufficiently for them to stand on their own IMO. Personally i would like to see all these Shem seasonal disambiguation pages deleted but i understand that may not be able to be done.Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reasons given for the previous advice, but when you split a page, the base name does not become a dab. If you no longer need the base name, I agree is should be deleted, but you don't just tag it as a disambiguation page as a substitute for that deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure of the purpose of this page, and it may be that it should be deleted as others have said, but as long as it remains, it is functionally a disambiguation page, even if it's name says it's a "list". Inks.LWC (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you believe "functionally a disambiguation page" means? To me and others commenting above, this is not functionally a disambiguation page, and we have explained why. Your statement to the contrary, without any explanation, is simply mysterious. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)