Talk:October 2017 Vietnam tropical depression

This article was nominated for deletion on August 24 2016. The result of the discussion was delete.

A news item involving October 2017 Vietnam tropical depression was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 October 2017.

Wikipedia

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 26 March 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Tropical Depression 23W (2017). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Page move

This was moved per WP:PRECISION. I reverted due to the talk page not getting moved as well, so we need an admin to do it (not sure what is suppose to happen with the RFD tag on 23W's page). Also, can someone confirm there has there really never been another 23W? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no other WP article for a 23W, so we don't prematurely qualify the title. I'll add a hatnote for the 2003 target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. WP:PRECISION notes that "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." so by not having the year when there have been other 23W's, the title isn't unambiguous. Are you saying it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because it's the only 23W with an article? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was primary topic for "Tropical Depression 23W" when I made the first move, because Tropical Depression 23W redirected to Tropical Depression 23W (2017). So that's the topic WP took you to for that title. I put them in the correct arrangement per WP:PRECISION, given that (intentional or unintentional) selection of primary topic. But, yes, being the only topic with a dedicated article is also an indication of primary topic-ness, although it has its exceptions too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that in the long term, I don't see a major gap in significance when it comes to tropical cyclones, I disagree with the primary topic, athlough your ratio is sensible, but is also unprecedented within the wikiproject. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's precedented within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Naming covers when to use qualifiers. But even so, the project wouldn't be able to counter the broader policy or guidelines without hitting WP:LOCALCONCENSUS. In any event, I'm not advocating for any particular arrangement. If this one is the primary topic, it's in the right place. If it's not named correctly (other than the parenthetical), it should be moved to the correct name. If it has a parenthetical qualifier, that means it's not the primary topic for its base title, so the base title should not redirect to it. The base title could be a disambiguation page, set index article (list of tropical storms), a redirect somewhere other than itself + (qualifier), or an article about some other topic that is the primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since JTWC isn’t the RSMC, could we move to “October 2017 Vietnam tropical depression” or something? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we stop mentioning the JTWC designation in season headers then? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment only pertains to the title. Surely there is a better title than a designation by a US task force intended for US military interests. I could see using whatever Vietnam referred the TD as, but seeing as that isn’t standard, I think we should stylize it like November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any serious problems with it but I'm interesting in input from @Jason Rees and Typhoon2013: first. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't mind as well. But imo, the year should be included. There has been so many 23Ws in this basin, and maybe some people will be like "which 23W" etc. But again, I don't mind but I personally would love the year. Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the JTWC named storms for decades, so I don't see what the problem is using one of their designations if one is not assigned by anyone else. Plus, the November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression appears to have never been given a JTWC designation, meaning there was no alternative. That said, with the current title, I would definitely add the year, since there will be future Tropical Depression 23Ws which may be as or more significant. Same as with "Tropical Depression One" in the Atlantic. Similar rules apply in the East Pacific, too. Master of Time (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are future 23Ws, we can change the year then. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the hatnote was removed; as of right now title is ambiguous since it lacks the year and that's the only non-named 23W AFAIK and as correctly demonstrated here. We eitherbring back the hatenote or change the title to something like what Hink suggested 3 weeks ago. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get real please? There is no reason for a hanote when we have 23W most years and there is more than one other non named 23W in the archives. For starters have a look at the 1945, 1947, 1948, 1952, 1953, 1961, 1967 Pacific typhoon seasons, as IBTRACS informs me that they all featured 23W. However, I would not object to the article being moved to a better name per Hink's suggestions.Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title is ambiguous though because there is no year in the title unlike most tropical depression articles. So in accordance with WP:SIMILAR, there should be a hatnote. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title may well be amigbious but this is one of those times, where we apply a common sense exception to the rule, since there should be 7 more articles about TD 23W (NON NAMED).Jason Rees (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What if readers (hypothetically) search "Tropical Depression 23W" for another 23W? We need some way to find them to the right place, and without the hatnote, there isn't one. Also, wasn't the W designated not used till ~1981. The 1980 ATCR, for instance, refers to systems being declared Tropical Depression X". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know of hand when the W started to be assigned, but IBTRACS shows that the designation has been assigned to non-named 23W's as early as 1945. As a result, I see no point in having a hat note, especially when we do not have any on the Atlantic systems. If you care that much about pointing readers in the right direction for TD 23W each year then maybe several disambiguation pages should be created.Jason Rees (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We probably have as much of a consensus as we're gonna get in WPTC these days, so I'll just move the title. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Barely qualifies as C. Not bad so far but needs stuff from Relief Web. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MH really needs to be checked throughly as im not sure i followed the right system in the early stages.Jason Rees (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I don't see a consensus to move in this RM due to faulty argumentation and low participation. First, the nominator cites WP:OFFICIALNAME and claims it tells us to use the official name over a descriptive title simply because such an official name exists. That essay makes no such general claim, nor does it specifically address tropical depressions. (On the other hand, WP:WPTC#Naming may support this line of argument, but it was not cited here.) Second, the argument for "consistency with every other tropical depression article" is patently false – previous discussion on this talk page (see #Page move above) resulted in consensus to move to the current title and cited November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression as precedent. That article is still at that title, so clearly not "every other tropical depression article" uses the proposed title format. These points may seem like a SUPERVOTE, but my role as closer involves discounting arguments that are clearly counter to policy or patently false.

Third, the 2017 discussion on this talk page that produced the current title had six editors participate in a lengthy discussion. I do not feel comfortable overturning the result of that discussion based on this RM, which has significantly lower participation and does not address most of the arguments raised on the previous discussion. Fourth, the concern was raised that the proposed title is not, in fact, the official name. This concern went unaddressed, so there is no consensus on what the official name is, which casts serious doubt on the main argument made in favor of the move. Incidentally, the essay cited by the nominator warns us about exactly this kind of dispute over "competing authorities". If editors would still like move this page, I strongly encourage them open a new RM with a strong argument based on policies, guidelines, or naming conventions. I also encourage them to read over the (now two) previous discussions and address the arguments made therein. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 15:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017 Vietnam tropical depression → Tropical Depression 23W (2017) – Per WP:OFFICIALNAME. If the depression has an official designation, than we should use the designation rather than "<date/> <location/> tropical depression" format. A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per consistency with every other tropical depression article. Will note that Tropical Depression 23W already redirects here, so we might not even need the year disambiguator. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Pacific typhoon task force, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Vietnam, and WikiProject Weather have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting as it has been suggested that no year disamb is required. Can discussion occur on this please. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the JTWC name is not an official name. JMA is the RSMC, and Vietnam has its own meteorological department. Either of them would be more official. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per norm and Chicdat. --2600:1700:6180:6290:E1BC:304B:79DF:C9EB (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.