Talk:Cyclone Ernie

Edits Made Following Publication into Mainspace

Disambiguation hatnote

@MarioProtIV: Hi MarioProtIV. I read the link to WP:PRIMARY you provided me as grounds for the deletion of the hatnote on the top of the page. I read the entire section in full, and noticed that WP:PRIMARY TOPIC was actually your intended Wikipedia guideline (the original one refers to the usage of primary, secondary and tertiary sources in articles). I clicked on this section (which happened to be displayed in a hatnote due to ambiguity) and read all about the usage of hatnotes. It states in Paragraph 3 of Section 3 that "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." This confirms my usage of the hatnote (rather than a disambiguation page)– ‘Cyclone Ernie’ refers to both the 1989 cyclone and the 2017 cyclone. As the 2017 cyclone would clearly be the primary topic (as described in Section 2.0) and the 1989 cyclone would be the secondary topic, it is correct to use a hatnote on the primary page that links to the lesser page, on the off chance that someone may wish to use it (whether or not anyone may or may not use it in the future is neither relevant nor our concern). The first paragraph of Section 5.0 says that articles whose name may be the subject of ambiguity due to similarly-named topics should include helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles, placed at the top of the page.

Taking into account all of this, I think the hatnote to the 1988-1989 Australian region cyclone season article should be recreated, in accordance with Wikipedia’s conventions. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 'Impacts' section

@Cyclonebiskit: Hi cyclonebiskit. I believe that the inclusion of an 'Impacts' section improves the article. As you rightly said, there was no impact, but that was the point of the section - to discuss the fact that there was no impact. I think that this is a reasonable and valid inclusion in the article, as it provides the reader with more information on the topic, and details why there was no impact, rather than just saying briefly in the introduction that there wasn't one. It certainly doesn't detract from the article, or detriment it in any way. In addition, Wikipedia states that the goal of an article is to be a comprehensive summary of existing knowledge about a topic. Also, it is stated in a negative manner (in paragraph 2) that some articles lack depth or clarity.

On the basis of these reasons, I believe that the 'Impacts' section is neither redundant nor unnecessary, bur rather is a good addition that will further the comprehensiveness, depth and clarity of the article. Anyway, the section isn't long and tedious, so it isn't tarnishing the page either. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Hi. Just as a general note, per WP:BRD you shouldn't restore disputed content until agreement to restore it has been reached. It's great that you've started this discussion; however, you still shouldn't re-insert the 'Impacts' section when you know at least one editor opposes it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Fair enough ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)