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 section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02: 26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1935 Labor Day hurricane → Labor Day hurricane – A very common issue with the titles of articles on historic events is that they have the year where the event took place, even when it is not necessary to disambiguate. In this particular case, while there have obviously have been many storms and hurricanes that took place on Labor Day, this one is by far the most infamous, and is what is what the term "Labor Day hurricane" almost always refers to. funplussmart (talk) 23: 50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:, who reverted my initial page move. You should also see Talk:Orlando nightclub shooting#Page title, as I agree with the arguments pointed out by the participants wanting it to be moved, and the issue is quite similar. funplussmart (talk) 23: 54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "almost always" – no; in fact most sources seem to attach the year to the storm when using the moniker "Labor Day hurricane" (e.g. [1]). Also, this is contrary to a longstanding naming convention for historic, unnamed storms:
  • 1959 Mexico hurricane
  • 1970 Bhola cyclone
  • 1928 Okeechobee hurricane
  • 1926 Miami hurricane
  • 1910 Cuba hurricane
  • 1924 Cuba hurricane
  • 1932 Cuba hurricane
• The last three in particular illustrate the need for this naming convention. The comparison to the nightclub shooting is also invalid because "Labor Day hurricane" is an event that occurs pretty frequently, whereas a mass shooting in a particular location is not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00: 08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  The source provided has substantial links to Wikipedia articles, and likely added "1935" simply because it is how Wikipedia refers to it (that's probably the reason why many sources add the year, they just repeat what Wikipedia does). Also, if you read the nightclub shooting discussion, you know there have been multiple shootings at Orlando nightclubs, the one in 2016 is simply by far the most infamous. funplussmart (talk) 00: 18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  A lot of older sources and works either exclude the year or add "of 1935" at the end [2] [3] [4] [5] funplussmart (talk) 00: 28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Okay but they always refer to it by year. And we don't use "of" titles so this is the best way to reflect that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02: 34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  The first two don't really have the year in the storm's name. funplussmart (talk) 03: 24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• And considering the list of historic hurricanes you provided, I agree with the titles of the Cuba hurricanes and the Mexico hurricane, as there are obviously multiple significant storms. However, I do think "1926 Miami hurricane" should be called "Great Miami hurricane, " as it is an established common name. If there is an established common name for an event, it should be used instead of a year-location-event system. That is why I think we should remove the year from this particular article title. And when there is no common name, the year should only exist if it is needed to identify the subject. That applies here too, as this is the only storm that is called the "Labor Day hurricane" (although there are a couple "Labor Day storms", but they weren't hurricanes) funplussmart (talk) 03: 35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think "Christmas shutdown" would be an appropriate article name for the current government shutdown? (rhetorical question) Consider the fact that many readers don't know the distinction between a tropical cyclone (like this) and an extratropical cyclone (1970 storms). They may also come here with the expectation of a general article on hurricanes on Labor Day, not a particular storm. "Great Miami hurricane" is also too vague because in colloquial usage, that could apply to Hurricane Andrew (which hit the general area). In all cases, there is also the possibility of another, future, hurricane with the same significance. The hurricane would receive a name and therefore would not be in contention for this article title, but readers might similarly come to this article if there is no year on it. Pinging @Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, TheAustinMan, Titoxd, Juliancolton, and Jason Rees: to get a better variety of opinion on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07: 17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)--Jasper Deng (talk) 07: 17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose as well. The Cuba hurricanes exhibit why the years should not be removed... creates confusion. Removing the year from the name would create confusion as many devastating hurricanes have been active/had impacts on Labor Day. Mexico hurricane could even be a number of systems within a single year. Removing the year simply causes confusion. Noah^Talk 11: 10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are hurricanes on Labor Day every few years. Putting the year is necessary when the storm didn't have an official name. Even the Great Miami hurricane, as mentioned above, doesn't serve as useful of a title as "1926 Miami hurricane". The year is a great way of disambiguating article titles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15: 40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I obviously think differently from most other people (probably related to my Autism), and have a personal preference for excluding years from the names of events whenever possible. If this doesn't get moved (which it probably won't at this point), I'll still call it the "Labor Day hurricane, " but no one else has to. funplussmart (talk) 18: 51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Funplussmart: There's no point in letting us know of your autism. In fact I would strongly discourage making it public anywhere because while I myself think highly of such people, there are many on the Internet who don't. Your argument is often a legitimate one to make, as Wikipedia:Article titles likes conciseness, but consistency is just as important (according to the same page), so even if the year may be technically redundant for some storms, we should stay consistent with other articles of the same type.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01: 33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Hink. And also, don't pull that card every time you disagree with something.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19: 00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is always that possibility that it could create confusion from the unspecified year, since there could be an equally catastrophic hurricane on labor day, and people wouldn't know that this one was from 1935. DerpieDerpie:D 19: 11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There are hundreds of tropical cyclones (namely Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes) which have been active on Labor Day. To remove the year would cause incredible confusion among readers. If this were a named cyclone then it would likely have the year removed. However, as it is not, there is no reason whatsoever to remove the year. Cooper 19: 12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the disambiguation for unnamed storms is often necessary, as shown by the Cuba hurricane articles linked above by Jasper Deng. There is no real need to introduce an inconsistency here. Titoxd^(?!?) 22: 44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.