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: Not moved - Whilst the !voting is finely balanced (5 supports including the nom versus 4 opposes) and points to a No Consensus outcome, the arguments are clearly not so finely balanced. The only argument presented for removing the year from the title is the retiring of the name of the storm, but this is not an argument based on Wiki policy - retirement or not has no bearing on whether the name is the WP:COMMONNAME or is to be preferred under WP:CRITERIA or another relevant policy or guideline. As pointed out particularly by Buidhe there are other storms known by that name and no reason is given by the support !votes to consider the 2020 storm the primary topic, such that it would be justified to move this article over the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Vongfong (2020) → Typhoon Vongfong – The name "Vongfong" has officially been retired by the WMO as per request from the Philippines. As is customary, the (2020) part of the title should be removed. VantaWiki (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The retired storm should be the primary topic, as is our usual convention. It's not our place to second guess the experts who decide if a storm is significant enough to warrant retirement. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support name has been retired officially, so no need for disambiguation JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing mys support as I failed to see List of storms named Vongfong, courtesy of new inputs from other users as seen below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Support HurricaneEdgar 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to name being retired. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, strong support It's a custom. MarioJump83! 01:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose what is the evidence that this is primary over Typhoon Vongfong (2014)? The other storm was the most severe of its season and appears to have caused more deaths and damage. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. So, this is a new area for me, storm articles. According to the WikiProject Tropical Storms, "A storm that has had its name retired may take its name for the main article..." (emphasis mine). The Phillipine name is "Ambo" and the bulk of the huge damage was done in this country ... and both Ambo and Vongfong were retired. Further, Typhoon Ambo is currently used as a dab page, and there is not a typhoon article itself with this article title. I'm thinking that the best course might be to rename to Typhoon Ambo and revise the dab to Typhoon Ambo (disambiguation). --01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs)
• Support. This VongFong got the storm retired, as per Juan in 2003 getting retired and 1985 Juan being costlier and deadlier, the impacts don’t come into play much. Also the suggestion from the person above will need to be changed up a bit. We don’t put the PAGASA names for the title, we put the international names. Other than that I support the move fully.DachshundLover82 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. So far the only argument for moving is because the name was retired. Unfortunately, I can't see this storm as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the "Vongfong" name. Impacts of 2014 Vongfong were much stronger and the article is much more expanded by the 2014 storm. Compared to 2020 Vongfong, which caused damages to primarily-agricultural areas of the Philippines, 2014 Vongfong had effects on multiple countries, was stronger than other typhoons in its season, killed more, caused more damage, and sunk a research ship. Just because a storm name is retired doesn't mean we should immediately make it PT, but rather dealt with case-by-case. It's a bit disrespectful to those who were actually affected by these storms, who definitely don't think that the impacts don’t come into play much. I see 2014 Vongfong as one of the instances where the Typhoon Committee didn't retire a name despite its impact, which apparently happens occasionally, as evident by Goni's move. For those reasons, I strongly oppose the move. Chlod (say hi!) 11:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to add that I think keeping the disambiguation page on "Typhoon Vongfong" is better than moving this article to that DAB page. Just in case that the argument is made that 2014 Vongfong should be moved for PT. Chlod (say hi!) 11:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Interestingly enough, the move proposal initially stated that the name was retired under request of the Philippines. I guess you could make the argument in this case that its retirement was on the discretion of the Philippines. If so, can this storm really by PT given that the name was retired due to its effects on one country instead of multiple (such in the case of 2014 Vongfong)? Chlod (say hi!) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Buidhe and Chlod. Not the most disastrous or impactful of the storms of this name.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Vongfong (2020) → Typhoon Vongfong – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, pageviews are much higher then for Vongfong 2014 (by quite a few times). It’s like Juan - 2003 had less impact then 1985, but more pageviews, hence is the primary topic. 172.85.138.238 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the last RM it failed because retirement doesn’t guarantee a primary topic, and I agree, but the higher pageviews suggests people are looking mainly for this article and a dab is unhelpful. 172.85.138.238 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose – Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns. The higher pageviews could easily be attributed to recentism and its retirement status, since this storm wasn't that long ago. While this storm killed more people than the 2014 typhoon, this storm isn't the clear primary topic, as it did not cause significantly more damage, nor was it nearly as powerful as the 2014 typhoon. Also, the death toll for this storm isn't very high. Most importantly, I don't see how this storm had lasting impacts that made it more significant than the 2014 typhoon. Retirement of the name is not the most important or deciding metric for determining primary topic status, nor should it be. In fact, we shouldn't even be using retirement or non-retirement to determine which storms get the primary topic page. Most retired storms are the clear primary topic; however, a few are not. Conversely, some non-retired storms are significantly more notable than retired ones. I did not vote in the February 2021 discussion, but had I participated, I would've opposed that one as well. I see nothing here that changes my mind. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose WP:RECENTISM. WP:NOTNEWS , recent news, anything since the inception of the pandemic, would rank high just because it is recent. That's no way to judge primarity -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Same person asproposer. WP:RECENTISM doesn’t apply since the typhoon was nearly a year and a half ago, nor does WP:NOTNEWs. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse recentism applies, it is significantly more recent than the other one, that appeared in recent news. Anything more recent than the beginning of the pandemic is recent news. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my oppose in the previous requested move and LightandDark2000's comments here. Recentism still applies, as this is a recent event. On the grand scale of strong typhoons in the Western Pacific, this is within the last 15 that had significant land impacts, especially given that the 2021 was a relatively inactive year (besides Rai), and is still receiving attention due to its recency. Chlod (say hi!) 02:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]