In addition to all that's mentioned, the group of Wikipedia editors started to unofficially combine some articles for these systems where one formed from the remnants of the other, even if they are in different basins and named differently, but clarify in the article that they are two distinct storms. The most notable case is
Amanda and Cristobal (2020), whose articles were merged primarily because their impacts have significant overlaps.
If you check the Talk page, you'll see that there was a time when the article was named "Tropical Storm Amanda-Cristobal", due to the personal opinions of a small group of contributors (if not just one) that, if systems like Harvey and Lee 2017 were seen as the same storm, then Amanda and Cristobal also should - as the only difference is that they were in different basins whereas Harvey stayed in the Atlantic the whole time. However, treating "Amanda-Cristobal" as the same storm is purely subjective and is not supported by the NHC's official classification. That's why the Wikipedia articles had an extensive discussion and decided to change it to the current title, "Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal".
This does raise a (somewhat philosphical) question:
If a storm dissipates and its remnants later regenerates, does it count as the same storm? And what determines whether it's counted as the same storm?The answer seems to be wildly inconsistent across basins and across agencies. I believe the NHC's current policy is that a name change happens if and only if its dissipation and regeneration are in different basins. So Harvey 1.0 and Harvey 2.0 kept the same name, as does
Genevieve 2014 (which formed in EPAC, moved into CPAC and dissipated, then regenerated in CPAC but kept the name Genevieve instead of a CPAC name, and later even moved into WPAC where it became a Cat 5); whereas ATL-EPAC crossovers (Grace/Marty 2021) and the less common EPAC-ATL crossovers (Amanda/Cristobal) received different names, unless they cross as a fully intact tropical cyclone (Bonnie 2022).
But whether this
should be done is the question. Meteorologically speaking, there's not much difference between the evolution of Harvey 1.0 to Harvey 2.0 vs the frequent ATL-EPAC regenerations; or more analogously, Eta 1.0 to Eta 2.0, which also dissipated in Central America, just that it tracked north instead of west. One may speculate that this is for clarity in communication if the 1.0 and 2.0 versions affect the same basin, but they don't always work for the better - Ivan 2.0 probably caused a lot of confusion when it reformed in the Gulf right where it tracked through as a Cat 4 a week earlier.
Naming conventions seem to be even less consistent in other basins.
Freddy this year started in the Australian region and got an Australian name, then crossed into SWIO, dissipated and regenerated. It broke the duration and ACE records for a single storm worldwide, but they (especially ACE) relied on its second life after regeneration in SWIO. You can argue that it could have received an SWIO name (Fabien) in an alternative universe.
Likewise, the Katrina/Victor-Cindy example is perhaps one of the most bizarre. At that time, not only did the Australian region (managed by BoM) have three different naming lists by different warning centres under BoM (thus Katrina became Victor when it regenerated in a different part of the region), but Australian-SWIO crossovers also had name changes automatically after crossing the boundary (thus Victor became Cindy). Yet, Katrina retained its name when moving from the Australian region to SPAC, a different area of responsibility.
Bottom line is, I really wish there can be more consistency on this.