Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arizona hurricanes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [1].

List of Arizona hurricanes[edit]

List of Arizona hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting and comprehensive page that meets all the featured list criteria. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5
Comments from KV5 relating to opposition
  • I'm not convinced this is a list. There is an awful lot of prose, and it's not structured like other "prose-lists", where each entry has its own prose section. It may very well be an article.
  • Not convinced on the name either; there are tropical storms as well as hurricanes, so this should probably be re-named to "List of Arizona tropical storms".

These two things should be clarified by consensus before full reviews are undertaken. — KV5 • Talk • 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both points by KV. Should be renamed and submitted at FAC. PumpkinSky talk 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the rename. Existing U.S. state lists use "List of {state} hurricanes", even if they also include tropical storms. (See: List of Florida hurricanes; List of North Carolina hurricanes; List of California hurricanes; List of New Jersey hurricanes; List of New York hurricanes — all featured.) The intensity-neutral name for all of those lists would have to be "List of {state} tropical cyclones", which fails the criteria set in WP:COMMONNAME.
I also disagree with the point that this is not a list. There is more prose than usual since the list-prose format does not lend itself very well to pre-1960 storms, due to lack of data, and to post-2000 storms, due to too much data. That said, I have no issues sending the page to FAC under the current name if that's what FLC prefers. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a list, then it needs to remain here. If it's an article, then it needs to be renamed to Tropical cyclones in Arizona or some such. Can't have it both ways. I personally don't think it's a list in the present format. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CALLING YOU on that one. It is NOT nearly identical to the NJ, NY, and CA lists. Those have more list content than prose where's the AZ is the opposite. PumpkinSky talk 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the article's structure to make it more list-based. I still think that a rename would be afoul of WP:COMMONNAME and oppose it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "list" format is now justified, and that FLC is the appropriate place for this; however, see my comment below on the name. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly fine where it is. There have been numerous discussion across Wikipedia and these sorts of articles, and the consensus was in favor "List of [State] hurricanes". I'll review this later tonight. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's "perfectly fine" as the name does not illustrate the contents of the list. The tropical cyclones list name would be more accurate. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of Arizona hurricanes, how does it not illustrate the contents? It is near identical to List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of California hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are non-hurricanes in the list. It's simple. All of the lists you reference were promoted in 2008 or earlier, and as such are lacking in comparison to the current criteria. The most accurate and descriptive name should be used, regardless of what else exists. — KV5 • Talk • 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is, as you are well aware of, only an essay, and it goes completely against the Consistency portion of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, a policy. Additionally, while the name you propose is indeed more precise, it is also not natural (since "tropical cyclone" is not used in the United States nearly as much as "hurricane"). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that a hurricane is a tropical cyclone, but a tropical cyclone is not necessarily a hurricane. Your reference above to WP:COMMONNAME is a fallacious argument, because the common name for a tropical storm is not "hurricane", and "use the most common name" does not mean "use the most common name found as the title of a Wikipedia article". As to your link to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, while this title might "satisfy" the Consistency criterion, this article does not satisfy three of the other criteria, namely Naturalness: "As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English" (tropical storms are not called hurricanes in English), Recognizability: "article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic" (this title does not describe the topic, only part of it), and Precision: "titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise... as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". Sacrificing three criteria to satisfy one is improper. IMO the other hurricane lists, if they contain tropical storms, should be renamed. This is why we have redirects. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying to make an issue out of something rather minor. "Hurricane" is indeed the most common name for a generic tropical cyclone in the United States. Once again, see National Hurricane Center, note how the review for each season is Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of 20XX, and even the Detroit weather service has an article on Hurricanes in Michigan, all because "hurricane" is the more general name. We also have "Louisiana hurricane history", "Hurricane History for Baltimore/Washington", and the "Hurricane Research Division" dealing with the "National Hurricane Center's North Atlantic hurricane database". Furthermore, there are 14 million Ghits for [United States tropical storm] versus United States hurricane. Now can we get on to the analysis of this article without worrying about whether it should be a list or what its title should be? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs). Your argument that it should be List of Arizona tropical storm is not accurate as fails to describe the topic, because some of the storms were remnant lows or TD's when they made it there. (i.e. Octave, Kathleen). Should this become List of Arizona remmant lows, because if it did, it would be nearly impossible to complete. While this could always be changed, WP:EPAC currently has 2009 Pacific hurricane season not 2009 tropical cyclone season. What do you think of when you hear the word "hurricane". I am a member of this wikiproject and a very active member in the task force, and I think of tropical cyclone. What do you think of when your hear the word "hurricane" or "hurricane season"? YE Pacific Hurricane 14:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see here that I'm just going to be talked down by members of the Hurricane WikiProject, so I am tabling my part in this discussion but my oppose stands. — KV5 • Talk • 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You opposed on two counts: the first one (the list format) has been addressed, and the second one (the page name) is evolving into a consensus against your position. I am not sure how your continued opposition is actionable at this point. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. However, actionable or not, it stands procedurally because I still believe this list is misnamed but no progress will be made due to the impasse in discussion. I'm not willing to believe that this name is proper, but I can see that I will always hold the minority view. Thus, I have better things to use my time for. — KV5 • Talk • 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieve dates ok now. Like I said before, I have always seen hurricane used to mean a storm over a certain wind speed in the Atlantic (which means kaboodles of rain). It makes my skin crawl to see hurricane used to mean a storm on the west coast, even more so one in the desert. So I can't support this naming convention. But since I seem to be in the minority here, I'll change to neutral. I think that COMMONNAME is being MISAPPLIED here. PumpkinSky talk 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with support.
Extended content
    • "Usually, these storms originate in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and make landfall in the Mexican states of Baja California or Sonora, dissipating before crossing into the United States" - this is rather wordy
    • "Not all Arizona hurricanes originate from the Pacific Ocean, however; an Atlantic hurricane in 2008 produced rainfall in eastern Arizona, and another Atlantic storm reached Arizona as a tropical depression" - you say "Arizona" three times in one sentence
    • You use the verb "carry" in two consecutive sentence. While one wouldn't have annoyed me, it is a bit too vernacular for me to be happy you using it twice so soon after another in the same context. Is the "most storms that could affect Arizona are carried away from the United States" even necessary?
      • Replaced with "steer", and I'd say that the two sentences are saying slightly different things, so both are necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "summer/fall rainfall" - that's a little weird reading. Are you opposed to using "autumn"?
      • This is more difficult. There are two wet seasons in Arizona: The winter season, with cold front-based rainfall, and the summer season, which is monsoon-based. Tropical cyclones occur mostly in the fall, just after the end of the monsoon season, so I can't replace summer/fall with "monsoon season" per se, and just saying "autumn" is inaccurate. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Nora's rainfall should be mentioned in the lede, considering it is the statewide peak
    • Some of the storms in "Storms" are unsourced.
    • "The rainfall due to the storm still holds the monthly rainfall record at the National Weather Service office in Tucson" - what was the total?!
    • "This same system produced more than twice the average annual rainfall in Imperial Valley, California" - isn't this supposed to be about Arizona?
      • Yes, but the rainfall total in an area that is contiguous to Arizona seemed impressive enough to leave it in. I can take it out if you'd prefer. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On the 11th, the remnants of separate system passed, again, over southwest Arizona" - your commas put me in a coma!
    • In 1950s, you have two consecutive sentences with the phrase "over the state"
    • What are "washes"?
    • "Albeit the storm remained at sea,[10] its residual moisture was advected over southern Arizona, a passing cold front triggered widespread showers and thunderstorms on the evening of September 9" - it's a runon or needs a semicolon or something or another brother
    • "Any damage from the storm is not known." - that isn't really helpful :/
    • "8 miles wide" - conversion?
    • How is the year not known for Octave still?! Just find an estimate from 1983!
      • The problem is that the source did not specify whether the damage was in 1983 dollars, or current dollars. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The storm system produced sustained winds of 20 to 30 miles per hour (30 to 50 km/h) were recorded in the Tucson area. " - I grammered myself when I was read that.
    • "Raymond passed over the state as a tropical depression, and produced heavy rainfall on the southeastern portion of the state, with 4.72 in (120 mm) of rain falling in Nogales" - you mention "state" twice
    • I'd mention the year for Hilary
    • Why is Isis's bit occurring after a semicolon?
    • "that surround Tucson. However, there was no flooding reported in the Tucson area, and Tucson International Airport reported only 1.1 in (28 mm) as a result of the storm" - why does Tucson need to be mentioned three times? I know it's one of the coolest cities in the world, but come on, give Yuma some love!
      • The second one can be removed, but I'd rather leave TIA spelled out. Is that ok?
    • Damage total from Lester or Nora?
      • Added Nora. MWR/TCR doesn't mention damage figures for Lester in the US. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Olivia 00 bit is boring and lengthy
      • Not sure how to fix boring. Maybe making the text blink? :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tis it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion for now, but I want to comment with regard to the name of the article. Since there is precedent for the term "hurricane" in such articles, including a number of featured lists, I would argue it is reasonable to assume that this has been raised at previous FLCs. If those lists were not affected by their names, there is no reason this nomination should fail simply because one or two reviewers don't like the article's name. That being said, it is less of a list than an article as it stands. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point of view and appreciate that input; however, consensus can change, and just because it happened before doesn't mean it has to stay the same. Thanks for your thoughts on the topic :-). — KV5 • Talk • 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking as someone with a decade of research on tropical meteorology and something like 40 FAs and FLs on hurricanes, I can say with reasonable confidence that "hurricane" has two usages; a common usage and a technical usage. From a technical standpoint, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with sustained winds that satisfy a given wind criterion. However, it is used far more commonly to encompass all tropical cyclones in the climatological context (ie. a season or other time frame, or a list of storms to affect a state). We have the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season in addition to the National Hurricane Center, the US governmental agency responsible for tracking all tropical disturbances with the potential to develop into any sort of cyclone: depression, storm, or hurricane. Since Wikipedia follows a common naming convention, "hurricane" is the most appropriate term. Juliancolton (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - See my above comment for why I believe the above objections are based on inaccurate assumptions. The article is the result of extensive and thorough research, and I believe it's well deserving of the status. Juliancolton (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no further issues. Name doesn't bother me, and my only other concern has been adequately addressed. I think this is enough of a list to qualify now. That said, wouldn't it have been better if all the wikiproject supporters declared their conflict of interest? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many, many, many (perhaps trivial) issues:
  • First, the format. Looks now like mainly a table and a timeline, so we are now in list territory. This is a good thing.
  • Not wishing to tip the apple cart but you really don't need to say "An Arizona hurricane is..." just to get some kind of bold in the lead. I'd say something more interesting.
  • "A few storms " a little colloquial for me.
    • I removed that sentence, and instead mentioned the average return period of the storms. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the remaining moisture" remaining from what?
  • What's a "predominant storm track"? Do you just mean "most storms track either parallel or away from...."?
    • Actually, I changed it to mention the predominant steering pattern, which are the trade winds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every five years or so" perhaps "approximately every five years"?
  • "Arizona hurricanes are also responsible for torrential rainfall in localized areas, with the state's 24-hour rainfall record—11.97 inches (304 mm) of precipitation[3]—being held by rainfall resulting ..." rainfall is used three times here...
    • There are only so many ways of saying "rain"... I changed the sentence around to avoid the issue. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para of climatology is almost copy-and-paste from the lead.
  • Four dab links: Santa Cruz River, Red Rock, nickel, gusts.
  • Presumably your colour scheme is determined by the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale, so I'd explain it that way.
  • Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS, i.e. use row and col scopes.
  • No reason to link flood or rain.
  • " but this time, the " no comma needed.
  • Tucson is over linked and linked differently.
  • "September 1939: 1939 saw two tropical " reads a little odd to me with the 1939 being either side of the colon.
  • "more than 5.00 (127 mm) of " 5.00 what?
  • " Los Robles Wash carried up to 32,600 cu ft/s (920 m3/s), while the Santa Cruz River proper peaked at 9,200 cubic feet per second" consistent cubic feet p/s please.
  • " 1 to 3 inches (25 to 76 mm) of rainfall, with isolated locations receiving over 5 inches" everywhere else is "in" not "inches"
    • Actually, I changed it to be all inches (mm), instead of in (mm). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rainfall produced by Hurricane Heather was concentrated..." caption needs a full stop.
  • " with the state maxima being" do you mean maximum? Maxima is plural.
  • "The 1980s saw destructive tropical cyclone pass" grammar fail.
  • "The flooding caused record floods" poor grammar.
  • "Santa Cruz Rivers." should that River be river really?
  • "During the 1990s, several tropical systems have affected Arizona " grammar fail again, remove "have"
  • "August 1995: 1995's Flossie's" again, odd to see year: year.
  • "1998: In 1998, " no need for In 1998..
  • "decade did not see any storm " -> "decade saw no storms..."
  • "Hurricane Javier produced heavy precipitation in Arizona" full stop please.
  • "0.90 inches" - "in" normally. Check the whole article...
  • "forced the university to delay one of its football games" is that really significant?
  • "8 in (200 mm)" vs "11.10 in (282 mm)" - be consistent with the decimal places.
    • Well, in this case, the 11.10 was a direct measurement, and the 8 was an estimate, so changing it to 8.00 would imply more precision that there actually is. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 in (25 mm) of precipitation f" avoid starting sentences with a number.
  • "due to a lighting strike" lightning.
  • En-dashes needed in the references, e.g. Ref 55 should be "Hurricane Lester – August..."
    • Neither WP:CITE nor WP:DASH offer any guidance on what to do in reference to dashes in the references, so I used whatever format the original source has. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 72 to 81 don't work for me, and really need something to differentiate themselves from each other in the title.
    • Don't work as in they're broken? They work for me... otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by that. I added a location to the titles to disambiguate them. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 44 is missing publication date/link if available/accessdate if available.
    • This one will take me a little bit longer to do. The original source is not online anymore. I went and looked for the article in microfilm, and while I found the newspaper for that time period, I could not find the article in time before the library closed. I'll try again to find it tomorrow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staff Writer ->Staff writer.
  • Archived stuff (e.g. ref 1) normally should normally have an archive date and an original url. Like ref 62.
    • Actually, this reference used to be accessed via archive.org, but a new link to the same page was found, so that replaced the old archive link. I just removed mention of the Wayback Machine. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOAA or the full version in the refs? If the second, at least use the second before the first. I'd be consistent.
  • Texas needs sorting out in your template, looks like there are half-a-dozen Texas lists...
  • Too much whitespace at the top of the climatology section because of the large graph.
    • Ugh, this thing. The problem is a resolution issue in wide-screen monitors, but EasyTimelines do not lend themselves to being floated, and instead just act as if they had {{clear}}s below them. As such, I had to wrap the entire section in a table to get around it. Do you know a way of avoiding this?
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Not a fan of the title for the reason already mentioned, but I'm ignoring it as I don't particularly want to start a debate on this topic. Kind of disappointed in how much I found, since there have been so many reviews before this one, but none of the things below should be too hard to fix.
  • Storms: "and they infuse the monsoon over the southwestern United States." What is this supposed to mean? Is "the monsoon" intended to be "the monsoons" or something? If not, I don't get it.
  • August 1921: "The first known tropical disturbance to affect the state occurred in August 1921". Notice the repetition between the lead-in and the prose?
  • October 1968: Same goes for "The last storm to impact Arizona during the decade was Hurricane Pauline, which added high amounts of moisture ahead of a cold front in early October 1968." Easiest fix is probably to remove the year, leaving "in early October".
  • "including a F2 tornado" → "including an F2 tornado"? Not sure if this is how the weather people usually do it.
  • 1970s: Get a spaced en dash in "United States-Mexico border" in the photo caption; this is how our article on the topic handles the formatting.
  • October 1972: "The Nogales Highway Bridge over the Santa Cruz River was washed away by the flooding, and saturated the soils...". The bridge saturated the soils, or the flooding? Sounds like the bridge from this. Not sure if that's the intention, so worth asking about.
  • "that caused flooding that caused...". Little too much "that caused" in here for my tastes. Don't like these prose redundancies.
  • October 1983: The dollar amount is missing the usual dollar sign before it.
  • September 2004: Remove comma after Javier at the start.
  • September 2009: "Northwest of Golden Valley, golf ball sized hail, totalling 1.75 inches in diameter." Feels like it's missing a word or three.
  • "with many others received some damage". "received" → "receiving".
  • Refs 5, 34, and 60 could use PDF designations, like the other similar references have.
  • Publishers of refs 7 (USA Today), 22 (Los Angeles Times) and 68 (The Arizona Daily Star) should be italicized as printed publications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the colors in the table need a matching symbol per WP:ACCESS.
    • Don't agree with this one. The colors are based on the intensity scale to the right of the table, and each colored cell in the table already spells out the relevant intensity classification. Adding a symbol to say that the cell's background color says that the storm is a Category 4 hurricane when the cell contains "Category 4" in the text is superfluous. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would like to hear what an access expert has to say on this. Things vary based on the situation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale
TD Tropical Depression: <39 mph (0–62 km/h)
TS Tropical Storm: 39–73 mph (63–117 km/h)
C1 Category 1: 74–95 mph (119–153 km/h)
C2 Category 2: 96–110 mph (154–177 km/h)
C3 Category 3: 111–130 mph (178–209 km/h)
C4 Category 4: 131–155 mph (210–249 km/h)
C5 Category 5: >=156 mph (>=250 km/h)

I make no claim to be an expert on anything, but in my humble opinion, there's no information in the table conveyed by colour that is not available in the text of the table. I'd say the table meets our standards for accessibility, although it would benefit from a caption. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for {{Saffir-Simpson small}} as it displays windspeed information on mouseover that is denied to anyone who only uses a keyboard (since the table elements it produces can't receive focus). I'd prefer to see something like the table on the right but that's really an issue for your WikiProject (or whoever maintains {{Saffir-Simpson small}}).

The only other thing I would suggest is that the second table has a colspanned heading: "Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona - Highest known recorded totals", which ideally ought to be the table caption, rather than a header row. Readers using JAWS (screen reader) or similar would appreciate these sort of minor changes. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped {{Saffir-Simpson small}} with {{Saffir-Simpson}} and modified the table accordingly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, the new Saffir-Simpson table is a big improvement and you've made captions for the main tables. I don't see any outstanding accessibility issues. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the article/list issue. I was leaning towards considering this an article as well. However, there is precedent on having small clusters of text be considered a list, namely at one of KV's FLs, List of Major League Baseball managers. Given that I'm not sold on the validity of the oppose. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my oppose is not based on this being a list. It is. My oppose is based on the use of "hurricane" in the name as opposed to "tropical cyclone". — KV5 • Talk • 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see the Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona table reduced down in size.Jason Rees (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the font is already 92% of normal. Reducing the table size is not possible without removing information from the table, and I don't know what could be removed while retaining the table's usefulness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it can be done rather easily by reducing 50% to 30%.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that forces the last column to span four rows in a 1024x768 screen, at least for #10 in the list. Even 45% causes that problem in my monitor, and the smallest width that does not cause me that issue is 50%. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no major issues with the list, ive read through it over the last few weeks and everything seems to be upto scratch. As for the width, i can now see what Titoxd meant having just checked it out on a small screen.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Arizona_hurricanes/archive1&oldid=1145853794"