Talk:List of Atlantic hurricane seasons/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Far Back? (Recent)

I finished 1891, and I was going to do 1889, but I have two sites that contradict each other (and one that contradicts basic knowledge)...Here is the Unisys site. It says that storms 1, 2, 3, and 5 were hurricanes, but they list the wind speeds as below 74. Now, this has more correct data, but a few of the form/dissipation dates are different than Unisys'. WHICH ONE IS RIGHT? These reports are getting unreliable. -- RattleMan 01:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Unisys lists intensities by knots, not mph. bob rulz 04:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed 1891 and done 1889. It seems that someone's done the 1851 article ...a few months ago... -- RattleMan 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Rattleman, UNISYS is the only place I trust on accurate hurricane tracks (aside from the National Hurricane Center, of course). Wunderground is overrated in my opinion. I don't trust any website that has "You have just won a free IPod!!! Click here to claim!" in a blinking banner at the top. UNISYS is more formal, more serious and more educated than those sites. That's just my opinion.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 06:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Enough talk, I brought it back to 1880. 1886 is the furthest we normally should go, but so it looks nice, I ended it at 1880. I am sorry if we did not agree on this, but I was under the impression that either 1886 or 1880 would be a good place to stop. Hurricanehink 14:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess 1880 is a good place to go back to, but...there IS data going back to 1851 that we COULD use to make a COMPLETE archive (whether it's reliable or not, I don't know)...but I just say 1880. Now we just need to FINISH 1880-1888... -- RattleMan 01:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree with the 1851 party, with a twist. What if we did it by decades. We could have every decade, like 1820-1829 Atlantic hurricane seasons. This way we can still have a complete archive, but not waste space. Look at the List of songs by year. They go back to the 1600s. If this is to have a complete archive, I propose using a decadal format. This, of course, is after 1881-1888 is finished (I did 1880 and 1884). I changed it to what I am talking about. If it is unacceptable, you can return it to its current format. We are supposed to be bold here at Wikipedia... Hurricanehink 00:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I love the idea. Where are you getting hurricane info beyond 1851, though? -- RattleMan 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The information I got is from hurricane historical websites. I got the idea while searching the NHC website. They had a list of deadly cyclones from 1492 to 1996, and I thought, "Whoa!" http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly.shtml

This site has hurricanes that caused more than 25 deaths from 1495 to present day. I just look up a year (1820 to 1829 was the one article), and there are your storms. For more detail, you have to go by each state.

For Virginia hurricanes, and likely Carolina hurricanes (they normally hit Carolina and moved northward), go to http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/vahur.htm

For Texas hurricanes

For Louisiana hurricanes

For Florida hurricanes

For Caribbean hurricanes

Overall

Hurricanehink 01:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I object your honor. This is ridiculous. We have no decent info back this far. Why are we going past record keeping? This is a bad idea. We have to put the breaks on at some point. I mean, are we going to go back to Columbus? Or are we going to just continue on into the Ice Ace, back when hurricanes were probably largely on ice? First I thought we had agreed to 1900, then I thought we agreed to 1880. I've now stopped agreeing. We need to S. T. O. P.: STOOOOOPPPPP!! I will agree to 1900, I will agree to 1880, I will begrudgingly agree to 1850, but not before then. BAD! BAD! BAD!
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but we do have the data before 1850, even if it was not in the official archive. The coastlines were relatively populated enough to have decent data into the 1700's. If you think it is too much, by far take it back. I was just trying to be bold, but I guess it was a little too much. My apologies, but I wanted this to be a complete archive of hurricane history that we have. Hurricanehink 11:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Too little info on that period in my opinion, but if you can find accurate in information about those time periods, go for it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
All I am saying is to list the hurricanes that affected the areas. It doesn't need to have the whole track, just saying a hurricane hit this area and caused this number of deaths on this date. For hurricanes that affected a large part of the coast, like the 1821 Long Island Hurricane, there would be more detail. Those sites I provided have records of pre-1851 hurricanes. It doesn't need to be decent info, just a sentence or two for each hurricane per year per decade. I will be more than happy to write them, and I promise, I will not estimate where the storm was, or add any false information. I will only summarize the information I have on each of the hurricanes. Hurricanehink 02:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, just an idea. Rather than doing all of the 1880's hurricane seasons, why not group them into one decade, with articles for the more important seasons. I would suggest the same for the 1890's as well, but those articles are done. Hurricanehink 17:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing as well (1880s)...Let's do it. -- RattleMan 17:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to bring up the question (cue scary music), but how far back should we go? Here is what I propose: Have one more article prior to 1800-1810; 1492-1799 Atlantic hurricane seasons, or something like that. There, we could cover the major storms in that period, like the 1780 Great Hurricane, 1600 something Colonial Hurricane. Would that be too big, perfect, or just pointless? Hurricanehink 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you have done a tremendous job with the archive so far. I think we should go back as far as any record goes. If we can get all the info from back to 1492, we should do it. Also, for the "1492-1799 Atlantic hurricane seasons", if it gets too big you could go by century, or by 50 years. -- RattleMan 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! That sounds good; 50 years increments for 1700's, 100 years for others. Hurricanehink 11:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were doing it all by more than 10 years each this time. The late 1700s are going by 10 year increments. -- RattleMan 00:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I initially was going to, but each of the decades of the late 1700's had mutiple notable storms, as well as some minor storms. It's like having an inactive year. You still have to do all of the storms. Now, before 1760, they are inactive enough to have larger increments, 1700's has 20 year increments, 1600's has 50 year increments, and pre 1600 is one article.
1760's: 4 25+ deaths storms, 5 possible 25+ storms
1770's: 7 25+ deaths storms, 10 possible 25+ storms
1780's: 10 25+ deaths storms, 14 possible 25+ storms
1790's: 4 25+ deaths storms, 4 possible 25+ storms
If you think it is pointless, I guess we could discuss it, but you, E. Brown, and I are the only ones that seem to care what's going on back here. I'll do the article either way once I'm done 1800's if no one wants to do it. Hurricanehink 00:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am back to 1740-1759, and I just did a new format. The old format works when there are more storms, but for the older years, I am doing a Table instead of writing out the info out in sentences. Is that fine with everyone? Hurricanehink 20:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How far back? (Old)

Bob indirectly brought up an interesting point. How far do we need to take this page? How deep into the depths of hurricane history do we want and/or need to go? Just curious. By the way, I now have an account in Wikipedia, so that means you'll probably be seeing...just as much of me in the future (Oh what fun). -E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 10 January 2005

As far back as you're comfortable going with the available data. 19th century is probably too far. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hey, I heard that one of your current projects is to write up brief summeries of each named storm from now until 195..8(?). I'll help.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 11 January 2005

Now that we are in the 1800's, how far back should it go? 1886? 1851? 1492??? Is there a real point to having all of these years? Does the non-hurricane freak really care about hurricanes from the 1800's? -Hurricanehink 12 August 2005

Shouldn't be that hard, if you want to format it like my latest, 1895's season. Just need a small bit of info. I did a bit more info on 1898, 1899 and some others, but I'm sure that 1895 is a good template to follow. -- RattleMan 09:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Good Lord people! There's too little information on the 1800's. Lets not go back that far. Speculation is a bad thing for an encyclopedia.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
But I got the info I needed to make 1895-1899. The info site I am getting it from has information back until 1886. I think that would be a good place to stop. -- RattleMan 00:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Your articles are very extensive and provide very comprehensive, so I'll shut up about it pretty soon. Why don't we stop at a multiple of five (like 1880)? I feel all users frequenting the hurricane articles should come to a consensus on the stopping point. It has to end somewhere. Also, I think that damage figures, if available, should be listed. 1886 was a helluva year. Four hurricanes hit Texas; one killing several hundred people, and three hurricanes hit Florida.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
One of which destroyed Indianola, Texas. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
...Killing a couple hundred people. The Florida hurricanes didn't do much. ---E. Brown

I say go back to 1886; it's essentially the earliest that reliable records go back. I would've stopped in, like, the 1920's, but since we're already back this far, we might as well go to 1886. bob rulz 06:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Here's where I currently get my storm information, and as you can see, it goes back only as far as to 1886. I started making a "template" for using that information in the 1897 article, and have been using that template up to 1894, another article I decided to write today. So, anyway, anyone who wants to make 1893 and earlier can use that site. -- RattleMan 06:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
What about 1851? I know you're probably going to kill me, but the re-analysis went back to 1851, and some important hurricanes happened in the 36 years preceding 1886. For now, however, 1886 should be the definite dividing line. Hurricanehink 17:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
There's a pitiful amount of information for 1851-1869 and what little there is is of dirt-poor quality. There are too many general terms used in those reports. For example: "A big storm hit us on the night of ...lots of people died, much damage." No hard, specific facts there. No numbers, no estimates, just general obsevations. In addition, there are only a handful of significant hurricanes between those dates. Last Island, New England Hurricane of 1869, and the first Indianola storm in 1875 off the top of my head. I still say we go back no farther than 1880.
---For my articles (40 in all), I used the Monthly Weather Review. It gives a lot of good surface observations, storm tides and casualty and damage reports. I used UNISYS for the track references.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yea, good point. I just went back, and those years were boring! Does everyone agree on 1886? I'll agree.Hurricanehink 03:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok then, someone needs to work on 1893 and earlier now =P (I want to see someone else do some now) -- RattleMan 03:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I got 1893. Hopefully I got the main points (I am still learning, so don't kill me if it sucks). 1892 is up for grabs, and should be an easy year (no major hurricanes, no long trackers). Hurricanehink 22:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good job. Better than what I would have done XD -- RattleMan 23:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks RattleMan. Looking back, there seems to be a lot of boring tropical seasons pre-1893. 1888-1892 are all boring, 1887 had 19 storms but nothing too interesting, 1886 seems fun, but boring before then. We should decide once and for all on a cut off date. Is 1885 ok, just to end on a nice number? Hurricanehink 01:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I just completed 1890. This season was either not watched closely or was very unusual since it only had ONE hurricane. O_o -- RattleMan 01:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
...and it looks like some new guy just did the 1892 article in a different format. Interesting... -- RattleMan 02:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Err... you are missing a couple of storms from the 1890 hurricane season. According to Unisys, http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1890/index.html, there were 4 storms, but you had one. Was the website you were using before or after the reanalysis? Also, interesting format for 1892... Hurricanehink 02:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess I was using it before the reanalysis. I got my info from here. I guess I can add those now. -- RattleMan 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I just corrected 1890. I wonder...should we go back to 1851 now and use the template that guy used in 1892, but include some columns like "Formed" (where formed) and "Hit" (where it hit), and "Dissipated" (where it dissipated)? And like...not include any other information, the same as the 1892 article? -- RattleMan 02:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed to 1886, when semi-reliable records pretty much begin? (Back to 1851 is just ridiculous imo.) bob rulz 05:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for 1880. It is close to 1886, and it is a nice even number to stop at. Hurricanehink 16:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane season?

Although there is a brief mention about the season aspect of hurricanes at Tropical cyclone, it might also be good to write seperate article on hurricane season or Atlantic hurricane season as an overview of the season aspect of hurricanes and a brief summary of the more notable hurricane seasons. BlankVerse ∅ 08:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about starting an Atlantic hurricane article to cover them as a subset of tropical cyclones. Covering the seasonal aspect there would be a good fit. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the need. The seasonal limits are explained at the begining of each hurricane article and the notable storms (such as ones that defy these limits) are listed in the List of notable tropical cyclones.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am leaning slightly towards making it; since the Atlantic basin is by far the most well-researched basin, it could have specific information for the storms in that basin, the characteristics of it, their paths and steering forces, etc. Nothing would be removed from tropical cyclone though, it would be a companion article. --Golbez 01:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

So you guys are talking about making a page on the science and anatomy of Atlantic hurricanes?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a page about those aspects that are specific to the Atlantic basin. Note that, as the size warning says, tropical cyclone is already at 36 kilobytes. It's at the size where creating pages on subtopics becomes desirable, and I think a geographic division makes the most sense. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

'79 to Now Nothing!

I have found a method to the pre-1979 madness. From 1959-1971, the NHC rotated four lists every four years (sound familiar?). If they ran out of existing names, they'd make up a new one. I found the origianal four lists. After 1971, it starts getting weird (only 1974 seems to have any relation to a previous list). Note that these lists go as far down the alphabet as they ever historically went (For example, the 1960 list went down to 'I' in '64). Yet there are a number of inconsistancies. Names that disappear off the face of the Earth are marked with (^). Retired names are marked with (+).

  • Arlene
  • Beulah(+)
  • Cindy^
  • Debra^
  • Edith
  • Flora(+)
  • Gracie(+)
  • Hannah^
  • Irene
  • Janice^
  • Kristy
  • Laura
  • Abby
  • Brenda
  • Cleo(+)
  • Donna(+)
  • Ethel
  • Florence
  • Gladys
  • Hilda(+)
  • Isbell
  • Anna
  • Betsy(+)
  • Carla(+)
  • Debbie
  • Esther^
  • Frances^
  • Gerda
  • Hattie(+)
  • Inga
  • Jenny
  • Kara
  • Laurie
  • Martha
  • Alma
  • Becky
  • Celia(+)
  • Dorothy^
  • Ella
  • Faith^
  • Greta
  • Hallie
  • Inez(+)
  • Judith
  • Kendra
  • Lois

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That fits with the bit about John Hope giving Hurricane Camille his daughter's name. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but Carla was retired in 1961 and replaced with Carol in 1965. Carol was retired out of respect to the 1954 storm named Carol and was replaced with Camille in 1969. That is the last time the list was used. I think that this proves that the pre-1979 was not just random madness.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I mean that your statement that "If they ran out of existing names, they'd make up a new one" is consistent with the story that Hope was able to name Camille.
"Hey John, we retired the name Carol so we need a new C name." -- Cyrius|✎ 22:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I think that some of the sixties lists may have been derived from the fifties names, but I don't know that for sure. There seems to be some manner of consistancy but it's in pieces and inconclusive. I don't know what happened in the mid-seventies. I think that the hurricane center lost its mind or something. They almost completely disregarded their standard lists for reasons I have yet to figure out.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Individual Storm Summaries

While the debate over how far back we go with hurricane seasons, how about the storm summaries? I have done 1978 and 1977... Is there a point to even do them? If so, when would be a good place to stop each storm? 1950, 1953, 1960, 1969? Hurricanehink 22:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

1950 sounds like a good place to stop to me. That is where naming began and where our detailed summeries should end.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. For hurricanes that have a complete article, Hurricane Ginger comes to mind as I just worked on that, should there just be a one sentence synopsis, or a little history? Hurricanehink 03:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Summaries should stay on the hurricane season pages if there aren't more than 3-4 paragraphs about the storm. There have been several storms before 1950 which could get full articles, such as the Galveston storm of 1900 just to name one. --tomf688<TALK> 03:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. A just a couple of sentences won't work. Complete articles need to have more body than that. By the way, I wrote Hurricane Ginger originally, but it's unrecognizable now. I'm not sure an original word of mine is left.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant about the couple of sentences was, should the seasonal article have a couple of sentences, with the main information in the specific hurricane? For example: 20xx hurricane season, Hurricane Blah formed in the Gulf of Mexico on August 15. It rapidly intensified to a category 4 before hitting Texas on the 18th. It caused 2 dollars in damage. Would that be sufficent for the individual seasons, with a specific article for the specific hurricane? By the way, 1976 was completed for the storm summaries. Hurricanehink 20:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, 1975 and 1974 were finished. Hurricanehink 03:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And another monument is done. The 1950-1978 individual storm summaries are done! Hurricanehink 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

We really need to come up with some awards.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL, yea. As a side note, I am starting to bring back full summaries to 1890. Yes, I am probably an idiot, but the 1940's has little to no information on some important, destructive hurricanes (plus I can't stand to do nothing). I just did 1941 with the format I plan to continue with; only list hurricanes that affected land or was in some way notable. Hurricanehink 23:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I trust you noticed the notice of recognition at the top of the page. The Monthly Weather Review has good information you might want to dig into. That was one of my main sources. You shouldn't take the induvidual summeries back farther than 1900. That's my strong opinion.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Eh, good point. I'll just go back to 1930 for now. Yea, the monthly weather review is the main source I use, as well as unisys. Hurricanehink 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't even see the notice of recognition! That is awesome! Great work everyone! Hurricanehink 22:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thought I expressed the hard work done well, but feel free to add or subtract anything you feel is nessisary or unnessisary.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

page locked?

what the hell is up with the guy doing the vandalism? has he been blocked? Pellaken 14:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope so, I want to edit this page again =( -- 204.228.23.141 21:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay, it's been unlocked =D -- RattleMan 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for cleanup

The request for cleanup is for the individual hurricane year articles. This topic is important after hurricane katrina and hurricane rita, and the history for hurricane seasons is in a poor state. I only read between 1900 and 1940 before giving up, but many of the years do not list the number of storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes, or do not list all of them. 1940 only mentions 1 hurricane! The writing is usually poor. Honestly, I think most of this information would be better listed in table format (which is how unisys does it). I don't know if unisys's storm tracks are under copyright, but if not then I suggest that they be added to each article. I have a table of the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major storms for each year 1900-2004 if people are interested, but I just got it from unisys as well. --Ignignot 19:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting there. I am currently working between finishing the archive back to 1492 and doing individual summaries. I only have from 1953 to 1958 to be finished, then I might to pre-1950 if needed. If you want to see quality articles, you should start at modern years (come to think of it, the list should be backwards, starting with modern years and ending with the early history ones. Anyone agree?)Hurricanehink 20:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I feel it should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order. That could be disorienting.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Wow, long time to see to this page. The infoboxes for all of the individual hurricane seasons are done (woohoo!). Here rises the problem. We have useful track maps back to 1851, and based on the decadal pages, it seems that Jdore wants each season in the decade page to have an infobox. The trouble is, the current format we have for the infobox works by having the track map correspond to the title page, but we can't have a track map for all 10 years of the decade. What should the solution be?

  1. Get rid of the track maps for those 39 years (1851-1889)
  2. Find a way to have infoboxes for the seasons in the decadal article
  3. Make articles from 1851-1889

I personally vote for 2, but I'm not good with HTML or anything computer related, meaning someone else will have to figure it out. I am opposed to 1, but no opposed to 3. Hurricanehink 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward #2 but just barely. It we cannot find a way to insert the tracks without screwing up the text or anything else, then they must be removed. But in the sake of consistancy, I say 2 for now. I'm against 3 because there just isn't enough information for many of those seasons. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I say make a new infobox (#2-ish), which is one LONG infobox that goes like this:

(picture, say 1880)
(stats for 1880)
(picture for 1881)
(stats for 1881)
(1882)
(s1882)
(etc)

Maybe the font sizes (and possibly the pictures?) can be smaller for this one. -- RattleMan 03:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds chaotic and I'm not sure what the concept really is. Could you put it in a sandbox? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried one idea for the 1880-1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons, in particular, 1880, 1881, and 1882. Does this work? Hurricanehink 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The naming issue is taken care of. The problem now is just one of formatting: having 10 infoboxes on one page looks ugly and they may not line up properly with their seasons, given the current way the infobox is done. I'm sure this can be fixed but I don't know exactly how. Jdorje 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
To solve that, I just added more text for 1881 and 1882. You need about 25 lines of text to make things work out. That is about 4-5 storm summaries, which is doable for every season. The only problem I see in the future is 1850, but that isn't to big of a deal. Hurricanehink 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Problem is that kindof depends on font size and window width. We need a way to force a hard break in the page for the corner cases where it isn't enough text. Jdorje 20:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, very good point about the size. I have no idea about the break. Anyone else? Hurricanehink 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems {{clear}} is all that's needed. Use it liberally! Jdorje 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Is the empty space fine, though? Hurricanehink 21:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not good, but it's not that terrible. Basically I think we still want to fill that space, but if things don't line up exactly the {{clear}} prevents the *really* bad formatting problems. Jdorje 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting over with the indents...I believe that, to fill the blank space (I'm using 1024x768 resolution, BTW), we can talk about the second-most notable storm (or, if it's already noted, the third-most, if noted then fourth, etc) in the season. Good idea? -- RattleMan 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept, but will it work? (he muses rhetorically) -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_seasons/Archive_1&oldid=1144672498"