Template talk:Most intense Atlantic hurricanes

message: ===Horribility===
Can this be changed?  I've been looking up hurricanes lately, and it looks horrible - how the template takes up 90% of the page and the word wrapped text is two words wide.  I don't know how it would be fixed, but I was thinking of putting it on its own line, like with the npov or dispute templates.  Hbdragon88 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fixed it up...removed the float and clear tags. Hbdragon88 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That would be  Jdorje 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I added Katrina and Wilma back, based on List of notable tropical cyclones. Jdorje 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wilma $24B was never a US estimate, but a total estimate for all areas affected (now at $16-20B). Also I'd increase this chart to a top 10 list. CrazyC83 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with making it a top-10 list is that a number of the articles show several different lists (costliest, deadliest, most intense: there's a lot of overlap) and for some of the shorter articles this becomes a formatting problem.  However I think all lists should be equal length...currently one list is 10 long and the others are all 5 (IIRC). Jdorje 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Can this be changed?  I've been looking up hurricanes lately, and it looks horrible - how the template takes up 90% of the page and the word wrapped text is two words wide.  I don't know how it would be fixed, but I was thinking of putting it on its own line, like with the npov or dispute templates.  Hbdragon88 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fixed it up...removed the float and clear tags. Hbdragon88 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horribility

message: This should be split into two templates, one for each column.  The two columns don't really have much in common with each other (only 3 hurricanes overlap both lists), and the size of the template means it doesn't integrate well with the text of articles. Jdorje 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be  Jdorje 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: ==== Sources? ====
This template needs sources. Jdorje
==== 2005 hurricanes ====
I removed Katrina from the list, and updated the disclaimer to be 1851-2004 (records go back to 1851).  The alternatives were to add estimates for Rita ($16B) and Wilma ($24B) to the list, and since all three numbers are basically speculation I don't think it's appropriate for them to take up 60% of the list! Jdorje 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Katrina and Wilma back, based on List of notable tropical cyclones. Jdorje 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wilma $24B was never a US estimate, but a total estimate for all areas affected (now at $16-20B). Also I'd increase this chart to a top 10 list. CrazyC83 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with making it a top-10 list is that a number of the articles show several different lists (costliest, deadliest, most intense: there's a lot of overlap) and for some of the shorter articles this becomes a formatting problem.  However I think all lists should be equal length...currently one list is 10 long and the others are all 5 (IIRC). Jdorje 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Costliest hurricanes

message: I removed Katrina from the list, and updated the disclaimer to be 1851-2004 (records go back to 1851).  The alternatives were to add estimates for Rita ($16B) and Wilma ($24B) to the list, and since all three numbers are basically speculation I don't think it's appropriate for them to take up 60% of the list! Jdorje 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Katrina and Wilma back, based on List of notable tropical cyclones. Jdorje 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wilma $24B was never a US estimate, but a total estimate for all areas affected (now at $16-20B). Also I'd increase this chart to a top 10 list. CrazyC83 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with making it a top-10 list is that a number of the articles show several different lists (costliest, deadliest, most intense: there's a lot of overlap) and for some of the shorter articles this becomes a formatting problem.  However I think all lists should be equal length...currently one list is 10 long and the others are all 5 (IIRC). Jdorje 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 hurricanes 

message: There is now 15 storms instead of 10.HurricaneCraze32 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's way too big.  I would even consider dropping the number of storms to 5. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How's this?Its 11-20.HurricaneCraze32 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea.  The list is wrong, however; you need to find a real source if you're going to make such a list. — jdorje (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All I could use. I fixed 19th for a tie.HurricaneCraze32 20:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall I publish this?HurricaneCraze32 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It is still quite wrong.  See Template talk:Most intense Atlantic hurricanes/List. — jdorje (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That list also has errors-Gloria has 919 not 920. Now.Is that correct?HurricaneCraze32 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll read the caveats section, you'll see that list isn't precise either.  As for Gloria, you'd have to look in the TCR to see why the value is different. — jdorje (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put /920 after it. I shortened the link. Is it accepted now?HurricaneCraze32 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.  919-920 isn't a real pressure.  We have to find out the actual pressure. — jdorje (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll Leave it as 919.5 until we figure it out.Whats Dr.Avila's e-mail? He's my idol.HurricaneCraze32 23:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ???Why don't you just look at the Gloria article??? — jdorje (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was for something else.HurricaneCraze32 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (indent reset) Wouldn't this be better as a parameter to the current template if you want top 15/20? --AySz88^-^ 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had that.Jdorje found it too big.HurricaneCraze32 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too big to just show the top 20...we could have a parameter showing which set you want though:  to show the top 5, or 15 to show 10-15, etc.  It would take some qif ugliness however (perhaps better done as a wrapper for  and so forth.  Personally I think 5 is a better size than 10...10 is really big. — jdorje (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worked on it.What shall i fix?HurricaneCraze32 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New one

message: This was broken. It was obvious to me because I use full justification. It is now fixed but is probably still broken in all the other templates. TimL 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated margins

message: I don't understand this template at all ().  Why does it list the storms by their lowest pressures instead of their pressures at landfall?  By the logic of this template, a storm could make landfall as a tropical depression, do no damage, but make this list if at some point it had a pressure of 900 mb.  Just doesn't make sense to me...this template should list the landfall pressures. -Runningonbrains 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this template makes no sense at all. The pressure at landfall is what should be listed and ranked by. TimL 03:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who didn't understand the point of the template ahd made it simply a list of intense hurricanes. I've fixed it. —Cuiviénen 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't make sense.... 

message: I added the Katrina citation to this template as it was not included in the table citated reference.  Unfortunately, footnote citations will not work in this template.  The item is flagged as footnote 19 in Hurricane Andrew article, but it does not show up in the references section.  Possibly this template should be generalized to be a simple top ten table?  Alan.ca 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina Source and problems 

message: What is table class? I've never seen it anywhere else, and it makes this template show up in :Category:Unassessed meteorology articles. -RunningOnBrains 16:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table class? 

message: Hurricane Irene has been inserted into this table without citing a source. The source cited for the table is for through 2010. This has caused me confusion. -- Donald Albury 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which table?.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irene