Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2010

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:48, 16 October 2010 [1].

---

Jessica Mauboy discography

Notified: Ozurbanmusic, Alex Douglas, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. The last three promo/soundtrack singles are unreferenced, as are most of the music video directors. The references are also not formatted well, eg citations 13 and 14 are just titled, without publishers/dates. The labels that Mauboy is signed to are also not referenced. Furthermore, although less critically, the 'sales' of albums are listed, although these are based on certifications which, in Australia, are judged on shipments. It seems redundant to list the certifications and sales, then link to the certifications page in the header of the table. Lastly, an image wouldn't go amiss. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment agree that the list needs an overhaul, I've added an image and removed the bold linkage in the lead, but as Adabow notes, there's more to do... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the promo/soundtrack singles have been referenced, the music video directors have been referenced, the references are formatted well now and citations 13 and 14 are good now. The lables have references now. I've removed the sales section because it's not needed. Lastly theres an image now. Anything else needs fixing? ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep I've had a go at improving the expression in the Lead and standardised the references as per ozurbanmusic's formatting.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Further comments Good work. A few more things, though:

Lead fails WP:ORDINAL. Is there a total number of sales figure available to tie up the lead?

What makes popdirt, Captiv8 and everHype reliable sources?

Why isn't the "Been Waiting" director listed? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added total number of sales in lead. Those sources are reliable. They have the names of the directors who shot the videos and there not blogs. And the reason why Been Waiting director isnt listed because I couldn't find a source of who directed the video but I will still keep on looking. ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I don't find this artist to have enough notability to have a discography section. Her album charted in Australia, her only charter.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok so every other artist has a discography article. Even if there just charted in one country. Theres no rule saying there shouldn't be a discography article for an artist if they've only charted in one country. ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but FL criterion 3.b says it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists. This is what Peter is contesting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Anymore to do lists for the article? ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced about the reliability of sources. EverHype looks like a blog or social networking site. Popdirt also seems to be a blog site. I have realised that Captiv8 is a video production company, so I am satisfied with that. The lead has not been addressed with respect to WP:ORDINAL. The certifications should be listed separately for each song, rather than lumping them together, otherwise people may think they might have been released as a triple A-side or similar. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I don't get what you mean by the lead? is it the numbering format? ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist and if possible Merge to the artist's bio page, per PeterGriffin's comments. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with Peter's and Legolas' interpretation of this criterion. The artist is notable enough for a separate discography even if charting occurred in one country. Notability of this artist's discography is further reinforced through certifications received.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres millions of discography articles that have charted in one country and have a discography article. Adabow knows this. Plus theres already heaps of information on their for it have its own article. We're not here to discuss if the article should be merged into the main article, we're here to discuss if it should stay in the featured list! ozurbanmusic (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter and Legolas are commenting on its FL status. Criterion 3.b states that to be featured a list must meet WP:SAL. This is what they are disputing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Further clarification is required from Peter (or Legolas):

1. Which particular point(s) on WP:SAL are under dispute?
2. Where does it specify that a separate discography list must have charting in more than one country to be notable enough to exist?
3. Does the existence of other FL discographies for artists with only one country's charting have any bearing on this discussion?

As indicated previously, this artist's discography is notable enough on its own. I don't believe charting in more than one country is a necessary criterion for inclusion according to WP:SAL.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is a discography article this small really necessary? I'm afraid it could be a WP:CFORK– I'm not too versed in discographies though, so I'm sure someone else can comment about that. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Its not small. This is the average size of a discography article. She's just released her new single, so theres more to come later in the year which means the article will expand. Like I said, we're discussing if the article should stay as a featured list. Not if it should be deleted or merged! ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I mean, I don't see why merging should be off the table when the discography's so small... as her albums expand, I could see a discography article being created, but I wonder-- is it really necessary to have an entire separate article to say that she's released one album? I feel the content could easily be placed back into the main article and the current discography article could be a re-direct until then. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Shes released two albums, a live and a studio. Her second studio album will be released on November 5, 2010. This article was created in 2008 and has had no problems. Why now! Hey Adabow can you just remove it from the featured list already so we can stop all this! ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral
  • People seem to be getting confused here. FL is about standards and quality not necessarily length. GA, FA and FL criteria and guidelines state that articles can be promoted as long as they are broad in coverage and follow manual of style.
  • In terms of MoS this is a very good example of a discog that follows it well.
  • It is reliably sourced.
  • Though at the time of nomination it was very small and shouldn't have existed (it should have been a section on her artist page), now it exists its well written.
  • the real issue here is ... do we delist a discography that should have never been an independent article but is well written enough to be a good FL candidate? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, because it shouldn't be an article in the first place and therefore shouldn't be featured. The article should be made into a re-direct and its content should be merged back into the main article– once she's made a couple more albums and her discography is too long for her main article, the old article can be brought back from the re-direct and re-expanded. Shouldn't be too much of a process. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, just leave it as it is. Theres nothing wrong with it and it's not that small. ozurbanmusic (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep While there are some MOS issues to clean up, I don't have a problem with this being a stand-alone list. This in no ay fails 3b. Courcelles 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a for the record thing, I'm typing this on my phone so no guarantees this'll work or format right. Hmm.... is there a notability criteria specifically for discographies, or are we just eyeballing it? Also, sorry Ozurbanmusic... I've kind of sounded like a WP:DICK throughout this discussion- apologies. I know how much work you put into this list, and I don't mean this to be anything personal. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok Nomander, I have worked hard on it and I really don't want it merged into the main article which I also worked hard on to improve and merging the discography into the main article will make it look untidy which I really don't want. I think Adabow took this personal since I took over him from editing Stan Walker related articles. But overall, theres nothing wrong with the article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, ozurbanmusic, that is quite low. It is absolutely not personal. In fact, I didn't know that you were involved here, as another used originally got it promoted. Please refrain from making personal attacks, and I look forward to working with you on other content in the future. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral on the delisting, because other than the YouTube sourcing in the videos section, the other is fine for now. Strongly Oppose merging, as her discog seems too comprehensive to be merged. Candyo32 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist and merge. Among other issues noted, this shouldn't have even passed in the first place as it fails FL criterion 3b: "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." –Chase (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per 3b. It's a well written article and once Mauboy's discography and released works expand, the discography article can be split back out into a separate article. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per above, far too short a discography to be a standalone article per the precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I rarely deal with artist discographies unless they pop up at FLC/FLRC. Would you mind telling me what precedent you are referring to? Goodraise 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist and merge. The topic of this page can be covered in an equally detailed manner and without problem in the main article. Organizing the encyclopedia's content into ever smaller bits is not beneficial to the reader. The advantage, we can often gain by creating summary style spin-outs is, in this case, minimal at best. Goodraise 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist and merge the main article is only 30k long, and addition of this there would not make the main article either too long or overbalanced. If that is still the case, it could even be merged into Young Divas discography. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral – I don't deal that much with discographies, but I do know that in the past they have pretty much received a free pass from 3b as a whole; can't say that I'm sad to see that ending. As for this article, I'm of two minds. I absolutely see the rationale for delisting/merging and agree with it to a certain point. The tables can be merged into the main article. The question I have is whether this would be beneficial to the main article. At first glance, it does seem like a lot of tables to be putting in (even if they are small). I don't think it would overwhelm the article as is, but if anyone ever wanted to merge the awards and nominations list (another short one), there would be a risk of that. I could honestly live with either possible result. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:48, 16 October 2010 [2].

---

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast

Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Companies

Another FL criteria violation (3b). This featured list can easily be merged into the main article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist so this is a 3.b breach. But could it not be salvaged by adding extra stuff about the mergers? Sandman888 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep at least until we know what 3b is going to look like long-term. While it is actively in flux, I can't support removing FL's for that rule. (NB: I'm not 100% certain this is unsalvageable even with 3b as it stands.) Courcelles 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• So it should be taken to AfD if one is concerned about SAL criteria? Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, AfD seems to be the appropriate forum for 3.b concerns. On behalf of K. Annoyomous I've created the relevant discussion here. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I wish you had discussed that before closing. Precedence has it that FL can be deleted without going through FLRC, and one of the concerns on the RfC of 3.b was that 3.b objections duplicate 3.b so therefor an article should be allowed to be featured if it can survive AfD. As both WFC and I pointed out in the RfC it would make sense to leave 3.b concerns to AfD as a part of WP:SAL. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist The list was incomplete as it did not include The New Yorker. I have redirected it to the relevant section of the Condé Nast Publications article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist and then redirect to the main article. It has already been merged. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delist if that even makes any sense any more... DRV seems in favour of overturning, rendering the FLRC moot. Sandman888 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If I know Dabomb87 or TRM they'll let it run until the RfC on 3.b is over per the above keep. Then probably require editors to revisit their delists based on the outcome of the rfc, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Sandman888 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - List has already been merged with the main article. Please continue the removal of its featured status. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Update Merge has been undone, another AfD has been started. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge hasn't been undone, its still in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist the 3.b rfc doesn't seem to be going anywhere with discussion died out. From the current criteria this is included in another article without remotely exceeding size concerns. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep until the final consensus is reached on what the 3b really means and what it entails. I am not convinced that "But it could be merged into an article..." is a sufficient reason to delete and/or delist an FL. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep FL status. It's hard to see how this could be merged into Condé Nast Publications without creating a weight problem on that article. It's perfectly appropriate for a list to complement an article, offering a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in the article. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep FL status. Agree that the list is of a high-level of quality, and that it helps to complement the core article, rather than overwhelm it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. Normally I'd point to criterion 3b as justification for my oppose/delist vote and be done with it. However, seeing as 3b is currently being discussed in depth on the criteria talk page, I feel the need to dig a little deeper this time. In my opinion, having lists like this go around displaying the bronze star is hurting the encyclopedia. "Getting a list to featured status" is considered some sort of achievement by many editors. In almost all cases that is a good thing. Put intentionally oversimplified, it motivates certain kinds of editors to create high quality content, who otherwise wouldn't. But there's an exception. Unlike normal articles, which are treated with the full force of our notability guidelines, list articles only face the mild breeze of "no consensus" in that area. If not for the FL process, lists would be spun-out of their parent articles on an as-needed basis. However, the FL process and the aforementioned achievement mentality do exist, and, because of them, editors spin-out lists before it becomes necessary and even if it probably never will be necessary. To make things even worse, this effect is accumulative. The list discussed here is a prime example. It may have brilliant prose an all, but it's just about as long as the average DYK. Lists as short as this shouldn't even stand alone if the main article was huge. In the absence of notability or a similar system for lists, FLC (whether we like it or not) is the place where, indirectly, the bulk of editors look for guidance. And until the larger community gets its act together and creates more explicit standards than what we have to work with right now, we should at least try to keep the trend away from "let's go chop up some articles into tiny little, FLC suitable pieces." -- If this was a merge discussion or an AfD, I'd vote merge. For that simple reason, I cannot vote keep here. Goodraise 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per Good. If balancing is an issue, I am sure that those two tables can be made collapsable and then there would be no problem. If people still don't like this, then somebody should create the article History of Condé Nast and put the table there. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Remove – Tough call, but I do think it fails to meet 3b. The tables are now included in the main Conde Nast article, and their inclusion seems reasonable to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. IMO these pre-emtive spin-offs were what 3b was made for (and the ongoing RfC saga hasn't convinced me otherwise). I think the "it could overwhelm the main article" argument is moot. The main article has existed since 2004 and hasn't been expanded enough to justify spinning-out yet. If someone does do a major re-write and finds that then the section is too weighty, we may consider spining-off again. However saying it that it could happen and that it should be pre-emptively spun out so a list can get a little bronze star is pure speculation (and in my opinion is tantamount to Wikipedia:Gaming the system). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 18:01, 11 October 2010 [3].

---

List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes

Notified: Miss Madeline, WP:TROP

I am nominating this for featured list removal because this is has not update since it was made. I do no think it meets criteria 3a anymore. I tried updating the article, but it is just too much work. In addition, shouldn't there be a modern repeats section? There is no sources to Baja Insider (the tracking agency for the region). Also, there should be mention of averages of hurricane pear year (Baja Insider once mentioned that) and maybe even why early season hurricane don't make landfall there (mentioned by Baja Insider as well). YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, even if Baja Insider is not considered reliable enough there is still plenty of info missing and it still fails criteria 3a. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for peoples information, a few off us WPTC members including YE had a conversation on IRC and from first impressions of the site it didn't seem reliable. However people are welcome to judge this for themselves. I have also obtained a list of TC's from YE that are missing from this list. These are

Oliva 1967, Newton 86, Paine 86, Roslyn 1986, Flossie 1995,Madeline 98, Lane 2000, Elida 02, Hernan 2002, Isselle 02, Howard 04, Eugene 05, Illena 06, Dailla 07, Ivo 07 , Julio 08, Lowell 08, Olaf 09, Patricia 09, Rick 09, Norbert 08, Jimena 09 Gorgette 10. I will be double checking over the next couple of days why these aren't in the list my suspicion is that some of these barley affected Baja or didnt affect Baja at all.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All of these posted some effect on the Baja. These all impacted Baja form waves to $764 million in damage to TS watches. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Even i still need to double check, since i need to know whats happened.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard 2004 passed well offshore and had no impact on Baja according to the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Relating to Howard check this. Madeline, Flossie, and Iselle all required TS watches. The NHC is not the best source for impact, impact is not there specialty, forecasting hurricnae is. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 4:54 am, Today (UTC+1)

ive checked that site and it doesn't mention anything about Howard causing any impact so it doesn't go in. Also i trust the NHC more with regards to impact than that source you provided which looks unreliable to me, especially when you consider that it passed well to the south of Baja.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the hurricnae Howard 2004 article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of the missing storms. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Still quite a few storms are missing. The NHC is not the best source of impact, as I found a few major factaul error errors. Julio killed two people not one and Norbert and Jimena have damage totals. A few storms that caused waves or TS watches are still missing. What about a modern repeats section? also, not enough detail is included in the worse of storms (Liza, Norbert, Jimena). However, you are doing a great job thus far. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A modern repeats is unnecessary. A storm hits the BCP about once a year, hardly a rare event. Also, it is not necessary to indent that much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

True. Also, should there be a Little more said for the notable storms. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What is so special about Norbert and Jimena that they deserve damage totals? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are damage totals available, why not put them? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of other ones don't have damage totals. What about those ones? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont personally see the need for the damage totals, especially as lots are missing or even haven't been assessed.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way if there are damages totals put them in there (Jimena and Norbert were just examples as they have damage totals). They are in other hurricnae FL's and for some reason not in this one. In addition, we list deaths, damage totals are equally or almost important. Also, of the systems that are missing a number of them have not been taken care of (Howard did affect Bja) YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, people are more important; you can always build another house, but you can't just get another (say) brother. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but we put them in hurricnae info boxes, don't see why not we can put them in the article? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't exclude information just because you don't want it to be there. If it's excluded, that can be considered censorship and obviously makes the article incomplete. Whenever available, the damage totals should be added to article. There may be a handful without monetary values listed, but that's how things are sometimes. The article doesn't have have "perfect" parallels for each summary, they just have to be as complete as can be with the available sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the actual quality of the article...it definitely needs improvement in places. A lot of the more recent storms are written in several sentences than can easily be merged into one and allow room for more information. I'll see what I can do tomorrow to improve the article quality, the information to be added (in addition to damage totals) is up for discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

One issue I'm concerned with is how do you know if you got every storm? I realize there is a similar issue in other such lists, but for now I'll ask on here. It says Henriette was the only one in 2007, but the Dalila and Ivo articles both indicate impact on the peninsula. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, delist. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be delisted. I added Ivo and Dailla to the list of missing storms. More importantly they are factual errors in the article. For expamle, Julio killed 2 people not one. How can a storm kill 0-57. It hit Sinola where it killed all of its people. When they are death toll ranges form different sources always go with the higher one so the death toll of Liza is 950, not 600. Juliete and Liza also need damage totals and likely a few other storms. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree about always going with the higher one. One should always go with the most recent and most accurate source. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Spanish sources tend to be more accurate than the NHC. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

...not really. It depends from what agency the info is from. If it's some generic Spanish blog, than NHC is usually more accurate. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is why I said tend. also, we got a new storms missing Georgette 10. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist - currently this list fails 2 and 3a. Several editors above has expressed concern about the comprehensiveness of this list. Also the lead can be improved with more engaging language. "The list of Baja California hurricanes includes ..." reads a little better than "This is a list of ..." but still sounds boring. The sources are mostly okay but those from http://www.weather.unisys.com looks dubious. They also need consistent formatting. Some lack publisher info.—Chris!_c/t 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.