Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Iota

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.189.220.98 (talk) at 04:00, 24 November 2020 (→‎Damage in Honduras). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

Can we please make this page semi-protected? Vandals may invade this page, especially since this storm is near category 5 status. -Shift674- (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NHC, Hurricane Iota is not a Category 5. We should probably change that. 71.244.146.180, 9:52 EST, 16 November 2020

It is now! CyclonicStormYutu, 15:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I just saw that! 71.244.146.180, 10:05 EST, 16 November 2020

it's time to protect this Meteorologist200 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who just put all of this fake information on the article? 71.244.146.180, 9:52 EST, 16 November 2020

A certain idiot who has been using multiple IPs to vandalize Category 5 and high-end Category 4 hurricane articles. It may be the same person as 2600:8807:8280::/48 (one of the ranges abused by Wyatt2049), given the "God said to me" crap. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok (btw I just created an account) HurricaneGeek, 1:28 PM EST, 16 November 2020
Happening again, ugh. Please make this semi-protected until tomorrow, at least 63.229.224.41 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact reason why we need to protect this! Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000 and Meteorologist200: That complete ass has helped Wikipedia's Hurricane Iota trend on Twitter. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it is him that did it? If it is not he is bringing in more people. Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this guy's is Wyatt4029 or something like that when I checked his edits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/967856615 Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some guy called Evan I messaged him Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean adam Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jeez, why are people trying to mess with the pages? they're supposed to be informative, not completely incorrect :( Arsonlord69 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, this vandal is probably either Wyatt2049 or My Royal Young. Unfortunately, if it's the latter, the abuse will be much more difficult to combat (not least because the involvement of MRY means that the ranges recently blocked involve Proxy/VPN abuse). As of this writing, in addition to the IPv6 range I've mentioned above (which is probably a range of Wyatt2049), the abuse has originated from 3 IPv4 IP ranges: 90.255.128.0/17, 90.253.64.0/18, 90.240.0.0/19. The recent spree of sock accounts were probably made from other IP ranges (almost definitely Open Proxy or VPN networks). All of the given ranges are currently on my watchlist. At this point, I can't rule out copycat vandalism, which would imply that at least 2 separate vandals are involved. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Additions

Why can't we mention Hurricane Eta in the "See Also" section? 71.244.146.180, 12:26 PM EST, 16 November 2020

I agree since Hurricane Eta also hit in the similar place a week ago.

There's a special note on the "See Also" section when you edit the source saying, 'Do not add Hurricane Eta as that storm will be HEAVILY referenced and linked in this article.' JCesar, 14:39 GMT-4, 16 November 2020

The See Also section in an article is there for germane wikilinks that aren't already in the text. Hurricane Eta is already linked in the body of the article, which was inevitable. Therefore, it should not go in See Also. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I put the note there.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Records section

@Destroyeraa and HurricaneTracker495: please discuss this here and don't start another edit war. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should. Is it mentioned Iota was the last developing category 5? That it was the 2nd major hurricane in November? First 30th named storm? These are all records that must be mentioned. And it will likely set more records later, though we never know. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. They will be mentioned in the met history. A records section is essentially trivia. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added to met history. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HurricaneTracker495. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a records section would be appropriate. Iota [set the record] for fastest pressure drop in one hour (10mb) and tied 2005's record for most total depressions and storms, along with everything HurricaneTracker mentioned. Additional records seem feasible. IMO, trying to add all records to the met history section will make it bloated and less readable. 63.229.224.41 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm open to a records section once there are around five meaningful records that aren't included elsewhere or are very obvious, unlike "Iota is the first 30th named storm. Currently, there are 2 meaningful records: Iota led 2020 to have 2 Nov majors, and Iota had the fastest mbar drop. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s 3 Destroyeraa. Latest category 5 development. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneTracker495: Three then. Two more to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add the records section back. It was here when the article was created and it is a great idea. Don't delete it after it has been there for like 2 days. Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa because it's a category 5 at 13.5°N, it's the second southernmost category 5 behind Hurricane Matthew. And that could easily change, if it goes south by six more nautical miles. We're now at 4. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, since it behing Matthew, it isn't a record-breaker. Thus, it's trivial. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we shall wait for the 4:00 update then. Which should tell us if it dunk further south. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! it's now at 13.6°N. Checking to see if it's southernmost category 4, however. (or 3 or 2). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa and HurricaneTracker495: Looking at its path, and comparing it with Felix's path, (this might be WP:OR but) couldn't this be the southernmost landfall of a Category 5 hurricane? I likehurricanes 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
let's wait for the sources. Keep in mind it could always weaken to a category 4 or make a sudden swerve to the north before landfall. (It could also swerve south and be the southernmost category 5 on record). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the fourth important record is that Iota has the strongest winds at landfall of any November hurricane in the Atlantic. Don't really get why y'all want five non-trivial records before a separate section can be made, as even the weirdest storms seem unlikely to break five records at a time, but there's the fourth. BagelRabbit (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: The total number of records isn't what matters. What matters is whether these can be covered in reliable sources. By the way, having them mentioned in the lead is not a valid reason to not have this kind of section; MOS:LEAD dictates that the lead summarize the rest of the article, which in particular means that anything mentioned in the lead gets mentioned further down. I think we can have such a section, but also, as per MOS:USEPROSE, it should not be in list format.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protect?

There's currently an anonymous vandal trying to "claim" that the storm will become post-tropical in 30 minutes, and an all-out editing war has been going back-and-forth for some time now, clogging up the edit history. At this point, the page really needs some protections on it. Triclops Queen (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Triclops Queen: It's one IP who will probably be blocked soon. However, this exact problem has been a recurring issue. I not only second this, but I suggest preemptive semi-protection on any further tropical cyclone articles going forward, at least for this year. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember, it was a different IP address when this happened on Hurricane Eta a few weeks back. No clue if it's the same person using different IPs, and I was recommended to add the protection request here. I second the semi-protection request you mentioned, especially for those that can cause particularly severe damage to the area. Triclops Queen (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Triclops Queen: yes, I'm pretty sure this is the same dude. There were similar edits on Laura and Delta, but in that case, it was saying god would strengthen it into a cat 5 (which I, myself, do not think god would do). I likehurricanes 21:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs to be protected

It keeps getting that weird message, it needs protecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection requests can be made at WP:RFPP, where Jasper Deng and Destroyeraa have fortunately taken the time to create a report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! --WarDestroyer88 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)WarDestroyer88[reply]

@Favonian and ToBeFree: Thanks for the work you do. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, we talked on this before it was even a problem and we got it started. Meteorologist200 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Eta's track

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I found some reference from this website that it could likely follow Eta's track, and that would possibly hit Florida and the Carolinas, just like what Eta did. And the hurricane is already a category 5. I'm also predicting that Iota would also hit Florida as either a Category 1 or Category 2 hurricane.

I have some evidence like this: Forecasters warned that Iota could power up quickly, to major hurricane strength, as it approaches Central America late Sunday or Monday, and wreak more havoc in a region where people are still grappling with the aftermath of Eta. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source again carefully, nowhere does it state that Iota is heading for the US. In fact, that is quite impossible given the strong ridging over the southeast US and that Iota's dissipating over Central America as I'm typing this. That source also happens to be three days old, and in view of the transience of the weather, is quite outdated. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a high pressure system dominating the US right now, so Iota won't be going to the US unless that high pressure moves. Also Iota is rapidly weakening over Central America as I'm typing. HurricaneGeek {talk}
Iota is much more likely to cross into EPac rather than going to US. SMB99thx my edits 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
anything is possible. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

MH section, remove like this: Category 4 Hurricane Eta (redundant) 182.239.122.186 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for requesting an edit! 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020 (2)

Changing the status of category 1 hurricane to tropical storm status with 65 mph winds and a pressure of 984 mbars

Do you have a source? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found this,  Doing... --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Before it even becomes an issue, what image are we using for this storm?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it's File:Iota 2020-11-16 1500Z.png, which is the best one near peak at 12Z. File:Iota 2020-11-16 1430Z.jpg doesn't have a good eye and is of relatively lower quality, so we can discount that. There's also File:Iota 2020-11-16 1200Z.png which is at peak (and personally my favourite), but the west part of the image is completely dark since it was taken just after local sunrise. Not much to argue about this time, I hope. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Track Image with Intensities

I can't help but noticing the track image in the meteorological history section seems to be wrong - NHC had it as a Cat 5 for much longer than a Cat 4. According to the image, it only briefly obtained Cat 5 intensity, whereas looking at the archive at NHC, it was a Cat 5 for 9 hours. Why do they differ? What do other people think? Bellminsterboy (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellminsterboy: Those maps are based on the best track data, which I believe are located here (correct me if I am wrong) and may differ from the intensities issued during advisories. The forecast discussion issued for 4:00 p.m. EST/21:00 UTC on November 16 did state that the estimate of category 5 intensity might be generous, and the best track data only shows category 5 intensity at 12:00 UTC. So this portion of the track appears to have been downgraded. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS and Bellminsterboy: That is correct according to MarioProtIV.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020, adding hurricane Eta to the list of similar hurricanes

edit: add hurricane Eta to the paraphraph on the bottom of the article next to hurricane Mitch and Felix, as it has devastated a smillar area just two weeks prior Ikethecatto (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is an invisible comment to not add Hurricane Eta to the see also section, as it is linked and referenced heavily throughout the main article. Skarmory (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Add photo File:Lluvias en Bogotá por Iota.jpg to Colombia (Impact) section 103.233.235.176 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold letting someone more advanced do it. Destroyeraa. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

First request

Please remove 

becoming the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Nicaragua within November in recorded history.

and add 

becoming the strongest recorded hurricane to make landfall in Nicaragua in November.

108.39.223.134 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reactivated this request because it wasn't done, yet it wasn't rejected. It looks like it was forgotten about. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second request

Please remove 

prevented the Colombian Navy from reaching island

and add 

prevented the Colombian Navy from reaching the island

108.39.223.134 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I like hurricanes 12:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Mexico

Hi:

I think there is a problem of interpretation for the death toll in Mexico. The reference cited in the text keep referring to Iota AND Eta. For Mexico it states: "Civil Protection reporting a cumulative death toll of 30 people and nearly 297,000 people affected across Chiapas, Tabasco and Veracruz". I think that the cumulative of 30 death is for both hurricanes, not for Iota alone. Since there is 27 death with Eta, the number of deaths for Iota in Mexico should be only 3. This would be more logical since Iota passed very far from Mexico. Furthermore, I cannot find any other article talking about deaths with Iota in Mexico.

Pierre cb (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't outright confirmed that the 3 deaths not accounted for aren't from Eta, though. Skarmory (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wilbi", Nicaragua

The report about a wind measurement by a ham radio operator in "Wilbi" was copied from an NHC discussion published during the storm. It appears to be a typo. As can be clearly seen by a Google search, "Wilbi" is a common misspelling for Bilwi, the Miskito name for Puerto Cabezas. I cannot find any evidence for the existence of a town called "Wilbi" in northeastern Nicaragua. Puerto Cabezas was very near the epicenter of both Eta and Iota at landfall. It is the only town anywhere nearby, except for a handful of tiny villages that don't have electricity. It seems pretty clear that the report must have been from Bilwi, and that either the ham radio operator or NHC made this typo in the heat of the moment. There is no source for the statement "as the storm moved further inland"; it was probably a guess by the original poster who could not find anything called "Wilbi" near the coast. I am changing it. If you find any believable evidence that the report did not come from Bilwi, please post it here before changing it back. StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the most important related hurricanes in "See Also"?

Someone wrote the following comment in the "See Also" section:

<!-- Do not add Hurricane Eta or the 1932 Cuba Hurricane as those are already linked to in the main text.-->

Why not? Those are by far the most relevant other hurricanes; almost everyone interested in Iota will want to click on those. Why make them scour the text looking for a buried link? StormWillLaugh (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StormWillLaugh: It's in the Manual of Style; the see also section should not repeat links that are already in the text. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: Ah I see, thanks. After reading through that controversy, I understand better what's bothering me here. Only the first two links really belong in "See Also". The rest should be a separate section above it titled something like "Similar Hurricanes". Then it would make sense to include also the two most important ones. What do you think? StormWillLaugh (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@StormWillLaugh: This is pretty typical of tropical cyclone articles, though, interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a mention of adding similar storms at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style. That might be a good place to have a discussion, though I've found that I rarely get responses on such pages. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Damage in Nicaragua

Damage in Nicaragua due to Iota amounted to be 12.282 billion córdobas (US$356 million).([1] $534-178 million) 219.78.190.72 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damage in Honduras

Damage in Honduras due to Iota amounted to be 120 billion lempiras (US$5 billion).([2] L245-125 billion)--219.78.190.72 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Article itself says it's too early to calculate damage; unsure what "dolares" they're talking about - 10 billion lempiras equals 411 million USD. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopen the request. I translate the text into English:

Dollars (Dólares in Spanish) are referring to US dollar. However, this is not the official damage, thus I slightly change the wording. Damage in Honduras due to Iota was estimated at 120 billion lempiras (US$5 billion).([3] L245-125 billion)--137.189.204.7 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP here, it's definitely mentioned that combined the storms caused 10 billion USD in damage. It also says right below it that 5 billion USD by each is the estimated total:
Skarmory (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

Rewrite Together Eta and Iota have killed around 100 Hondurans and local analysts estimate the damage will cost the country more than 10 billion dollars (L244.1 billion). 10 billion damage of Honduras is the total of Eta and Iota. Since 5 billion damage is due to Eta, then another 5 billion damage is related to Iota 137.189.220.98 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Iota&oldid=990379648"