Talk:Hurricane Ida/Archive 1

quoting The National Hurricane Center
concerning your revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Ida&type=revision&diff=1041030045&oldid=1041028047&diffmode=source


 * It is projected to hit the United States of America as a Category 3 storm by The National Hurricane Center (NHC).

A reliable source quoted the government agency responsible for keeping track of these things. Why would this not be mentioned? People worried about the hurricane come to this Wikipedia article for information. All the news media is covering the projection of the hurricane's strength and warning people about it.  D r e a m Focus  04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The forecast and the intensity projection is already mentioned in the forecast map in the infobox and in the current storm information section where the advisories are linked. Besides, if people wanted to know the intensity of Ida, they would go to the news media or the NHC page. Storms can be unpredictable, and people may take statements as gospel.  Akber mamps  05:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * News sources, being secondary or even tertiary sources, tend to play catch-up with the NHC. The NHC's been expecting a US landfall at category 4 strength since 21:00 UTC August 27 (advisory cycle 6), meaning the information you added was already outdated for at least seven hours when you first added it. This sort of situation is exactly why we don't add forecasts here: they evolve too quickly to be documented properly and it'd be doing a disservice to readers to present them information outdated to the point that it's false. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox says "Current storm status Category 1 hurricane". Also my original edit that got reverted twice  said "It is currently a category 3 hurricane with some predicting it will reach category 4" with references to both statements.  Its better to mention the time at which last it was checked, and its current level, than to not list the information at all which the readers are coming here to find.  They want to know how bad it is and how bad it might get, where its at now and where its going.    D r e a m Focus  16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original edit was a gross misinterpretation of the sources – nowhere in those two articles does it state that Ida was already a category 3 hurricane; in fact it has yet to intensify into one at the time I'm writing this. If you want a source for what I'm saying, you can go read through the National Hurricane Center's entire advisory archive. The infobox is updated with information directly from the National Hurricane Center, meaning it's in fact more up-to-date than your news sources. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus, the latest advisory has it at 85MPH I feel you have been misled by the article. Meteorologist200 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care WHAT it says. This article is based on FACTS, NOT PREDICTIONS, and we don't put misleading information like that in there. See WP:Crystalball if you don't believe me.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's is not something that is simply predicted might happen, but something that no one doubts will happen. Different thing.  An article about hurricanes listing what the experts on hurricanes say it'll be when it hits land is acceptable, as long as you mention its projected, not confirmed yet.   D r e a m Focus  03:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "no one doubts will happen" – I wasn't aware all of us were time travellers capable of knowing the exact intensity that the NHC will assess Ida at when it makes landfall. If you aren't aware, forecasts are not set in stone. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this event being something no one doubts will happen. It will make landfall in America in a matter of hours. There is no possible way it would simply vanish or change course and not hit America now. WP:CRYSTALBALL is about creating articles for things that are not certain to happen.   D r e a m Focus  04:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you: a hurricane whisperer? That's like saying we know exactly what's going to happen on a high risk for severe weather day, which we don't. Rethink you comment bro.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting WPO article on why so many major hurricanes start with "i"
This seemed like an interesting article from a quality source, I just don't know where it would fit?
 * In the history of hurricane names, ‘I’ stands for infamous, Washington Post (August 2021)

46.7.85.200 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting article, but it doesn't necessarily fit into the scope of information for Ida. It's more trivial than anything. Gum  balls  678   talk  18:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is trivia, but there is some science behind it - perhaps there is an article on Hurricane naming that would be more suitable? 46.7.85.200 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because hurricane initials follow the alphabet, only with Q and U skipped. Georgia guy (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No article on hurricane naming would be relevant to Ida. Yes, the 'I's are notorious in the Atlantic, but it's not relevant to Ida. The hurricane could have just as well been named something else that didn't start with the letter "I". There's no science behind the article. Nice read though! :) Gum  balls  678   talk  00:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Cat. 5
Is Hurricane Ida ever going to be a cat. 5? I think they said no, but I guess we’ll see, after landfall it’s like. 1% chance. BearOfLegends (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The official operational intensity at landfall makes Ida a category 4 hurricane. If it is upgraded to a category 5 it will be during post-season analysis. Gum  balls  678   talk  18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Lots of media here that can be imported
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/cyclones/ Victor Grigas (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Climate change
Twice an IP editor has removed statements about climate change in the article (the first one I believed a bit more certain than currently warranted). Many media outlets are reporting that Ida's characteristics (category 4 + rapid intensification) are more likely with climate change. We'll have to wait a couple of weeks for formal rapid attribution studies, but I believe that a conservative statement around climate change is due in the article (Ida consistent with (expected) climate change trends, rather than Ida more likely due to climate change). I think it would be a slight breach of NPOV not to mention anything. Opinions? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rapid intensification: CNN, The Verge, Washington Post 10:47
 * Major hurricane Discover Magazine NPR
 * Predicted rainfall (let's wait a few days before mentioning this): Bloomberg.
 * Oppose This is a bunch of speculation that gets tossed out every time there is a strong storm making landfall. We should focus on adding information into a TC climate change article rather than adding affirmations to storm articles every time a storm rapidly intensifies as a result of (or not) climate change. Noah Talk 21:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These statements are just too general, not supportable for specific hurricanes and thus not useful in a specific WP article on a specific hurricane. Agree with Noah that this is more appropriate in a general climate change article. Also, we should be using strong science-based RS for such facts, and not non-science RS like Bloomberg/WPO/CNN/Verge. 46.7.85.200 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that we deviate from how major news outlets report on this hurricane because it would be speculation to even mention background climate science? If this is going on with TCs in general, that would concern me quite strongly.

To be clear; I suggest we follow sources in saying that major hurricanes / rapid intensification like Ida are likely more common due to climate change. I'm not suggesting we say Ida is. We now have quotes available for the most prominent scientists in this field, making the link, for instance in this WPO article. We can cite this alongside the recent IPCC report. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The impact of climate change on a single storm should not be mentioned every single time. Climate change is influencing almost every storm which makes it silly to say in a storm's article every time. For many storms there are the same several arguments that can be made. There needs to be articles developed covering these changes as a whole rather than adding it to each system. We need to focus on the effects and their ramifications rather than what exactly caused them. Noah Talk 12:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in proportion with how RSs mention it. Our article tropical cyclones and climate change is relatively well developed, but irrelevant here. This article already dedicates quite a lot of space to background information (comparison with other TCs). In my view, it would be silly not to discuss major climatic factors, not only CC, but also modes of variability. If you want an article omitting the causes and focussing only on effects, impacts of hurricane Ida would be a better place.. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also do not entirely trust news sources reporting on CC and would rather rely on academic journals if we are going to mention it going forward. Keep in mind these news sources report on CC like this as a means of generating revenue and increasing clicks to articles. Noah Talk 13:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree news reporting on CC is not always great. What about: we cite news articles to show it is due in this specific instance and use the IPCC report for the tone (which may be too certain or denialist depending on political lean/expertise of news papers?).


 * I understand you concern about not wanting to mention this in all TC articles, but I think having a relatively strict test of whether it's due (f.i. it must be mentioned in more matter-of-fact type news reporting such as BBC and the NOS (Dutch BBC), and not only in more sensationalist sourcing), should stave this danger off. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is of course excellent scientific work and analysis showing CC, but there is also a lot of poor material, and many climate scientists willing to make statements to national newspapers without proper analysis, which does not help the cause of CC. For example, many of these RS quote scientists saying that the rapid intensification of Ida is due to CC, and yet Allen (1980) and Rita (2005) also had equivalent falls Only 2 other #hurricanes on record (pressure consistently recorded since 1979), have had 40+ hPa pressure falls in Gulf of Mexico in 12 hr: Allen (1980) and Rita (2005).  At some stage, we are going to have to think about bringing WP:MEDRS into CC, which I think will improve the credibility of CC on WP. 46.7.85.200 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is no matter how much we disagree on CC and the practices of news sources, we don't have a choice as guidelines have our hands tied. If these national news sites force us to a trough, we are required to take a drink (we are followers not leaders). Additionally we are required to cover it in proportion to the RSs coverage, which is significant. Noah Talk 13:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now – Per WP:IAR and WP:DUEWEIGHT. If/when we see significant coverage from scientific sources (not just news articles) providing a detailed study of the direct links between Ida and climate change, then we can have a separate section on climate change. But for now, this warrants nothing more than maybe a sentence or two, at most. Wikipedia is not news, and we shouldn't echo what the latest news sources are saying verbatim. Also, there was a huge discussion on this topic for Hurricane Sandy years ago. While a climate change section was approved for Hurricane Sandy (given the significance of the storm and the extent of the coverage on its links to climate change), consensus since then has been largely against adding climate change sections to every single storm that the media has blamed on or linked to climate change. Climate change is the new normal now, similar to school shootings in the US (unfortunately), and unless the linkage is specifically explored and documented by reliable scientific studies, we shouldn't be giving it more attention than it warrants here.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement about not having an entire section dedicated to it :). I'd say 2-4 sentences would be about right with the current reporting, which could be expanded when a formal event attribution analysis is finished in say three weeks (the main scientist doing this is hospitalised, so this storm may not be selected for one of those rapid attribution analyses). Happy to settle for 2 sentences. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. One of our core principles is to cover all aspects of a topic in proportion to the coverage given in reliable sources. Let me address some of the above concerns:


 * When writing about science, we generally prefer scholarly sources over news reports. There are a couple of reasons for this preference: 1) to use the best available sources, and 2) we recognize that the press is often eager to report new "discoveries" before these discoveries are accepted by the broader scientific community.


 * In a few weeks when scholarly sources are available on the causes of Ida we should rewrite the article using those sources, but in the meantime, news reports from reputable outlets are the best available sources. And climate change attribution for extreme weather is not a new discovery; it is established and accepted science that's pretty darned boring. The point of our RS guidelines on science, including MEDRS, is to improve the quality of our coverage of science, not to erase science from topics in which reliable sources consider science to be relevant. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose We have articles on topics like this already. If you want to link to one of those in the See Also section you can, but there is no need to mention it here. Hurricane Sandy and some of the storms from the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season got those sections because we had never SEEN something like it before. We can't say that now. I hate to say this, but this is your typical run of the mill, rapidly intensifying major hurricane at landfall, even if it is fascinating and terrifying to see. Its becoming much more common, so I think mentioning it here again is like beating a dead horse. Now when we do make a meteorological history page for this article, I can see it there, but in the main article? No. Its unnecessary.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 2 sentences for now It is true that we already have a general article, and that for many people the connection between Tropical cyclones and climate change is well known. But for the many others who don't know, it may not occur to them to google for "hurricane climate change" if they have no idea that climate change might be related to hurricanes. And I doubt many people click on "see also" links. That is why I think the link to Tropical cyclones and climate change should be integrated within the article text while many people are reading the article - not weeks later. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite the bolded opposes, I'm reading a rough consensus to add two sentences to the article (but not more until scientific reports are in, and no subheading), with four people in favour (me, Noah, LightandDark, Clayoquot), and two opposed (IP, ChessEric). This added to the edits on the article, where it was added by four separate people (me and ), who have mostly not engaged in this discussion. : did you simply enforce an apparent consensus when reverting, or do you have an opinion on the matter yourself too? also removed mention of CC, but the edit summary indicated that other parts of the edit were the problem. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now reading 5 support, 2 oppose, with 2 adders & 2 reverters not having engaged in the discussion. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first three opposes (excluding the struck-out one) are clearly in opposition to any mention. There are not "five support", especially as the opposers' arguments have not been addressed. WP:BRD has been invoked and needs to be allowed to reach completion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I quote from LightandDark: "But for now, this warrants nothing more than maybe a sentence or two, at most.". I overlooked 'at most', so fair enough that it's not a support, but I don't read this as an oppose to one or two sentences either. So four support, two oppose would be more accurate. It's difficult to respond to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, but let me try.
 * Chess makes the argument it's obvious, so it shouldn't be mentioned, which goes against common surveys of climate change understanding in the US, which still shows many people do no attribute effects of climate change to human-induced climate change.
 * LightandDark says it's a new normal, which isn't quite relevant. The separate new normal in reporting (which includes meteorologists and climate scientists, rather than only the former), means we must follow rather than invent an ad hoc new criterion about what is due. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (from the IP) These statements are just too general, not supportable for specific hurricanes and thus not useful in a specific WP article on a specific hurricane. -> general statements are often included in WP articles in background section or to give explanation, per weight RSs give them. 'Not supportable': untrue, as event attribution has matured as a science over the last years, but it's true it's not supported yet. Given we're not going to say that Ida was more likely due to climate change, that's not a problem. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per Femkemilene This is a major component of the reporting on the Hurricane, and minimally should have a couple sentences focused on the reception and reporting connecting Climate change to the rapid development of the hurricane in the Gulf, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

National Geographic has a piece on it now, so we don't have to rely on news reports anymore :). Still hoping we'll be getting a scientific analysis within weeks. With rough consensus now more clear, I'm adding two sentences. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Also in https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/30/hurricane-ida-batters-new-orleans-and-coastal-louisiana you only have to read as far as the subheading Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * what would be a better location? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support brief, cautiously worded mention for now, and open to something stronger if/when rapid attribution studies come out. As this is a recurring issue, it may be worthwhile to have a more generalized discussion at a project page to form consensus on guidelines for how to cover climate change in current events articles. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really depends on what said section looks like. If something concrete can be added, sure. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane to Tropical Storm
Because the cyclone is still active, it isn't put into past tense, but it has been downgraded to a Tropical Storm. The first words of the article being "Is an active and very powerful Hurricane" even though what it "is" is now a tropical storm seems somewhat misleading.

"Was" a hurricane doesn't make sense because the storm is still active. I'm not sure what the protocol is with dealing with this kind of thing. Queer Mudskipper (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-new-orleans-c43c2c68946ceb6100c2239534c6c290

source for it being downgraded, I should have probably included that in the original post Queer Mudskipper (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be updated to reflect Ida's downgrade and weakening status, something along the lines of "Ida is currently a weakening tropical cyclone over X". Gum  balls  678   talk  15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. Sometimes its hard to keep track of it once the storm begins to rapidly weaken.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I just stumbled upon the topic when Ida was a tropical storm. Like you said, it's hard to keep the article up-to-date when the storm is rapidly weakening. Once it's no longer active it makes things easier. Gum  balls  678   talk  01:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing title to Hurricane Ida (2021)
I was reading through past hurricanes and there was another “Ida” back in 2009 so does this qualify to change to “Hurricane Ida (2021)?” Brianis19 (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Because this storm is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so this Hurricane Ida should get the main title, without the year. This storm's impending impacts greatly outclass the 2009 hurricane. When we have a primary topic, the year is automatically dropped in the title.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I think it was jumping the gun slightly since the storm hasn't quite lived up to expectations yet, but I think it is safe to assume that this storm is going to be the last to use the name "Ida."ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Approve – Was just about to post about this. Yes, the name should change as there was a 2009 Ida, and there is no reason to not have a disambiguation between the two for the years.  For instance, 'Hurricane Henri' which recently effected my area, had the '2021' added to it, because it is a common hurricane name. J-Man11 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This name is almost certainly going to be retired due to impact. Noah Talk 21:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Approve There's no reason to not have the year Pyromilke (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I will say that this unofficial RM was created 5 days ago when we didn't know the full extent of the havoc that Ida has wreaked, but now we have a fuller picture of its impacts. This Ida is definitely the primary topic after all the damage that has been done in Louisiana and the Northeast. As Hurricane Noah said, the name is likely to be retired considering the high damage tolls and deaths. 2009 had 11.4 million in damage, this one is currently estimated at more than 50 billion. 2009 caused 4 deaths, this one caused 63 known deaths at this time, and that number is expected to rise. This is clearly the most notorious Ida. codingcyclone  please ping/my wreckage 02:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Excessive use of Twitter and improper writing style
While I understand that Twitter is a vital part of the online weather community, its use should be significantly limited on Wikipedia when reliable news sources exist. The entirety of Cuba's information is cited with Twitter. Describing the contents of a twitter video is also not an appropriate means of writing an article either: In Grand Isle, a camera recorded continuously deteriorating conditions under a houses stilts. Wind blew fast under the floorboard, with floodwaters quickly coming in, which also carried debris. This is written like a news article, not an encyclopedia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * this largely pertains to your edits from what I've seen. I'm impressed by the thoroughness of citations and digging for info, just shift away from using twitter and toward news and government sources and you'll be golden. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ll do my best not to use twitter, I didn’t know that twitter wasn’t exactly a good source; I apologize for the habit of citing it, I just thought it was good to use as a source but it looks like it isn’t a good choice to place so many in an article.

Also, thank you for the compliment on the thoroughness of my digging! StopBoi (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Infrared-gray
Hi, i noticed that bot has stop uploading infrared-gray, pls remenber do not use infrared-gray for ITN it will cause bot error and cewbot will stop uploading thank you. HurricaneEdgar   10:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

the reason, if you put a image (Infrared-gray) in ITN, it will automatic protected (fully proctected) by the bot (KrinkleBot) so the bot (cewbot) cannot upload it will outdate. HurricaneEdgar   13:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason, commons:File:2021 CIMSS 09L Ida visible infrared satellite loop.gif is not being uploaded by the bot despiete no protection, therefore, all images, (visible, infrared, and visible-infrared) are no longer being updated. Currently, the latest update is from 15:00 yesterday. Can this be fixed and what is preventing the bot from uploading. PlanetsForLife 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina's outer bands hit Louisiana, not the Eye of the Storm
This should be corrected as the only storm that actually hit Louisiana with the same strength is the one in the late 1800s. Please Advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayansinger13 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What about Rita? Betsy? Laura? Also Katrina eye did hit LA twice actually. Also hurricane Andrew hit LA and it’s peak winds were as strong maybe stronger than Katrina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.110.161 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also opening sentence implies Katrina was strongest storm to hit LA. Katrina max winds were 175 MPH while Rita’s were 180MPH at max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.110.161 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Those statistics refer to intensity at landfall rather than peak intensity and are based on barometric pressure, not wind speed. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021 (2)
It’s stated in the article that there have been 4 indirect deaths, one being a man killed by an alligator. Turns out the man survived. So that number should be three. Posting a link dated September 1st. A day after the cites for the sentence in question.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-man-presumed-dead-ida-floodwater-alligator-attack-survived-hurricane-n1278291 2603:7000:713F:BB89:486B:CE18:8951:E13D (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ News sources stated he HAD SURVIVED KATRINA and his body has not been located. Noah Talk 21:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak article
Would someone be willing to create Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak? We need a tornado outbreak article to cover all of those tornadoes in detail. Noah Talk 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you have any interest? Noah Talk 21:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind, although I'm kinda busy right now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's up now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
This sentence, at the end of the Meteorological History section, needs to be changed to reflect accurate, cited information:

As the system moved through the Northeastern United States on September 1–2, it combined with a frontal zone to unleash unprecedented rains across the region, restrengthening into a tropical storm-force low in the process, before moving out into the Atlantic.

There is no such thing as a tropical storm-force low. The two terms are incongruous. And there's no citation that leads to this decription. Meldavis99 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – reworded. Citations are after the next sentence (footnotes 39 and 40 as of this revision). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Damages?
Is there any information released on the damages caused by this hurricane? 2601:644:8D80:AB10:D9D3:627:11DE:A8D8 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes initial insured loss estimates have been added Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox titled "Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes" lists Ida has caused $50 billion in damages. Yet, I could only find support for $15 - 20 billion. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-01/hurricane-ida-estimated-to-cost-insurers-close-to-18-billion. Should we revise the figure as I am not seeing reliable sources supporting the $50 billion? Jurisdicta (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The $50 billion figure is the most recent, reliable estimate for the total damages. And it is sourced. If you looked hard enough, you would've found the source. We are not doing this. The true damage total is probably even higher, so when future updates are made, the figure will be revised upward, not downward.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Excessive citations
The sentence about the aftermath with the excessive citations template should have one footnote at the end. The citations all are necessary. You see, the citations are verifying the deaths here. WikiJanitorPerson (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021


Qazman1 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add this image to impact#Northeast section--182.239.122.104 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. That image doesn't look to be a great visual example of the impacts of the hurricane, and there are already two images in that section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021 (2)
Add the following new photo at the Croton Dam the day when record water flow was set after Hurricane Ida: 96.250.171.48 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

❌ Sorry, but there are currently all ready too many images in the Northeast section. It might get included in Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ida in the Northeastern United States, though. Destroyer (Alternate account) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Has ex-Ida dissipated?
We seem to be going back and forth about whether or not ex-Ida has dissipated. Most recently, an editor reverted an "YES-dissipated" edit, stating in the summary: gale winds, see https://ocean.weather.gov/A_w_sfc_color.png. I toying with the Eastern Canada - IR (10.7 µm) loop, and I don't think that the low the other editor referenced is ex-Ida. Has ex-Ida dissipated? Drdpw (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. Ida is still alive and well near Atlantic Canada, and the OPC is currently mentioning the storm in their discussions, and it also shows up on both the WPC and OPC weather maps. When it has dissipated, it will be marked as such. As of today, the OPC forecasts Ida to survive for another two days. Those who don't have experience tracking these kinds of storms should just leave the parameter alone. When Ida finally dissipates, the article will be updated accordingly.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is still the 4th (not the 5th) and every edit that removes it gives no edit summary. (Also, look at a rain map PlanetsForLife 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Effects in Louisiana" article.
Hello, I have started a draft on an "Effects in Louisiana" article for Hurricane Ida. I would like some help on this article, so I will share it here for people to work on it with me. Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ida in Louisiana. Chrispanda (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the main article expands towards the splittable prose size. The main article is 28k bytes of prose and shouldn't be split until it is near or reaches 50k prose. Noah Talk 10:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know! Chrispanda (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021
The number of deaths in Louisiana is only 26, not 31. (This is current as of Sept 8. The article lists the location and type of each Ida-related death.)

Source: https://www.wdsu.com/article/hurricane-ida-death-toll-rises-to-26/37517813 2600:100D:B10F:7FC4:85B6:2DBE:3A00:3E3A (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK Talk 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deaths in Venezuela counting to death toll
Should the deaths that were caused by the precursor to ida be counted in the death toll? Thecornerwiki (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like a source from the International Red Cross confirmed that a tropical wave caused the deaths in Venezuela. The location and timing of the wave would make it the precursor of Ida. Gum  balls  678   talk  17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it was caused by the same general system. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the information Thecornerwiki (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)