Talk:Hurricane Idalia

Peak image
Good evening my fellow editors which image of Idalia should we use as the peak image? Because there could be future edit wars sparked since these images are within minutes of each other.
 * (I'll go for Image 2 since its the closest to a true visible image and any visible image including grayscale, superimposed onto a colored map, and true-color (meaning daytime images) triumphs IR imagery per WP:WPTC/IMG . TheWxResearcher (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 2 – That image is ultimately better because just like TheWxResearcher said, it's close to a visible image, and vis images are preferred over IR ones. IR images are only to be used if there's no good visible nighttime imagery. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  00:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with using Image 1 as an alternative choice because it's better than Image 3, which is just out of the window due to the low-quality. However, I stand by my point that I prefer Image 2 because it just shows way more features of the hurricane itself. To be honest, the city lights don't bother me, but it would make that image better without them. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  22:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 2, image 1 is off the table and image 3, while it doesn't highlight cities, it is lower quality. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  00:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at Image 2 in the infobox, it looks really off because of the cities and how far zoomed out it is. Image 3 is now my preferred option. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  00:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

*Image 2 - visible imagery is always preferred over infrared, per WP:WPTC/IMG. Withdrawing vote. foo bar baz  21:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 3 I don't like the fake city lights in weather satellite images. I think they're really tacky and for our purposes non-encyclopedic (i.e., fake). I think that outweighs a WP preference for visible over IR, given WP:WPTC/IMG refers to a true color base map. Can the fake city lights be part of a true color image? I like the small, well-defined eye, and #3 shows more features of the storm than #1. Dcs002 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 because it is higher quality and doesn't have the city lights like #2. #3 on the other hand looks blurry to me, though I do prefer how it is cropped over #1. RaskBunzzz (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to change my !vote to Image 1. That was originally my first choice because the eye looks so menacing. It's the classic pinhole, tiny, powerful eye that is a feature of a very intense storm. I'm a "never #2" !voter. It's fake city lights make it look like the storm is throwing off fairy sparkles. I think it would be an embarrassing image. Dcs002 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 is sharp, the system is nicely centered and the eye is distinct. Also, it does not suffer from having city lights in the scene, completely unnatural looking. Drdpw (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * However, I would appreciate it if the city lights were removed from the image (too distracting).  foo bar baz   21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note guys, it is near impossible to remove the city lights from the satellite image as the original image taken by the NOAA-20 satellite already had the city lights included since it was taken at night, and at night city lights will be visible from space these are not "fake city lights". Also, I think that using Image 1 would not be too bad since I can not really improve Image 3, but once again guys you can not remove the city lights from these visible night images, note for the future. TheWxResearcher (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:WPTC/IMG refers to visible images of the storm lain over a true-color base map. If you're sure the city lights aren't fake (the NOAA images I've seen all use fake lights that are identical all night every night), then this is not a picture of a storm over a base map. It's a picture of a storm and other out-of-context light noise over a base map that one editor has said don't align correctly with the base map. The city lights are not part of the storm or the story, they are not part of the map, and they are not included in the WP:WPTC/IMG description of the preferred image. I think we should use whatever we have with visible light with the natural background or go with IR. To the average reader there will be no meaningful difference, but these city lights are a serious distraction, and they pull focus from the subject and purpose of the image. Dcs002 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment about them being identical, do you expect the cities to move around like ants?
 * Also, this might be slightly embarrassing to ask, but how can you take a visible picture at night? I feel like Image 2 kinda has to be an IR image if it was taken at night unless I am missing something. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  20:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitch199811 Regarding your question, since it was a full moon around the time Idalia was active and the VIIRS instrument aboard the NOAA-20 and Suomi-NPP satellite is sensitive to moonlight, it obtained a visible image of Idalia at night. TheWxResearcher (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which other storms peaked during a full moon? We might be able to use them as examples assuming they have a visible image too. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  15:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One is Hurricane Nicole (2022) and it uses visible imagery despite the city lights, though the storm itself takes up much more of the image's space unlike image 2. That makes it less distracting and noticeable. Maybe zoom in image 2 to image 3 dimensions? ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  15:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitch199811 I'll name a few examples Hurricane Earl and Hurricane Nicole last year and Hurricane Willa from 2018. TheWxResearcher (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like Earl also has the lights though it is just the tip of Nova Scotia. Not sure what you meant by Willa though. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  15:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitch199811 If you look both the 2018 Pacific hurricane season page and the main page for Hurricane Willa it uses a visible nighttime image, and regarding the zoom in and/or crop on Image #2 statement, that could be a good idea to crop out most of the city lights. TheWxResearcher (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the Pacific exists. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  15:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that recently, there was a debate over Dora's peak image, and the third image is an nighttime image taken from the Suomi-NPP satellite. That image is completely away from land, so you won't see those city lights that bug you unlike Image 2 of Idalia. However if I recall correctly, it is captured during a waning gibbous, so you can see striped lines in that Dora image that Image 2 doesn't have, making that image look like it's from the 80s. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitch199811 About the lights being identical, city lights go darker as the night progresses, businesses close for the evening, and people go to bed. The city lights you see at 8:00 PM are not the same lights you see at 4:00 AM. Dcs002 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With how bright cities are, I doubt that would have much of an effect maybe a few pixels at most. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  20:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked for a clarification of what I meant. That is my clarification. You are free to doubt, but the point in question at the time was whether the city lights were fake. I believe that's a settled issue in this case. They are not. Dcs002 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 - While WP:WPTC/IMG states that visible imagery is preferred over infrared, I believe that the city lights in Image 2 make it look lower quality than Image 1, since no other TC article has city lights in the peak image used for the infobox, and it doesn't go well with the map used for the background. In addition, Image 3 looks lower quality and less defined than Image 1, making me prefer Image 1 for usage overall. Chris Wx  ( talk  -  contribs ) 15:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 or Image 3 – I've made my mind up I'll change my vote to Image #1 or #3, I'm starting to agree with everyone that Image #2 looks off. TheWxResearcher (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 – Since there's nothing we can do to remove the city lights in Image 2 and I have to agree with them being off-putting, my vote will go to Image 1 instead. Like I said earlier, Image 3 is low-quality and more "pixely" so that's why I prefer Image 1 over 3. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  16:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to propose an idea moving forward with night images so if the storm is out in the open ocean or low populated areas. Suppose it happens to peak at night during a gibbous or full moon. In that case, we should use night visible images, and if the storm happens to peak at night near populated areas, regardless of whether there is a full moon or not, use an IR image so the city lights would not be as distracting. TheWxResearcher (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the issues with this storm's city lights would be solved via cropping though, for example, Nicole 2022. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  19:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

9 bil
Did Idalia really do $9 billion dollars in damages?, if so, can i have the source? — 😈🥟🦆 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Idalia losses. Preliminary estimates of insured losses vary, but the $9 billion figure is being widely reported. Drdpw (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like always, we can include that in the text-portion of the article, but since Idalia impacted the U.S., the infobox damage total will reflect whatever NOAA provides in a few months (like we did with Hurricane Ian). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d say leave the parameter empty for now. Estimates vary widely - I see reports for $10B, $9.36B, $3-5B, and $2.2B, with the most commonly agreed upon range being between $3B and $9B. Simply too early to zero in on a damage total. 74.101.92.237 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Deaths in Florida
I've seen mention of how there have been three traffic deaths in Florida caused indirectly by Idalia, and I do recall a death being under investigation for a possible connection to Idalia. However, I've only seen cited evidence that says more than basically just "it happened in Florida" for the traffic deaths in Pasco and Alachua counties.

Does anyone have any information about this third death? The lack of information I've seen about it is causing me to doubt about how much it is actually related to the hurricane. Raskuly (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding on to this with updated information, the traffic death in Pasco County has not been confirmed as being related to Idalia by the Medical Examiners Office of Florida, while 2 deaths in Dixie and Brevard counties respectively have been confirmed to be related (plus the Alachua County fatality) by the Medical Examiners Office. Raskuly (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Pasco County death has finally been confirmed to be related to Idalia. I've still yet to see any information about the purported third traffic fatality. Raskuly (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability of dispersal of flamingos
The paragraph of this page regarding the storm's dispersal of flamingos across the Eastern US was removed by @Drdpw citing "not noteworthy". I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor and not an expert on its policies, but I think that the impact of this storm on flamingos might satisfy policies on notability/noteworthiness. This dispersal event has resulted in media coverage (search for "Idalia flamingo" to get a sampling via your favorite search engine) and a scientific effort to record the presence and movements of these birds (observation records accessible via sources such as Cornell's eBird.org). I think there may be more media coverage of the flamingos than of deaths caused by the storm. This dispersal event is the first ever recorded movement of wild flamingos into Pennsylvania. If I reworked the text with additional information and citations, would that be sufficient to include it in this article again? I would also like to be pointed to the relevant content policies for my own edification. Thank you. 🦩🦩🦩🦩 Foxoxjd (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I added the mention of the effect on flamingos, so I am biased, but the reason I did was because I wanted to include notable effects on plants or animals, if there were any. So, because of that I do think that including Idalia's impact upon flamingos and how far north these birds have pushed is notable enough to be mentioned in the article.
 * I didn't realize that they had made it all the way to Pennsylvania though, that's crazy! RaskBunzzz (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like the flamingos are somewhat notable because they are flamingos. I heard some news stories documenting how people go outside after bad storms to look for birds. Though it might have just been a filler story for a slow day as it was published in Orlando who didn't get severely ruined like the Northeast. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  12:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Damage Estimate
Where are we getting this 9-20 billion from? I thought we go by insured damages which last I check in Florida only stands at 259 million dollars? --Kuzwa (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Moody Analytics here says 9-20 billion https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/tracking-idalia-damage-history Insendieum (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Damage total
@Sleepinthestars, I though we were using uninflated damage estimates? That would put the total at 3.5 billion USD. ✶Qux yz  ✶  23:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think not, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information estimated damage from Hurricane Idalia at $3.6 billion. Sleepinthestars (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats with inflation though. If you click "Unadjusted" at the right-top of the page, you can get the uninflated totals. That is where I am getting $3.5 billion from. ✶Qux  yz  ✶  19:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)