Talk:Hurricane Wilma/Archive 2

Most recent satellite imagery

Wilma is starting to look less like Hurricane Gilbert and more like Hurricane Katrina. The pinhole eye has turned into a symmetrical, large, round one. --tomf688^{talk} 02:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Which means a much wider swath of total devastation. --Holderca1 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is worse, a large round symmetrical eye or a small pinhole eye? CrazyC83 02:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the large round eye spreads massive destruction over a wider area. The pinhole has very very intense winds but in a small area hard to say really.

The large one is worse. A small 2 mile eye will just have a small 2 mile swath of the max winds, but a 20 mile eye will have those max winds hitting a 20 mile wide swath. --Holderca1 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, as I've heard the expression "the dreaded pinhole eye" - I guess that formation just allows the storm to go up in strength like a rocket ship...(smaller hurricanes tend to be a lot more volatile in their intensity - we saw that with Charley, Lili and a few others) CrazyC83 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Distance to Key West, Florida

I was the one who put it in there, although I see that Holderca reverted it. Just to clarify, the distance to Key West is taken from the NWS Hurricane Local Statement by the Key West bureau of the NWS. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 04:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't really a revert. The new advisory came out and it wasn't listed in the NHC advisory so I couldn't update it. I didn't want an incorrect distance in there. Also, the NWS will not issue advisories with the same frequency as the NHC is issuing them. --Holderca1 12:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Minute by minute

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/311574.html -- unfortunately it's in Spanish, but it seems to be doing a good job of updating and summarizing developments in QR. For instance, the main drag in Cancún has been shut to non-official traffic (11:02) and (really? this early?) the entire state is without electricity (09:37). –Hajor 16:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The electrical system there is quite fragile I believe; IIRC the same happened when Emily made landfall. CrazyC83 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I Believe they cut the power ahead of the storm to avoid electrocutions in Mexico and Cuba - not a bad idea given the fact that the storm is going to cut it anyway. 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

photo

The picture most promenently displayed does not look very recent. This picture (Image:top.noaa.445a.fri)is more recent, but I am unsure of possible copyright infringement. If someone could classify the copyright, perhaps the image could be used in the article. --Akako|☎ 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures created by government agencies, and their employees in their official capacities, are part of the public domain. 147.70.242.21 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is only a couple of hours old and has been getting updated several times throughout the day. --Holderca1 17:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the photo of Wilma at peak strength? Someone removed it and replaced it with a photo from yesterday. Jdorje 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Which photo do we want to include? [1] --Holderca1 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

NOAA water vapor satellite picture of Hurricane Wilma over Cozumel Island, Mexico on October 21, 2005.

How about this NOAA water vapor pic of Wilma passing over Cozumel Island that I posted in the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season discussion? B.Wind 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This site has photos taken by somebody. I don't know if this person has released these into the public domain though [2] --Revolución (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Navy infrared image of Wilma over Cozumel

Here on the left is an image of Wilma near the position of where B.Wind's image was taken, only this one is a black/white infrared pic... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

The BBC has a very good image of Wilma here: [3]. It's very dramatic, and looks better than the current image.

Actually we don't have any images of the storm in the article yet. Unless you are referring to the color IR image in the infobox. That one shouldn't be changed other than updating to a more recent image. See Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita for the image in their infobox. But feel free to add images in the article. What is the copyright status on that image? --Holderca1 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the question is then why Katrina and Rita have such images when Hurricanes like Ivan do not, particularily since real images of the storm look better than the IR image. --143.228.129.13 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Because we just started doing it with Katrina. Katrina and Rita do have real images of the storms in the articles, just not in the infobox. --Holderca1 18:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

However a link to this site will give latest image [http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/goeseasthurrir.html]

Also, remember that we cannot just grab images from commercial websites, so ideally, we should stay to GFDL or public domain sources. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Very true... and NOAA and NASA pictures are public domain, but those from the BBC and the Associated Press are not. 147.70.242.21 22:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now the color-IR Image in the infobox is protected, as it is being featured on the MainPage. Should we change the image to one that we can keep updating? Wilma is on it's way to Florida and it would be great we could have a updated IR-image of the storm! --Stry 14:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed CrazyC83 changed the coordinates. I reverted the change, the NHC forecast gives the exact coordinates to be 20.6N 86.9W. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The decimal places given by the NHC are in tenths of a degree. Each degree has 60 minutes, so 1/10 degree = 6 minutes. If we want to be exact, we should remove that link shown to the exact location, or (if possible) reformat it in tenths of a degree, not degrees-minutes. CrazyC83 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove the link then, co-ordinates aren't really needed, given we have estimations (i.e. 15 miles south of Cancun etc)... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Coordinates let us go do the work necessary to figure out what the hell a "mile" is, when the contributor of that information doesn't have enough consideration to disambiguate those ambiguous units for us. Gene Nygaard 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kilometres are provided for a reason; 1 statute mile = 1.6 km; 1 nautical mile = 1.852km. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Skirting the coast

Is it just me, or is Wilma drifting parallel to the Quintana Roo coast, without actually landing? Because that way, the hurricane won't lose as much intensity as it would if it made landfall... Titoxd^(?!?) 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now it's just drifting, but it did make landfall when the center of the eye passed over Cozumel Island yesterday. Since a major portion of circulation is over land, it really wouldn't matter if the center is over water or just over land right now. As of this writing, it is down to Category 2 and still weakening slowly. The drifting is going to prolong the weakening process until enough of the circulation is over warm water to sustain the energy. B.Wind 16:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am convinced that Wilma is now category 2, but the latest advisory still has cat. 3 - where do you take your current info? Thanks, Lubos --Lumidek 16:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center. [4] --Holderca1 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Satellite images Source

http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200524_sat.html

Charley's been cloned?

I've been looking at all the latest data, and I have an unconfirmed reading of 114 knots from an aircraft vortex, and as high as 119 knots on Doppler radar. (They'll likely be conservative and set it at 110 knots at the next advisory) This thing sure wants to intensify! Could we see a Category 4 landfall? CrazyC83 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

School and Buisness closure?

I'm not sure if this is worth putting in the article, but just in case i can tell you that for Miami Dade County, Broward County, and Monroe County, Private and Public Schools are closed Mon/Tues as are most buisnesses. From Miami, ThrashedParanoid 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilma and extratropical characteristics

Hurricane Wilma is forecast to go extratropical in 36 hours, despite packing winds of 65kt (75 mph/120 km/h) [5] - a Category 1 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Do we then keep {{HurricaneActive}}? If so, do we list it as a Category 1/Tropical Storm or Extratropical system (see Template talk:HurricaneActive)? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd color it in white - better to give them a stronger warning...call it Category 1 hurricane (extratropical) (or whatever category it is). If it falls to 60 knots (70 mph/110 km/h) then put it in silver instead of light green and call it Extratropical storm. CrazyC83 16:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilma and Atlantic Canada

With Wilma racing towards Atlantic Canada (and the Canadian Maritimes), hurricane watches and warnings may soon be needed for Canada. The Canadian Hurricane Centre has begun issuing hurricane statements on Wilma, and has Gale and Heavy Rain Warnings in effect for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We should continue to look out for any watches or warnings that the NHC fails to list on its graphics... Latest info on Wilma from the CHC:

HURRICANE WILMA WILL BE UNDERGOING EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION AS IT 
TRACKS NORTHEASTWARD TOWARDS NOVA SCOTIA TONIGHT. IT WILL BECOME
A POST-TROPICAL STORM WELL SOUTH OF THE MARITIME MARINE DISTRICT
BY TUESDAY AFTERNOON. THE POST-TROPICAL STORM IS FORECAST TO LIE
JUST EAST OF CAPE BRETON BY WEDNESDAY MORNING AND CONTINUE TO WEAKEN. 
ON WEDNESDAY IT IS LIKELY TO DISSIPATE OR BECOME ABSORBED IN THE FLOW 
WHILE A DEEP LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM CONTINUES TO DEVELOP NEAR 
SOUTHWESTERN NOVA SCOTIA.

-- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm surprised they haven't issued a Hurricane Watch yet...note that if it is expected to be extratropical they won't issue those warnings (although in an uncertain case, they should). Even if extratropical, it could very well still be hurricane strength. CrazyC83 02:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Who would issue warnings if it became an extratropical Cat-3-level storm? Would anyone even be monitoring it then? It seems ludicrous that a storm of that size would be ignored because it passed some threshold for the definition of a classic hurricane. PK9 02:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No idea...even if such happened, they would still treat it as a normal storm system, despite the 115 mph winds in such...I'd still be issuing hurricane watches and warnings for such a storm. It may technically not be a hurricane, but in reality, it would still be. Note that Hurricane Hazel in 1954 went extratropical with winds still at 125 mph (strong Category 3) and didn't drop below hurricane strength until after 600 miles on land... CrazyC83 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ocean Prediction Center issues warning for extratropical systems in their High Seas forecast. [6] --Holderca1 12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just updated the article with 3 am ADT info from the CHC. Given that a link to the CHC is provided in the article, we should start using CHC updates in the article too, not just NHC updates which are 6 hours apart. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However, they should be modified slightly (i.e. rounded off if necessary) to make it seem like an NHC advisory. Also conversions to statute miles are necessary. CrazyC83 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilma's spinoff Nor'easter

Should significant mentions to the Nor'easter spun off by Wilma be mentioned on this article? CrazyC83 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok to mention the nor'easter, but I have problems with this line: "While Wilma is losing tropical characteristics, its winds and rains continue to affect much of northeastern North America, especially Atlantic Canada and New England, as Wilma also spins off a nor'easter farther to the west." My understanding is that the Nor'easter developed independently, but is getting extra moisture from Wilma. The line as written seems to indicate that Wilma has caused the nor'easter. Plus, the grammar is poor. PK9 18:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought that Wilma's outer bands merged with a non-tropical low to form it... CrazyC83 22:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that Wilma has contributed a considerable amount of moisture to the nor'easter, but the way the sentence is worded makes it sound like the low came from Wilma. The low would be there regardless if Wilma came by or not, it just made the storm more intense by adding fuel to the fire. --Holderca1 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Would damage and casualties as a result of such be considered part of Wilma's official totals? CrazyC83 00:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference to the Nor'easter has now been completely deleted. I'm thinking a line could be added to the effect of "On October 25, an independently developing Nor'easter drew energy and moisture from Wilma and caused heavy rains and wind throughout New England" PK9 01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

In the third paragraph of the introduction, I quote "Wilma made several landfalls, with the most destructive effects felt in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico, Cuba, and the U.S. state of Florida.". "U.S. state of Florida" is read as "United State state of Florida". It should be changed. I would suggest "state of Florida of the U.S.". However, any other suggestions may also be fine. 69.165.131.179 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, if you feel so strongly about it, why didn't you change it yourself? And it's NOT a grammatical error; "US state of Florida" is the same as saying "American state of Florida". -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies; this is too minor a thing to argue about. I don't think it has to be changed ("United States state of Florida" is like "United Kingdom city of London", and "United State of Florida" is worse), but one can probably change the wording to avoid the issue entirely. I can't think of anything right now, though. AySz88^-^ 02:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I know this is kind of moot, but US is 'United States" (USA, United States of America). So US state of Florida is not redundant nor gramtically incorrect, e.g. The United States state of Florida. -TimL 03:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Information Addition

More information is in. Can some one update the death toll for Florida. The site for confirmation is http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5379273,00.html Thanks tdwuhs

Got it. By the way, try signing your edits with four tildes (~~~~) whenever you post to talk pages, instead of three, because that way it produces a timestamp, which comes in handy when looking at the archives in the future. See Wikipedia:Signature for more info. (And ironically, I forgot to sign at all. :P Titoxd^(?!?) 04:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't logged in....

You first have to log in, then use the four tildes on talk pages. If you don't log in first, it will insert your IP address instead of your user page, which I suppose is why you don't use the tildes, perhaps? AySz88^-^ 17:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Spectacular image!

Check this out. [7]. I prefer color images myself, but that is amazing. Now is that hurricane or is that a hurricane! That is nature's raw power right there. That is one hell of a storm! God! That would sure enough ruin your day right there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, it didn't show up. Do you mind uploading it to the Wiki? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It showed up for me. Anyway, Eric, how's this for color photos? I currently have this as my computer desktop wallpaper. Up until this, it used to be Katrina as this (both rotated so as not to anger the aspect ratio). I forgot where I got those exact two, but they work great as desktops. -- RattleMan 06:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

They are both from the NASA Earth Observatory website, and are both on Wikipedia. --tomf688^{talk} 15:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded the image, but it looks better on the full zoom in the website. [8]. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strength on a global scale

I don't know where I got the '10th most intense globally' info from. I just heard it somewhere. According to This, it's 20th, so I'll edit that in. Mysticflame 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Old list (which was badly incomplete) had it 10th. Anyway, comparing minimum central pressures over basins is somewhat pointless, because of different mean sea level atmospheric pressures (West Pacific has lower MSLP than North Atlantic). Besides, Pacific Typhoon recon flights were discontinued in 1988 and no accurate measurements have been done on Pacific storms after that. Indirect methods have margin of error of about 10mbar, so arguing over 1 or 2 mb difference is useless. Perhaps it's best just to say that Wilma "featured lowest measured atmospheric pressure at sea level outside Pacific Ocean". --Mikoyan21 17:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only is comparison across basins pointless, but the pacific list is really inaccurate anyway; most of the typhoons on it just have their pressure estimated. Also, records of any sort in the Pacific only go back a few decades...how far Wilma falls on the list will depend only on time...it will probably be surpassed by another Pacific storm every couple of years. Jdorje 18:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilma's 882 mb pressure reading may not mean as much as we think, however. It was mentioned on numerous occasions on the weather channel that Wilma formed in an area of unusually low ambient pressure. Since it is actually the difference in pressure that causes a hurricanes intensity ( a very hypothetical storm with a pressure of 800 mb in an area of 850 mb pressure would not be particualrly strong at all) Wilma may not have been as strong as 882 mb would normally indicate. Evidence for this comes in its wind speeds measurements: 185 mph is in fact somewhat slow for an 882 mb hurricane theoretically, especially since Wilma was a very tightly wound storm (these normally have higher wind speeds for the same pressure as a larger storm). Also, after Wilma's time of peak intensity, it at one point had a pressure of under 900 mb (still extrememly strong, in theory) but was not even a Cat 5, with winds of only 155 mph. This had never happened before in history. As a comparison, Katrina, at 902 mb, (a higher pressure) had winds of 175 mph, and Katrina was a far larger storm, meaning the winds should have been slower than in a small storm like Wilma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)

Good point, but a record is a record. Tip had a record of 870, but who knows if pressures were a lot lower than normal in the WPAC at the time. Had conditions been favorable in other years, an even more intense hurricane could have formed if pressures were lower. 185 mph is certainly strong, but Wilma wasn't the strongest. The pressure reading is only the pressure, and it and strength aren't always in line. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced the strongest in the Atlantic in terms of actual strength (winds) was the Labor Day Hurricane. Hurricane Rita, at 895 mb, reached 180 mph. The Labor Day Hurricane was slightly stronger in terms of pressure, so somewhere in the 180-185 mph range would be expected. However, the Labor Day Hurricane was tiny by comparison, and had an exceptionally tight pressure gradient. Also, Rita was very large, with an expanded pressure gradient. Assuming an average sized hurricane with an 895 mb pressure reading would hit about 185 mph, and tiny hurricane like the Labor Day Hurricane would be looking at 190 mph conservatively. Camille hit that with a 905 mb pressure however, and that boosted wind was due to its small size. The Labor Day Hurricane made Camille look large however, so 200 mph sustained winds would be entirely plausible. Back to Wilma, however, there was a time when Wilma was at 892 mb but had only 155 mph winds, easily 30 mph less than would be expected, and Wilma was a compact storm like the Labor Day Hurricane or Camille, suggested that based on pressure alone it could have been as low as 140! This suggests that Wilma was easily not really the strongest in Atlantic history by pressure, let alone winds. For this reason, I think that a new, more intricate system of quantifying hurricane strength needs to be developed that takes in account measured wind speed, pressure, hurricane size, ratio of hurricane force wind area to tropical storm force wind area, latitude, and ambient pressure. Significant data gathering could result in equations that take these factors into account with enough data on what the "average" storm would be like in certain conditions to make a comparison with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)

Why

Why, i mean they said it is the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record, and all the newschannels said it made extensive damage, it can´t be possible because it pounded the yucatan peninsula with a force never seen before and incredibly it took 3 days for wilma to pass the yucatan penisula, whoa i nver heard something like it so i really believe that wilma made catastrophic damage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.221.19.212 (talk • contribs) .

It's true, Wilma pounded the yucatan peninsula for 3 days and most of the time there were hurricane force winds, in Mexican news they were saying that Wilma left catastrophic damage, specially in Cozumel, playa del Carmen, Isla Mujeres and Cancun. Memicho 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the death toll, Mexico suffered only 8 compared to 30 something in the US (which got the weakest part of the storm). Why? CONCRETE! Structures in Mexico (including homes) are built with block and concrete instead of wood as is the case in the US. It's time we learn a lesson!

EDIT: The above is untrue. We were in Cancun during hurricane Wilma and saw first hand the destruction afterward. The resorts are made of concrete and they survived quite well, however the actual houses that most of the locals live in are nothing more than shacks that look to be hand made...all of these structures were completely obliterated. Almost every local that we talked to lost their house. There are few, if any, concrete buildings made for the citizans there, they are all for the tourists.

The reason why only 8 died in Mexico is because the Mexican government issued a MANDATORY evacuation. All of the citizens went to stay in shelters, whereas in Florida, many people chose to stay in their homes where they died.

Florida Stregnth

It's been mentioned in the local (Fort Lauderdale, FL) news several times in the last few weeks that scientists have been reviewing the data and that Wilma may have been more powerful than originally thought when it breezed through last month. I can't find anything via Google, though. It seemed a lot stronger than a Cat 2 to me. Hope I don't have to go through anything like that again. 65.173.199.254 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because it was Cat3! Jdorje 06:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

yea but by the time it got to fort lauderdale it was cat 2..... by the observations across most of Broward county we felt Strong category 1 sustained with gust to moderate category 2....I t was really bad though but there was barely anyone that had severe roof damage as would have been experienced more in a Cat. Three--HurricaneRo 01:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilma's Afternaath

I can My backyard vaexun bock raton,FL lifeguaurd school tv god Miami Beach,FL 36 piles Bad we house storm sergme for surrounded to the house 4 inches over hurricane wilma battering you vaeim miami,FL no hrcim hurricane wilma 27 piler marathon,FL uprooted tree Florida pummeling winds 5 inches church sidingbeng on uprcm off during look faexh ecum your sugtained maor look Bad hurrican wilma you rain With hoecm up god mrs.reyes keep door during outside horm on racum family 15 fxun destroyed city palm in West palm bach,FL no gecom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.13.41.65 (talk • contribs) .

How old are you? You talk like a 4 year old. Irfanfaiz 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

jaja that sounded funny, I am 14 years old and I don't know much english because I live in Mexico, and when I turn 18, I want to study hurricanes, but at least my writing is understandable. Memicho 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, no personal attacks and keep it civil please. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What does the Spanish Wikipedia article have? I'm sorry I can't understand your report either, but if you're interested in hurricanes you should use the Spanish language Wikipedia, where you won't have to worry about things getting lost in translation. Is there any useful information over there that we don't have in the English article?--SomethingFunny 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update Request

Sorry if I bug anyone, but I think the economic impact section needs some more thought. It is actually light on actual data, and discusses sporting events more than insured losses. Also, the section seems to have some tense problems, as if it hadn't been looked at since the storm. Hopquick 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

185mph (295km/h)

Is it true? I may update the infobox. Irfanfaiz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not until you get an official source, any changes will be reverted on sight. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be left as is until we get the final report to prove it. It only has very brief mention on the page in a questionable form (although it does come from the NHC). I would expect the final report to say 185 mph, but we need to wait for it to be proven. While there is some speculation on the page, it does not belong in infoboxes. Likewise, Emily's infobox has it at 155 mph, despite many suggestions that it was 160. CrazyC83 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's official: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL242005_Wilma.pdf . I updated the infobox, but I'll let someone else update the article itself.Coredesat 14:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

The storm history section is way too long; in particular, a lot of the information there should be moved to the impact section. Jdorje 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a news report that describes some Cuba damage. The acceptence of aid should be mentioned in the article. Hurricanehink 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mexican impact

The section on Wilma's impact to Cancun and Cozumel (and surrounding areas) is conspicuously brief, considering Wilma may have been the most damaging hurricane, economically speaking, in Mexico's history. I don't have the resources to remedy it - but somebody should.--SomethingFunny 09:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be lengthened greatly, but we need to find specific details. CrazyC83 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

185mph winds Whoaa

Now that Wilma's winds are correct I am surpised, I mean only Allen and Camille have reached 190mph sustained winds and then Gilbert had 185mph winds, so Wilma had pretty strong winds. Memicho 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as Wilma was stronger than either of those other 2 hurricanes, it shouldn't be that surprising. Jdorje 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Post Wilma impact

I'm curious about whether this article will continue to include extended impact as it occurs. Last weekend I drove to Orlando and realized that I didn't know what life was like without every building still showing some sign of damage. Our high-rises downtown still have plywood on windows. An image I took today: Image:Wilton Manors City Hall.jpeg contains a sign that reads, Unlicensed contracting is a felony in Florida. These signs are a regular sight all over town now.

The neighborhood is filled with noise of roofers, yet less than half of the homes (including mine) have had their required repair done. I give thanks that our impact was nothing like what happened to the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast, yet three months after Wilma, things are still a long way from returning to normal. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont know if you want to include this image I took today: Image:Fort Lauderdale Skyline.jpeg, demonstrating that major downtown buildings still have plywood covering upper level windows. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what the Aftermath section is for. See some of the A-class or FA-class hurricane articles for examples of how the aftermath should be set up (I think Hurricane Floyd and Cyclone Tracy are pretty good). — jdorje (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No longer a current event

Wilma is no longer a current event, but many of the sections (especially the mexico section, where an anon made some dubious improvements which were reverted) still refer to the present tense. Thus I downgraded this to start-class. — jdorje (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Damage picture

I haven't uploaded it yet but I have a picture of my car that was damaged in Wilma. Would this be of use in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndreniW (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It could, let's see it. :) --Golbez 07:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Better Wilma Pictures

Something has been bugging me. Can't we do better than an infrared picture of Wilma? Hurricane Gilbert has a really great pic, and I have found the Wilma equivalent of that on NOAA's site. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/images/hurr-wilma-20051019-n14rgb.jpg. I think that is a much better representation of Wilma's strength,than the image when it was at Cat 4. If this was dicussed already forgive me because I haven't been around. Please tell me what you think, I have tried it in the template and it looks really good. The great kawa 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This picture was taken a little bit after Wilma reached peak intensity, correct?....because even though its clearly a very strong hurricane, the weak convection in the northeast part of the CDO doesn't say 882 mb to me. However, I have always used the popular infrared picture of Wilma as evidence that the extremely low ambient pressure around Wilma ensured that it wasn't trully a 882 mb hurricane. Though the CDO in that picture clearly has the highest convection possible, the storm isn't nearly as perfectly formed as Katrina or especially Rita. The CDO wasn't anywhere close to being circular, there seems to be an intrusion of low convection to the southeast, and low convection butts directly against the lopsided but very deep convection posessing CDO to the northeast. Overall, Wilma would be what I call a little bit sloppy for a record holder. In comparison to the IR image of Rita that was on wikipedia before, I would have guessed Rita to be stronger just from looking at the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)

Personally, I think this picture demonstrates the epitome of an extremely strong, non-annular tropical cyclone. A small eye, surrounded by a large, cold, and very symmetrical central dense overcast, and an extensive area of strong rainbands. It's perfect for the lead image, IMHO. Runningonbrains 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is typhoon Forrest suspect?

According to the link provided (AOML), Typhoon Forrest had the largest 24-hour pressure drop. Why is this measurement suspect? Runningonbrains 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is suspect because of source discrepancies and debate over its lowest pressure. The great kawa 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deaths dont add up

In the Deaths from Wilma infobox, it says there were 62 deaths. But if you add up the deaths per country, there were only 60. This doesnt make sense. Jamie|C 10:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Because of differing resources, totals may not match." Runningonbrains 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't make sense. We need to find matching sources, or resolve sources that do not match and find the correct totals. — jdorje (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think there are lots of pictures better than that one in the infobox. I don't like IR images. I suggest to put a better picture. (The same goes to the Katrina and Rita articles).

I have been saying the same thing, but to no avail. I uploaded the official Gilbert-esk image that is not IR. It was taken after peak strength, but still looks really nice. Check it out, it is wilma.jpg. Oh, an please sign your comments with 4 tildes. The great kawa 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. The IR is hideous. Hurricanehink 22:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to sign, sorry. And if there's no problem, I will change it. juan andrés 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to change the picture in the infobox with (a picture I consider) better one. If you want to revert the acts, please put this picture again with its caption

Hurricane Wilma at record intensity southeast of the Yucatán Peninsula

juan andrés 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to upload a picture, but it did not wanted to. Actually, it was taking very long. What is happening? juan andrés 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new image. The thing about making a thumbnail of Wilma(at peak intensity), unless you crop it you completly lose the eye. But if you do crop it, it cuts out the nearby geography (and part of the storms outer extent). I chose the latter of two evils. TimL 04:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it was all just crappy jpeg compression. I got much better result using Gimp instead of MSPaint. TimL 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From today's (4/18/06) South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Don't know how you all want to incorporate this article...but even being a resident of Broward County, I can assuredly agree with the difficulty in finding my way around. [9]. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Impact Needs Fixed

I changed a lot of the tenses for the Impact section, but the 4th paragraph of the Mexico section needed more work than I could give. Florida paragraphs 4 and 6 needed sources, as I live in that area and feel that those numbers seem vastly over exaggerated. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Class

While the article has a lot, it is poorly organized. Many places have too much info, while others have too little. Sourcing isn't the best, as there are quite a few places where citations are needed in the first place. For a storm of this calibur, the quality of the article must be a lot higher than most storms. There's also a few pictures without a Fair Use explaination, and a few others don't even have sources. It's not far from B class, but it still needs a lot of work to make it good. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way this is start-class anymore. bob rulz 20:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, nothing has changed since I wrote that before, and it's still too disorganized for B class. Mind you, the bar is a lot higher for more important hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

$20 billion in the US

The citation for damages in the article links to the 2006 monthly summary for June. Clearly, it once linked to the 2005 October summary, or something similar, but we need an updated citation. —Cuiviénen 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was $12.2 billion in the US anyway. The $20 billion was the top end of total estimates (for all areas affected) - I know Mexico was in the $4-6 billion range, and I am not sure exactly the damage anywhere else. CrazyC83 05:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The article now says $16.8 billion in the US. Do we have a source to confirm this, or should it be reverted? —Cuiviénen 02:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced in the impact section where it is mentioned. The $16.8 billion link is right here, from an official NHC link. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)