This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guatemala, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Guatemala on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuatemalaWikipedia:WikiProject GuatemalaTemplate:WikiProject GuatemalaGuatemala articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Honduras, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Honduras on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HondurasWikipedia:WikiProject HondurasTemplate:WikiProject HondurasHonduras articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nicaragua, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Nicaragua on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NicaraguaWikipedia:WikiProject NicaraguaTemplate:WikiProject NicaraguaNicaragua articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
I Am Redwolf.
The following discussion 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.
Can we please make this page semi-protected? Vandals may invade this page, especially since this storm is near category 5 status.
-Shift674- (
talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
According to the NHC, Hurricane Iota is not a Category 5. We should probably change that.
71.244.146.180, 9:52 EST, 16 November 2020
Who just put all of this fake information on the article?
71.244.146.180, 9:52 EST, 16 November 2020
A certain idiot who has been using
multipleIPs to vandalize Category 5 and high-end Category 4 hurricane articles. It may be the same person as
2600:8807:8280::/48 (one of the ranges abused by
Wyatt2049), given the "God said to me" crap.
LightandDark2000 🌀 (
talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Oh ok (btw I just created an account)
HurricaneGeek, 1:28 PM EST, 16 November 2020
Happening again, ugh. Please make this semi-protected until tomorrow, at least
63.229.224.41 (
talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This is the exact reason why we need to protect this!
Meteorologist200 (
talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
jeez, why are people trying to mess with the pages? they're supposed to be informative, not completely incorrect :(
Arsonlord69 (
talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
From what I've seen, this vandal is probably either Wyatt2049 or
My Royal Young. Unfortunately, if it's the latter, the abuse will be much more difficult to combat (not least because the involvement of MRY means that the ranges recently blocked involve Proxy/VPN abuse). As of this writing, in addition to the IPv6 range I've mentioned above (which is probably a range of Wyatt2049), the abuse has originated from 5 IPv4 IP ranges:
90.255.128.0/17,
90.253.64.0/18,
90.240.0.0/18,
92.41.16.0/20 (relatively inactive), and
90.254.160.0/19 (not quite as active). The recent spree of sock accounts were probably made from other IP ranges (almost definitely Open Proxy or VPN networks). All of the given ranges are currently on my watchlist. At this point, I can't rule out copycat vandalism, which would imply that at least 2 separate vandals are involved.
LightandDark2000 🌀 (
talk) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
After following on some leads relating to a couple of
BornAgain socks, I believe that this person could be
Evlekis or
Wikinger (if impersonation/imitation is involved here). The IPv6 range is very likely Wyatt2049, while the LTA operating from the other IPv4 ranges could be Evlekis, so we may be dealing with 2 LTAs regarding this serial vandalism campaign.
LightandDark2000 🌀 (
talk) 21:11, 27 November 2020 (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.
Article Additions
Why can't we mention
Hurricane Eta in the "See Also" section?
71.244.146.180, 12:26 PM EST, 16 November 2020
I agree since Hurricane Eta also hit in the similar place a week ago.
There's a special note on the "See Also" section when you edit the source saying, 'Do not add Hurricane Eta as that storm will be HEAVILY referenced and linked in this article.' JCesar, 14:39 GMT-4, 16 November 2020
The See Also section in an article is there for germane wikilinks that aren't already in the text. Hurricane Eta is already linked in the body of the article, which was inevitable. Therefore, it should not go in See Also.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I believe we should. Is it mentioned Iota was the last developing category 5? That it was the 2nd major hurricane in November? First 30th named storm? These are all records that must be mentioned. And it will likely set more records later, though
we never know.
HurricaneTracker495 (
talk) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
No. They will be mentioned in the met history. A records section is essentially trivia. ~Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I think a records section would be appropriate. Iota [
set the record] for fastest pressure drop in one hour (10mb) and tied 2005's record for most total depressions and storms, along with everything HurricaneTracker mentioned.
Additional records seem feasible. IMO, trying to add all records to the met history section will make it bloated and less readable.
63.229.224.41 (
talk) 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Again, I'm open to a records section once there are around five meaningful records that aren't included elsewhere or are very obvious, unlike "Iota is the first 30th named storm. Currently, there are 2 meaningful records: Iota led 2020 to have 2 Nov majors, and Iota had the fastest mbar drop. ~Destroyeraa🌀 19:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Add the records section back. It was here when the article was created and it is a great idea. Don't delete it after it has been there for like 2 days.
Meteorologist200 (
talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Destroyeraa because it's a category 5 at 13.5°N, it's the second southernmost category 5 behind Hurricane Matthew. And that could easily change, if it goes south by six more nautical miles. We're now at 4. --
HurricaneTracker495 (
talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
No, since it behing Matthew, it isn't a record-breaker. Thus, it's trivial. ~Destroyeraa🌀 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
we shall wait for the 4:00 update then. Which should tell us if it dunk further south. --
HurricaneTracker495 (
talk) 21:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Gah! it's now at 13.6°N. Checking to see if it's southernmost category 4, however. (or 3 or 2). --
HurricaneTracker495 (
talk) 22:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
let's wait for the sources. Keep in mind it could always weaken to a category 4 or make a sudden swerve to the north before landfall. (It could also swerve south and be the southernmost category 5 on record). --
HurricaneTracker495 (
talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd say the fourth important record is that Iota has the strongest winds at landfall of any November hurricane in the Atlantic. Don't really get why y'all want five non-trivial records before a separate section can be made, as even the weirdest storms seem unlikely to break five records at a time, but there's the fourth.
BagelRabbit (
talk) 04:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Destroyeraa: The total number of records isn't what matters. What matters is whether these can be covered in
reliable sources. By the way, having them mentioned in the lead is not a valid reason to not have this kind of section;
MOS:LEAD dictates that the lead summarize the rest of the article, which in particular means that anything mentioned in the lead gets mentioned further down. I think we can have such a section, but also, as per
MOS:USEPROSE, it should not be in list format.--
Jasper Deng(talk) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
There's currently an anonymous vandal trying to "claim" that the storm will become post-tropical in 30 minutes, and an all-out editing war has been going back-and-forth for some time now, clogging up the edit history. At this point, the page really needs some protections on it.
Triclops Queen (
talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Triclops Queen: It's one IP who will probably be blocked soon. However, this exact problem has been a recurring issue. I not only second this, but I suggest preemptive semi-protection on any further tropical cyclone articles going forward, at least for this year.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 21:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
If I remember, it was a different IP address when this happened on
Hurricane Eta a few weeks back. No clue if it's the same person using different IPs, and I was recommended to add the protection request here. I second the semi-protection request you mentioned, especially for those that can cause particularly severe damage to the area.
Triclops Queen (
talk) 21:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Triclops Queen: yes, I'm pretty sure this is the same dude. There were similar edits on
Laura and
Delta, but in that case, it was saying god would strengthen it into a cat 5 (which I, myself, do not think god would do).
I likehurricanes 21:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Really needs to be protected
It keeps getting that weird message, it needs protecting. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.18.109.93 (
talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found some reference
from this website that it could likely follow
Eta's track, and that would possibly hit Florida and the Carolinas, just like what Eta did. And the hurricane is already a category 5. I'm also predicting that Iota would also hit Florida as either a Category 1 or Category 2 hurricane.
I have some evidence like this:
Forecasters warned that Iota could power up quickly, to major hurricane strength, as it approaches Central America late Sunday or Monday, and wreak more havoc in a region where people are still grappling with the aftermath of Eta.Seventyfiveyears (
talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Please read the source again carefully, nowhere does it state that Iota is heading for the US. In fact, that is quite impossible given the strong ridging over the southeast US and that Iota's dissipating over Central America as I'm typing this. That source also happens to be three days old, and in view of the transience of the weather, is quite outdated. ~
KN2731 {
talk ·
contribs} 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
There is also a high pressure system dominating the US right now, so Iota won't be going to the US unless that high pressure moves. Also Iota is rapidly weakening over Central America as I'm typing.
HurricaneGeek {
talk}
Iota is much more likely to cross into EPac rather than going to US. SMB99thxmy edits 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Before it even becomes an issue, what image are we using for this storm?
ChessEric (
talk·contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Currently it's
File:Iota 2020-11-16 1500Z.png, which is the best one near peak at 12Z.
File:Iota 2020-11-16 1430Z.jpg doesn't have a good eye and is of relatively lower quality, so we can discount that. There's also
File:Iota 2020-11-16 1200Z.png which is at peak (and personally my favourite), but the west part of the image is completely dark since it was taken just after local sunrise. Not much to argue about this time, I hope. ~
KN2731 {
talk ·
contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Track Image with Intensities
I can't help but noticing the track image in the meteorological history section seems to be wrong - NHC had it as a Cat 5 for much longer than a Cat 4. According to the image, it only briefly obtained Cat 5 intensity, whereas looking at the archive at NHC, it was a Cat 5 for 9 hours. Why do they differ? What do other people think?
Bellminsterboy (
talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Bellminsterboy: Those maps are based on the best track data, which I believe are located
here (correct me if I am wrong) and may differ from the intensities issued during advisories. The
forecast discussion issued for 4:00 p.m. EST/21:00 UTC on November 16 did state that the estimate of category 5 intensity might be generous, and the best track data only shows category 5 intensity at 12:00 UTC. So this portion of the track appears to have been downgraded.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
edit: add hurricane Eta to the paraphraph on the bottom of the article next to hurricane Mitch and Felix, as it has devastated a smillar area just two weeks prior
Ikethecatto (
talk) 07:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done There is an invisible comment to not add Hurricane Eta to the see also section, as it is linked and referenced heavily throughout the main article. Skarmory(talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I've reactivated this request because it wasn't done, yet it wasn't rejected. It looks like it was forgotten about.
108.39.223.134 (
talk) 03:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Done as I don't see any problems with it. Skarmory(talk) 18:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I think there is a problem of interpretation for the death toll in Mexico. The
reference cited in the text keep referring to Iota AND Eta. For Mexico it states: "Civil Protection reporting a cumulative death toll of 30 people and nearly 297,000 people affected across Chiapas, Tabasco and Veracruz". I think that the cumulative of 30 death is for both hurricanes, not for Iota alone. Since there is 27 death with Eta, the number of deaths for Iota in Mexico should be only 3. This would be more logical since Iota passed very far from Mexico. Furthermore, I cannot find any other article talking about deaths with Iota in Mexico.
This isn't outright confirmed that the 3 deaths not accounted for aren't from Eta, though. Skarmory(talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
"Wilbi", Nicaragua
The report about a wind measurement by a ham radio operator in "Wilbi" was copied from an NHC discussion published during the storm. It appears to be a typo. As can be clearly seen by a Google search, "Wilbi" is a common misspelling for Bilwi, the Miskito name for Puerto Cabezas. I cannot find any evidence for the existence of a town called "Wilbi" in northeastern Nicaragua. Puerto Cabezas was very near the epicenter of both Eta and Iota at landfall. It is the only town anywhere nearby, except for a handful of tiny villages that don't have electricity. It seems pretty clear that the report must have been from Bilwi, and that either the ham radio operator or NHC made this typo in the heat of the moment. There is no source for the statement "as the storm moved further inland"; it was probably a guess by the original poster who could not find anything called "Wilbi" near the coast. I am changing it. If you find any believable evidence that the report did not come from Bilwi, please post it here before changing it back.
StormWillLaugh (
talk) 14:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Why not the most important related hurricanes in "See Also"?
Someone wrote the following comment in the "See Also" section:
<!-- Do not add Hurricane Eta or the 1932 Cuba Hurricane as those are already linked to in the main text.-->
Why not? Those are by far the most relevant other hurricanes; almost everyone interested in Iota will want to click on those. Why make them scour the text looking for a buried link?
StormWillLaugh (
talk) 15:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
TornadoLGS: Ah I see, thanks. After reading through that controversy, I understand better what's bothering me here. Only the first two links really belong in "See Also". The rest should be a separate section above it titled something like "Similar Hurricanes". Then it would make sense to include also the two most important ones. What do you think?
StormWillLaugh (
talk) 19:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
StormWillLaugh: This is pretty typical of tropical cyclone articles, though, interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a mention of adding similar storms at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style. That might be a good place to have a discussion, though I've found that I rarely get responses on such pages.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Damage in Nicaragua due to Iota amounted to be 12.282 billion córdobas (US$356 million).(
[1] $534-178 million)
219.78.190.72 (
talk) 02:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Done~Destroyeraa🌀 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Damage in Honduras due to Iota amounted to be 120 billion
lempiras (US$5 billion).(
[2] L245-125 billion)--
219.78.190.72 (
talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done Article itself says it's too early to calculate damage; unsure what "dolares" they're talking about - 10 billion lempiras equals 411 million USD. ~Destroyeraa🌀 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Reopen the request. I translate the text into English:
“
Although it is still too early to quantify the damage caused by tropical storms Iota and Eta, the most conservative estimates indicate that they could be estimated at 10 billion dollars, approximately 245 thousand 504.8 million lempiras, according to the current exchange rate.
”
Dollars (Dólares in Spanish) are referring to US dollar. However, this is not the official damage, thus I slightly change the wording. Damage in Honduras due to Iota was estimated at 120 billion
lempiras (US$5 billion).(
[3] L245-125 billion)--
137.189.204.7 (
talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with the IP here, it's definitely mentioned that combined the storms caused 10 billion USD in damage. It also says right below it that 5 billion USD by each is the estimated total:
“
Those versed in economics and finance estimate that meteor Eta and cyclone Iota have caused damages of 5 billion each of these natural phenomena.
Not done Wait until the AON report comes out at the beginning of December. It's the most trusted source. ~Destroyeraa🌀 13:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Rewrite Together Eta and Iota have killed around 100 Hondurans and local analysts estimate the damage will cost the country more than 10 billion dollars (L244.1 billion). 10 billion damage of Honduras is the total of Eta and Iota. Since 5 billion damage is due to Eta, then another 5 billion damage is related to Iota
137.189.220.98 (
talk) 03:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not necessarily. The hurricanes hit so close together that damage could be impossible to tell which hurricane it's from, and the damage estimate of 5 billion in Eta isn't a finalized number either. Skarmory(talk) 04:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I will also point out there's a discussion in the above section of the talk page that goes over basically the same thing, but with better sourcing. Skarmory(talk) 04:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done per above discussion, will wait until AON comes out. Skarmory(talk) 18:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Iota Landfall GIF
Hi! Should we add the GIF of Iota weakening at landfall?
According to CBSN, Iota actually had winds 165 mph, so I think we should change that.
HurricaneGeek (
talk) 18:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
We take intensities from the NHC, not news networks. Any intensity changes will have to wait until the TCR comes out. BT data still shows a peak of 140 kts.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 20:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Though, the NHC says that Iota weakened to a high end Category 4 just before making landfall, but the image says that Iota was briefly a Category 5.
🌀
HurricaneGeek🌀 {
talk} 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Cost in Nicaragua
Its seems there is an inconsistency in the cost of damages in Nicaragua : 352.5 million in the text and 564 million in the table. Which one is right? According to the reference, the higher number in the table seems to me for the cost for Eta AND Iota, not for IOTA.
I think you should make a mathematical operation to see how much did the hurricanes damage my country, use the official sources.--🌀 Byralaal (
+505-chat-toMe) 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Byralaal: Don't blame me, I am just reporting an inconsistency in the article. The
reference I am citing is the one in in the text of the article and the table, not what the IP 219.78.190.56 is claiming as the source. I am not making any calculation with your references, my Spanish is not that great. I am just asking that someone do and place consistent data in the text and table.
Pierre cb (
talk) 17:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Pierre cb I'm not blaming you, sorry if you got offended. Just only showing the citations the users are using for the article need to be verified. Don´t follow news source (refering to the IP user), follow official sources. I´m not active since I retired editing on wiki 6 years ago.--🌀 Byralaal (
+505-chat-toMe) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Rapidly intensifying loop.
Hi everyone! Should we replace the current Rapidly intensifying loop with the radarinfrared one? 🌀
HurricaneGeek🌀{
talk ⋅ contribs}} 14:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I think is better the second, because it shows internally the formation, organization of clouds prior to peak intensity.--🌀 Byralaal (
+505-chat-toMe) 02:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
First loop. The second loop does not show as well how the eye became better-defined. @
HurricaneGeek and
TFESS: Also, the second loop is very emphatically not a radar loop.
GOES-16 uses no radar capabilities. It was just taken using a camera that sees in the
infared spectrum. @
Byralaal: Neither loop shows anything about the internal structure of the storm; for that, you need
microwave imagery,
Doppler radar, or simple in-situ visual observations by
Hurricane Hunter crews.--
Jasper Deng(talk) 19:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Ok, so should we do the infrared one or the GeoColor one? 🌀
HurricaneGeek🌀{
talk ⋅ contribs}} 20:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi guys this is
User:Wikihelp7586(talk) the reason why I put the first satellite loop back on the main page is because there's copyright issues with the second satellite loop and that loop is at risk of being deleted within the next few days other than that there's nothing wrong with that satellite loop no hard feelings to 🌀
HurricaneGeek🌀{
talk ⋅ contribs}}. 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Turns out that the first loop has been selected; the second one was removed because of
copyright issues like HurricaneGeek stated. Resolved.
Tfess up?or down? 16:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Resolved
2nd vandalism spree
This guy,
2600:1700:AED0:0:0:0:0:0/48, was screwing around just earlier. Might be Wyatt2049 or another LTA that we've been dealing with recently. Just putting this out here for the record, and to get more eyes on this. LightandDark2000 🌀 (
talk) 06:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Category rating discrepancy after TCR results of Iota
That was a discrepancy from the Tropical Cyclone Report results from the National Hurricane Center that Hurricane Iota has just been downgraded to Category 4 with a slight decrease in peak wind speed by 5 mph (5 knots) but a slightly lower pressure by 3 mbar (920 --> 917) that made the storm a little more intense. We should keep Iota a category 5 storm for now with the initial peak wind speed of 160 mph (140 kt), which the latest result from the TCR was an unfortunate downgrade for us in terms of wind speed recalculation and accuracy. It was the latest category 5 hurricane on record that it was originally thought by forecasters. If Iota was downgraded, this broke the streak of at least one Category 5 hurricane in each season consecutively since 2016. Since 2020 was the most active hurricane season in total number of storms, I thought we may still have a Category 5 storm during the season, which Iota have peaked out at it! (Trivially, we also had Iota the first and only Greek letter to be a Category 5 storm, as in the case they stopped using Greek alphabet to name storms after the 2020 season.) Can we put Iota back at category 5, or keep the latest significant change at category 4? This will be a possible consensus for a downgrade discrepancy. I don't know why Iota was downgraded from category 5 to category 4? --
Allen(
talk /
ctrb) 04:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The TCR is considered definitive over advisories. We've changed the ratings of plenty of storms before based on TCRs. We shouldn't keep it as a cat 5.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 04:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Usa1285980287iota was never officially a cat 5, but it could have been one for a few seconds, same with jose & sam.
184.67.166.254 (
talk) 18:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
People are still insisting on changing Iota back to category 5. Does this warrant pending changes protection?
TornadoLGS (
talk) 21:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
TornadoLGS:, I think that at this point it definitely warrants PCP, as it's been over 3 months since the TCR release, and as you said people are still trying to change it back. 🌀
CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
So people keep changing the knot from 135 to 140, Remember, IOTA WAS NOT A CATEGORY 5, IT WAS A CATEGORY 4, Can someone protect the Hurricane Iota page so no one can do vandalism? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:C7E:2C20:D700:BCAD:3BFE:A0DF:27D3 (
talk) 20:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Such changes have not been made to the article for a bit. Protection is only warranted for recent and persistent disruption.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The Hurricane it Cat5 260 km/h not 250 km/h it persons destoy wikipedia whit this article
Cusofre - Android Editor (
talk) 13:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Where are you reading that this was a Category 5? --
Jayron32 13:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Cusofre - Android Editor and
Jayron32: Iota was initially assessed as a Category 5 during advisories, but was downgraded to Category 4 as a result of post-season analysis.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 00:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Map of Hurricane Iota
The map plotting the storm's track and intensity needs to be updated because Category 5 hurricanes are labeled purple, Category 4 hurricanes are labeled red, and Category 3 hurricanes are labeled dark orange.
The Corvette ZR1 (
talk) 18:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply