Template talk:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes

Damage cost figures

@Bender235 and Hurricane Noah: Pinging current discussion participants to inform them that I have moved the discussion specific to Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes here so it doesn't get lost on the below-forementioned WP:TFD subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 12 § Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes 1900–2010

@Bender235: I fixed the issue with the replacement. Noah^Talk 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Why did you hard-code the adjusted numbers rather than using {{Inflation}}? --bender235 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: The numbers were hard-coded because I used the inflation adjusted values provided by the NHC. If I were to use the inflation template, the values would be incorrect. Noah^Talk 18:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: They would not be incorrect. The template {{Inflation}} uses the official GDP deflator, which is the only correct way of adjusting the damage values for inflation. --bender235 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: Yes, they would be incorrect considering a US government agency that happens to be the RSMC for the Atlantic posted an official inflation adjusted list that differs with the inflation template. In this case, the NHC is what we need to go with. Noah^Talk 21:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding the use of {{Inflation}} for tropical cyclones is not suitable, as it "is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich." This is why it is not used in any of the WPTC articles and has been discussed previously with the result being to remove all inflation because it opens up a can of worms. I am personally not a fan of inflating the damage costs of tropical cyclones full stop, since i feel like it opens up a can of worms, when it comes to foreign costs. For example: Do you infate the costs in Fijian Dollars first and then convert it to USD or convert the original total and inflate it.Jason Rees (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That quote your are citing refers to deflating with the consumer price index (CPI). What we need to adjust with is the GDP deflator, available as option US-GDP in the {{Inflation}} template. These are the correct numbers. As for the second part of your comment, inflation adjustment sure isn't perfect, but it brings as closer to comparable damage values. The next step would be to adjust for increased wealth-at-risk (e.g., the fact that Miami-Dade county has 50× the population it had when the 1926 Miami hurricane struck, thus the very same hurricane striking today would create at least 50× as much damage, even after inflation adjustment), as done by Weinkle et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: Im sorry, but the inflation adjustment template will simply not work. The correct numbers are the ones provided by the United States Government, not the numbers from that template. However, I must remove the inflation adjusted numbers per WPTC consensus that I was not aware of until recently. Noah^Talk 01:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template actually gives the exact same numbers as that "Government" website. ${{Inflation|US|125|2005|r=0}} billion → $195 billion, that same number you had in the table before you deleted it. Do you not understand how that template works? Also, which consensus are you referring to? --bender235 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: And again, you are wrong about the template giving the same values. You checked for the year 2018, which is not right. That list was made using 2017 USD by NHC and will use 2018 USD for next version (whenever it comes out in the spring). ${{Inflation|US|125|2005|2017|r=0}} is what the value would be in 2017 dollars (157). That means the 2018 value will be higher than 160 billion (from the NHC). a little discussion here and another here. There are valid points as to why we should not use inflation for WPTC articles. Inflation has simply been cut out of the few articles that had them for consistency. To not include inflation is simply the view of the project a few years ago. If you disagree, feel free to try and get a new consensus. Noah^Talk 11:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously those numbers will increase as the years pass. That's the whole point of adjusting for inflation. But the NHC (or any government institution for that matter) will adjust the numbers in the very same way our own template does because we use the same numbers. Besides, if the ill-informed consensus in the relevant WikiProject really is to use nominal rather than real damage values, the least we should do is put a footnote in the template to caution people that nominal damage values from 1980 aren't comparable to damage values from 2015. That, of course, would make the whole ranking obsolete in the first place, I guess. --bender235 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that we are opening up a can of worms here by even including inflation via GDP against current WPTC policy and that it should be included worldwide at the same time. If we can do it via the infation template then that might be a good way to do it rather than reying on a document for each basin. However, we come back to the can of worms of how to include foreign costs? What happens if a TC cost decreases in one currency over time but increases in USD?Jason Rees (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect cost order

Hey wait a minute, doesnt Hurricane Ivan cost 26.1 Billion US when it hid, and doesnt Michael cost 25.5 billion? 1 billion less than ivan. So why is it shown as the tenth costliest when it really is the Evelent and Ivan is the tenth. Let me know if i have permission to edit this. YourGeneric (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Hurricane Andrew

Hurricane Andrew made landfall as a Category 5 and its damages are not $57 billion (you can look at the article), although damage was still incredible. Can somebody explain this, thanks Haruka Amaranth 12:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense

It defies logic to leave Andrew off this template. Yes, Andrew will be out of the top 10 soon but not yet. Delectable1 (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]