Talk:Hurricane Stan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image[edit]

An image is needed to go in the infobox. Jdorje 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add an image, but it isn't appearing for me. Is it just me? -- RattleMan 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it either. Not only do we need an infobox image, but some impact images would be nice as well... CrazyC83 15:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

This article appears to have been copied and pasted from the main article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Unless drastic changes are made, I'm going to be inclined to reinstate the redirect.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is warranted based on the death toll, we definitely need more information. CrazyC83 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get more information as it comes out. It will be slower coming out of places like Guatemala and El Salvador, but it will come, and there's no reason to redirect now only to revert to a separate page later. Also, the Santa Ana Volcano page disagrees with this page as to when the eruption occurred -- can we confirm whether it was on the 1st or the 2nd? 69.86.16.61 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[1] That story, the main one used in the article so far, says it was on Saturday, which was the 1st...and you are right, information is much slower to come from Central America than if the hurricane hit the US (which is why the article wasn't made until we saw the death toll - although even if it hit the US, for a Category 1 hurricane, it would depend on the information received). The death toll chart (which was first used for Katrina and Rita) has been modified slightly for use here - the state (for Mexico)/region (for elsewhere) list only applies if we can break it down. CrazyC83 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The best image I could find is here: [2]. It would be better if we could find a pre-landfall image, though.


[3] is a satellite picture of Stan, also after landfall... -- NSLE | Talk 10:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first one is better, but I think someone should cut the top part. --Revolución (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Revolution. The EO Natural Hazards pic has it as a tropical storm inland. The OSEI pic has it as a hurricane just inland.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should always look for one as close to peak intensity as possible. In addition, we need more pictures from the affected areas. CrazyC83 01:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, what's with this new (and bad) pic? That pic is not near as good as the ones we found. It needs to be replaced in my opinion.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this image: [4] --tomf688{talk} 23:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

damage[edit]

what is the estimated amount of damage? --Revolución (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No estimates have been given out - the death toll is the main information coming out, and it is hard to calculate in impoverished areas (as opposed to an impact in the United States, farther north in Mexico or in a wealthier Caribbean island), as there is far less in the way of insured properties. CrazyC83 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And that last bit is most important. For American storms, the damage estimate is usually simply taken as "Insured claims x 2". In other words, if a storm caused $5 billion in insurance claims to be made, it's estimated that the full damage is around $10 billion, since I guess they figure about half of the properties are insured. This is obviously much more difficult in poorer areas that can't afford insurance, which is why damage estimates for non-American storms are almost worthless - the death toll always outweighs the few millions that are estimated. --Golbez 18:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect Stan's damage to be anywhere near that, in fact, I'd be surprised if it is even $1 billion once they ever get around to estimating it (won't be easy!). The death toll is the big story here. CrazyC83 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find that damage claims comparisons based on money are bogus anyway. Apparently the recent tsunami cost $2 billion. Therefore just a small matter, on that basis, as not much money involved. Insurance claims also amount to how much can be gotten out of the insurance company, not how much damage was caused. Wallie 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found an estimate: $1 billion in Guatemala. Probably more in the neighborhood of $1.5 to $2.5 billion overall. CrazyC83 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mudslide[edit]

Yahoo News is claiming a mudslide occured Thursday (caused by Stan) that killed around 1400 people. Should i add this to the article even though it is not in the official death count yet , though it should be by next statement. Fableheroesguild 20:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a note saying that the death toll could go to that and it has been claimed, although I'm not sure if that is the real number or number "feared dead". 616 is the best estimate I have at this point, based on a combination of sources. It will likely go higher though, and yes, it definitely could reach 1,400 or even 2,000...this could be deadlier than even Katrina! CrazyC83 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Reuters (not Yahoo news as I originally thought) is correct and one village was destroyed, killing 1400 people in that one mudslide, this would pass 2000. Fableheroesguild 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Hurricane Katrina[edit]

I see that someone knocked out the bit that says that Hurricane Katrina has a similar number of deaths to Hurricane Stan, saying that the comparison is not "useful or helpful". Well it is. There are plenty of "helpful and useful" comparisons in the Hurricane Katrina artciles too. Maybe these would be removed too under the same pretext... not likely! Stan is part of the 2005 Hurricane season as was Katrina. If the death toll is later found to be higher for Hurricane Stan, then this article will be amended to say that Hurricane Stan is the most deadly storm of the season. That is just plain fact. Wallie 16:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it is similar to Katrina except that it killed a similar number of people, which maybe could be mentioned in a way that refers to the deadly storms of the season. The path and strength weren't even close. If anything, compare it to Hurricane Mitch. --tomf688{talk} 23:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch was the deadliest hurricane in two centuries, Stan is not even in the same dimension.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Srice13 is right. Then, its death toll is about half of Mitch. Thegreatdr 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Information[edit]

Has there been any more information as to the number of dead? Surely the confirmed number must have risen in the past few weeks. -- Cuivienen 03:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any new information, but 841 people are still missing in Guatemala [5]. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Amount[edit]

I changed the death amount from Hurricane Stan in El Salvador, as per this research: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/central_america/fy2006/central_americai_FL_FS02_10-13-2005.pdf

I also took the liberty to correct the amount in shelters, which is also grossly incorrect.

I don't know how to cite the above URL in the page, but if someone could do it for me that would be great!

I reverted your original edit from 72 deaths to 69 deaths. Thank you for citing your source on the talk page, and I welcome you to change the numbers to what you have in your source. Be sure to also change the information in the info boxes on the side. By the way, I will cite the source on the page, and I'll do some of the grunt work as well. Just going to eat some dinner now, though :-). Thanks again, JHMM13 (T | C) 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC says Mexico reported 80 deaths, not 28, what gives? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems simple enough: "According to the government of Mexico, there were 80 deaths in the Mexican states of Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Chiapas. Since the actual surface circulation of the tropical cyclone seems to have been confined to Mexico, the direct death toll is therefore set at 80." — jdorje (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 21 April 2006 @ 00:09 UTC

Aftermath[edit]

Is it Really True?[edit]

Stan killed a similar number of people, compared to Katrina? Before I found this out, I was questioning why Stan was retired from the list of the North Atlantic tropical system names. Can someone give me a reason why Stan caused so many fatalitites? The Runescape Junkie 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its true. The cause was very heavy rainfall leading to severe flooding and mudslides in Guatemala.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the Lake Atitlan region in February and can state first hand that the storm was absolutely devastating. A man that has spent most of his life in Santiago Atitlan told me that the roads were closed for 30 days. He believes that more than 5,000 died in the landslides, and many more died from disease and malnutrition in the weeks and months that followed. I have to wonder if official casualty reports are understated because the population of that area is mostly Mayan. The relationship between that region and the government has improved, but there is much distrust; also many in that region speak little Spanish.Srice13 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage pics[edit]

I heard that you may be able to use Flickr images only if they are approved by a commons admin or something. There are some damage pics from Stan at Flickr [6]. I also know that some people have emailed for permission to use photos from private organizations. This website has excellent photos [7]. Good kitty 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of the Flickr situation. The Commons admins job is to verify that the license of the images, its the uploaders job to see the content is freely available (cc-by or cc-by-sa) on Flickr. Unfortunately these images are non free (all rights reserved). However, the flickr user may be more responsive to a permissions query than a organization; so contact them directly too.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't know what the flickr stuff was about. Regardless I see that some of images are from the other site are USAID, but only a couple of landslide photos. Good kitty 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some links for later[edit]

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Stan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I know usually we just keep these sorts of articles at whatever is the name of the hurricane, but this storm was associated with other Central America flooding. What about moving the article to Hurricane Stan and 2005 Central America floods? That would make it clear that the article covers both events. Not sure about that exact title, but something along those lines? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but Stan wasn't the sole cause of the floods, and having the article title just at "Hurricane Stan" might imply it was only a hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Stan only caused 80-100 deaths, why include the 1,500 other deaths not related to the system? ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Stan occurred around the same time as the other floods, and it's difficult to distinguish the two. Many sources at the time credited all of the floods to just Stan. The TCR, for example, says "However, the tropical cyclone appeared to be embedded within the western portion of a broader-scale low-level cyclonic circulation." It seems like a Central American gyre situation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricanehink: Hmm...Central American Gyres can be tricky (Amanda-Cristobal, Eta-Iota-LPA, etc.). I'm open to a flood article. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 16:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A flood article is more appropriate as most of the deaths were unrelated to Stan. Looks like a CAG case. The name is...eh...though...~ Destroyer🌀🌀 16:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The title just feels clunky, if there's a better title I might support but for now I'm opposing. I don't really see a better way to write the title personally. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible oppose for, um, 60 reasons. (1) looks clunky, (2) are we really sure the floods were unrelated, or were they a part of Stan's moisture, (3) that has never been done before, we would just make the article about the floods and merge the contents in(but we can't do that until 03:45 UTC on February 23, 2021 per our merge moratorium), (4) readers will get confused, (5) do reliable sources state that, (6) just leave it alone, (7) this move wasn't requested properly, (8) per consensus, and my other 52 reasons delve into more complicatedness(such as this may not be closed designated as an NAC if closed by a non admin). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HurricaneTracker495: Rebuttal. (1) - the title is not the topic of discussion. We are discussing whether to move and convert into a flood article. (2) Yes, it says in the notes section. (3) The merge moratorium doesn't apply here, as it is a conversion, not a merge. (4) OK, see my rebuttal for (1). (5) Yes. Basically a repeat of your (2). (6) Reason? (7) I'm sure Hurricanehink knows how to do that, and that isn't a valid reason to oppose. (8) There is no consensus. (other 52 reasons) such as this may not be closed designated as an NAC if closed by a non admin Not a valid reason to oppose. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @HurricaneTracker495: Just a note: Adding "Strongest possible oppose in the whole entire universe" carries no more weight than a simple "oppose", rather it causes people to glance over it and not take it seriously. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 18:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HurricaneTracker495 (talk · contribs), I didn't say the floods were unrelated. The TCR says that Stan was embedded within a broader system, so both events were responsible for the floods. It could be a case that since the storm name was retired, we could just include the associated floods anyway, and just make a note of it, while leaving the title as it is. I agree, the proposed title would be clunky. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a split as from what I have been told Stan was only one of the contributing factors to the floods.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: searching '2005 Central America flood' on Google returns loads of Hurricane Stan, Hurricane Stan, Hurricane Stan, many many times. Was the floods really separate from Hurricane Stan?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't entirely separate, the floods started around the same time as Stan, and then continued after the storm dissipated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the Google results I found. --Hurricane Tracker 495 15:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuity with Other Articles[edit]

I feel like the section where it says Stan was retired and replaced by Sean should be moved from the beginning of the Impact secion to the end of the Impact section as a way to make it more in-line with the other hurricane articles. Poxy4 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that, because nobody responded, I would move the section myself. If you have a reason to, feel free to let me know and move it back to where it was before. Poxy4 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Stan&oldid=1211229990"