Talk:Hurricane Stan

message: An image is needed to go in the infobox. Jdorje 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to add an image, but it isn't appearing for me. Is it just me? -- RattleMan 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
replies: text: While the article is warranted based on the death toll, we definitely need more information. CrazyC83 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Duplication

message: what is the estimated amount of damage? --Revolución (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: damage

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mudslide 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see any new information, but 841 people are still missing in Guatemala . -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Information 

message: *Here's a link to some information on the aftermath of Stan about farmer's troubles. Hurricanehink 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is it Really True? 

message: 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 . I also know that some people have emailed for permission to use photos from private organizations. This website has excellent photos . Good kitty 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Damage pics 

message: *
Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some links for later 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506120306/http://www.conred.org/eventos/tormenta_stan_octubre2005/index.php to http://www.conred.org/eventos/tormenta_stan_octubre2005/index.php/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219172809/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/855C83AA-53BA-4AB0-9C9F-28BA2CA22ED9.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/855C83AA-53BA-4AB0-9C9F-28BA2CA22ED9.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *Yea, that's why I proposed the title the way I did. I don't think it should just be October 2005 Central America floods - that wouldn't include Mexico. It's not the prettiest article title, so IDK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: *: Here are the Google results I found. --Hurricane Tracker 495 15:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discontinuity with Other Articles