Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Storm Éowyn

Deaths

I can't find a source with three deaths. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't exist. One in County Donegal, Ireland. That's it. (Police in Irvine, Scotland have said that the death of a local person was not related to the storm.) Almost everybody took the advice and sheltered in a safe place. I have reinstated the figure of one. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I seen a source yesterday with three but I forgot the link so for now there is only one confirmed death. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and the Guardian both now say two, after a serious injury ended in fatality. The (usually unreliable) Daily Express adds the one in Irvine, despite the police statement. Article updated accordingly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of oil platform

No idea if this is of interest. The storm caused the Norwegian oil platform "Troll B" to shut down and evacuate 102 people. The first 19 to evacuate were supposed to go to Troll A but changed route to the mainland cause of too much wind. A bit after the rest 83 got sent to Troll A. It's still shut down as of writing this.

[1]https://www.ba.no/equinor-stenger-produksjon-og-sender-ansatte-i-land/s/5-8-2893174

[2]https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/stenger-oljeplattform-pa-grunn-av-eowyn/82573954 Surlien (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only worth mentioning if it gets abandoned completely as a result, per WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But thank you for raising it here first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It got abandoned completely cause of safety concerns, as its not a stationary platform - it floats. It's pretty much unheard of in the oil and gas industry that a platform gets completely turned off due to the cost which is why i thought it would be something to mention. But I understand. Surlien (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial v SI units

This article was happily using a mix of SI or imperial first with the other shown in parentheses. TattooedLeprechaun decided unilaterally to change it all to Imperial first and add a {{use}} to this talk page to stake a claim. It wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing but now we have to discuss.

Two (Ireland, Norway) of the three countries (IE, NO, UK) affected by the storm and three of the four sources (IE, NO, UK, FR) use SI units in public documents. The UK Met Office uses SI internally and converts to imperial for political reasons. Worldwide meteorology uses SI. I fail to see why we should pander to the odd one out. Either put it back the way it was or put SI (the world standard) first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: From 27 January until your recent edit on 1 February, "this article was happily using" imperial units as the primary measurements. Throughout that period, multiple edits were made, yet no concerns were raised about this formatting. My edit on 27 January maintained imperial units as prominent, aligning with the existing style to ensure consistency and readability. I did not introduce the preference for imperial units but standardised the format to avoid unnecessary switching for readers. That said, I agree the article should be uniform, and I would personally prefer SI units throughout. TattooedLeprechaun🗣️💬 17:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, until you changed it unilaterally on 27/1 to prefer Imperial, the article was happily using SI first for Irish, French and Norwegian sources and Imperial for British sources. Since every measurement was given in both systems, there was no need to be consistent. But since you have opened Pandora's box, if one system most take precedence, we should determine which by consensus, not by wp:FAITACCOMPLI.
SI is the system used worldwide in science, particularly in Meteorology. With the possible exception of the US but certainly not the UK Met Office, all national meteorological data is recorded in SI. Units in the imperial system are defined as fractions of their SI counterparts: thus, by definition, Imperial units are secondary. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, change all imperial measurements throughout the article to SI, for consistency and clarity. That's the bit you seem to not be getting. I don't think it should be mixed, as in have sections where imperial measurements are prominent and other sections where SI is prominent. I think either imperial or SI needs to be prominent throughout the article and not have it mixed where, with your edit, it was using imperial measurements for UK and Isle of Man and SI for others, etc. TattooedLeprechaun🗣️💬 20:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) I was not clear in my response. TattooedLeprechaun🗣️💬 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF: The only thing I did was have one measurement prominent, based on what was mostly used on the article on 27 January, as before my edit on this date, there were imperial measurements and SI prominently used in different sections. The change I made was because imperial was then most prominent throughout the article.
It's not an issue on what sections should have imperial and which sections should have SI, but which should be the prominent measurement used throughout the article. That's the reason why I changed it, to use one prominent measurement throughout the article. By all means, I wish for the entire article to use SI prominently in all sections. TattooedLeprechaun🗣️💬 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created User:TattooedLeprechaun/Sandbox/Storm_Éowyn to show km/h, m, cm, etc are prominently used. TattooedLeprechaun🗣️💬 21:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems we already have a consensus in favour of SI .
(Yes, I got the consistency argument, though I do think it over-stated when the figures are provided readily in both systems. It is not like the AD v CE argument where there really can only be one of AD/BC or CE/BCE attached to dates. But I appreciate that inconsistency really bothers many people and it would be best have it resolved.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Mace Head

Protocol suggests "Ceann Mhása" should be used in this article, not Mace Head. Its Gaeltacht region refs: https://www.rte.ie/news/2025/0124/1492705-gallery-in-pictures-storm-eowyn/ https://www.facebook.com/reel/1862117914559790 https://www.instagram.com/naoise.omuiri/p/DFd1BhxuqXu/?img_index=1 https://www.logainm.ie/en/1165704 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.116.112 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources cited use "Mace Head" and this is the English language Wikipedia. So, unless there is a significant consensus to change it, your request will not be accepted. However, it is reasonable to give both styles in the article, so I will do that much. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]