Talk:275 kV Forth Crossing

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening heading

This title is incorrect it is should read 400kV Forth Crossing.

Articles in Wikipedia should be accurate and in this case the wrong voltage has been put in the title which needs correcting. Transmission system voltages vary in America and the UK and it is not right to assume that 380kV is the correct for the UK. The UK operates a 400kV and 275kV Interconnected transmission system. Evidence in the SYS (Seven Year Statement) produced by NGC is viewable on line anD the system diagrams within the SYS verifies this. Aquizard 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

The title should in fact read "132kV Forth Crossing" as it is on a 132kV section of the National Grid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.218 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that these pylons are 275kV. Look carefully at the other pylons that they connect to - they each have 18 insulating discs. This would indicate a 275kV line, NOT 400kV or even 132kV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.248.221 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support and sources are now provided that the rationale was based on a falsehood (one apparently based entirely on vandalism as no other evidence was produced). Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

400kV Forth Crossing → 132kV Forth Crossing – It's not 400kV, it's 400kV bruce89 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Forth Crossing? Do we have a source that shows this would not work? No need to rename if the voltage is wrong or it changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't source the voltage, [1] I doubt if we can even demonstrate WP:N. It's a substantial aspect of the interlink. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bruce89 :: You wrote "It's not 400kV, it's 400kV" with both voltages the same. Is that a typo? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed move, which appears to be based on some IP vandalism and what they left the article as. Personally, I'm not sure this is even notable in the slightest, like Andy says - so I'm AfDing it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I note that the AfD appears likely to fail as well. But not a complete waste of time, the article has improved, see The Parable of the Ants. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.