Talk:2011 Southwest blackout

Rewrite and rename

The lead needs to be rewritten. Northeast Blackout of 2003 can be used as an example.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Southern California power outage → 2011 Southwest blackout – Did the blackout also affect parts of Arizona and Mexico? If so, should the article be renamed to something like 2011 Southwest blackout? serioushat 21:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Lets move it. jorgenev 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree it should be renamed, moved and greatly expanded so users don't have to jump around among several articles, and burdening those articles with information better consolidated here, wherever "here" winds up. Prefer year first followed by locale for ease in using category "Electric power blackouts". --Pawyilee (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done serioushat 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Largest blackout in CA?

This was not the largest power outage in California History, in 1996 there were two major power outages that blacked out most of California. There should be some mention on the record time in which power was restored to San Diego, Mexico, Imperial Irrigation District and Arizona Public Service. there was over 6000MW of load interupted in this outage (1MW=approx750 homes/ less in summer) Investigation is ongoing as to the actual events that caused the blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.60.7 (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the 1996 Western North-America summer blackouts, those blackouts were mostly concentrated in the northwest, affected far fewer people total than the 5 million in California alone that were affected in this one, and were short-lived compared to the 8-12 hours of this one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

During the morning press conference, SDG&E's president mentioned this was the largest blackout in the history of SDG&E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.250.62 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder when the NERC investigation will release the facts about an entity not following standards and not protecting for n-1?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.58.3 (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:San Diego Blackout 2011 (September 8).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:San Diego Blackout 2011 (September 8).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Another name change?

Wasn't there just a RM to change the name, now it has another name? Is there a reason fir the new name, because I haven't heard this reference before--JOJ ^Hutton 03:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back, pending discussion and consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Epicenter

Apparently the episode centers on the North Gila Substation of Path 46, which seems to be out of Arizona Public Service territory , so that needs some clarification.Path 46's article need some serious attention, starting with adding categories; likely so do other Paths, such as Path 27.--Pawyilee (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute - the new name "Great Blackout of 2011" is not appropriate

We just had a move discussion, as a result of which the page was moved to "2011 Southwest blackout". Then all of a sudden, without discussion or consensus, the page was moved again, to "Great Blackout of 2011". I disagree with that move. It does not follow the conventions of Category:Electric power blackouts and it is inappropriate. This was only the "great blackout" to the 7 million or so people who were affected by it. Even the Northeast Blackout of 2003 does not get a POV title like "Great blackout". I am going to reverse the move, leaving a redirect. Then if 08Ocean Beach SD wants to argue for the new name, let's do it here and reach consensus per usual Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion here Melanie. It would seem the title Great Blackout of 2011 isn't as common as I first though. News searches don't reveal much except in the case of Great [insert city name] Blackout of 2011 in areas affected by the blackout. However, according to the category Melanie linked, it would seem more in line for the article to be moved to Southwest Blackout of 2011, which I would advocate for. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 16:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Give yourself a little more credit, the phrase was used a little more than that; see [1]. However, it appears to be a purely local and somewhat ironic/humorous usage - not appropriate for a Wikipedia title IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, it would seem to be so. How do you feel about the move to Southwest Blackout of 2011? It is of a more formal composition as well as in line with Northeast Blackout titles. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 17:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral; the current title is OK with me. I really don't know how people would search for this. The titles at Category:Electric power blackouts seem to be about half and half - "blackout of (year)" vs. "(year) blackout". The current title alphabetizes under "s" at that category in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That half that use the format blackout of (year) are mostly those that have occurred in, or mostly in, the United States; even more reason to have it moved. At any rate, the title would still be categorized under "s." If there is no opposition, I can go through with the move. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 17:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang it, OB, will you STOP changing article titles on your own, without discussion or consensus?!?!? The current title was the result of a "requested move" process and was reached after discussion. You can't just go ahead and change a consensus-based title like that on your whim!
You said you would move it "if there is no opposition", and then you went ahead and moved it, less than three hours after you proposed it, and without any input from anyone but me. (At least one person in the earlier discussion said "prefer year first followed by locale," you should have taken that as an "objection.") Three hours on a Sunday morning is not long enough to allow for discussion or objection or consensus. I would normally say to allow at least a week; the closing administrator of the earlier discussion here allowed eight days.
I'm not going to move it back this time, because as I said I am neutral. But I do feel you were out of line to ignore process once again, and I want you to respect the consensus system from now on. OK??? --MelanieN (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No Melanie, you're right. I moved the page back to it's consensus decided title. I'm beginning a requested moved discussion below. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Map requests

To be consistent, can someone replace the current map image with an SVG one excluding Greenland, like the map used for the 2003 blackout? Can someone also do this for the 1965 blackout, with a redundant faraway Hawaii? serioushat 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 
  1965
• 
  2003
• 
  2011

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Southwest blackout → Southwest Blackout of 2011 – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Simply put, this article should be moved to the proposed title because it is more in line with related blackout-articles in the United States. This may be a point of view, but the proposed title seems to be more formal. See Category:Electric power blackouts of the United States. Whatever the result of this RM is, the title format should be applied to all blackout-articles pertaining to the United States so their is some degree of consistency. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral (changing to Oppose, see below) I don't have a preference between "(location) blackout of 2011" (should be a lower-case b IMO) and "2011 (location) blackout". I'm frankly not sure how people would search for these articles; I don't think either version can be considered the "common name". However I do note that the two formats are used about equally, both at Category:Electric power blackouts and at its new subcategory Category:Electric power blackouts of the United States, so it's not really possible to say which version is "more in line" with related articles. If you are talking about changing half of these articles to the other format, in the interest of "some degree of consisency", then that discussion would need to take place in a more broadly based forum than this one - or at least, a notice would need to be placed at all the others that such a discussion is taking place here. Personally I'm not in favor of launching a massive rename proposal for articles in this category, but that's just me. --MelanieN (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My argument against a grand renaming or regularization plan of the article names in this category: from WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples of other types of Wikipedia titles: earthquakes use the format "(year) (location) earthquake" - in other words, the same format as the current title. Tsunamis use that format as well. Riots use a variety of styles. Hurricanes use a variety of styles. Railway accidents use a variety of styles. I couldn't find any category where "(incident) of (year)" was the preferred format. Based on this, I am going to oppose the requested move. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer titles that can omit the word "of". jorgenev 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure I see any difference between the two titles. All the words are there, only in opposite order. Looking at the sources, its hard to see a pattern as to what this particular blackout is being referred to as. Most sources just call it the blackout, or last weeks blackout.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Doesn't really phase me either way, but "blackout" should definitely have a lowercase b. Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northeast blackout of 2003 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation for protection settings at San Onofre

The Analysis section states that federal investigators deemed the "protection settings" at San Onofre were "unnecessary". I read the cited the sections of the report and several surrounding pages and I don't see anything to support that statement. Am I missing something? Msgerbs (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)