This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Inadequate situational awareness at FirstEnergy
The fault alarm The primary cause of the loss of situational awareness was failure of the fault alarm part of a computer system. The operators noticed and switched to another system but that also failed a few minutes later. Attempts to restore service failed until the main system, its backup and all connected systems were restarted after the blackout.
Loss awareness of the state of their network First Energy operators, in part due to failure of the computer system which should have alerted them to failures in their transmission system and failure to sufficiently trim trees under its power lines in part of its Ohio service area, which led to normal heat-caused sagging of power lines operating within their capacity limits to touch the trees and go out of service. These problems were compounded, but not caused, by the Eastlake 5 power plant near Cleveland, Ohio going offline and causing an increase in the need to transfer power over the lines. It also found that FirstEnergy did not warn other control centers until it was too late because of faulty monitoring equipment and inadequate staff. The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power plants.
Someone moved this page to Northeast North America blackout of 2003 with an edit summary, "not the only place in the world to have power cuts". Though that may be true, this article is specifically about the blackout that occured in the Northeast of the American continent in 2003 (clue is in the title). Also, "Northeast North" does not make sense as it is not a recognised compass point. Moved back to where it was. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
i agree that "Northeast North" does not make sense. It should be "Northeastern North", like western West Virginia. Not west West Virginia. But User:Simply south has already changed it back without discussion here. Ill advised. — TimL • talk 22:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorted. Simplysouth ......time, department skies for just 8 years 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
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. 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: No move. While some participants express ambivalence about the current title, there was little support for any alternative in this discussion. The question may be worth taking up again in the future. Cúchullaint/c 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
– Northeast or southwest could refer to anywhere. Where there have been notable power cuts, the location is usually given. Seeing as this occurred in the USA and Canada, it would be best to refer this as the continent it is in. All other power cut articles do not refer to the company in the title either. Examples include 2010 Chile blackout, 2006 European blackout, 2006 Auckland Blackout etc Simplysouth ......time, department skies for just 8 years 19:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. These are the common names for the blackouts. No need to disambiguation them and give them such ugly titles. CalidumTalk To Me 21:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
How are they ugly titles? If a blackout happened in North East England, it would locally be referred to as the Northeast blockout of 2014. However by WP standards it would be 2014 North East England blackout. Simplysouth ......time, department skies for just 8 years 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As presented. However, I believe a change of article title is warranted as the current title does not provide any clue as to the Northeast of where. Someone searching for this article would most probably search for Northeast America blackout of 2003 and I believe that the naming convention requires that the title should be a likely search key. "Northeast(ern) North" is not a recognised compass point which means that no one is likely to use it as a search key. It is unnecessary to distinguish continental North America from South America because anyone searching for infomation on blackouts in South America will most likely search for the specific country (as in the Chile example given above). Last point: the method of presenting the year should be consistent across all similar articles (policy dictates either 2003 Northeast America blackout <for my serving suggestion> or Northeast America blackout of 2003). I favour the later and coincidentally, I inadvertently moved the article to the later when I was undoing the original move as I had failed to notice that the title failed to say where on the planet this blackout had ocurred. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
'Oppose. Original nomination. However, I agree current title is not good. I could support "Northeast America blackout of 2003" as at least an improvement. I B Wright (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, the title doesn't say which Northeast, but the opening two sentences do. It's not worth uglying up the title for precision that can easily be given in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that the current title is inadequate regardless of what the lede says. (From WP:TITLE) "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for ...". I would argue that if I was attempting to search for this article, I might be more likely to seach for "Northeast America blackout ..." than "Northeast blackout ...". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This is only because a redirect was inadvertently created when I undid the original move to the wrong place and an admin subsequently re-undid a double move. I would still argue that regardless or redirects, the current title is too vague in that it does not specify the Northeast of anywhere. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.