This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Saurdal, Kvilldal, Hylen and Stølsdal power stations and Blåsjø create a common hydroelectricity complex. At the same time, separate articles about them are all stub-size very small articles. Merging these articles will help to create a more comprehensive overview about this complex. Beagel (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that some combination of all these articles is probably a good idea. But I believe the article on the artificial lake should be left out of the merger since we like to have lakes in various category hierarchies, lists and so on. __meco (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have very strong feelings about merging the Blåsjø article. Just for technical point of view, if merged, it should have its own section in the merged article and the Blåsjø redirect should redirect to the specific section of the article. Lake categories could be added in this case not to the merged article but the redirect. In this case, it will appear in the lake categories hierarchies and lists by the lake name while being a section in the larger article. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to merger. The articles are stubs, and their content would benefit by being put together, like the individual turbines at a powerplant. This will also create a better context of the overall project. In 10 years, if enough content is added, the articles could be split out again. As a project, the lake Blåsjø is an important part, but could also be in its own article, but that would diminish the overview. Blåsjø is increasingly the focus of northern European attention as a common battery, which would depend on connections both inland and at sea. TGCP (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. These mountain hydro schemes get quite complex and this one is hydraulically connected and should be combined under one article. I good overview reference is here. Some precedences are Kölnbrein Dam, Entracque Power Plant and Grande Dixence Dam. With Grande Dixence, the Bieudron Hydroelectric Power Station is the only one of the power stations with a stand-alone article because it is the largest, had a fatal failure in 2000 and has enough article context.--NortyNort(Holla) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPer the discussion going over here. extra999 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
