Talk:Hoover Dam

Hoover Dam
I have pictures of what Is called the “Stairway to Heaven”. It is the 700+ foot stairwell in the Hoover Dam in case the elevators fail. The pictures are about the midway point. They curve because the dam curves. Dhendershot (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Look like this? SilverReaper (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What of it? 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:D030:E8F5:F817:839A (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Lynn Atkinson
Listed in several websites as the engineer for the project. What’s the story? 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:D030:E8F5:F817:839A (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only source I've been able to find is a single article in the LA Times that so claims in passing. Other sources list his company as one of those which submitted the second-place bid for the project. Do you have strong evidence that Atkinson was engineer for the project?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the dam's Power/Energy specifications
I was looking at the specs for Hoover Dam and spotted something strange ...

Installed capacity	2,080 MW

Capacity factor	23%

Annual generation	3.3 TWh (12 PJ) (2020) [3]

But 12 PJ divided by seconds in a year is 380 GW, not 2 GW. I don't know where the error entered the stream, but 12 PJ is definitely not consistent with 2.08 GW as the installed capacity rating. YodaWhat (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing any erroneous figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 explosion
the consensus was to merge it. See Articles for deletion/2022 Hoover Dam explosion. We have to put at least a line down for a merge to be done.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator found consensus to merge but then it becomes up to the editors of the involved articles to decide if there's useful content to merge. See WP:MERGE. There's no useful content to merge. Two different editors have reverted additions on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely insignificant, a huge waste of time, and an object lesson in letting at least 45 minutes pass before creating a new article based on a fire engine out on a routine call. Look at all the editor and admin time that could have been used on something constructive instead of cleanup.  SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 27 July 2022

"2022 Hoover Dam exposion" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Hoover Dam exposion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)