Talk:Transposing scheme

This article needs to be made understandable to the general reader, for example, by clarifying technical terminology. Xtzou (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger

 * I have suggested a merge with a larger article, such as Electric power transmission. Or Overhead power line. Xtzou (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Transposing pylon for why the former is a poor choice of destination, and my own contrary suggestion. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then it could at least be merged with Transposing pylon. It seems that a transposition scheme only has to do with the transmission tower as it is, so why have a separate article for what is basically another section?  &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now you're talking sense; merging the small with the small and closely instead of enlarging the already large and discursive. Goodness, has this discussion already gone beyond half a year? Minor point, transposing is nowadays almost entirely for power, but complex transposing schemes were extensively applied to open wire telephone lines in mid century, without special pylons, which would suggest that this "Scheme" article should be the survivor, or some new name such as "Transposition of wires" or "Transmission line transposing" be applied. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be opposed to a merger of Transposing scheme with Transposing pylon as Transposition is not limited strictly to electrical power distribution. A far better merger might be to merge Transposing scheme into Transposition (telecommunications) and then rename the later (keeping the revision history of the larger article directly visible). I don't see a problem with a separate article covering the topic of transposing pylons as there is quite a lot more material which could be added there, however I don't see a point in having two articles (Transposing scheme and Transposition (telecommunications)) which both cover the topic of "transposition". --Tothwolf (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That does make more sense. Looking at the Transposition article, it seems to be addressing overhead power lines quite a bit, and says that its function is to improve transmission.  I think it would make more sense to merge this there, as well.  &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 03:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)