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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've noticed a recent wave of news articles talking about an alleged rerouting of the cable because it could go under a memorial to a Harry Potter character. The earliest article I've seen about it is a BBC article that was written three days ago, but I've also heard of an earlier article by the Daily Caller, which I couldn't find (and which I believe wouldn't be exactly veritable as a source). The BBC article uses a niche podcast called Energy Revolution as its main source. Now, I haven't listened to it in its entirety, but I believe I've found the episode they're referring to , which was uploaded on the fifth of this month, which would explain the recent "resurrection" of this controversy. The thing is, however, I have yet to find any evidence of this controversy from during the cable's construction, which is weird, considering the popularity of the Harry Potter series and the fact Etchea Energy (the firm that directed Greenlink's development) allegedly received hundreds of phone calls over the affair, I feel there should have been more press at the time.
But who knows. I may just be wrong or overly cynical. I've done very little research into this, which is why I didn't outright delete the edit that's already been made. If anything needs to be learned from this, an earlier source for the controversy's existence should probably be used, and we should probably find an actual date. Ash the Moth (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply