→Infobox Power Station: thanks! |
|||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
::Don't worry, we have a long way before it gets overloaded ;) Kind regards. [[User:Rehman|<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps">Reh</span></b>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
::Don't worry, we have a long way before it gets overloaded ;) Kind regards. [[User:Rehman|<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps">Reh</span></b>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Infobox Power Station == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Team Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Now that dust is settled, and all the major fixes complete, I would like to thank you for all your help and opinions in bringing the [[template:infobox power station]] through its merges and transformations. Thanks! [[User:Rehman|<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps">Reh</span></b>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 02:21, 15 November 2010
Archives... 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Dams in China
Beagel, I noticed your category reverts and have a question. In most countries, including the U.S., a dam article usually has a category for it as a dam and if it has a power station, a power station category, like the Hartwell Dam in SC/GA. Some hydroelectric power stations, although rarely, don't have an associated dam like the Sir Adam Beck Hydroelectric Power Stations in Canada. The dam and its power plant are often two separate facilities and I am familiar with the categorizing both. Is there a stated policy that China articles are following and not the majority of other articles I have worked on? --NortyNort (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Almost all hydroelectric power stations have also dam (except pumping storage power stations). Therefore, categories "hydroelectric power stations in X" are subcategories for "power stations in X" and "dams in X" and "dams in X" is a parent category for "hydroelectric power stations in X". E.g. "Category:Hydroelectric power stations in China" is a subcategory for "Category:Dams in China" and "Category:Dams in China" is a parent category for "Category:Hydroelectric power stations in China". There is a general rule that that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory. Therefore, hydroelectric dams belong to hydroelectric power station category which is a subcategory of the dams category, and do not belong to the parent category. I fully agree that there is a large overlapping of dams and hydroelectric power station categories and these articles need a proper categorization. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if this issue is may be a bit more complicated. In India for instance, there are several, rather big dams that are not for hydroelectric use, so they do not have a hydroelectrical powerstation. Even if they might get one in the future, their categorization today would not fit a parenthood for the hydroelectric powerstation-category. Therefore, in the Norwegian Wikipedia, we generally treat dams and hydro-stations as two distinct phenomena, which they also are. To further complicate, one dam can support several hydro-stations (as in a Bosnia-Croatia case), and several dams can support one station (as in Japan cases). So there is not a general 1:1 relationship in dams vs hydro-stations. Is it not easier to simply categorize them in two different families of categories, dams and hydro-stations distinct? Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my reply. There are still two different categories while 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' is a subcategory of the 'Dams in country X'. It is clear that if there is no power station related to the dam, it can't be categorized in the 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' series, but in the 'Dams in country X'. I also agree that these cases you mentioned need case-by-case approach and in some cases there could be both both categories applied. My previous post was about dams which are integral part of the hydroelectric power stations and which do not have any other purposes than production of hydroelectricity.Beagel (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I understand! But I still wouldn't put category Hydrostations as a subcategory under catagory Dams, simply because that is not wehere all readers would expect to find them. The last twenty years have seen an ever increasing number of hydrostations without dams, or hydrostations that are placed many miles from their dam. For this and other reasons, we have chosen not to treat Hydrostations as subcategory to Dams on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Good luck with your debates and keep up your good work! Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my reply. There are still two different categories while 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' is a subcategory of the 'Dams in country X'. It is clear that if there is no power station related to the dam, it can't be categorized in the 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' series, but in the 'Dams in country X'. I also agree that these cases you mentioned need case-by-case approach and in some cases there could be both both categories applied. My previous post was about dams which are integral part of the hydroelectric power stations and which do not have any other purposes than production of hydroelectricity.Beagel (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if this issue is may be a bit more complicated. In India for instance, there are several, rather big dams that are not for hydroelectric use, so they do not have a hydroelectrical powerstation. Even if they might get one in the future, their categorization today would not fit a parenthood for the hydroelectric powerstation-category. Therefore, in the Norwegian Wikipedia, we generally treat dams and hydro-stations as two distinct phenomena, which they also are. To further complicate, one dam can support several hydro-stations (as in a Bosnia-Croatia case), and several dams can support one station (as in Japan cases). So there is not a general 1:1 relationship in dams vs hydro-stations. Is it not easier to simply categorize them in two different families of categories, dams and hydro-stations distinct? Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I see this discussion is still here. I was just in Category:Dams in China and it is mostly filled with hydroelectric power station sub-cats. Out of the roughly 30 articles in the sub-cats, only two have "power station" in their name. To put the rest of the articles with "Dam" in their name within those categories makes no sense. As pointed above, if a reader is looking for dams, they may not look in the hydroelectric power station cats. The way it is now defeats the purpose of having categories for easy navigation. I think articles with "power station" in their name that are hydroelectric belong in those categories. If the article has "dam" in its name and has a hydroelectric power station, then it still belongs in the Dams category. To properly categorize both, we may be forced with some sort of redundancy, i.e. placing each dam in both categories. One of the many examples in Canada is the Jordan River Dam which is in both categories. I think the redundancy is justified because you have an article that covers two structures.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I haven't completely read the above discussion, so I don't know if it would help in any way, but some time back, Vmenkov and I discussed about the categorizations of hydroelectric-related articles here. Hope it helps or trigger any ideas in any way :) Kind regards to both. Rehman(+) 13:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Rehman. Like you guys pointed out, some hydroelectric power stations don't have dams and some dams don't have hydroelectric power stations. I think the best option is category redundancy. This problem seems to be inherent and also somewhat unique.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Resources in Norwegian
Hi Beagel. For your information, there are now some lists of power plants in the Norwegian Wikipedia. The lists contain some 5.000 power plants. Even though the lists are in norwegian language, I presume it might be of great interest to you and other uers as a reference guide to find and describe power plants. The lists are:
- no:Liste over verdens største olje- og gasskraftverk (oil ang gas-fired, list very complete)
- no:Liste over verdens største kullkraftverk (coal fired, list very complete, maybe except China)
- no:Liste over verdens største kjernekraftverk (nuclear, list almost totally complete)
- no:Liste over verdens største vannkraftverk (hydro power, list not totally complete)
All in all, we have articles on approx. 2.700 international power stations, and some 2.000 Norwegian ones.
Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
BP etc
Thanks for the note and prompt action which has enabled me to fix this with minimal problems. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
VIASPACE
Hi, thank you for helping to revise and edit the VIASPACE article. I would like to let you know that I disagree with your removal of "DMFC cartridges onboard aircraft" as this has everything to do with VIASPACE. Regards CleanFuture (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Shafag-Asiman
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hans Jørgen Koch
For inclusion in a categroy like Category:International Renewable Energy Agency, the article needs to establish the fact that this is defining for the individual. A mere mention does not merit inclusion in a category. In some discussions, I have seen editors state that if there is a paragraph on the topic then you have established a case of inclusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
INOGATE
I reinstated these caregories, which are key INOGATE objectives; in fact INOGATE can claim to be a major animator of these in the countrioes where it operates, so I be;leive the categories are clearly justified. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Byford Dolphin
most of the the data in the table, are not really relatable to the infobox. i spent some time on it and the article the other day, but lost all the changes before i managed to save it. i'll give it another go later. cheers!
I don't know user:Kaiserble
I'm not user:Kaiserble. I am one IP user in wikipedia. I have not wikipedia account. --211.214.239.139 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- An user from the same country editing same articles in similar way. Yes, maybe just a co-incident. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I've blocked the IP as block evasion from Rayesworied. Elockid (Talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
False positive report
The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Hi B, I wonder if you would care to offer an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Mountain University and Talk:Photovoltaic array#Merge?. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I already saw the merger proposal of merger proposal of Photovoltaics and Photovoltaic array and I already planned to comment this proposal. Still going through different articles in this field to create a better overview of the overall articles' tree which is needed. Concerning the AfD notice, I see a problem with notability, but I am not sure if it could be possible to fix or not. Still thinking. Beagel (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
CfD closes
Just a comment since you don't do closes. Some of the closers want to see more then one opinion before they close a discussion. I try to look at ones on the last day to see if I can offer an opinion on the topic if no one else has. Sometimes I can't for various reasons. It would be nice if one or two others could also look these over and offer an opinion, even if it does not agree with what was proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. Will try to look although I can't promise to do this on very regular bases. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hydroelectric Power Station Cats in Wikimedia Commons
Beagel, I know you are a energy-category guru and thought you might want to join a discussion here in the Commons. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dropping Categories in Electric Car
Hi. Why did you drop the categories in the Electric Car article? The categories you dropped seemed entirely appropriate. Please respond on the article's talk page. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Electric car is categorized in the Category:Electric cars, which is a subcategory of Category:Electric vehicles and Category:Green automobiles. Category:Green automobiles is a subcategory of Category:Green vehicles. Category:Green vehicles is a subcategory of Category:Sustainable transport, which is a subcategory of Category:Sustainable technologies. Per WP:CAT you don't include parent categories if more precise subcategory exists. Beagel (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Volumetric Production Payment - VPP listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Volumetric Production Payment - VPP. Since you had some involvement with the Volumetric Production Payment - VPP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SnottyWong soliloquize 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleting Mac's redirects
Hi. Bridgeplayer's oppose !vote at the RfAd for Fossil fuel drilling makes it less likely that the deletion will carry, imo. He tends to dominate the discussion at RfA and is a trusted voice. As I stated at the Rfa, I feel strongly that we should WP:DENY Mac/Hamiltha the satisfaction of getting any of his edits through, for to do so if reinforcement to come back and resume socking. I've speedied a number Hamiltha's other redirects accordingly. None have been deleted yet -- just his Category:Television sets. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the same admin who just !voted to keep at the Rfd was the one who processed all my other G5 speedies for Hamiltha's other redirects, most of which could be kept for similar reasons. I think it underscores my point about how once a redirect is brought to Rfd, well meaning editors such as Bridgeplayer are likely going to find a reason to keep: that's what generally happens there. Speedy deletion is the best course for any of Mac's future redirects, per WP:DENY, as I am sure he will be back and will be creating more of them, best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Opinion on page scope
Hello Beagel, would you care to have an opinion on Talk:List_of_offshore_wind_farms#Proposal_for_a_revised_article_scope ? Talk is also at Talk:List_of_offshore_wind_farms#Additional_operational_offshore_windfarms. Only a few users have voiced opinions, so consensus is thin. TGCP (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox power station
Yea, I just restored an old version. Left a note since the edit history and merge still need fixing. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus or not, this is too widely used to be left broken. I don't have the skill to step in and fix the merging. So at least the error messages are gone and the old users of the infobox will still work. Someone else will need to do the merge and cleanup the edit history. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Solar energy companies
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re
Ok and thanks! Cheers. BineMai 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Power stations in India
Mr Beagel, Thanks for reverting the catagory. i agree that u droped the catagory coal fired power plant in the page list of power stations in india. I understand the reason. but what is the need to drop the same catagory in each and every individual power plant? .for example if some body wants to know the list of power plants in india while visiting the rajghat power station, what they will do? please justify. Amarnath aravabhoomi (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- What you mean by "wants to know the list of power plants in india "? However, I think your question was about dropping category:Coal-fired power stations in India from the Rajghat Power Station. This article included Category:Coal-fired power stations in NCT Delhi, Category:Coal-fired power stations in India and Category:Electricity in India. The most specific subcategory is Category:Coal-fired power stations in NCT Delhi, which is the subcategory of Category:Coal-fired power stations in India. At the same time Category:Electricity in India is a parent category for all power stations in INdia. Per WP:CAT we usually don't include parent categories if more specific subcategory exists. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Amarnath aravabhoomi (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sinan disambiguation
Hi, I notice that you just reinstated an old disambiguation page for Sinan, replacing an improved version. Could I ask why? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I did not look the whole Sinan article and as it has long introduction about the man name It did not see the disambiguate meanings afterward. I don't think it is a good idea to start disambiguate pages as articles. Maybe Sinan should be just an article about the name and Sinan (disambiguation) should be pure list of disambiguate pages named Sinan? Beagel (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've shortened the introduction a lot. Will that do? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Merger
Hi Beagel. I have changed my mind about the merger, please share your views here. Thanks! Rehman(+) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. The discussions on the implementation of {{Infobox power station (temp)}} has sort of stalled. If you get the time, please see my comment to TGCP, and let me know if you think the basic merge support is good enough. Please comment at the template talk. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 07:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Infobox oil refinery
I too noticed that the documentation is out of sync with the actual template. Let me know if you want any help fixing this issue. For example, do we want to support both lat/lon and coordinates, or, say go with the formats supported by templates like {{Infobox building}}? Also, it looks like the map feature is completely broken, since {{Infobox}} doesn't have an image3 option. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Beagel. You might be interested in this. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 02:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking to get your insight
'Afternoon, Beagel, having come across your contributions to a range of Wikiproject Energy articles, I was hoping that you may be able to weigh in on a revision I've proposed here(on the article's talk page) to the opening paragraph of this article's Members and history section. Being one of the less-frequented articles, this post has not received any response as of yet.
In the interest of obtaining adequate consensus before moving forward, might you be able to take a peek and add your two cents? Cheers, Carthan (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see you already made these changes. I think that these changes are adequate and there is no objection from other editors. Beagel (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Turbine manufacturer
Hi, Beagel. There is a tiny issue with using turbine_manu
from the wind farm infobox. As we normally fill more than one field in the "turbine information" section, it'll look ok. But as we use only turbine_manu
(for use in other infoboxes), it displays a separate header just for that field, which is a bit odd.
What we could do is, as I said before, create new fields for each. That wouldn't be a problem as we are already using subclasses, and we have plenty of more room to add more fields, if necessary. Is it ok if I create separated fields? Rehman 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. Just tried not to overload the template code. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Infobox Power Station
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
Now that dust is settled, and all the major fixes complete, I would like to thank you for all your help and opinions in bringing the template:infobox power station through its merges and transformations. Thanks! Rehman 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |