This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons 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.
While the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was the closest nuclear plant to Portland, Oregon, and certainly could have influenced the fictional plant, the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Power Plant is a 2 hour drive away from the former Trojan plant. The now-demolished Trojan Nuclear Plant only had a single cooling tower, and was located next to the Columbia River. I was not just randomly adding a similar looking power plant here. I was adding one that was relatively close to the Trojan plant already mentioned which I feel is often overlooked as a possible influence. Like Trojan, the Satsop plant had its share of problems, in the case of Satsop, the plant was mostly completed but never opened. The design of the Satsop plant in particular, with the twin cooling towers, and location on a hill, bears a much closer resemblance to the appearance of the Springfield plant. I have lived in western Washington for 20+ years and am very familiar with both the Satsop and Trojan sites. Cascade1988 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988
It's possible, but Wikipedia operates strict policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources and original research. What you have added is your own claim which is not, presently, supported by any third-party reliable sources. It therefore cannot be included. If you can find such a source to support your claim, by all means. Gran2 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your use of the word "possible" is the problem. That's speculation, and not allowed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What I do not understand though, is how "possible" is considered speculation, while "rumored" (as the article states) is not considered speculation. The article itself states that "the Springfield Nuclear Power plant was not based on the Trojan Plant or any other power plant in the country."
However, an online search of photos of the plant will show a number of similarities, and because this was the only nuclear plant constructed in Washington or Oregon with these design features, I felt that Satsop should at least be mentioned in this article, especially when you consider the fact that this facility is located relatively close to the Trojan plant. Cascade1988 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988
I'd prefer no guesswork. Leave out all suggestions of what the power plant is modelled on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, based on what you just wrote, perhaps the references to Trojan and Hanford should be removed from the article, changing it to "The design and folly of Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is often rumored to be based on several nuclear power plants in Oregon and Washington." Everybody seems to be dead set against including the Satsop plant, while leaving the names of the Trojan plant and Hanford site in the article, even though the article itself states that the Springfield plant is not based on any specific nuclear plant.
Steve Lux, Jr. You say, "Similarities are not facts." I will not argue that. However, while the Satsop plant never opened, the fact is that the plant was nearly 75% completed when construction was halted. The physical presence of two cooling towers and two nearly completed containment buildings on a hill is fact. I am not sure where you live, but I have personally visited the Satsop site. It still has the structures standing, including the twin cooling towers. I have also personally visited the Trojan site, where the single cooling tower as well as most of the other buildings have been demolished, where there is nothing physically left for comparison. All I ask is that you take a look at pictures of both sites then compare them to the drawings of the Springfield plant.
Even if we all went and looked, it would still be original research, which is not an adequate source for article content. We are only supposed to report what reliable sources say, not draw our own conclusions. An ideal source would be one reporting that Matt Groening had declared the Satsop plant to be the source of his inspiration. We don't have that, so should probably include nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If there is no documentation to support what the power plant is modeled after, then Trojan and Hanford probably should not be mentioned in the article either, as neither Matt Groening or his publicists have stated that any specific power plant was the influence. Trojan in particular is often mentioned as a rumored model for Springfield simply because it was the closest one to Portland, and the only one ever constructed in Oregon. However, just because that plant is mentioned, as well as Hanford, it does not automatically mean that those two plants were the influence. Cascade1988 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988
But, see, the information about the power plant in the article is published information. The rumor itself was published, whereas the information you are trying to provide is speculation and your own opinion, and is not published. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the show's consistent coyness – one may even say intentional contradictions – about where Springfield is, it's surprising to see here that it's definitely in Oregon. —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That was recently added and I just removed it. While the Springfield in the show may be based on the Oregon community, the show isn't set there. -- Calidum 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)