Template talk:Infobox power station

Cogeneration

I propose to add a cogeneration field (similar to the combined_cycle field) to the other power stations template for using in case of combined heat and power plants. Also, adding installed_heat_capacity field for these power stations could be useful. Beagel (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is cogeneration a form of combined cycle generation? If so, is it a good idea to merge both fields? Rehman 05:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Combined cycle is process to use waste heat to increase efficiency of power generation. Cogeneration means that the plant produces both: heat and power. In case of cogeneration, heat is a product used by other industries or for district heating. Avedøre Power Station is just one of examples of combined heat and power plants with installed capacity of 810 MW of electricity and 900 MW of heat. Beagel (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Just a quick note, is this a Yes/No field? Rehman 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cogeneration should be simple yes/no field. Standard unit for the installed_heat_capacity field should be MW as for other capacity fields, although some other units like Gcal/h and GJ/h are also in use. Beagel (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added the fields. Just wondering, does combined cycle and/or cogeneration, apply to nuclear power station as well? Rehman 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Answering your question, theoretically NPPs are cogeneration (combined heat and power - CHP) power stations. In practice, even if they provide some of their waste heat for heating purposes, the most of heat is still waste heat and therefore they are usually not considered as CHP power stations. Beagel (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Was just wondering if we should add combined cycle and/or cogeneration for NPP. Kind regards. Rehman 11:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is only one reason why NPPs era not used for standard cogeneration: they are too far away from the users (no NPP in the middle of a city). But there could be industrial utilization of waste heat (and a NPP has a lot of it).--Robertiki (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wind farm / Wind power station: Uninformative 'information' x3

The headings 'Turbine information', 'Wind farm information', and 'Power generation information' would all be better without the 'information' suffix, which adds nothing for the reader. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Integrated solar combined cycle

Changing proposal. I propose to add a integrated_solar field (similar to the cogeneration field) to the other power stations template for using in case of combined solar and power plants. Also, adding installed_solar_capacity field (MWth) for these power stations could be useful. An example of a plant: [1] where the solar field thermal power is about 60 MW(th), which yields about 20 MWe after the steam turbine. An ISCC plant is more a thermal plant than a solar plant (as until now often they classified it): a hybrid thermal/solar plant where the solar component is minor (like 472 MWe full power thermal, with solar covering at most 20 Mwe). The integrated_solar field should be simple yes/no field. Standard unit for the installed_solar_capacity field should be MW(th) as for other capacity fields, although some other units like Gcal/h and GJ/h are also in use. The tecnology is new, but now we have already a dozen operational in the world (classified once as thermal, once as solar ... a confusion). Once the template is ready, I will reedit all hybrid plants with the new template. --Robertiki (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could use the thermal_power_solar field of the Solar power stations template. One new point is the temperature delivery of the thermal power. Example, 100 MWt at 350 °C (662 °F) yields about 30-32 MWe, but 100 MWt at 550 °C (1,022 °F) yields about 37-38 MWe. Obviously there is a price, to yield 550 °C you need a lot more collector surface than with 350 °C, albeit the thermal power is the same. --Robertiki (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is to define some classification. There are three classes of mainstream hybrid solar/thermoelectric systems:

• solar thermal (SEGS type) where there may be up to 10% contribution from backup gas burners to a primarily solar plant
• hybrid solar thermoelectric (i.e.ISCC for example) where there may be up to 10% contribution from solar energy to a primarily thermoelectric plant
• hybrid solar biomass plants (Termosolar Borges) where there may be 50% contribution solar and 50% contribution from biomass

In all three types we have sharing of the steam turbine, generator and power transformer. Which is solar and which is "All other typed of power stations" ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:

• if solar contribution more than 80% --> solar thermal plant (i.e. SEGS) and goes in the solar section
• if solar contribution less than 20% --> solar integrated thermal plant and goes in the "other type of power stations"
• if solar contribution is more than 20% and less than 80% --> hybrid solar/biomass or solar/thermal plant ... and where do

we put them ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Template cleanup

Hi. I propose this change (link will be updated as discussion progresses/fixes are made). See sample usage. The changes include:

• Enabling alt-text for location map.
• Permanently enabling relief maps.
• Simplifying internal parameters by using a single label, instead of multiple. (uncontroversial bot change)
• Changed colours of each section. Still working on function where for example, if wind is used, the whole template will labels that are the colour of the "wind farm" label.
• Removal of pumped-storage. To use {{Infobox dam}} instead, for primary/upper dam. (bot to list usages for manual action)
• Removal of fields. Mostly due to MOS:INFOBOX (to use only the most commonly available info, with the rest moved to text):
  • relief=Yes: To be permanently active. Can we agree that nearly all times, the relief map is more informative?
  • licence_expires: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • developer: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • constructor: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • thermal_power_geo: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS. Also, as the infobox is about electrical power stations.
  • thermal_power_solar: Same as above.
  • thermal_power_all: Same as above.
  • ghg_emission: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • max_planned_cap: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • net_generation: Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
  • as_of: Redundant in infoboxes. This was put in some time back due to the use of net-generation. We also have the last mod date at page-end if someone really wants to know.
• Renaming of below fields. Either to accomodate merged parameters, or to add a low profile prefix to make the template look less cluttered and to easily distinguish subject. (uncontroversial bot change)
  • official_name to name_official
  • location_map_width to location_map_size
  • location_map_text to location_map_caption
  • geothermal_type to geo_type
  • temp_requirement to geo_temp_requirement
  • geothermal_wells to geo_well_count
  • max_well_depth to geo_well_depth
  • reactors_operate_mw to nuke_operational
  • reactors_const_mw to nuke_underconstruction
  • reactors_planned_mw to nuke_planned
  • reactors_decom_mw to nuke_decommissioned
  • reactor_type to nuke_reactor_type
  • reactor_supplier to nuke_reactor_supplier
  • solar_farm_type to solar_type
  • cpv_concentration to solar_cpv_concentration
  • csp_technology to solar_csp_technology
  • heliostats to solar_csp_heliostats
  • cpvt to solar_cpvt
  • land_area to solar_land_area
  • tidal_technology to tide_technology
  • tsg_type to tide_tsg_type
  • dtp_perp_length to tide_dtp_length_perp
  • dtp_para_length to tide_dtp_length_para
  • tidal_range to tide_range
  • hub_height to wind_hub_height
  • rotor_diameter to wind_rotor_diameter
  • rated_wind_speed to wind_rated_speed
  • wind_farm_type to wind_farm_type
  • onshore_elevation to wind_onshore_elevation
  • onshore_land_use to wind_onshore_land_use
  • onshore_area to wind_onshore_area
  • offshore_area to wind_offshore_area
  • offshore_depth to wind_offshore_depth
  • offshore_distance to wind_offshore_distance
  • primary_fuel to ps_fuel_primary
  • secondary_fuel to ps_fuel_secondary
  • tertiary_fuel to ps_fuel_tertiary
  • generation_units to ps_units
  • turbine_manu_other to ps_units_manu_model
  • cogeneration_all to ps_cogeneration
  • combined_cycle to ps_combined_cycle
  • installed_capacity to ps_capacity
  • capacity_factor to ps_capacity_factor
  • average_annual_gen to ps_annual_generation
• Mergers of the following fields, to enable the usage of same field over multiple plant types:
  • cogeneration_geo into ps_cogeneration
  • geo_turbine_mw into ps_units
  • turbine_manu_geo into ps_units_manu_model
  • turbine_manu_npp into ps_units_manu_model
  • pv_units into ps_units
  • cpv_units into ps_units
  • csp_units into ps_units
  • turbine_manu_csp into ps_units_manu_model
  • tsg_turbines_mw into into ps_units
  • dtp_turbines_mw into into ps_units
  • turbine_manu_tide into ps_units_manu_model
  • wind_turbines into ps_units
  • turbine_manu into ps_units_manu_model
  • turbine_model into ps_units_manu_model

-- Rehman 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussions

Removal/merging/renaming of fields will be done in a single run by the bot, hence you might also find simple cosmetic changes that would be otherwise be redundant. Please see the sandbox link on top, for knowing what the raw labels are named in the infobox. Just like with {{Infobox dam}}, I don't think there would be any significant issue (as it's mostly internal cleanup) but nevertheless, looking forward to your input. And as always, I will proceed boldly if there aren't any direct objections by a week or so. Best regards, Rehman 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

seems there are still some errors just like there were in template:Infobox dam (see the testcases). also, I did not see any discussion of the color change? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Woops, thanks for pointing out. I have changed the colours (using this Meta colour palette) to closely match the documentation colours (which also needs some tweaks). I have added this to list of changes above. For the coordinates, yes you are right. I wrote the new codes along with the dam template, and didn't take that fix into account. Will do the changes soon. Thanks. Rehman 00:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not remove the PS field from the infobox. For many PSPSs, especially those in China this infobox is used. The PS field was originally added to accommodate them. The upper/lower reservoir fields do a great job of displaying the information for each reservoir and helps readers gain a better understanding of how the PS works. The only time Infobox dam is used for a PSPS is if a major large dam forms the upper or lower reservoir. Some PSPSs are built to accompany a larger dam that already has a conventional HPP. The upper or lower reservoir for the large dams is just detailed in the text. Example: Tehri Dam. For the large PSPSs in China and other areas of the world both reservoirs are of similar size, as opposed to the former I mentioned. These similar reservoir are sometimes small circular dams that don't need a full infobox. Even if you used Infobox dam, I don't know what dam to feature for those particular PSPSs. They also have no conventional HPP. That makes Infobox power station perfect for them. Changing the infoboxes for ~20 PSPSs seems to be a counterproductive effort in my opinion when Infobox power station supports them well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm still on the edge with this one for two main reasons. The first is, or course, that the whole PSPS section largely doesn't belong in this power station template; nearly all fields clearly goes under the dams topic. The second reason is that the secondary reservoir info is something that doesn't really fit in an infobox, and could very well be placed in the article's text (considering the relatively low usage, that shouldn't be hard). Either way, it should at least be moved to the dams template. Lets see what others think. Beagel? Rehman 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with removing PSPSs from Infobox power station is that you have two dams of near equal size for many of them, so what dam you you primarily represent in Infobox dam, which can only give information for one dam? With some PSPSs, the dams are small and the power station is the biggest feature of the project, so Infobox power station is most suitable. Right now, I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel when we have a system that works good now. As I recall, you originally added PSPSs into Infobox power station and consensus at the time was that it is a good idea.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I have no problems keeping it either place. Lets wait a bit longer and see where the discussions takes us. If nothing happens, lets keep the PSPS section the way it is, yeah? Rehman 15:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good!--NortyNort (Holla) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I have added them back. I did these changes:

• Left back "catchment area", as this is not relevant to "pumped-storage power stations" and is more of a dam thing. Same thing with spillways.
• As discussed in the rest of the proposal, things like pump-generators and generators can be used in the more general ps_units field. For those facilities that have separate "pump units", can we leave them outside the infobox (in the text)?

See the current version here. Please let me know what you think. Rehman 07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, catchment and spillways are unnecessary if not awkward in the infobox. I don't think we need Penstocks, Reservoir depth or Reservoir area as well. The reservoir name, capacity and hydraulic head are most important. I opt to keep the pump-generators, generators and pumps in there. Some PSPSs have unique configurations (4 pumps, 2 generators or 4 pump-generators, 2 pumps, etc.) and having that information is good. It wouldn't be good to just have the pump-generators in there and no pumps when the infobox is supposed to give an overview at glance. I think it would be confusing. A few PSPSs have no pump-generators, just pumps and generators.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Depending on the PSPS article, can we remain to keep the pump-generators, or just generators, in ps_units? Are there any plant which has both of these separately? We can then keep the pumps in the upper plant-specific section. Hope I made sense. Rehman 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, it confuses me a bit too. I think we should try to keep all three close (within the PS field) so the association can be made easily although I can see just "generators" dropped to a separate area. An example of a PSPS with bother pump-generators and pumps is Vianden Pumped Storage Plant. Castaic Power Plant is an example of a PSPS with both pump-generators and an extra generator. Most schemes have just pump-generators.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Beagel

I support most of the changes; however, there are some comments and objections:

1. Colours. It is nice to have a different colours but over a time I have started to prefer transparent/colourless infoboxes. I don't see what added-value colours will provide, so maybe we could simplify the infobox code and dismiss the colours? But this is my personal preference, of course.
2. Developer field. I agree with removal. However, in the case this field has an inserted value and the owner's field does not, it should be useful if the value from this field is moved to the owner's field. Developer and owner are not always the same but this would probably help to avoid accidental loss of useful information.
3. Constructor field. This information is not always available, particularly in the case of older and less significant power stations. However, it is important information in the case of infrastructure (including power stations projects). I think that for clarification this field should be renamed EPC which is more precise term.
4. Thermal capacity fields. Agree that for most of power stations and for some region/countries it is irrelevant. At the same time, for cogeneration plants this information is highly relevant. For some plants the thermal capacity is even more important than electrical capacity (Iru Power Plant and Avtovo CHP-15 being just first examples for this) and removing the thermal capacity will provide absolutely incorrect picture. Therefore I strongly oppose removing this fields. The infobox is about power stations but from the technical point of view the difference between the thermal power station and the heating plant is just the later don't have a generator installed. I don't think it would be justified to create a separate infobox just for CHP plants/heating plants. But I think that it needs some correction. Right know the installed thermal capacity and installed electrical capacity are provided in different sections. I proposed that both fields should be in the last section of the infobox just after each other and named "Installed electrical capacity" and "Installed thermal capacity". In this case the information is better understandable and we don't need to repeat the thermal capacity field depending of the type (geothermal, solar, other thermal) of the power station. So, by my proposal the fields should be ps_electric_capacity and ps_thermal_ capacity.
5. nuke_type. The field's new name is confusing and without the template documentation (but how often the average editor reads dokumentation when inserting an infobox?) it would be hard to understand what it means. For clarification nuke_reactor_type would be more understandable.
6. nuke_supplier. Even more confusing one. My first reaction was that nuke_supplier probably means nuclear fuel supplier. It would be better to name nuke_reactor_supplier.
7. tide_type. It would be confusing as the next field would be tide_tsg_type. For clarification, instead of tide_type it would be better to use tide_technology.
8. ps_units_manu_model. What that means? It was understandable what turbine_manu_other meant but the new name will create confusion. First of all, in the case of thermal power station unit and turbine are not synonyms. Unit consist of boilers, turbines and generator and usually all of three are provided by different manufacturers. Second, for the large thermal projects it is quite often taylor-made, so it would be hard to say what the model is. At the same time, in the case of wind farms, the model is very important information.

--Beagel (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the straightforward input. I have changed your bulleted list to numbered for easy reference, hope you dont mind. My responses:

1. I completely agree with you on the colour stuffs. To be honest, I was under the impression that the colours were already existing until Frietjes it pointed out, and hence thought might as well let it be since it's already in now. Will remove it.
2. Can get the bot to do the moving.
3. I do agree that this is valueable information. But I am still leaning towards removal per MOS:INFOBOX, as it's a field with rarely available information. Can we get the bot to list all uses for manual action (move to text)?
4. Understood. I will add electrical/thermal fields next to each other, at the bottom as a general field.
5. Agreed, will make the changes.
6. Same as above.
7. Same as above.
8. The field is intended to be used for the manufacturer and model of generation unit(s), which will be used of all power station types, instead of the current way where we have a separate param for the same thing for each plant type. The only other close alternative names that I can come up with is ps_gen_manu_model or ps_generator_model. Any suggestions?

--Rehman 12:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some additional comments about these issues:

3. Constructor/EPC. I still feel this information is better to be included but lets see what other editors think about this.

4. ps_capacity. Actually your original proposal to have only one capacity field would work. In this case both — electric and thermal capacity — should be added to the same field. In the case of the above-mentioned Avtovo CHP-15 this will look this way: ps_capacity = 321 MWe<br />1,833 MWth Of course, in this case the template's documentation should provide exact guidelines for this field. Also, all articles having any of these thermal capacity fields filled should be listed in the technical list or category for a manual changes.

8. ps_units_manu_model. I fully support consolidation of this field for all power station types. But I am still not sure how this field will be look like in practice. Maybe we could exam some examples to create a better understanding how it will work. E.g. Horns Rev 2 has now both fields (turbine_manu and turbine_model) filled, so ps_units_manu_model will look: ps_units_manu_model = [[Siemens Wind Power]] 2.3-93 or ps_units_manu_model = [[Siemens Wind Power|SWP]] 2.3-93 Is that correct? What about London Array which has only turbine_manu filled. Will it look just: turbine_manu = [[Siemens Wind Power]]? How will this field look for Łagisza Power Station? As it seems that information about turbine model is mainly available for wid farms and not so much for other type of power stations, maybe we could skip the model and have just ps_units_manu for manufacturer? I think that ps_units_manu is ok as it provides flexibility to include boiler, turbine and/or generator manufacturers. Maybe we could even merge nuke_reactor_supplier here.

Beagel (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Replies to above:

4. Yes, I guess that seems more appropriate. I will work on it. Seems like the thermal fields is needed. Please see comments below. Rehman 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

8. The horns rev example is exactly how I though of it ([[Siemens Wind Power|SWP]] 2.3-93), using </br> for additional entries. The proposed field is currently named as "Unit make and model"; maybe we can name it "Unit make and/or model" or similar, that way we have the flexibility of either entering only the manu, or the model, or both?

For the nuke part, I was actually wanting to move "units operational", "units uc", "units planned" and "units decomd" all below to the general area, but that would kill the nuke template. Good thing you brought this up, cos I actually wanted to discuss this. Maybe we still could move them, and instead add something more unique to NPPs to the infobox?

--Rehman 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Horns Rev is a model example but what about London Array example where is only information about turbine manufacturer provided and not about the model? What would be the exact title of this field? Is it allowed to include the name of manufacturer without specifying the model? My point is that information about turbine/generator/boiler model is not very often provided by the sources, sometimes even not by the owner/operator or supplier itself. The exception seems to be wind turbines and nuclear reactors (if we will merge also nuclear in this field, of course). Therefore I propose once more to consider not including model info in the infobox and keep this field only for manufacturer. I also think that unit_manu or unit_manu_model is better understandable.

Also, I would like to ask about another example, namely Neyveli Thermal Power Station. By my understanding the information for this would be: ps_units_manu_model = [[Taganrog Metallurgical Plant]] (unit 1 boilers)<br />[[Leningradsky Metallichesky Zavod|LMZ]] (unit 1 turbines)<br />[[Electrosila]] (unit 1 generator)<br />[[Ganz-Danubius]] (unit 2 boilers)<br />EVT (unit 2 boilers)<br />Marelli (unit 2 turbines)<br />[[Franco Tosi]] (unit 2 generators)<br />[[Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited|BHEL]] (unit 2 boilers, turbines, generators) Is this correct? I know this is an extreme example; however, we should also deal with cases like this. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we renamed the field to Unit make and/or model or Unit make/model (I prefer shortest possible), we would have less problems with having just manufacturers/models? We could mention in the documentation that one could fill in either details, or both. As you suggested, the field name could be ps_unit_manu_model (with a ps prefix).

For the extreme example, I think a good workaround to that would be: '''Unit 1''':<br/>Boilers: [[Taganrog Metallurgical Plant]]<br/>Turbines: [[Leningradsky Metallichesky Zavod|LMZ]]<br/>Generator: [[Electrosila]]<br/>'''Unit 2''':<br/>Boilers: [[Ganz-Danubius]], EVT<br/>Turbines: Marelli<br/>Generators: [[Franco Tosi]], [[Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited|BHEL]].

Also as I said earlier, I also think it would be nicer to move "units operational", "units uc", "units planned" and "units decomd" from nuke, to the bottom. Putting in new unique fields for nuke. Do you have any suggestions?

--Rehman 07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed' to the mass renaming of parameters, seemingly on an arbitrary, change-for-change sake, basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you take in consideration the solar hybrid plants ? Ain Beni Mathar Integrated Thermo Solar Combined Cycle Power Plant, Archimede solar power plant, Hassi R'Mel integrated solar combined cycle power station, Kogan Creek Solar Boost, Liddell Power Station, New South Wales#Alternative fuel sources, Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, Termosolar Borges, Yazd integrated solar combined cycle power station are some examples and growing. --Robertiki (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Message above was for Rehman. About the thermal capacity, I have a problem with the Solar hybrid plants. Many use for the Solar field fluid, Thermal Oil which is limited to 400 °C. The Solar field heated Thermal Oil then produces satured steam at less than 400 °C. Following Natural Gas or Biomass burners superheat the steam to more than 500 °C resulting in better efficiency. Take Kogan Creek Power Station#Kogan Creek Solar Boost where reporters state that the Solar field produces 44 MW electrical at peak solar. That is nonsense. We have about 110 MWt solar capacity that, without the coal "boosting" from 400 °C to 560 °C, would nowhere give 44 MWe (at most 35 MWe). I would say that the only sensible thing to do is to state the solar thermal power, so I would like to save that field. --Robertiki (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There will be a new general thermal power field. Thanks for the input. Rehman 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by theanphibian

My only major thought is the thermal power. This is meaningful for a large subset of plant types. Why not have a parameter universal to them all? Many won't use it, but many will. Or maybe it already exists in this form? It's not clear to me. Otherwise I agree with the reasons for a lot of the deletions, but sometimes for my own reasons. "Developer", for instance, can be multiple firms, depending on the type and generation. Many information sources sub-divide those into categories, like foundation, turbine-generator, boiler, electrical, and so on. Maybe operator is a meaningful field?

I'm not sure about the relief maps. I mean, why not have a nation-specific map? Who do you think your audience is? I remember I spent a lot of time doing those for nuclear plants of various types. It's been so long, I don't remember what approach we technically used. But for a nuclear plant in france, I would say the relief is nearly useless, but a nation-specific map is useful. When they see the map, they figure out it's France pretty quickly.

Maybe that is built into your plan? I'm not sure. I would advocate using the nation maps in every case possible. Otherwise, thanks for your hard work. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I will add a separate thermal capacity field per discussion above. I don't understand what you mean by nation-specific maps? Those relief maps show only the related nation of course. Random example. Thanks for your input. Rehman 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Your sample image had a picture of the world, probably to be general. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)