|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
A Wikipedia contributor, Laure at Areva (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- 1 Moved Libya EPR section to Worldwide presence
- 2 Introduction to Wikipedia Community
- 3 Untitled
- 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Areva.png
- 5 Areva is not an acronym
- 6 In this case, it doesn't matter whether "AREVA" is an acronym
- 7 Organization
- 8 Pending Move of this Article
- 9 Compromise on the Matter of Renewables v. Nuclear
- 10 "350 Millionen Euro "
- 11 Clean Up Needed
- 12 VA Tech ELIN is not Virginia Tech
- 13 Energy - Top Importance?
- 14 New reactor type?
- 15 Cleanup tag removed
- 16 Merger proposal
Moved Libya EPR section to Worldwide presence
There was a subsection of the EPR section on Libya, but there is no EPR under construction in that country, nor was there ever really any discussion of this as far as I can tell. Nonetheless, the information remains potentially relevant to article, so I've moved it to the worldwide presence section.
Introduction to Wikipedia Community
Hello Wikipedians, My name is Laure and I’m a Community Manager at AREVA. My username, which I hope clearly identifies my affiliation with AREVA, is “Laure at Areva.”
I’m new to Wikipedia and strive to respect all guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest (COI). After a kind reminder from an editor, I wanted to formally introduce myself on the discussion page and clearly explain my objectives.
By participating in the development of this page through conversations with Wikipedia volunteers, I hope to be able to contribute to this article’s reliability and coherence by providing up-to-date and accurate information on AREVA. My aim is not to influence the point of view of the article in any way.
I recently made some updates to this page, which I believe are non-controversial and respect Wikipedia’s strict COI rules, including updating basic information, such as the annual results, the Group’s history and organization; adding references for this basic information; and restructuring sections lacking clarity and coherence. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I invite you to verify this and make any changes deemed necessary to ensure the absolute neutrality of this article.
Looking forward to engaging with you all!
This article read a lot like an ad --AW 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC) There is a lot of unsubstantiated claims. For example, what is the source for the claim that Areva is No.1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Areva.png
Image:Areva.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought fair use of logos was fairly well established. theanphibian 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Areva is not an acronym
So why write it in capitals ?--ArséniureDeGallium 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look here: http://www.areva.com/servlet/home-en.html and here: http://www.areva.com/servlet/operations-en.html. As you can see it is written "AREVA" all over the place. It's not just a logo thing. So why did you move this article back to "Areva"? ---Majestic- 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it doesn't matter whether "AREVA" is an acronym
As with many companies of European origin (e.g. GLOCK), the name is properly written in all capitals. The internal AREVA style guide indicates the same. This company's name is properly written AREVA (ALL CAPITALS). Steven (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't explain it, but this really bothers me. This article should be "AREVA" in all-caps. Can anyone provide a a reason for not changing it? Each reference to AREVA should be in all-caps. Areva Nc should be AREVA NC. Areva Np should be AREVA NP, and so on...Steven (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought Areva merged all of the separate parts; Areva NP, Areva NC (formerly Cogema), Areva T&D so that they're now all just simply Areva. My information is a little old, and I'm not an expert on Areva. This article really needs attention from someone who knows what they're talking about. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Pending Move of this Article
I propose moving this article from Areva to AREVA as well as related artcles to their all-caps counterparts and furthermore to change all references to Areva in the text of the article to AREVA. This would be consistent with the AREVA-published style guide. I propose making this change by 00:01 2008-05-01 (UTC). Any objections?Ratherthanlater (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I capitalized the name of the company in the article. It would be great if you would please just keep it and not change it back. It is the proper format of the spelling of the name, pursuant to company policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherthanlater (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Compromise on the Matter of Renewables v. Nuclear
I think it was reasonable to leave it at "Energy Company" as opposed to Nuclear. Although I AREVA is a renewables company too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherthanlater (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"350 Millionen Euro "
Clean Up Needed
This article is in serious need of clean up. A lot of the information is either inaccurate, incomplete, or just not correct at all. Please cite sources.Ratherthanlater (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
VA Tech ELIN is not Virginia Tech
VA Tech ELIN is an Austrian engineering company and not associated with the university Virginia Tech. I removed the link that directed VA Tech ELIN to Virginia Tech University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Energy - Top Importance?
I'm not part of WikiProject Energy, but Top importance articles should really be the top topics - Electricity, Nuclear Power, Petrol, Wind power, fine; but this company? Surely 'High' importance at most for any commercial entity?
New reactor type?
- Robin Pagnamenta, The Times, March 22, 2010, Areva develops new nuclear reactors that 'destroy' atomic waste, The Australian
Cleanup tag removed
This article is at an advanced enough state where the general "cleanup" tag is no longer helpful. The problems that still exist are of a specific nature now. Thus, only tags addressing much more specific issues will be helpful. Of course, what's more helpful are edits themselves. ask123 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
NB. I'm still planning to merge this but it was a bigger job than I expected and I haven't found time yet. If someone else wants to do it, you're extremely welcome.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
These articles are not merged yet and it seems that probably it would be better to keep them separate. To avoid confusion, it would be better to move Areva NC back to Cogema, change it to the past tense (is → was) and state clearly that it is about the former company existing before merging into Areva. Beagel (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that the majority of Areva NC is currently about stuff that happened after the companies merged. I'm happy to have a Cogema article as you suggest, but we still need to sort out where to put all of the post-2001 information from Areva NC.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)