Template talk:Infobox power station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated Template-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant[edit]

Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant is not a power plant. But infobox may be used for simple heating geothermal plants if we add a geo_thermal_capacity geo_heating_capacity parameter. The problem with using ps_thermal_capacity or ps_heating_capacity parameter, when there is no electrical generation, is that we have a Power generation header out of context. --Robertiki (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And the caption reads "CHP heating capacity", which is not correct, as in Gdańsk Power Station. I am confused what to do. Any suggestions ? --Robertiki (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Experiment done with Będzin Power Station, where I used ps_thermal_capacity for the direct heating from boilers and ps_heating_capacity for heat from the 13UCK 80 turbogas set. --Robertiki (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Same reasoning for only heating thermal plants, as Kawęczyn Heat Plant. If we add a th_heating_capacity paramater, infobox power station could be also used for them. --Robertiki (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

More: I found a bunch of plants signed as cogeneration but I doubt they are strictly cogenerating plants. In cogeneration the heat is spilled from the steam turbine or the condenser. But in plants like Ahtme Power Plant we have a number of large boilers and only two small turbines (10 MW a 20 MW): it is impossibile to have 370 MWt of thermal output in cogeneration unless the turbines are working at a really awfully low efficiency (happens only with ORC cycles using low temperature heat). So I suspect that most of the heat comes directly from the boilers. It could be also that the small steam turbines are not in cogeneration. --Robertiki (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

More: What to do with heat pump technology as in Drammen Heat Pump ? Should we expand the infobox ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear plants article names all caps or lower case[edit]

@Rehman: Looks like most nuclear plants have upper case for the trailing part of the name (Power Station) as in Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. But Wikipedia rules for article names states that "Use sentence case: Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is usually capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text.", which recently I copied in "about article title guidelines". Most UK nuclear plants follow suit, as in Heysham nuclear power station. I have some new articles to name, but before starting I have noted that, for example, Moorside Nuclear Power Station was changed to "all caps" "capitalized" one year ago, by one of us (Rehman), so before creating the new names, I would like an agreement about the issue. I don't think that we should start to change all names to follow the rule (it would be a really to much big undertaking), but any time there is an opportunity, like new articles or adjustments to current names (as changing from "project" to "station"), it would be sensible to follow the rules. A "List of nuclear power stations". Some problem applies for other technologies, as in "List of coal power stations". --Robertiki (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If the long version is the official name of the plant, it's a proper noun and should be all caps. Determining the official name might be difficult, as I expect sources will differ. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Robertiki. I share the same view as Kendall-K1 above. Rehman 12:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, capitalized, not all caps. I assume that's what you meant? Power plant titles should never be all caps. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have given some samples; to be clear: the difference is in the trailing description, i.e. "... Nuclear Power Station" or "... nuclear power station". My first thought was like yours, but after searching the rules (which I searched to explain to editors that would "decapitalize" not do it), and some volunteering at Wikipedia:Requested moves, I have understood that I was wrong. The point is: "words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text". --Robertiki (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are a couple of the discussion I have lurked: Talk:Penistone Line#Requested move 16 April 2017 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of .27line.27. Or Talk:Local nature reserve, Talk:None but the Brave, Wikipedia talk:Somebody else's problem, but also when to take exception Talk:People Like Us (film). That is how I changed my mind.
Per WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, avoid unnecessary caps. What seem's to me is that here and there there is some consensus that want to take exception. There may be cases that warrant the exceptions, but I feel that they should be ... exceptions, because every exception may start a conflict. Is there any reason to keep “power station” (or “project”, etc.) capitalized ? I feel we should choose a consensus that doesn't conflict with the general rules to spare time about discussion every time a new editor applies the rules given above. Surely, there would also be new editors that don't know and don't follow the rules as per consensus. But the discussion in the latter case would be brief, with wikilinks to the general rules and the consensus. Instead taking exceptions requires to double explain why we ... take exception. --Robertiki (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In addition to WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS there is also MOS:PN. Beagel (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not hard and doesn't require any exceptions. If "power station" is part of the name, it's a proper noun and is written in initial caps. Otherwise it's not. For the examples given, it's clear from the sources and official web sites that the names of these plants are "Heysham 1" and "Moorside" (that last one even says "On 1 December 2011 NuGen announced that the name it had selected for its project was Moorside" right there on the web site). So the article titles should be "Heysham nuclear power station" (note we have a combined article for 1 and 2) and "Moorside nuclear power station". Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"Referring to outside sources ?" I take one of the replies that made me change position: "... well you can find bad usage "outside" for anything you like, even by professional bodies that use caps as boosterism (against usage elsewhere)". And, are we being swayed by the appearance of items in titles that use title case? I would add: mostly the names that the english wikipedia uses are not original american or english names, but their translations from secondary sources. Translation should often involve changing cases, as in " Kraftwerke" (german) versus "centrali nucleari" (italian), but if the translator is, for example, a commercial of other nationality, he often goes following his native language rules when capitalizing. So I would weight carefully the secondary choices about names capitalisation.
Let us take a look at Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station (where, beside, there is a discrepancy in the description Quad Cities Generating Station, with missing nuclear, but that is another question). The words are a mix of a given name and running text. I.e. Quad Cities should be capitalized because it is the given name of the plant. But what follows depends on the writer choice. The first and second source state "Quad-Cities Generating Station" (without "Nuclear") and "Quad-Cities nuclear plants" in the running text. The third, and owner source, states "Quad Cities nuclear plants" i.e. only as running text. Per owner, the plant name is "Quad Cities" with the added description as per writer choice. Fifth source, an official source, states only "Quad Cities" with appended running text. The sixth source, also owner's, states "Quad Cities Generating Station". Could we define the owner's choice as boosterism ? And our editor's choice of inserting "Nuclear" in the name, our consensus reached choice ? So, if we, as tertiary source, have added a Nuclear, why should we not have our rules for first letter uppercase ? The source never uses nuclear or station, but only Quad Cities, therefore it looks to me that generating station or nuclear plant is a description and not part of the plant name.
At the moment it looks there are two consensus, one, not written (have not found a discussion), about full capitalisation for most plants, and another, discussed ? (asking to @Yaris678:), for english plants (no capitalisation if not in running text). And that is confusing.
Once we have reached a first consensus here (which ever it is) I thought I could take the discussion, following that consensus, to Wikipedia:Requested moves about Quad Cities (for the nuclear discrepancy from the secondary sources), link to the present discussion for the uppercase part, to reach a larger consensus. --Robertiki (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi All,
I can see this is tricky. First I will note that:
This normally means that if something is the official name, it is a proper noun and capitalised. e.g. Faculties and departments of the University of Alberta is correct. "Faculties" starts with a capital, just because it is the first word. "University" has a capital because it is part of the name of institution... but "the" does not... even if the official name is "The University of Alberta". This is a well recognised exception.
The reason that this may be tricky, is that in some cases "Power Plant" may be part of the official name, and in other cases it may not... which would lead to an apparent inconsistency. Some people may be comfortable with that inconsistency... but then you will get companies themselves being inconsistent... and the independent sources too... at which point people may prefer to go for a naming convention.
I think I was asked cos I may know about stations in the UK.... I am afraid I still have to use Google. The first example I came across was this. Which looks like the official name is just "Heysham 2"... and similarly this, which suggests "Hartlepool" - the power station is sometimes added in lower case, sometimes not added at all, suggesting not in the official name.
To cap it all... we don't always go by official names.
So... I don't claim to have done a comprehensive survey... but to me it looks like it might be best to put terms like "power station" in lower case.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lua errors[edit]

I've just come across Changsheng Power Plant which has the errors "Lua error in Module:Wd at line 2053: attempt to index a nil value." in various fields in the infobox. I checked the parent cat, Category:Natural gas-fired power stations in Taiwan, and see that most of the others have infoboxes with the same error. Sun Ba Power Plant, has a different error, "Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'gsub' (string expected, got nil)". Just raising this in case there's a general issue that needs to be addressed. Nzd (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to update, most of these errors have now gone (at least from that category). However Kuokuang Power Plant and Tatan Power Plant still show the same error (Lua error in Module:Wd at line 2053: attempt to index a nil value.) Nzd (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You need to purge them. A side effect of the module or template being broken temporarily while and the page cacheing that version. Purging the page, by appending '?action=purge' to the URL (or you can enable it as a menu item) is the quickest fix. Another way is a null edit: open it to edit, hit save without making any changes. It will not be recorded in the history but counts as a null edit. If purging/a null edt does not fix it then there is an error, but I think in this case the error is already fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's done the trick. Thanks for the tip. Nzd (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Status" not conform to IAEA guidelines[edit]

There really should be no need to invent new status categories, and then miss on some that are used world-wide.

For Nuclear Power Plants, see https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalReactorsByCountry.aspx These status categories are missing: Long-Term Shutdown Permanent Shutdown

For Research Reactors, for which the template is also used, see https://nucleus.iaea.org/RRDB/ These status categories are missing: Temporary Shutdow Extended Shutdown Permanent Shutdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunoni (talkcontribs) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Long-Term Shutdown and Permanent Shutdown (not under decommissioning) is covered with Mothballed. --Robertiki (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving Pumped-Storage Power and Tidal Power sections to Infobox Dam[edit]

Pumped-storage power and Tidal Power have much more in common with Hydro Dam and on the other side Infobox power station template is growing to big, and is still not complete. Comments ? --Robertiki (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)