The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and discuss merge or other options on the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nuclear power plants[edit]

List of nuclear power plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially a copy of List of nuclear reactors. Only has a few minor changes, as noted himself by the page's author on his talk page - User talk:VAR-loader. I thought it was an original article made by him, until I asked him... Since its mainly a copy, it would be better to have a re-direct to the original page - list of nuclear reactors. xCentaur |  talk 

Original list of nuclear reactors has reached limits of size. So it's splitting is the only way for adding new information--VAR-loader 16:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and keep as a redirect only. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to list of nuclear reactors, this page appears to be an unhelpful fork. I don't know what VAR-loader means regarding the size limits. Tarinth 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This list is a subset of the list of nuclear reactors, since many reactors are researce, weapon production, or military. There would be nothing wrong with having this list in the larger article except it might make the article too long. If VAR-loader is correct about the other article being too long, then the list should be deleted from List of nuclear reactors and kept here. Edison 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of nuclear reactors. Yuser31415 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just try to save this version of the article about nuclear reactors! :) It seems to me, that list of nuclear power plants could be easily turned into detailed stance (plant location, type and capacity of reactors, year of grid connection and shutting down, some comments) then list of other nuclear reactors. Now I'm editing the list of nuclear power plants by adding features I said, but I'm afraid when matter will go to USA's power plants 52K size limit be reached again--VAR-loader 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework I know I nominated it for deletion, but I believe it should be a redirect. xCentaur |  talk  19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I look at it, the whole thing could do with a face-lift. How about we shift USA's list into a new page and expand on that there? At the same time, Canada,China,France, ie. all countries occupying major size on that page shifted to new pages. If all the larger countries have links, the page will turn tiny. I'd be happy to take this on as a project, and expand on those individual pages later... xCentaur |  talk  19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be the list should be divided geographically: America; Europe and CIS; Asia, Africa and Oceania. When the list of ever existed tram systems was composed, the problem of it's size was solved the same way--VAR-loader 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems right. So then lets redirect this page...and get to work on list of nuclear reactors! Agreed,then? :D
xCentaur |  talk  20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saved the last edition of the article for myself and will start the articles about nuclear power plants by world regions and place the links to them in the head of the "List of nuclear reactors" article--VAR-loader 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question This is confusing. What is being done? A "List of nuclear power plants" is useful. It's the sort of information people seek on the internet. By country would be good. Keep if this is what is going on, namely the discussion of whether or not to keep this list. A nuclear power plant is not the same as a nuclear reactor. A List of nuclear reactors could be a page with links to the various types of lists, although there are so many small research reactors, it seems unwieldy. KP Botany 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would make list of nuclear reactors a list of reactors by type, and the power plants one would cover just the power plants. FrozenPurpleCube 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, and a List of nuclear reactors by type could be sorted into BWRs, PWRs, etc., and also usage categories, research reactors, pharmaceutical, physics, whatever. Still not quite clear on current state of proposal. KP Botany 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would be better to present list of nuclear power plant as a tables with detailed information by world regions, countries and plants. I did it for several European countries - List of nuclear power plants of Europe and CIS.--VAR-loader 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The tables do carry useful information, especially containing, as they do, the type of reactor at each facility. I would like to see the number of reactors at each facility listed, also, and the designer, like Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Westinghouse, PWR, 2. KP Botany 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of active reactors at each plant could be counted by a reader. For to make it easiear, active plants and active reactors could be highlighted by bold text.--VAR-loader 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object Nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants are not the same thing. KP Botany 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment power plants would be a subset of reactors. power plants should be turned into a redirect. reactors to be sorted countrywise. in other words, im nominating one page be made a redirect, and the other be re-written to sort out the size issue. hope that clears things up... xCentaur |  talk  11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, then List of nuclear submarines, should also be a redirect to List of nuclear reactors, because nuclear submarines, like nuclear power plants, contain nuclear reactors? And it would have to be nuclear power plants, because, obviously, not all power plants are nuclear. KP Botany 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where in the world did submarines turn up from? That would go under types of submarines - turbine driven, jet-stream, fuel-type, nuclear-run,etc. would it not?;) of course, if needed, we could always put in a link in the nuclear submarines page, linking it to nuclear reactors, their main assembling bases, et cetera. that wouldnt be a redirect, IMO. xCentaur |  talk  19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Where it turned up is that nuclear submarines, just like nuclear power plants, have nuclear reactors. You're suggesting that something with a nuclear reactor, nuclear power plants, be redirected to nuclear reactors. I'm asking if everything with a nuclear reactors should be redirected to nuclear reactors. Power plants, just like submarines have different types, coal-fired, natural gas, riveted boilers, welded boilers, different types of turbines, different types of coolants. So, nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines both have nuclear reactors. If nuclear power plants should be redirected to nuclear reactors, shouldn't everything else with nuclear reactors be redirected to nuclear reactors? And if not, why not? And if other things with nuclear reactors are not redirected to List of nuclear reactors, why should power plants with nuclear reactors be redirected there? By your submarine answer it seems that nuclear power plants should not be listed in List of nuclear reactors, but rather in List of power plants. KP Botany 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As for power plants, well, of course they're not all nuclear. Maybe I fail to see the point you're bringing up... you wish to redirect anything related to nuclear applications to this one page? That would be stretching the concept of encyclopedia integration, no? :P xCentaur |  talk  19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again, as above, if not everything, why set aside only power plants with nuclear reactors and require they be redirect to List of nuclear reactors? A nuclear power plant is no more or less a nuclear reactor than a nuclear submarine. KP Botany 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My most sincere apologies if I offended any reactor purists by even vaguely suggesting that one is more a reactor than the other. The fact of the matter still remains that nuclear submarines deserves to be listed under types of submarines. we're looking at the context here, are we not? as you've explained at length above, different submarines have different types, all the types and sub-types could be listed on one page. on that page would be a little heading 'nuclear submarines', and under that heading it would explain how reactors are used, and somewhere there would be a small link which takes you to 'list of nuclear reactors'. there is a very big difference between linking an article and re-directing one. xCentaur |  talk  20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, we are straying off topic. lets stick to the current discussion concerning a list of terrestrial power plants. xCentaur |  talk  20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think we're even talking about the same subject, so there is not point in continuing. You seem to think that a nuclear reactor is the same thing as a nuclear power plant. It's not! A nuclear reactor is not a nuclear power plant or vice versa. KP Botany 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you, I know very well what you're talking about, don't clutter this page with your condescending assumptions. You miss my point here. Its absurd to redirect every single page related to reactors to the list in question. xCentaur |  talk  20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not condescending, it's from your statements, and your failure to assert any reason why nuclear power plants, which are not nuclear reactors, should be in a list that redirects to nuclear reactors. That you consider something absurd is simply your POV, as you have offered no evidence for its absurdity, particularly in the face of your asserting, without any reasons, that one category of things that contain nuclear reactors should be treated as if they are nuclear reactors, while other categories of things that contain nuclear reactors should not be treated as if they were nuclear reactors. I have to understand the underlying reasons for a move in order to make a decision. I don't, so I asked. You haven't answered, and you have given no reasons, and you appear to again be equating nuclear power plants with nuclear reactors, as if you don't understand the difference--if you don't understand the difference, there is no point in discussing the issue with, or with you responding to my questions. If you do understand the difference, then user your understanding to clarify for me why you think only one class of things that contain nuclear reactors should be treated as if it is synonymous with nuclear reactors, but others shouldn't. If it's absurd to direct every single page, then why is it not absurd to direct some, and what is the qualifying characteristic for which ones should be redirected and which ones shouldn't? KP Botany 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify,the list of nuclear power plants was taken from list of reactors, that is the only reason that I'm saying that we do not need two lists with the same content. Which is why for nuclear power plants, I suggested a re-direct, and not for everything else. Now, you can go ahead and re-direct a dozen pages, with my blessings. I've just lost interest here. xCentaur |  talk  05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay. And as you no longer are supporting the deletion, then let's leave it as is, with a List of nuclear power plants, sorted further by country as is being done. KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I had divided the article "List of nuclear power plants" into three regional parts: List of nuclear power plants of Europe and CIS, List of nuclear power plants of America and List of nuclear power plants of Asia and Africa. The second one should be widely expanded (esp. USA section). I'm going to place links on these articles in "List of nuclear reactors" and to rewrite that article by splitting power plants and research reactors in different sections. So, there's really no need in keeping the existing article "List of nuclear power plants"--VAR-loader 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Var, be bold, do whatever you think is required, I'm sure if anything is amiss, someone will inform you. Good luck with the article, take care xCentaur |  talk  05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nice list of European reactors by Var-loader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_plants_of_Europe_and_CIS ) includes some but not all closures of December 31st 2006 (7 reactors), see PRIS database of IAEA at http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ .
  Regarding the plant-reactor discussion, I propose to simply use the general reference for reactors, as eg by the IAEA, numbering the reactors of the same plant (eg: Doel-1, Doel-2, Doel-3 and Doel-4 reactors for the Doel nuclear power plant or NPP). If you make a table, you name the reactors that way in the same column, and it at once makes it clear that they all belong to the same plant. Sorry I am totally new to Wikipedia, hope this comment is ok, sorry if not. --Jputte 13:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is standard American format, numbering the reactors. I didn't know it was IAEA, also, so, yes, it would have been clear, as the table is not complete, that this was what was done. Always useful to add clarity to a discussion, Jputte, and thanks for contributing. Good work, Var.KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as List of nuclear reactors, further sorted by regions per Var-loader. KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I had re-wrote the article List of nuclear reactors. Now it contains only non-power plants reactors and links to three lists of nuclear power plants sorted by region and country. France, UK and USA sections of these lists should be expanded. Does anybody help to do it?--VAR-loader 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep--keep and work out how to divide the material. if it makes sense to have one list for nuclear reacxtors in powerplants and one list for other one, the titles should be changed to maker that clearer. Its up to the editors involved.DGG 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.