Talk:List of nuclear reactors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
I don't think mixing external links in the list is a good idea at all. It's not the accepted practice followed in other lists.
Rather, I think we should have red links in the list where the article doesn't exist, and an external links section at the end. Where an external link is relevant to only one item on the list, it should go into a stub or article for that item (a reactor or reactor site in this case). If the item doesn't justify an article, then it doesn't justify a link either. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
Unless someone objects, I'll work towards that format as time permits. Andrewa 05:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree -- shunt those ICJT links to the bottom and also note that ICJT doesn't list experimental reactors. One other problem is that many wikilinks which are "live" in fact only go to a general geographical place not to a reactor entry eg much of Russia and UK list. --mervyn 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As part of a continuing update to this page I have now removed the notice: " Some of the items in this list currently link to external sites, rather than to Wikipedia articles. See the talk page for discussion of this approach. " This page is becoming cleaner now, so it no longer seems necessary to have a special note. --mervyn 11:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] States
I think the "United States" part of the list should be subheaded and sorted by state instead of alpha. Often, if someone is looking for a plant, they will look by state first then name.
[edit] U.S.A.
I just finished a huge overhaul of the United States section of the list. All of the civ. power reactors, decommissioned and otherwise have been added to the list. Reactors listed without articles have been revised to [site name] Nuclear Power Station for uniformity and clarity. Plutonium Production/Research reactors were separated, and detailed slightly. Eventually, the actual units at each civ site should be listed under each site, each each of the INEL's 53 reactors should be stated on its page. All of this, of course, after i finish a page for each of the US civ power reactors.... Miros 17:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Canada
Reference to the little known slowpoke at tunney's pasture http://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/fr/commission/pdf/trans-03-H14.pdf
[edit] St. Lucie plant
What happened to the St. Lucie NPP? [1] I will research it and add it in. 216.164.138.57 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone will still have to modify the NRC Region 2 template. 216.164.138.57 17:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed or unfinished plants
I'm working on articles for Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant (Australia's proposed power reactor, tenders called twice and some site works completed but no tender accepted) and Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (Philippines, completed and fuel delivered but never loaded). Do these belong on the list? They are both fascinating stories. Andrewa 03:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely, add them in -- this is conceived as a "comprehensive list". Thanks, M --mervyn 07:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SEFOR
SEFOR should be added to the list, but I'm not sure where to place it. Any suggestions? —Slicing (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- It definitely doesn't belong in the "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho" section. —Slicing (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What about fusion?
Nuclear fusion is not mentioned in the article at all! Neither is there any reference that all these listed reactor use fission. The are exactly zero commercial fusion power plants in the world, but there are a great deal of experimental ones. Should they be included? Also, the New Horizons probe just recently released to pluto is powered by nuclear decay, does that get a look in? mastodon 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linkspam in External Links section
The link to the map of locations of US nuclear power plants is in reality a link to such a map on a site selling iodine pills for use in a nuclear emergency. I believe that this link ought to go and that a map as lacking in detail as this one lends little to this article. Does anybody have an objection? BenBurch 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnote in Spanish
Could somebody please translate this footnote? We should have an english translation as this is an english Wiki. --BenBurch 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- http://babelfish.altavista.com/ translated it as
- the financier in line - "Feasible to construct nuclear power stations of electricity in Mexico" (6/2/2006)"to the date, Mexico counts on four nuclear power plants in operation. The power station of nuclear electricity Laguna Verde ("Green Lagoon") (CNLV) that operates the CFE and reactor TRIGA MARK-III in facilities of the National Institute of Nuclear Investigations. Also, it has two subcritical joints in the Independent University of Zacatecas and Instituto Polite'cnico Nacional (IPN), that work with investigation aims."
- Laguna Verde is the site of Mexico's two nuclear power reactors. But I don't see what the footnote is telling us. Simesa 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Splitting
Article is too large and should be divided into smaller parts. I think it would be better to split research reactors and nuclear power plants--91.76.108.224 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done List of nuclear power plants--VAR-loader 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would argue against this. Categorizing these reactors is a hard task, and not as simple as creating a few separated lists unless they were complete and separated by country, the key word there being complete. I think that this initial effort proves that if separated pages are created, they should be created, at least initially, in parallel with maintaining this page as to prevent confusion. The initial splitting effort was poorly documented, and lead to a lot of confusion. 157.252.163.92 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been disastrous. Instead of having one comprehensive list, the article now has bits and pieces. For example, Romania list a CANDU processing facility, but the Cernavoda plant is missing.
--Ng.j 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is CONSENSUS about splitting, then the most obvious choice would be to split off the US reactors into another list, which would be named List of nuclear power plants (United States). The subcategory should be left with a warning and a link to the new page.
Personally, I think the list is most useful in its current format as it is comprehensive and enables quick searches.
--Ng.j 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing the article
I am in the process of reinserting the information removed by a certain somebody.
--Ng.j 08:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now completed the reversion and integration project. Basically I reverted to this version [2] and worked everything else back in. Took a couple of hours, but well worth it. At least now I can read the article on the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant.
--Ng.j 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that -- one complete list of all reactors is not available elsewhere AFAIK, so very important to have it here. --mervyn 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm building stuff for the US research reactors
My current plan is that I will continue adding links to new articles here and then building them as I have done for the PULSTAR and the MIT reactor. There are a LOT of them, so I think issues are going to come up regarding putting them all in one article versus a separate article for each. But let me express that fact that I already HATE scrolling down this overcomplicated article.
In fact, if I could take the research reactor list and just delete it from here and put it in research reactor or something, I would be happy with that. Right now we HAVE all the reactors listed, but it is beyond me how any of this could possibly help anyone.
Well back to the point. I'm making those articles so keep an eye out for them, and PLEASE peer edit my work.theanphibian 18:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
