Template talk:Infobox power station/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Kartographer extension

Hello! I've went ahead and removed the old static location map feature, and updated the template to support the more interactive Kartographer Extension. Please do let me know if this is causing any trouble; I'll be happy to fix. Best regards, Rehman 10:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken location map

The location map seems to be broken. See for example Alpha Ventus Offshore Wind Farm or London Array. Vpab15 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vpab15. Thanks for you message. I believe in the above cases, the map only looks broken; since they are offshore wind farms, the map shows the placemark in the middle of a waterbody. I will look into adding options to render zoomed-out versions of the map, so offshore entities display maps with more relevance to the region. Best regards, Rehman 02:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rehman, thanks for checking. Looking at the history, it seems it was correctly displayed before. See July 2017 from Internet Archive: [1]. Vpab15 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Vpab15. I've added the optional zoom-out parameter to those articles. Feel free to change the values, and also use the same on other impacted articles. It is a case-by-case adjustment that would be needed for a handful of articles of offshore wind farms that are far away from land. Rehman 06:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Set default zoom to 5 so that it can more easily be located in the country. Vpab15 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Vpab15: please make the changes in the sandbox and verify test cases, then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux Talk 12:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: unfortunately I don't know how to edit a template. I have updated two articles with a zoom of 5 for a comparison.
Solar Energy Generating Systems, with current default zoom: [2]. With a zoom of 5: [3].
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station with current default zoom: [4]. With a zoom of 5: [5].
In my opinion, the map with a zoom of 5 is much more useful, so I'd suggest to set 5 as the default zoom. Vpab15 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vpab15: no worries, this can be taken up by anyone that is interested in helping here, once the edit is ready to go live they can reactivate the request above (change answered=yes to answered=no) and a patrolling editor will pick it up. — xaosflux Talk 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux. I've done the changes as per the previous section. Cheers, Rehman 15:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Storage

This template presently has one field for electricity storage (other than pumped-hydro), ps_storage_hours. With the increasing incidence of grid-connected battery technology, it would be helpful to have both a storage capacity (MWh) and maximum discharge rate (MW), and perhaps even a charge rate or time. --Scott Davis Talk 04:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Scott Davis. I think this was brought up before, but there was no real use for the parameters back then. Would you be able to show maybe about 5 or 10 articles where these fields could be used? If I recall correctly, there was barely a handful of pages that could use the said parameters, hence the idea was dropped in the preference of not making the template skeleton too big. I'd be happy to add them, if the situation has changed now. Rehman 08:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I have that many articles yet, but it will be coming. The Australian regulatory authorities have started to think about how the grid works with higher proportions of semi-scheduled and non-scheduled generation (wind turbines and solar panels). A consequence is that the regulators are starting to require some kind of excess capacity or storage to permit new renewable installations. Examples I can think of now include:
There is also early talk about building stand-alone pumped hydro storage in several places, which presumably gets the normal hydro power station info for discharge, but might need extra fields for charging (pumping water uphill). (Highbury 1350 MWh 300 MW, Cultana 225 MW, 1770 MWh). --Scott Davis Talk 10:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Rehman a news story today lists more batteries commissioned and under construction in Australia, France and El Salvador. --Scott Davis Talk 02:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Scott Davis. Lets keep this thread open for a couple of more days. If no one comes up with any valid arguments against adding, let's add it. Cheers, Rehman 02:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest to change the unit of parameter "ps_storage_hours" from hours to MW·h and the parameter name from ps_storage_hours to ps_storage_capacity. If agreed I will take care updating the articles (name change and converting hours to MW·h). --Robertiki (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Robertiki, I went ahead with the rename as it is a straightforward point, and most power stations give storage capacity in MWh anyway. Feel free to proceed with the updating of articles.
Scott Davis, would this make things a bit better? I personally disagree with adding maximum discharge rate and charge rate/time due to the fact that the info is more often not readily available. Of course, I can add if others disagree with my view. Cheers, Rehman 16:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Rehman, I think that just storage capacity will be fine as I've reflected on it more. Most new batteries in Australia at the moment are reported in both MW and MWh. This could be for political points about the battery not being able to match the max output of the nearby wind farm, but without commentary of what output is typical from those farms or what the local load might be. Dalrymple has its data online in real time, and shows that the grid has gone terribly wrong if it ever went close to maximum output. It's got a mid-sized windfarm connecting at the same substation, which is at the end of a single long transmission line due to geography. --Scott Davis Talk 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman, alright, starting now. --Robertiki (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Happy editing :) Rehman 06:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nameplate capacity or gross capacity

Nameplate is an ambiguous name: if it refers to the plate values of the generators, it is the plant gross capacity, if it refers to the plant output, it is the plant net capacity (i.e. after the power transformers). I have searched in the PRIS site, but they simply use gross and net naming. I would propose two options: 

a) change the infobox header for ps_electrical_capacity from Nameplate to gross
b) keep Nameplate and change the documentation to read "Current net plant capacity in megawatts"

I would prefer option b) because the production data provided by the sources is almost always "net production" (which is what the plant meters give at the plant exit) and stating the Net capacity avoids misunderstandings by those who want to calculate, on the fly, the capacity factor. But option b) requires to update all infoboxes. --Robertiki (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nameplate capacity "is the number registered with authorities for classifying the power output of a power station". Hence the doc should be net. I'm not too sure how and why the doc states gross... Power station articles I know all state net so far. Thanks for spotting this. Cheers, Rehman 02:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Changing documentation as stated. --Robertiki (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Rehman 06:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning appearing not only in preview

As for title, some warnings appear also when not in preview, contrary to what they say. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ita140188, enwiki seems to be experiencing some bugs lately, it could be due to that. Is it still the case? Would you mind sharing the article links? Thanks! Rehman 15:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: Thanks. The problem was showing because of the deprecated status of units_planned parameter, so it is not showing anymore. I am not sure if the problem persists, but as you suggested, it is almost surely due to some general Wikimedia bug not specific to this template. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Evad37. This is already enabled from this infobox. I still need to update the doc, but it is there :) Rehman 00:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if I have understood the above, but I would like to see at a glance the old geographic position, and only if one is interested, he would use the zooming feature. Let us say, I wanted to PDF the page, what would appear in place of the new map feature ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I support this. In my opinion, the default zoom is too close. I'd say a default zoom of 5 would be best since it would allow to locate the power station in the country. Vpab15 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and changed the default zoom. Regards, Rehman 15:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I override this country-level map? I've just spent ten minutes trying to work out why the map for Battersea Power Station is showing a map of where London is in England, despite an explicit "| location_map = Greater London" having been chosen for the infobox. I assume it must be something to do with this, but adding "mapframe=no" to the infobox makes no difference, and the template documentation here doesn't mention it, so perhaps I've misunderstood. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If I am reading the code correctly, it looks like the |location_map= value is being used in a non-standard way in this template, but that method is not documented at all, and there does not appear to be any error checking to ensure that the parameter is being used as intended. The documented method does not work. I tried to restore a portion of the old code, but it didn't work as I had hoped. It needs testing in the sandbox.
The specified location map should be shown unless it is blank, in which case the mapframe map should be shown. Also, the mapframe map should not use individual lat and long coordinate parameters, since they are provided by |coordinates=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jonesey95. Thanks for the above fix. I did a minor tweak at the sandbox, where wikidata-less articles could still use the new Kartographer extension (i.e. mapframe) without being forced to use the old static location maps. The zoom function is also retained. You can compare Chapiquiña power plant without mapframe and with mapframe. Note that either version does not use any wikidata coordinates.

Do you or anyone have any concerns or comments with this being rolled out? P.s. Regarding the outdated documentation, it is partially my fault as I had mistakenly omitted updating the same some edits back. I will do so after the above is resolved. Cheers, Rehman 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: Also, I have unified the widths of the image and mapframe, so that the map would always match the width of the image above it (if provided), resulting in a neater presentation. The updated version would also reduce the overall template skeleton size as we would not need any of the |location_map_xxx parameters. Rehman 10:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I will have time to look at this in a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi again. I went ahead with this, as it seems quite straightforward. Feel free to make amendments, or revert if it is causing problems. I will start updating the documentation now. Cheers, Rehman 08:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to revert that. The following articles were in Category:Pages with script errors with "Lua error: Coordinates not found on Wikidata." showing in the infobox.

Perhaps something is missing in these articles, or on Wikidata for these items? Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Johnuniq. From the looks of it, the error was generated because coordinates were missing on both local wiki and on wikidata. Will try to figure out how we could not make the infobox generate the error. (In the mean time, someone with an extra hand could start adding coords to those!) Cheers, Rehman 09:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Old maps as default?

I see that the location_map parameter has been made deprecated and the infobox uses a mapframe map for default. My reading from the previous discussions is that the specified location map should be shown unless it is blank, in which case the mapframe map should be shown. This is not the case with the current edits. I strongly disagree with this pushing of mapframe maps to be the only maps to be shown. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnuniq: and @Rehman: as editors engaged in this discussion. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Beagel. I had overseen that, sorry. I will do the needful. Just to understand the benefits of both, may I ask why you prefer the static maps? Is it because of the ability to add relief maps? Rehman 00:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, while we're at it, do you prefer a new parameter option to opt-in to the old location map (mapframe as default; useful if you need the old maps for selected articles), or opt-in to mapframe (i.e. if param is blank)? I personally prefer the first, as Wikimedia maps is more or less intended to replace older static methods, but I'm interested to know your reason for needing the old maps. Hi Evad37, pinging you as well if you have any comments, since you're well versed with the new Wikimedia maps. Cheers, Rehman 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably the documentation should say something like "the mapframe is default for a map and the location_map parameter should be used only if for any reason the static map is more preferable." My reasoning for old maps is that usually mapframe maps a harder understand as they does not follow maps of the country/reason. In the case you are not familiar with particular area, it is quite hard to get understanding about the location without zooming in/out the mapframe map. I have a feeling that a lot of readers will not zoom the map (it is additional action anyway). Also it is harder to make a distinction between exact countries/regions as they are using the same color. Sometimes the simple static map with recognizable country shape and separate colours makes it easier to understand. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Beagel, your points are noted. I've asked if we can have more features to suit our requirement here. If that doesn't work out, let's proceed with a local alternative. Rehman 08:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Beagel. The feature is added. Using |location_map_geomask=Yes will do two things:
  • Will darken the surrounding countries (i.e. highlight the country the power station belongs to)
  • Zoom-out the map so the whole country is in view - unless the |location_map_zoom= is also used, which overrides the default zoom.
Do let me know if you have any feedback. Cheers, Rehman 07:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
|location_map_geomask=Yes is even worse... The old maps were readable and looked really good. It was also generally very easy to show and switch between different levels of detail as long as you populated the location_map field correctly, and if the relevant area templates were available, you could have 3+ levels available. The new ones are incredibly ugly, hilariously poorly designed, and are functionally next to useless for obtaining information "at a glance" for most cases — you are all but forced to open up the full map viewer, which is extremely awkward and still sucks. The maps also aren't rendering consistently for me when previewing edits (getting a number of partial/no renders which persist even with the full view open and don't show the unit at all), although I suppose that could possibly be a side effect from the PHP7 beta or the inline edit preview... Yes, the old maps had certain shortcomings, but they were so much better than this utter abomination that has replaced them... Garzfoth (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Pumped hydro params on 100+ articles broken without any migration or discussion

In this diff @Rehman removed support for the pumped hydro specific psps_ parameters on the basis that it's covered in Template:Infobox dam. While it's true that it is covered in that template, and that the eventual goal is to migrate all pumped storage articles to use that template instead of this one, most of the articles using Template:Infobox power station for pumped storage units have not yet been migrated to use Template:Infobox dam. As far as I'm aware I'm the only person who ever actively worked on migration for these cases, and I have only migrated about four or so of the ~120 or so articles so far — the other ~116 or so have not yet been migrated, and thanks to Rehman removing the psps_ parameters entirely on the live bloody template, every one of those is no longer displaying any PSH-specific information in their infobox.

What happened to Wikipedia:Template editor#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes? This is really quite an unacceptable violation of the most important principle for template edits, especially with broadly used ones like this one (which is never to make breaking changes without establishing strong consensus, no matter how small said changes are, unless it is absolutely critical to do so immediately — which it clearly was not here).

Yes, we established consensus to depreciate the psps_ parameters and point editors to infobox dam instead roughly 1 year 4 months ago (see talk archive #2), however we never established a consensus on if/when we should remove these parameters from the template outright, and as the migration from this template to infobox dam is not a minor task to do properly I seem to be the only person who bothered trying to move that forwards.

If you want to strip out these parameters, you should either go finish the migration work first, or even better, bring up the need to complete the migration on this page AND spend some time on it. If you want to strip those params without bothering to put in the migration work, you're going to have to have some bloody community discussion about the consequences of making breaking changes that affect almost every article on a pumped storage plant in English Wikipedia first. I'm fully on board with stripping out these parameters once the articles have been migrated.

I didn't revert your edit yet solely because there are too many changes in the way to cleanly revert it automatically and I currently have both far too much of a migraine and far too little time available to safely handle the full manual reversion at this moment without breaking shit, but I plan on reverting it later when I have the time and have gotten this migraine under control. Garzfoth (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, User:Garzfoth. The pending task was a very simple step (compared to the huge amount of work that was put into this template - both here and on Wikidata) that I intended to complete via AWB. Unfortunately, after a nasty series of unfortunate events in real life, things got even worse - if you heard the news about Sri Lanka. Anyway, I'm not giving excuses. I will get on completing this now. Rehman 13:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Garzfoth, this is done. The remaining few are non-hydro entries that I'll update manually. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Again, thanks for the reminder, and apologies for missing this earlier. Rehman 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of that so quickly!
I do have a number of other concerns related to how you're handling making changes to the live template as well as many of the specific changes made (which is causing the number of pages in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_infobox_power_station_with_unknown_parameters and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_infobox_power_station_with_deprecated_parameters to skyrocket, causing major widespread inconsistencies between articles, and resulting in an absurdly confusing situation in general). The documentation also isn't making much sense anymore. BTW if you need any help with automated changes to infobox parameters or any data on usage of any existing ones I can offer both via User:InfoboxBot. Garzfoth (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Garzfoth: No worries, it was my oversight anyway. Although, I have many questions with your last response. What are the concerns regarding "how I'm handling making changes" and "the many specific changes"?
  • The pumped-storage case was an unavoidable scenario from my end, and was promptly fixed thanks to you notifying it - we are all volunteers at the end of the day.
  • The template changes was done in sandbox, and was cascaded to the live version after rigorous tests. There are no major visual changes, and any visual/param changes were discussed prior with the template and wikiproject community (who fyi have been active here for many years, so they know the background on what should or shouldn't be done)
  • The parameter documentation is exactly the same as it was for many years, with only a separate column added for wikidata structure. Which part doesn't make sense to you? So we may try simplifying.
  • How is deprecated parameters causing any issue? It merely functions as a way to notify editors when they edit those articles, and does not mean the article is "broken" in any way. It is redundant to make mass edits to adjust just those, hence the notification prompts editors when making other changes.
Thanks, Rehman 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Documentation update

Hello. While adding wikidata support code and structure documentation, I've come across a few parameters that I feel requires discussions with the community. Please share your views for each parameter separately. Here is the link to the current parameters (for ease of access): Template:Infobox_power_station#Parameters. I am hoping to action on the results of this discussion within a week from now. Thank you. Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear power stations

  1. np_fuel_type: Can anyone familiar in the nuclear subject comment if we do have a defined broad set of specific type of nuclear fuels? Currently existing documentation is not detailed enough. Having a defined criteria allows uniform infobox representation, and also allows storage of this info as structured data on Wikidata. Specifically pinging User:TuomoS as they helped me with nuclear topics before.
  2. np_fuel_supplier: From what I came across, this info is rarely readily available. As infoboxes should present only key common information, I propose we remove this parameter from the infobox.

--Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Rehman, I think that these fields should be removed. There are dozens of different nuclear fuel types. About a quarter of the reactor fuel is replaced with fresh fuel usually once a year. Therefore many reactors have two different fuel types at the same time, older and newer designs. The same applies to fuel suppliers, reload fuel can be bought from a different supplier than the previous year. Infoboxes should contain only essential information. Fuel type and supplier are usually not essential. If there is something special in the fuel of some particular reactor, it can be explained in the text. --TuomoS (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per [User:TuomoS|TuomoS]]. If this information available, it should be provided in the body text, but it is not necessary for the infobox. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Rehman 08:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
While I don't disagree much with the removal of np_fuel_supplier, I do disagree with removing np_fuel_type — for CANDUs, that information was generally available and was worth including in the infobox as it was a fairly important bit of data for CANDUs. In the PWR realm, while I don't think it was ever noted much in that param, all non-VVER PWRs use a different type of fuel from VVERs, a fact perhaps worth noting. There are some other cases as well where it was or could be useful.
There are also a plethora of major additional details specific to nuclear units which can be easily obtained from the annual IAEA OPEX reports (link to most recent report (published 2018 and covers 2017)), and at least a handful of these really should be included in the infobox — something else to consider while you're on this campaign of making all these changes... Garzfoth (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Solar power station

  1. solar_concentration: The parameter does not have a defined unit scale, and is rarely used. Currently a vague High/Medium/Low is used, with some rare uses in the format of 56x and so on. Due to the unit-less/blurred nature of this parameter, I propose removing it.

--Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the parameter should be kept and its use specified, that is, suggesting using the actual concentration parameter when applicable. Also, the low/med/high appears to be reasonably well-defined for concentrated PV (see Concentrator photovoltaics#Types). I suggest also adding a parameter to specify, in case of solar PV, if the plant use solar trackers (single-axis or two-axis). --Ita140188 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    If there are problems of compatibility with Wikidata formats, maybe the property can be split into solar_pv_concentration and solar_thermal_concentration with the first accepting low/mid/high and the second a number. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. This information is rarely available. It could be kept if it is linked to technology (CPV or CPS) and uses only value "yes" like in the case of combined cycle, but this in that case it does not gives any new information compared to solar_type, so remove it. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree. --Robertiki (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Concentration has been removed on basis that it is information that is rarely available. Also added solar tracker support as requested by Ita140188. Rehman 06:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thermal power stations

  1. th_technology: The parameter is very rarely used, and does not yet have an identified data type/set applicable to it. It also was never documented in this infobox. I propose to remove it entirely. The few uses (if any), can me manually transferred to the article text.
  2. th_feed_mine: Also rarely used, and never documented. But from what I understand based on the label alone, it is for listing the coal mine from which the power station gets its coal from, and hence we do have a identified data type here. But, this information is often very rarely available and thus the parameter is very rarely used. I propose removing this as well.

--Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I think th_technology is useful to specify what kind of technology the plant uses, such as Combined cycle power plant, steam turbine etc. (if I understand the usage of this parameter correctly). th_feed_mine should instead be removed in my opinion, also because it is often not well-defined. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • These fields were included in the original template and were re-introduced per this discussion. Remove feeding mine as the feeding fuel comes from mines only in the case of coal power plants and oil shale power plants (but not in the case of oil, gas or biomass fired plants). And even in the case of coal, coal is a global commodity and supply is not linked to the certain mine so often. But before removing from the articles' infoboxes, please make sure that the information about the mine (if exists), is included in the body text. Keep th_technology per Ita140188. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ita140188, Beagel: Thanks for the feedback. Combined cycle already has a parameter, but the steam vs gas turbine parameter seems reasonable. Do you think th_technology should be limited to only "Steam turbine" and/or "Gas turbine"? If so, I can format wikidata and our documentation to update as such. Noted on your views regarding th_feed_mine. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ita140188, Beagel:  Done. Updated template and documentation so that th_technology is used for defining thermal turbine technology (gas or steam). Feed mine has been removed. The few mine uses can be tracked from this category (under T), and will be transferred to text and removed. Please let me know of any concerns. Thanks, Rehman 07:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
th_technology parameter could be: Rankine, Brayton, Diesel, Otto and so on. --Robertiki (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyone else have an opinion on this? I feel th_technology should simply be limited to gas vs. steam, but at the same time Robertiki's comments also makes sense, although that information is not a common fact disclosed by power stations... Rehman 06:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not at home right now so I can't access/analyze my aggregated infobox data at the moment, but from what I remember, th_technology was being used to specify FAR FAR more detail than mere "gas" or "steam". I can get you some more specific real-world examples when I get back home later (~4-5 hours from now at absolute minimum). Until then, here's some notes from memory:
  • This is a unit-specific parameter and it's not too uncommon to have mixes of technologies between different units, so the need to support multiple entries needs to be accounted for.
  • "gas" can/could mean a simple cycle gas turbine (GT), a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) with a HRSG and at least one additional steam turbine generator (which is often shared between two or more GT-HRSG pairs, and should generally be listed as a separate entry), or even a gas boiler producing steam (more common than you'd imagine in older units). Also, while both GTs and CCGTs typically (but not always) utilize natural gas as their primary fuel, it's quite common for them to have one or more other fuels (such as fuel oil) in use to some extent (sometimes a rather large extent).
  • "steam" can/could mean a variety of different types of steam turbine(s) which can use subcritical, supercritical, or ultra-supercritical steam supplied by any of a wide variety of sources (which can be crudely simplified down to boilers (which don't need to be explicitly listed), CCGT HRSGs (need to list the steam turbine separately from the gas turbine here!), pulverized coal-fired boilers (technically just a subset of generic simple boilers as long as the fuel is being correctly listed as pulverized coal rather than just coal), atmospheric fluidized bed boilers, pressurized fluidized bed boilers, advanced pressurized fluidized bed boilers, bubbling fluidized bed boilers, circulating fluidized bed boilers, etc etc).
BTW this type of info is quite broadly available/disclosed for most plants, you just need to know where to look for it. Garzfoth (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about taking so long to get to this, I've been quite busy and ended up having to do a significant amount of work on fixes and improvements to my scraping script in order to resolve some issues with it before I could actually move onwards with this.
Anyways, I'm looking at the current data, and the first major thing that jumps out at me is that while many articles do simply use "Steam turbine" (n=65), or "Gas turbine (n=15), there are plenty of exceptions, and one of the biggest ones with the most major impact jumps out at you within the first five ("Reciprocating engine", n=4 — can't believe I forgot about those!). Here's a table with all uses of th_technology in Infobox power station on the English Wikipedia (note: HTML markup was converted via http://area23.brightbyte.de/csv2wp.php (I would have preferred wrapping just the markup with nowiki, but that wasn't an option, and wrapping the full line with nowiki looked absolutely terrible), and I inserted "BLANK_VALUE" in place of the, well, blank value for the first entry — otherwise, this is more-or-less untouched):
Don't have time for much more commentary on this item at the moment, but I hope it's useful and that people take a look at it. Garzfoth (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Tidal power stations

  1. tide_tsg_type: Anyone willing to help in defining the types of tidal stream generators in a broad sense? The article on tidal power technology is cluttered, and I'm having trouble how to define a Wikidata structure for this.

--Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Beagel, of course. I was asking for help in defining a fixed set of options in this parameter. :) Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Added a set options based on identified technologies by the European Marine Energy Centre. Rehman 15:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wave power stations

  1. wave_technology: Same as tide_tsg_type above.

--Rehman 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Beagel, of course. I was asking for help in defining a fixed set of options in this parameter. :) Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Added a set options based on identified technologies by the European Marine Energy Centre. Rehman 15:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Generation units

  1. ps_units_planned
  2. ps_units_cancelled

Propose removal of the above two shared parameters, and use ps_units_operational for new plants that are fully under construction. Planned units are often planned with no begin or end dates, and is not something critical to be in an infobox. Same with units cancelled (not to be confused with units decommissioned). These information may be included in the article text instead. Furthermore, FYI only, it is also not possible to structure these two data in Wikidata, as they are more or less vague, as explained earlier. The parameters are also not used for the Wikidata-based automatic plant status triggers and unit counters currently implemented, and hence can be safely removed. Rehman 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as they are heavily used. Deleting them losses information already present. I don't see any problem in keeping parameters without Wikidata connection. --Robertiki (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Robertiki, of course, the Wikidata part is purely FYI, and not basis of deciding on keep/delete. For clarity, if the content is transferred from the infobox to the text, would that change your view on this? Thanks for your feedback. Rehman 10:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The parameters content is already usually in the text, where they are explained. That is not the point. For example, the long, very long (up to 30 years ?) lead time of a nuclear reactor makes the planned and cancelled parameters an indication at a glance about how large the plant would be. The same importance has the distinction of construction from operational phase. Examples: Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. --Robertiki (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
More: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. And List of cancelled nuclear reactors in the United States. --Robertiki (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Why are these parameters marked as deprecated? They are commonly used and, especially the planned parameter, very useful to understand the eventual size of the plant. A firmly planned capacity expansion is usually very relevant information and should be in the infobox in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Ita140188, and for pointing out the deprecated state of those params. That was my mistake and I've reverted it. Rehman 15:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Parameters will be kept. Thanks for the valuable feedback. I'll see what other options we have to also support a Wikidata structure for those parameters. Of course, your suggestions are very much welcomed. Rehman 15:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional values for consideration

  1. solar_collectors_area, and ps_site_area In the case of solar plant, I see it somehow overlapping and confusing. Therefore propose remove solar_collectors_area. I know the related discussion was here but probably it is time to reconsider necessity of this parameter. At the same time, in the case of thermal or nuclear plants the size of the area is not relevant like for wind or solar or wave plants. Therefore I propose to remove ps_site_area from the skeleton infoboxes for thermal and nuclear plants. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • ps_site_area reflects the overall site area of any given power station (including roads, substations, etc). The parameter is shared, and thus is usable by all plant types as suffix. I have no opinion on solar_collectors_area, but as per my recent updates on solar articles, I did notice quite a bunch of articles using it. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. solar_aperture_area Is it really main information which should be included in the infobox? Propose to remove it. I know the related discussion was here but probably it is time to reconsider necessity of this parameter. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Same as solar_collectors_area above. I have no problem in removing it, but I noticed articles using it currently. And FYI only, both these parameters already has wikidata structures defined. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Remove solar_aperture_area. Explain in solar_collectors_area parameter documentation, that if the mirrors are of the trough or dish type, the surface given should be the "aperture area". Fresnel (linear and tower) don't have a fixed aperture area. Same for concentrated PV. --Robertiki (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Just removed solar_aperture_area from documentation and starting moving that parameter information to solar_collectors_area. Once done, solar_aperture_area could be removed from the infobox code. --Robertiki (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Found only one article with solar_aperture_area. Now it may be removed.--Robertiki (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. solar_site_resource. The discussion was here but probably it is time to reconsider necessity of this parameter. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a key figure in solar plant economics. I think we should keep it. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep ps_site_area and solar_site_resource. --Robertiki (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. ps_chimneys and ps_cooling_towers. This may be interesting but not the most important information. Propose to remove from the template, if necessary information could be provided in the body text. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Suggest we keep it, as it is a shared parameter, and quite a useful characteristic when readers look up the plant on wiki after spotting it in RL. Also FYI only, wikidata parameters are defined for these. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Strong keep for ps_cooling_towers, as this is important and useful information. It makes utterly no sense to delete this, especially given how common the use of cooling towers is. Also, I've invested a massive amount of time and effort in researching and adding detailed and up-to-date data to this parameter (as well as the related cooling water source one) for countless articles (primarily focused on nuclear plants) — look at any of the articles on active US nuclear plants for good examples of this parameter in use. Garzfoth (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. ps_feed-in_tariff Different countries have different feed-in tariffs systems. This may be interesting but not the most important information. Propose to remove from the template, if necessary information could be provided in the body text. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • True regarding different FIT for different countries, but for some countries (like Sri Lanka, where I currently reside), renewable energy plant FIT is a critical piece of information, and that is what people looks for when identifying expensive power sources. This is also a shared parameter by all plant types. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. ps_revenue Applicable only in the case if the power plant is a stand-alone legal entity. In most of cases, this is not a case. Propose to remove from the template. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • This depends on the country, as above. In Sri Lanka for example, all plants are stand-alone legal entities. Rehman 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: This is sort of a drive-by aside, but does it make sense to possibly split these templates, similar to how the Citation Style 1 templates are split up? Seems like it might simplify some of the parameter presentation/maintenance. -Furicorn (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Furicorn. In 2010, nuclear and wind farms templates were also merged into this template per the related WikiProject consensus, so as to have a unified template. Since the hard part is done (coding this template so that it somehow works for every power station type), I think it is best to leave it merged. Maintenance is not that frequent in this infobox as the subject is power stations; the recent template edits happened only with the Wikidata support inclusion. Of course, if there is any specific concerns or suggestions, I'm sure the community would be happy to act on it. Thanks for reviewing! Rehman 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

format glitch for solar tracker

Coleambally Solar Farm is the first time I have tried using an empty infobox parameter and putting all the info into Wikidata only. I am seeing the wikitext for {{unbulleted list}} in the Solar tracker field. I don't know if this is a bug in the infobox code or if I have entered the data wrongly in wikidata. 

{{Unbulleted list

Single-axis
}}

Advice or help would be appreciated please. --Scott Davis Talk 12:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Scott Davis, looks like there were some missing | characters in the template. I think I fixed it, and hopefully didn't break anything :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
My page is fixed, thank you Plastikspork --Scott Davis Talk 22:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Another missing subheading

Leichhardt Power Station does not currently (11 Oct 2019) have a heading between Owner(s) and Primary fuel. Comparison to Diamantina Power Station which has local parameters instead of wikidata shows a heading "Thermal power station". Have I missed something in the wikidata, or found another minor bug? I'm not seeing ps_units_operational or ps_units_manu_model either, but these could be related to the unfinished wind turbine work and will appear when that is completed. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Scott Davis, the header did not generate as instance of (P31) was not set to one of the stated types. I've fixed that at Leichhardt Power Station (Q70451713). Kind regards, Rehman 03:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: Thank you for fixing Leichhardt Power Station (Q70451713). However, since it was described as gas turbine power station (Q1427536) which is a subclass of thermal power station (Q200297), the fix is throwing away wikidata information to make it work on the Wikipedia infobox, which feels the wrong way round. The key part of a wikidata query to find instances of subclasses is "?thermal_power_station wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q200297." which the query builder displays as "instance of any subclass of thermal power station". I haven't learned enough wikipedia template language or Lua to work out how to encode that though. --Scott Davis Talk 07:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Scott Davis: Yes, your arguement is very much valid. I hope to fix the subclass issue as soon as I/we figure out if it is possible (as I said in the previous section). Thanks again for bringing these cases to light. Cheers, Rehman 07:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I am finding these corner issues as I am trying to address the red links on templates relating to Australian electricity, but putting everything for the infobox in Wikidata, using no local parameters. I am also filling in more Wikidata on generators that already had articles, so I am improving at querying Wikidata, and being as precise as I can find sources for (although the sources often end up in the Wikipedia article but not in Wikidata as well). I think that for infobox information, sourcing it from Wikidata, and therefore forcing Wikidata to have more detailed information is a Good Thing that will have future unforeseen benefits. There are not many English Wikipedia infoboxes I'm aware of yet that can source all of their information purely from storing it in Wikidata, so thank you for being one of the leaders. --Scott Davis Talk 10:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words Scott Davis. I hope to join your mission in migrating content to wd, as soon as the pending parameters are fixed/sorted. Like you said, this is the best way to find issues, as well as discover better ways to do things. I've sorted some pending issues today, got only a few more to go, before this infobox will officially support any type of power station, purely from Wikidata, along with automated parameters such as the status, unit model, and some others. Because of the complex situation when bundling all types of power station, this template was quite a challenge to craft, and literally took years to put together. Rehman 11:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Another small niggle I spotted today: Units are missing from Nameplate capacity and Storage capacity on Newman Power Station which is drawing the numbers from Wikidata. I don't recall noticing whether they were missing from the capacity of other power stations last week. The unit is present on Kennedy Energy Park which has |ps_electrical_capacity=50 (no unit) locally, but not (at present) on others that source the capacity from Wikidata. --Scott Davis Talk 02:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott, the gas turbine power station issue is fixed. The header now triggers for plants that are also (only) set as a such. Regarding the above note, I am unable to replicate the scenario (i.e. I can see the units as at now). I also note that nothing was changed regarding to those parameters recently. Do you still see those articles without units? Rehman 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, the units are there now, so that must have been a temporary problem triggered by something else somewhere. I thought I would have noticed sooner if they had been missing. --Scott Davis Talk 13:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a section heading in the infobox for Grid-connected storage such as Hornsdale Power Reserve and Ballarat Energy Storage System which are currently in wikidata as instances of battery storage power station (Q810924)? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 03:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there should be. It triggered only for articles with local parameters. I've adjusted it so it works with Wikidata-only items as well (such as Hornsdale and Ballarat). Cheers, Rehman 04:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yugadanavi Power Station

I found Yugadanavi Power Station in Category:Pages with script errors and was able to trace the error to {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P516|qid=Q16060180|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} which is issuing a script error. since this value is not used anywhere else in the code, I will comment it out in the infobox until someone can come up with a proper fix. I don't think we should be using this to decide if the header is displayed if we are not using it for any of the data in the section below :) Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes. Let me see if we can code a workaround to that. Cheers, Rehman 05:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Rehman 10:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing "(permanently) shut down" field for nuclear power stations

The template has a field "ps_units_decommissioned", which is misused e.g. in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant to indicate units that are permanently shut down (this is the IAEA's terminology). However, with nuclear plants decommissioning has a more specific meaning, namely, that the unit is no longer considered a nuclear facility. Therefore, almost all permanently shut down units of nuclear plants are not decommissioned, and will not be for many decades. Thus, for indicating permanent shutdown (what is called "decommissioned" in other technical areas), a separate field like "ps_units_permanently_shutdown" seems to be necessary (and then, most probably, an update in (many?) articles of nuclear power plants to move the "decommissioned" info to that new field). --User:Haraldmmueller 10:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhm ... the doc for the "ps_units_decommissioned" field says "... or under decommissioning". That would typically include "permanently shut down" reactors - but it is not shown correctly on the page, because it says "decommissioned" there - and this is wrong e.g. for Fukushima Daiichi, and many others. So, for nuclear, I still argue for a separate field because "under decommissioning" and "decommissioned" are fundamentally different states as of today, and for the next decades. --User:Haraldmmueller 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Dummy edit to postpone auto-archiving per this. Rehman 08:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I just saw your crosspost on WP:Energy, and it suddenly hit me... The generation units at the end of the template refers to the power generation units (i.e. gas or steam turbines), not reactors themselves (note that we have a separate parameter for number of reactors, in additions to number of units). Or did I misunderstood your post? Rehman 10:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only cite the usage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, where 1 "unit" definitely equals 1 reactor, I think owing to the fact that they are called units; and where 6 units are said to be "decommissioned", when they are merely permanently shut down. If you are right that "units" are something else like turbines (or generators?), then maybe even more fields might be necessary for nuclear plants ... However, I would argue that a "unit" is whatever is called a unit - which might therefore be different things for different types of power plants. --User:Haraldmmueller 11:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Now I understand your concern. The units in this template are definitely referring to generation units, and not intended to sync with number of reactors. I recall similar discussions before as well (have a look in the archives). I personally prefer having a single parameter for the number reactors in total (rather than being too specific within the infobox), but I'd leave that decision to editors handling nuclear articles more frequently. Pinging a some nuclear article editors I remember: User:Beagel, User:Robertiki, User:Lklundin, User:Kendall-K1. Cheers, Rehman 11:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is another, much easier, solution (or "solution"?) now that I understand the problem: Remove the "units" entries at Fukushima's infobox; I checked a handful of other nuclear plants, and they simply don't have that information - i.e., "units" are not used incorrectly there. At Fukushima, the information about the shutdown is in the text anyway. That would keep the "unit" semantics as you describe it. When I have time, I'll check a few more nuclear plant articles - but I hope that (almost) only that one uses "unit" incorrectly, so removing that entry in the infobox is a smal- change. --User:Haraldmmueller 06:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the result of all that bad propaganda around nuclear and ensuing confusion. Let us understand (forget "nuclear"). I may simply stop a Unit, without starting dismantling works, but preserving it from degradation (or becoming dangerous). The Unit is in a mothballed status. I may start demolition work and at the end I will have a decommissioned Unit. Usually demolition takes a year or less, so that period is not relevant. A nuclear Unit, prior to demolition, requires removal of the used nuclear fuel from the reactor, placing it into the used fuel pool or into dry storage containers), but at that phase, it is not different from a mothballed Unit. The following demolition is a time consuming job, starting with dismantling systems or components containing radioactive products (e.g., the reactor vessel), which takes years, so we are missing a description for that status. I would propose ps_units_dismantling, that could be used for any technology while under demolition. The problem then would become to discriminate between nuclear Units "shutdown" as in "mothballed" (i.e. may restart on change of mind of the owners) or "shutdown" as in "being dismantled". We should forget that hurry to bury a simply mothballed nuclear Unit with a generic "shutdown". PRIS definition for decommissioned is permanent shutdown and not simply shutdown, but gives no information if decommissioning is done or in progress. Example: Yankee Rowe today is a field but PRIS gives no information about that (i.e. decommissioning complete). --Robertiki (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata-based semi-automated generation unit information

Hello. As you are probably aware, Wikidata-support was enabled for the entire infobox except for the power generation section, due to the tricky nature of handling more complex data. I'm happy to update that after (at least) 6 months of coding and testing, this section is finally complete, and have been moved to the live version. All credits goes to User:RexxS for coding this complex section.

There should be no observable change in the majority of existing articles. For those articles that does not have a local parameter set, but has data saved on Wikidata, the below features will be enabled:

  • Units operational, planned, cancelled, under construction, and decommissioned, will be automatically populated based on the values and dates set on the particular generation unit (see template documentation).
  • For facilities with a larger number of generation units (i.e. wind farms), the units could effectively be "multiplied" by using the qualifier quantity (P1114).
  • The unit's installed capacity is automatically derived from the generation unit model's Wikidata item. This can be overridden (useful for modified generation units) by using the qualifier nominal power capacity (P2109).
  • The manufacturer and model of operational units will be automatically populated, based on the units that has dates set which matches operational status, along with a counter of the number of such units.
    • The short name (P1813) of the manufacturer would be used, if set in the generation unit's manufacturer's Q-item. Same with the model number. Else the label will be displayed.
    • If no manufacturer is stated in the generation unit's Q-item, then only the model will be stated. And vice versa.
  • The template supports (i.e. not trigger a big red error) if someone mistakenly added the manufacturer as the generation unit (i.e. Senvion SE (Q457043) instead of Senvion 3.6M140 (Q70677881)). But of course, such usage should be discouraged.
  • Since the generation unit's status is based on the dates, and since the dates (and other parameters) are not always known, the templates supports adding "unknown value" (by clicking the three small rectangles, when adding data to Wikidata). The automated functions would still work with available data.
  • The wind turbine specifics are also obtained directly from the generation unit's Q-item, so as to avoid requiring duplicated data.

And with that, this template now supports every type of commercial power station, while supporting both local parameters as well as being 100% Wikidata-enabled.

While there shouldn't be any issues arising from this particular code update (due to many passed tests done), should there be an issue somehow, please do raise the concern here. If the issue is widespread (i.e. impacting more than a couple of articles), please do feel free to revert the template change. Rehman 17:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

... with that, this template now supports every type of commercial power station: The issue with nuclear power plants, where "decommissioned" is much later (and as of today, mostly far in the future) than and (by law; and for all practical purposes) very different from "shut down" is not yet resolved, as I see it - or do I overlook something? --User:Haraldmmueller 20:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Haraldmmueller, this is something that has to do with the parameter(s) itself (which has been the way for some time now), and not related to the above change. Perhaps you might want to discuss it with editors familiar with nuclear power plant specifics. Of course, once consensus is reached, I'd be happy to assist in coding it accordingly. Cheers, Rehman 02:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - I asked this quite some time ago above; but up to now no one answered - would you know whether there is another way/place where to discuss this? --User:Haraldmmueller 07:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries. This talkpage is the right place. Perhaps you could also ping/crosspost at WT:ENERGY? Rehman 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Sapphire Wind Farm is showing turbine information correctly with no tweaks since your code went live. A few others are showing the Units operational but not the Make and model, so I guess I need to work out what is missing from the turbine descriptions when I get time. --Scott Davis Talk 03:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

powered by (P516) qualifier service entry (P729) is required to populate the Make and Model field for a wind farm. quantity (P1114) does not trigger display of the line. "Units operational" is not displayed if the quantity is known but nominal power capacity (P2109) is not defined on the model. As a wikipedia editor, I found these requirements surprising, and not clearly documented. I expected to be able to display the number of turbines even if their individual power output was not stated, and the make and model even if the service entry date is not stated. --Scott Davis Talk 08:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The Wikidata requirement for "Make and Model" is mentioned in the template documentation (see the unit descriptions, at the bottom of the table). That parameter only relates to operational units, hence requires the service status parameters in order to validate the same.
I'm afraid when it comes to displaying data purely from Wikidata, the respective unit capacity must be stated on Wikidata, in order for the unit information to be auto-populated. You could of course, use a local parameter display customised/partial information (i.e. only unit number, without a unit capacity). Furthermore, the quantity qualifier is set on the turbine model Q-item (via P516), thus if the turbine model is known, it should seldom be difficult to find the capacity.
A note with regards to "and the make and model even if the service entry date is not stated"; it is possible to do that. Simply add service entry, click on the 3 rectangles, and select "unknown value". Rehman 09:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - I did not consider explicitly stating "unknown value" for a date, as intuitively someone knew the date, even if they didn't write it on any web page I have found. Any power station infoboxes I have started in the last month or two have been populated purely by Wikidata. Some of them clearly need some more careful reading to provide precise answers to questions that aren't well stated in the easy sources (it's rare to even find a statement that a wind farm owned by Goldwind Australia uses turbines built by Goldwind, and even rarer to find a model name, for example). Thanks for including the multiple levels of override - I've found one wind farm that has over-rated its Vestas V120 turbines compared to the rating on the Vestas website, so put the standard rating on Vestas V126-3.45 MW (Q67447982) and the higher rating as a qualifier on Sapphire Wind Farm (Q67446408)/powered by (P516). I haven't tried yet to see what happens when a farm has multiple sizes/heights/models of turbines, and whether they bother to document how many of each one. Overall, it seems to be working pretty well so far, and every now and then I try putting a blank infobox on a page and comparing it to the locally filled one to increase the wikidata as well. --Scott Davis Talk 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I got a pretty good outcome at Cockburn Power Station for not knowing the brand or model of the turbines. Unfortunately, the owning entity has changed twice. I have put end/start date qualifiers on the owners on Cockburn Power Station (Q5139555), but they all show in the infobox without the timestamps. Is that something that can be added to a to-do list somewhere? --Scott Davis Talk 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I came across the exact same concern yesterday with Colombo Port Power Station. Will add the feature to show related dates, by this weekend. Cheers, Rehman 05:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
When you get back and are thinking about qualifiers for owned by (P127), could you also please consider displaying proportion (P1107) for showing the proportions of joint ownership (see Dry Creek Power Station for an example). Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 09:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Working on this. Rehman 15:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please test in sandbox etc

@Bonthefox3: please use the sandbox to test changes and use meaningful edit summaries for your changes. You appear to have made several changes without summaries, and left the template broken due to a spelling error which I have corrected. I have no idea if the rest of the edits achieved your intent or were supported by consensus, as I have only addressed the immediate problem that broke article infoboxes. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 09:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the unexplained/undocumented parameters from the template code for now, so as to not confuse future editors. We can always discuss it, and add back if necessary. Rehman 14:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wind farms and wikidata

I am starting to try to populate these infoboxes purely from wikidata and noticing a few things that don't quite work as I expected.

  1. If the wikidata says the entity is an instance of wind farm (Q194356) rather than one of its subclasses, then the "wind farm" header line is not drawn in the infobox (example Gunning Wind Farm at the moment, as I've only just added this template)
  2. I have attempted to follow the documentation on how to describe the number and type of turbines to no effect. I've even created new Wikidata items for the model and specified the manufacturer there (example: Sapphire Wind Farm). Are there working examples of wind farm details derived from Wikidata that I could follow?
  3. How can wind turbines be entered if we don't know the manufacturer or model, only the number and power rating? I tried powered by wind turbine (Q49833) but it didn't work on Glen Innes Wind Farm.

Thanks. Someone has put a lot of effort into making most of this work, so I don't know if I'm adding test cases, or finding documentation deficiencies. --Scott Davis Talk 04:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I've taken a quick look, made some changes.
Point 1: Thanks for raising this. Ideally the header should be shown even with wind farm (Q194356). I will fix this.
Point 2 and 3: Sorry about this. A bit of work is still pending in the module that handles ps_units_xx parameters in the "Power generation" section. I'll follow up on this, and ping you here again.
Cheers, Rehman 02:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rehman. I hadn't realised you consider you are still working on it, I thought it was supposed to be complete and either not working as documented or I was failing to follow the instructions properly. Keep up the good work. I think that this is the best example I have of leading to richer information on Wikidata. --Scott Davis Talk 03:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: another issue I have noticed is that Wikidata gives a warning for setting clearance (P2793) on something which is not a bridge, yet this template requires it and does not work if I set height (P2048) instead. --Scott Davis Talk 07:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Scott. I've fixed the header issue a few days back (forgot to update here, sorry). The wikidata-based generation units functions are being tested now. Work on it should conclude by this weekend, or over the next week latest. The bridge issue is not a problem, and more of a constraint setting at clearance (P2793). I will look into that. Thank you for the feedback! Keep em' coming! :) Cheers, Rehman 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume the generation unit work has proved a little more tricky than expected. My concern today is the |wind_site_usage= field. The documentation says that has use (P366) must be one of agriculture (Q11451), cattle husbandry (Q2153464) or wilderness (Q911871). The code appears to require one of three specific uses, but uses a redirect pastoral farming (Q7143051) for the second one. Given that cattle breeding is a subclass of agriculture, would it be possible to expand the definition to support subclasses of agriculture and wilderness (or similar)? Agriculture has over 100 direct subclasses and over 3000 in total. Many agricultural land uses have more specific wikidata items that are not cattle breeding. My quick survey of terms also led to the discovery that many of the terms I might use are dialect- or region-specific, too, which will lead to even more complexities in a global English Wikipedia. --Scott Davis Talk 10:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Both User:RexxS and myself have been quite busy in RL lately. Will try to get the generation unit work done asap. Regarding the site usage, it would be great if we could have a way to set broader definitions such as "all subclasses of..."; that would also make header functionalities much easier (such as for one concern you raised in a separate section below). I haven't yet come across that functionality, but let me see if this is possible. Cheers, Rehman 03:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries about the delay - you are doing stuff I haven't learned to do, so I thank you. We are all volunteers here, doing the things that we are capable and interested in. I imagine this is not the only example that Wikipedia needs to invoke or test for instances of arbitrary subclasses (in fact, maybe that should be the default case), so someone else might already have a solution to instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* for "instance of zero or more levels of subclass of...". We just need to find who or how. --Scott Davis Talk 08:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I've contemplated much about the site usage problem. Some points to note:

  • The current structure is debatable. Adding has use (P366) directly to a wind farm item is misleading. Because the use is power generation, not farming, etc.
  • We could use area (P2046) (i.e. ps_site_area), and add has use (P366) as qualifier. But that too is debatable, and also I'm not sure if it's even possible (since the P2046 value is a variable).
  • We should consider removing restrictions completely. As a random example, an editor should be able to set the site usage as parking lot (Q6501349) or whatever, if necessary. It doesn't make much sense to restrict.

I'm travelling from tomorrow till 29th. I'll try to figure out something by the time I return. Until then, any and all suggestions are welcome. :) Rehman 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This conversation should possibly be at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Energy, to get advice from the wider Wikidata community, but I don't know if it makes much practical difference. There may be a generalisation that requires a new property that has not been defined yet. One possibility is contains (P4330) — item or substance located within this item but not part of it, but I'm not sure I'd say "The wind farm contains grazing land", I think I would say "the wind farm is in/on/over grazing land." There does not appear to be a "contained in" property available. crosses (P177) might be another option. --Scott Davis Talk 03:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Almost forgot about this thread. I've just started a discussion here. Hopefully an expert in properties and qualifiers would provide some new insight. Rehman 15:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tracking category required

@Rehman: Is it possible to add a tracking category for transclusions that:

This combination of missing fields leads to a display of "Status Proposed", even for historic power stations that closed decades ago, as well as for currently operating power stations (of any kind). The "fix" can be either to copy the commissioning date into Wikidata or to explicitly set the status locally. I'm gradually working to expand the wikidata for all Australian power stations, but it will take many weeks, even if I don't get bored first, and I won't be just browsing to check the rest of the world. --Scott Davis Talk 13:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott Davis, I added Pages using infobox power station with default status (hopefully in the right place). it may take some time for the category to fill. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes Thank you - from the two I have looked at, they showed the problem (status: proposed in the infobox) and copying the commission and decommission dates to Wikidata fixed the problem. I don't have the time this morning to do any more. CHeers. --Scott Davis Talk 21:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for spotting this, Scott. Apologies for the late reply, as I was travelling. Let me see if we can get a bot to fix this. Thanks for the tracking category, Frietjes! Rehman 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott Davis and others reading this: Looking at this scenario deeper, I think there is room to improve this functionality. Defaulting to "Proposed" for every article would mean every article that has a blank parameter (as explained above), and every newly created power station article, would display a "Proposed" in the status parameter - something that would be confusing to most editors.

As the change was recently done, I have gone ahead and amended the code such that blank values would simply result in a blank field. To display "proposed" (if not already set locally), the Wikidata value should be set to proposed building or structure (Q811683), similar to how cancelled (Q30108381) is set. This also fixed the 200+ articles that are currently displaying the wrong status. Let me know if this causes any new unforeseen problems. I will update the documentation now. Cheers, Rehman 14:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I fixed almost a hundred of them by hand, only two were complex enough that I manually added a value to the infobox. The others were fixed by adding values to Wikidata, often just copied from the local infobox, but sometimes I added more values so the infobox is now a hybrid of local and Wikidata. At its peak, the category had 366 members I think, and about 260 when I last looked. --Scott Davis Talk 21:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Power net or gross capacity

Thermal power units have a gross capacity that may be the same as the nameplate capacity of the electrical generator unit, but the rated output of the complete unit (from coal or fuel processing to the power transformers) to the electrical grid is invariably less than the generator nameplate capacity, because all the components of the thermal unit also use power, withdrawn from the gross capacity. The nameplate capacity of the thermal unit, also net capacity, is what is sent to the grid. That may be confusing to some editors. The difference may be substantial, at the extreme case, we may have a 800 MW gross capacity, but the processing stages consumes so much energy, that they leave only 618 MW net power to the grid. Often production data is given as net (what the grid gets), so to calculate the correct capacity factor we need the net capacity of the plant, as it is in the documentation. But the documentation is unclear about the planned, under construction, cancelled, decommissioned, operational units. Editors add the capacity after the number (as in 2 x 1050 MW). I would suggest that it is to be the gross capacity. The gross capacity changes very little from the planning to the operational stage, so per consistence, gross capacity may be better were units are counted. --Robertiki (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the warning message

I have fixed the warning message to ignore |location_map=no and provide a correct warning message (rather than suggesting that you replace |location_map= with |none=). Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Rehman 08:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Overriding turbine height for a particular wind farm

Good evening. Warradarge Wind Farm is under construction using V136-3.45 MW (Q71812982) turbines on 84m towers. I seem to have been able to specify the correct power rating by adding nominal power capacity (P2109) as a qualifier on powered by (P516), but the hub height doesn't seem to override the default 93m for that model - and I've now put it in three different places!! My question is here rather than at wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Energy as I think it is a problem with the English Wikipedia infobox, but I'm happy to repost to Wikidata if that turns out to be more appropriate. --Scott Davis Talk 12:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, Scott. Am I correct in assuming that Warradarge Wind Farm uses customised towers (which are of non-standard heights)? If so, I feel the correct way to go about this on English Wikipedia would be to use the local parameter |wind_hub_height=.
But looking at the bigger picture, since related articles on all Wikipedias should display 84m as height, this is something that we should discuss on Wikidata. It's a bit tricky since, if we are to create overrides for one parameter (i.e. height), why not for others? It may be a good idea to post on the Wikidata Village Pump to see what more experienced Wikidata folks think about this problem, and simply post a note about that discussion on the WikiProject Energy talkpage to alert members. Cheers, Rehman 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this is 2m more than the shortest of seven available standard heights. I don't know if that is a reporting error or a non-standard height. The brochure says tower hub heights of 82m, 105m, 112m, 132m, 142m, 149m and 166m. (page 15, V136-3.45 MW IEC IIB/IECIIIA Facts and Figures). I seemed to be able to set the power rating using a qualifier, but not the tower height either as a qualifier or a property of the wind farm. --Scott Davis Talk 21:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove wind turbine related parameters?

I've contemplated about this issue for longer than I had planned. From what I see, I think we should either remove the 3 parameters (wind_hub_height, wind_rotor_diameter, wind_rated_speed) entirely from the infobox, or disable wikidata for those. As wind turbine models have:

  1. Variable tower heights, sometimes over 5 different variations
  2. Variable blade lengths
  3. And thus, variable rated wind speeds
  4. While individual wind farms also have modified models that doesn't match the above standards.

From what I understand, it is nearly impossible to:

  • Save this data on a wind turbine Q-item in a meaningful format (i.e. we can save min and max heights, but how do we set 6 different heights)
  • Fetch this data in a meaningful way for local wikidata-based infoboxes
  • And in cases such as Warradarge, have a way to override at windfarm-level if a wind farm uses a modified turbine height, etc.

Comments welcome. I also vaguely recall a very old proposal to remove these parameters, as they are not power station related but more of gen unit related, but I cannot find that thread (I opposed that back then). Disclaimer: these parameter were added by me about 10 years ago. Approx usages (contains errors) are as follows:

  • wind_hub_height: 121 articles
  • wind_rotor_diameter: 122 articles
  • wind_rated_speed: 30 articles

Pings to editors who worked here: User:ScottDavis, User:Frietjes, User:Robertiki, User:Garzfoth, User:Beagel, User:Ita140188. Kind regards, Rehman 14:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Being gen unit related I would say that rotor diameter and speed rating should be placed in a linked unit description article. But hub-height may be locally related, like elevation. --Robertiki (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I support removing parameters specific to wind turbines. We can just link the wind turbine model used. I am not sure how much the hub-height can change in different installations, but it may not be relevant enough in most cases. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
If relevant, hub height may be given in article body, so let it go with the wind ... --Robertiki (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As there were no objections on removing the parameters, I went ahead and removed wind_hub_height, wind_rotor_diameter, and wind_rated_speed. Rehman 09:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the back and forth, and if I wasted some of your time. Soon after removing it, I somehow figured out a way through this without removal. User:ScottDavis, would you be able to see if the new override methods help? I've updated the template and doc pages. This works at Wikidata-level, so other infobox on other Wikipedias would also be able to show the correct figures. Rehman 08:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Syntax choice for "website" field

The syntax used in the template for the "website" field is currently: [{{{website}}} ] which leads to awkward results like in this article: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Other "building" infoboxes just use {{{website}}} which I think might work better and would be more consistent. The template Template:Official_website supports a "name" parameter, so that might be the way to format the link as the editor of that article presumably intended. 51.6.245.47 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. It seems to be an issue at Module:WikidataIB. Let me also ask there. Cheers, Rehman 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Resolved. Rehman 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Should average stack height be added for thermal power stations?

According to https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074702 this is important for Space-based measurements of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Low interest. Place in article body, when available. Would prefer not to bloat the Infobox. --Robertiki (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations on Wikidata not showing in infobox

Is it possible to show the references from Wikidata in the infobox e.g. on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kangal_power_station&oldid=969590015 they are not showing up? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Do any infobox templates do this currently? I'm not sure if we have helper methods for this in Module:WikidataIB but we do have the data, so this could be done (technically speaking) if it's not already possible. Also pinging @RexxS ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: It's perfectly possible to retrieve references from Wikidata, and Module:Wd will do that for you: {{#invoke:wd|references|P729}}, for example (for service entry (P729)). However, there is a problem with how you intend to display the references. I haven't implemented references in Module:WikidataIB because there's no way of knowing what the style of references is for each article, and MOS:CITEVAR requires the references to match the existing style. If that problem ever gets solved, I'd be happy to implement the solution in WikidataIB. For now, it's usual for infoboxes (like the rest of the lead) to not contain references because the corresponding content in the body of the article will be referenced. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and RexxS: Thanks for explaining. The problem with structured data references being in articles (for example installed capacity of a power station) is that I would have to put the reference manually in every article which uses that data. Whereas with Wikidata I only have to reference each piece of data once. How about displaying references in the most common (or easiest for you to code) style as a default for this infobox, with an option to not display them at all? Or if that is likely to be controversial would it be possible to give me an option to display them for this infobox? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: I think that is incorrect. According to MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of an infobox is to summarize and not supplant key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). That means all information in the infobox should be included also in the body of the article. And if included in the body text, you have to add the reference any way while usually it is not necessary to have references at the infobox as RexxS already explained. Beagel (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: An interesting point but pedantically I quote that the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject" rather than of the text on the page itself. So I don't think that it is mandatory to have everything in the infobox duplicated in the article. Having said that you are right that some info in the box should generally be further explained in the article. For example the info that Şırnak Silopi power station burns gilsonite is sufficiently unusual to deserve some explanation in the article body. Or a power station with installed capacity quantified as 50MW in the infobox could be described as a "small power station" in the text. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: "I don't think that it is mandatory to have everything in the infobox duplicated in the article - that is not the case. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states the principle an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored. It does suggest that exceptions may exist for "a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text", but of the two example exceptions quoted, one of them no longer applies as ICD codes no longer appear in medical infoboxes. If each of the statements in the power station article's infobox is a "key fact", I can't see any reason why they should not be covered (and properly referenced) in the article body.
More importantly, if you examine the Wikidata entry for your example, Şırnak Silopi power station (Q85817274), the four references given are bare urls, which I can't turn into acceptable citations using Lua. --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. The reason I don't wish to reference everything in the article body is that there are 50 Turkish coal-fired power stations. Say 5 pieces of data need refs for each station, that is 250 refs if the referencing is done on Wikidata. But if the refs are done in the articles then that is 250 refs for the English list and 250 for the Turkish list. Say 20 of those power stations are important enough to have individual articles then we add 100 English refs and 100 Turkish and a few more for the already existing German and Norwegian articles. I doubt if I would ever get through writing so many refs and even if I did who would keep them up to date (e.g. owner cite as power stations are being bought and sold nowadays) once I was unable to edit. Although I am lucky enough to be healthy at the moment, probably some of the power stations are going to last longer than I am (Turkish govt claims 35 years operating for the next one they plan to build!) so I want to leave the info in an easily maintainable state. I am going through gradually adding info and refs but I am a bit of a novice with Wikidata so have only used the bare url reference format so far. I guess as most of my refs will be non-notable websites I need to study https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources#Web_page Unless you already know exactly how such sources should be specified on Wikidata and wish to dictate the format to me I will come back to you once I think I understand it and have got something on Şırnak Silopi power station (Q85817274) as an example for you to check.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: we have a number of automated tools and dedicated scripts such as Wikipedia:Refill that can convert Wikipedia:Bare URLs into full templated citations, and some users such as Boghog who specialise in making those sort of helpful improvements. You don't need to worry too much about providing a minimal reference in the text, because another editor (or bot) will upgrade it for you until you feel comfortable adding full citations yourself. It's always far, far better than having no sources for the content. We have a script-based solution to inserting a full citation given just the url from the editing toolbar: check Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Cite for a tutorial.
Unfortunately, if I provide the bare url from Wikidata, none of those techniques can currently help change that into a good, full templated citation. Maybe one day, I'll have access to those scripts from within Lua, but we don't have that yet. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I will ponder this and probably ask Boghog for their opinion once I have looked into what you are saying.Chidgk1 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Hello, I request the rendered term for the parameter th_technology be changed from "Turbine technology" to "Engine technology" or "Heat engine technology", in order to be more inclusive. While the vast majority of notable thermal power stations use turbines, there are exceptions, such as a number of notable power stations using Diesel-cycle engines. These articles typically ignore the th_technology parameter and just state their fuel type (th_fuel) as Diesel fuel, though this may not be an acceptable work-around, as there are even some turbine power stations that are fired (at least partially) with Diesel fuel. Also, some very early power stations used reciprocating steam engines, and there are doubtlessly more engine types used in very small quantities.

This change would be very easy to make, would be backwards-compatible with all existing applications, would eliminate ambiguity as to how certain power stations operate (particularly those using Diesel fuel), and would generally increase flexibility. Grant Exploit (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Template disabled until consensus is reached on what term to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Grant Exploit: Sorry for the late reply. This is a good point, and I actually overlooked this when building this template (as I didn't know the difference between a gas turbine and a diesel engine). I can change the label to "Engine technology". Just to be clear and to avoid missing anything on the Wikidata side, could you confirm the other options that could go in this field, apart from gas turbine (Q193470) and steam turbine (Q189859) please? Thanks, Rehman 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Per definition a Thermal Power Station has a turbine. What is asked is a Diesel Power Station entry. There is too little in common to place a diesel engine together with a turbine. --Robertiki (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robertiki: "A thermal power station is a power station in which heat energy is converted to electric power." (from Thermal power station). Reciprocating engines have a long and quite substantial history in generating power, and while it's true that only a fairly small portion of large-scale power generation is done using reciprocating engines nowadays (especially so for diesel reciprocating engines), their use has actually been increasing substantially and increasingly rapidly over the course of more than a decade now, as reciprocating engines fueled primarily by cheap natural gas are absolutely stellar at handling very rapid peaking power demands. Adoption of these has been particularly strong in areas with very high levels of intermittent renewable power generation (e.g. California). The primary/dominant manufacturer of these types of natural gas fueled reciprocating engines seems to be Wärtsilä.
The infobox badly needs to be changed. I don't know that "Engine technology" is the most appropriate option — I was thinking just "Technology" would do the best job of minimizing/avoiding a misleading and confusing bias towards any particular specific type of heat engine... But "Engine technology" is probably my second pick. Garzfoth (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Status bug?

Emba Hunutlu power station is showing as operational even though in wikidata I have set "state of use" to "under construction" Chidgk1 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1, it seems like Emba Hunutlu power station (Q63656905) wasn't set as per Template:Infobox power station#Parameters. I went ahead and amended it. Cheers. Rehman 04:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rehman: In Template:Infobox power station#Parameters it says: "To set the status to Proposed, set state of use (P5817) as proposed building or structure (Q811683). But Afşin-Elbistan C power station is showing a status of "operational" in the infobox. Can you advise me? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Chidgk1. I did some amendments. Is that better? Rehman 12:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template not displaying certain statistics

I just made the Cherry Tree Wind Farm page and the infobox is not showing "Number of active units with capacities" or "Active unit's manufacturer and model" even though they are present in the values for the box.

Can't see what would be stopping it.

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, DiamondIIIXX. It is strange. RexxS, would you know if this is caused by a bug in Module:Infobox power station? Since this is a new article that does not have a Wikidata entry (yet), I could only guess that this is caused by a Wikidata-related bug at the module. Rehman 03:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem rendering official website from wikidata

Screengrab of error

I have not edited powerstation articles for a while, but I added Badgingarra Wind Farm last night, with the corresponding Badgingarra wind farm (Q104637674) for the farm and Siemens SWT-3.6-130 (Q104638239) for the turbines. I think the result is quite good, except that there seems to be some stray HTML markup displayed after the website and I can't see where it comes from. --Scott Davis Talk 00:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: The infobox is using the old call to WikidataIB|url2 which has been replaced by a call to Module:URL|url2, and that uses the Template:URL2 to simplify the markup. For some reason, the infobox is expecting multiple values for official website (P856) and pushing them through the {{unbulleted list}} template. That won't process properly in the old call and you're left with some stray list markup.
The value: {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|1=P856|qid=Q104637674|fwd=ALL|osd=n|sorted=true|noicon=true|list=ubl}} →
The call used in the infobox: {{#invoke:WikidataIB|url2|url={{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|1=P856|qid=Q104637674|fwd=ALL|osd=n|sorted=true|noicon=true|list=ubl}}}} →
www.apa.com.au/our-services/other-energy-services/wind--solar-farms/badgingarra-wind-farm/</li></ul></div> 
The code that would work better: {{URL2|{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|1=P856|qid=Q104637674|fwd=ALL|osd=n|sorted=true|noicon=true|list=ubl}}}} →
[https://www.apa.com.au/our-services/other-energy-services/wind--solar-farms/badgingarra-wind-farm/ www.apa.com.au/our-services/other-energy-services/wind--solar-farms/badgingarra-wind-farm/]
Code to make sure no problems will occur by only taking one value for the official website: {{URL2|{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|1=P856|qid=Q104637674|fwd=ALL|osd=n|noicon=true|maxvals=1}}}} →
www.apa.com.au/our-services/other-energy-services/wind--solar-farms/badgingarra-wind-farm/
I've put a fix into Template:Infobox power station and Badgingarra Wind Farm now displays the official website properly. @Rehman: just to let you know I've disabled multiple official websites: if that causes problems, please let me know and I'll look for another fix. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for a prompt and effective response RexxS. The website renders properly from Wikidata even though another editor has copied most of the other values from Wikidata to be directly in the article. --Scott Davis Talk 07:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Valid parameter check

|location_map= is deprecated but the special case of |location_map=NO is used to suppress the OSM map. This is still getting flagged as an error (Category:Pages using infobox power station with deprecated parameters). See Blackburn Meadows Power Station. Frietjes ? MB 16:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

now fixed, some code was using no and other was using NO but now both work the same. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Full syntax skeleton

The full syntax was recently added to the template documentation. By my understanding, it was avoided on purpose to encourage usage of specific-type skeletons for avoiding messing-up with inapropriate parameters for specific-type power stations. Should we remove the full syntax skeleton infobox from the documentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beagel (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs wholesale removal, but given that there are type-specific parameter groups (with examples) I think moving #Full Syntax to the bottom of the #Standard usage section and then putting it in {{cot}} or similar (with a note saying something along the lines of "this is the full syntax for reference, but please use type-specific syntax") would be reasonable. Speaking as someone who does a lot of template mergers, having a full syntax is a life-saver in many cases. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Average 5 year generation data qualifier in Wikidata

Should we have a "average 5 year generation" data qualifier for Wikidata "annual energy output" statement in Wikipedia ? I have just set the values for Dukovany and Temelín power plants. And was wondering what would other wiki's editors do comparing the data with referenced source and not knowing how it was calculated. And besides, once capacity and generation data are in place, should we calculate automatically the capacity factor, placing a qualifier stating that it was automatically generated ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Link Open Infrastructure Map

{{Coord}} links GeoHack which includes dozens of options, and OpenStreetMap has everything if you know how to use it, but the only really usable maps for power stations tend to be those at https://openinframap.org/ . Can we link it directly, from below the coord call maybe?

I was about to add an external link from Bulgana Green Power Hub because there's little point trying to describe in words what you can see at https://openinframap.org/#10.65/-37.1469/143.1222 about other wind farms and grid connections, but it feels silly to do this separately on all articles. Nemo 10:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated params?

Can anyone shed any light onto Category:Pages using infobox power station with deprecated parameters? How can/should these parms be removed/fixed? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on this discussion it sounds like because |location_map= was being used incorrectly, it was disabled except for in cases where it was being used to turn off the map (i.g. |location_map=no). I honestly do not see a reason why the two image size parameters are deprecated, because there is usually no reason to force a specific size of an image.
As far as "what to do about it", I think it's simply removing the parameter (if the value is not "no") and making sure there is a map showing. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like an easy enough fix. I'm on it!! -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Can the decommission date be used for a planned decommissions?

I have been working on the Te Rapa cogeneration and wondered if the decommission date field can be used for planned decommissions, like what is happing at that plant. CoderThomasB (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not. My main concern would be (to use your page as an example) if the decommission date is July 2023 and it doesn't get decommissioned by that point, the article will be out of scope with reality. I do suppose you could do "July 2023 (planned)" or similar, though. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Green tickY Ok, I have edited the article to add "July 2023 (planned)" as the decommission date. CoderThomasB (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please could the carbon footprint be picked up from Wikidata

For example Kalisindh Thermal Power Station

Obviously there will be lots more at https://places.climatetrace.org/ very soon

Is this something I can easily change myself or could someone with template experience add the carbon footprint please? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There are many human activities that have a carbon footprint. Maybe a new template Infobox carbon footprint could be interesting. Any comments ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Carbon footprint is probably the single most important piece of information for a power station, so yes, I agree it should be included if we have the data available on Wikidata. Nemo 10:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nemo I have never edited a template but if no one else is going to do it I will look into how to add it myself. Any tips welcome Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Any tips welcome - sandbox it first to make sure it works properly on the /testcases page. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of json map data

I'd like to add detail to the underlying basemap using json map data, similar to -Hbf878's request. However instead of lakes, I'm looking to add demolished buildings. As an example, see Croydon Power Stations. The detail appears at higher zoom / magnification levels. It would be nice if this could be made available in the existing template, but I appreciate this may have limited appeal, or be incompatible with the current template. Possibly the simplest solution would be to expose image3 so it can be overriden by article editors wanting to add detail. However it might be more user friendly to replace {{Infobox mapframe}} with something like {{maplink|frame=yes|plain=yes|frame-align=center|shape-inverse = {{{location_map_geomask|}}}|type=point|marker = industrial|coord = {{{Coordinates|}}}|type2 = data|from2 = {{{newOverlayMapParam|}}}|zoom={{#if:{{{location_map_geomask|}}}|{{{location_map_zoom|}}}|{{{location_map_zoom|5}}}}}}}

I appreciate this may not be backward compatible and that adding conditions (if {{{newOverlayParam|}}} then {{maplink}} else {{infobox mapframe}}) would be messy and it may be more appropriate to develop a new template. The hack in the demo suppresses the template's location map by using an incorrect qid, which I feel is unacceptable. OldCroydonian (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry messed up on the demo link. I was trying to point to Croydon power stations - Wikipedia OldCroydonian (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_power_station/Archive_3&oldid=1215028135"