Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster

200 meters of concrete?
Are we sure that "200 meters (660 ft) of concrete was placed between the disaster site and the operational buildings", as it says in the intro? That is the width of the base of the Hoover Dam which, at the risk of understatement, took a few years to build. A structure of that size would occupy about half of the power station compound, and there is no such huge object visible on Google's satellite view. There is a sand-coloured wall around the site that looks about 4 metres thick - is that what is being referred to? --Heron (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That struck me as improbable, too, but I just glanced over it and didn't think about just how improbable it was until your comparison, above.
 * That particular datum was added in 2005, with no citation of course, from a 3-edit IP. Perhaps it was meant to be 200 cubic meters of concrete?--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking sbout it some more: in the US, we actually do often refer to "yards of concrete" as a measure of volume, which is really of course cubic yards. Is the same kind of thing commonly done where people use less rustic units of measurement?--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and, since I did find instances where "meters of concrete" was used as equivalent to "cubic meters of concrete," I went ahead and changed the 2005 uncited/untagged statement to a clearer 2011 uncited/tagged statement.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Outline needs overhaul
This page seems to have gathered some good material, but it's time for it to be put in a logical order. I suggest shuffling the paragraphs into a structure something like this:

0. The disaster and decommissioning 1. 1987 to present 2. Present: 2a. Sarcophagus 2b. Waste management 2c. Wildlife 2c(1). Biological studies 2c(2). Declared sanctuary 3. Future outlook 3a. DSSS 3b. Waste management 3c. Possible recovery

Wegesrand (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed mergers (and subsequent deletion of this page)
This page contains some very good, well cited material but it is collected in what seems to be a redundant page.

Very few other pages link here, whilst pages like Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the sarcophagus the Zone and the effects are more commonly linked to.

This page currently covers the remainder of the fuel, biological effects, wildlife and wildfires; these are not an obviously coherent set of issues to collect together. It makes more sense to move this information to pages that are more commonly linked to, and where they more clearly fit the subject matter.

Also, Chernobyl is an ambiguous name: It might refer to the city, the power plant or the Chernobyl Zone of Exclusion. As it stands this page does not cover enough to provide a full overview, and the good stuff it does include might be better placed elsewhere.

I suggest:
 * Material on the sarcophagus' condition be moved to the page on the sarchopagus
 * Material on the remains within the power plant to be moved to the page on the power plant
 * Material on the wildlife and fires in the Zone to be moved to the Zone (the page on the effects more broadly covers the biological effects, but the studies used here specifically refer to the Zone)
 * Then delete this page and edit the very few links that go to here. Or replace this page with a disambiguation

Comment, opinions, suggestsions? Or anyone set against me doing this? --Cooper42 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Chernobyl after the disaster is cumbersome article, esentially repeating Chernobyl disaster effects, and should be merged into sarchophagus article among others. The remaining info could be scatterred throughout other relevant articles. Brand meister talk  22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

. Is this a useful page to be built upon, or is it better split and merged with other articles? Such as added to the disaster page, akin to something like Hurricane_Katrina--Cooper42 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Cooper-42 and Brandmeister. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  19:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Brandmeister. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 02:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, most of the stuff here would fit in Chernobyl disaster effects. I don't see a reason to have both these pages, too much overlap. I agree about the ambiguity of this title too... before reading I thought it must be about the city.  Phnom Pencil  talk contribs 03:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge It doesn't help to split things off so much they get lost. And I, too, thought it would be about the city. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Cooper: Make sure the wildlife material is placed in a logical spot.Factseducado (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

DONE See copied templates above -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)