Template talk:Infobox power station/Archive 1

Changes
Anybody who knows how to make the template look and work better is welcome to change the template. However, I think that we should keep the template relatively simple and not go crazy with the addition of fields. This is just my opinion. I have no special authority just because I created the template. -- Kjkolb (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template test


This template seems to have some problems.imars (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Map
It would be a big improvement if this template can support a pushpin map, in addition to the image. Dont you think? Regards. Rehman(+) 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also missing Cost (cost of construction). And it would also be good if the locale can be divided into Country and Location (+ the pushpin map and entry for coordinates as mentioned) similar to that of Infobox dam. Regards. Rehman(+) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, the location map is on the left side of the box, even though the code says |float=center. Any idea what to change? —WWoods (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox power station
Editor responsible for the creation of this template; would you have some extra time to look into Infobox Power Station too? That infobox is in need of touch-ups: It would be a really great improvement if this can be done. Best regards. Rehman(+) 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Enabling the display of coords within the infobox
 * An "As at..." slot, just like this template
 * Separation of "Location" and "Country"
 * Everything in the "Other details" section of this template
 * ...and other minor elements such as "Generators", etc.
 * For coordinates, the coordinates template should have 'inline' specification. I added it to the model in the skeleton template. There are also new fields for the country and the city (town, suburb), so it is possible to vary different options. We already have a field for turbines and I don't see why we should have in addition to this generators field. As of your other proposal, please specify exactly what and where you would like to add. Regards, Beagel (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Beagel. Firstly, excellent work on adding the fields. My apologies for posting it there, i thought this template was no longer watched by anyone; thanks for copying it here. As for the suggestions, some would be: 1). Adding the "As as..." slot like the NPP template. 2). Adding fields similar to the "Other details" section of NPP. 3). Constructions-start slot. 4). Construction-end slot (or, could be used as "Commissioned" instead). 5). Removing "pumped storage" slot (as hydros wont use this template; Template:Infobox dam). 6). "Cost" column for adding cost of development. That would be pretty much about it . Regards. Rehman(+) 09:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Turbines"
Currently, the 19th entry is titled "turbines". I think it would be better to rename it to "Units"; it would sound more universal and avoids confusion. Just a suggestion. Rehman(+) 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Performance & Efficiency"
I'm interested in adding fields enabling the calculation of plant efficiency. As far as I can tell, this may require the addition of one field, which we could call "ratedFuelInput". Does anyone have ideas if there are better ways of describing this, or better ways of achieving this calculation through information on the infoboxes? Also, for cogeneration, this would require additional fields on the heat quality (pressure and temperature) and the heat output rate. Mr3641 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I agree that this template is need of numerous updates. Please see the above suggestions too if you can. Thanks and good luck. Regards. Rehman(+) 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Infobox UK power station
has been nominated for merging with {{Tld|Infobox power station}]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Result was merge. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplication
The duplicate "Fuel" rows (4&5) should be merged, using conditional statements. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Go forward. Beagel (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. It also looks like we have lots of duplicate County rows, and some old fields from the UK box were never merged.  If I had a list of fields from the old UK box, I could try to help make the merger a bit more complete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  15:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a list but this version of this template is actually the last version of the old UK infobox. The documentation is for this template, so please look the code not documentation. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger
Hi. I have earlier opposed to an unofficial merge proposal by put forward to merge Infobox wind farm and Infobox nuclear power station, in an attempt to create a single large power station infobox template containing all the needed parameters (and special params) for all types power stations.

I am now very much interested in performing the merge; I actually did not fully understand the whole idea behind the merge proposal. I understand that current situations may not allow the merge to be carried out immediately, thus I would like to create a temporary template to work on the merge. And then upon proper consensus, history merge the temporary template into Infobox power station.

Please share your comments on this. Thanks. Rehman(+) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the reactor/turbine/wind farm information can be merged into one template. A proper discussion should take place at WP:TFD though.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, it may be taken to TFD. But this just an "unofficial" discussion on the consequences of merging, continued from the talkpage of Infobox wind farm; I do not propose the merge myself. Some may consider not taking to TFD as this is purely related to this infobox and WP:Energy, and thus can be easily solved within these areas itself. ;) Rehman(+) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned problems with merging power station and UK power station infoboxes, the main issue was that there was no expert to combine different templates codes. It is fantastic that you are volunteering take a care this time. The main idea of merging these templates is to have an unified layout and easier maintenance (if any general field is needed to be changed, you have to make only one change instead of changing all templates). As of content, I think that Rehman made very good additions when creating Infobox wind farm. I think that probably we need also specific fields for solar power plants and wave/tidal plants. Beagel (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice words Beagel :) I have already added extra fields for solar/tidal etc in the new infobox at Infobox power station (temp), but it still needs touchups... If you need any help with infoboxes, I would be glad to help! Rehman(+) 03:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New infobox ready
The new infobox seems ready for deployment in articlespace. For now, you may find the new infobox here. Do note that I have included the parameters of the old infobox in the new one, so if we do replace the current one with this, we don't need to go on an info-boxing rampage to update all articles with the old infobox. You may test this by replacing the  header in any power station article with. Do let me know what you think; suggestions, comments, ect, and if you feel that it is good enough to be replaced soon. Thanks! Rehman(+) 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work, I have some suggestions to prepare later.
 * Principal question; should references go in the infobox, or should infobox rely on refs in the article text? TGCP (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! Generally, references are better off in the main article text, mainly for visual reasons. But there is no strong rule on that... Rehman(+) 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we wait until this replaces the current one before using it out in the mainspace? Once it is used in an article, the "temp" template page will have to stick around. If eventually you merge it into the one here, the temp will have to be deleted.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. This "temp" template should not be used in any articles until it is history merged (upon consensus) into the current template. So basically, if everyone is ok with this new template, there will never be any "temp" template, just the current infobox. Rehman(+) 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For good measure, we can copy the "Take care" box on top of Template:Infobox aircraft type and the test box at the bottom. Also we could copy the nested structure of aircraft infoboxes as there are some similarities - that is the example I am trying to make below. TGCP (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So, shall I move on with deploying the new template? Rehman(+) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many power station articles to use infobox in, so we should give the new infobox time to develop - at least a few weeks. I only stumbled upon it recently, and other editors could be in the same situation. First, we should make a few test cases like I have done; I noticed that Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station loses data when using the new template, see User:TGCP/palo, while Nysted works well: User:TGCP/nysted TGCP (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About the layout; I like the small font that provides more info per pixel area. The consolidation of different infoboxes is good for consistency as long as details are also shown.
 * For keeping my beer cool, I don't care if the black box behind the power lines is a 90 TeraWatt fusion reactor or a Cuckoo clock; what matters is the 3 most important aspects of a power station (in my opinion) : where it is, what it costs, how much power it produces. All else is subordinate to this.
 * First area of infobox should show aspects common to all power stations in this order :
 * low picture
 * capacity
 * production (average annual, or range min-max) (status instead of production if not generating)
 * cost
 * Commissioned
 * owner (max. 2)
 * coordinates
 * map


 * ..Coords/map could be near top as well.
 * ..I admit that type of plant or fuel could also be notable at the top.


 * Next area :
 * plant type
 * fuel
 * machinery
 * etc..


 * I will try to make a few examples to show, in a few days. TGCP (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it ;) Will start working on the Palo Verde issue, and will see what I can do on the above. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Done with the fixes. Looks ok? Still working on the centering the "As of" and "Website" to support all types of plants; have no idea how to do that... Rehman(+) 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Done with the "as of" and the "website" fixes. Rehman(+) 02:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, I think its now good to be deployed. With the help of I managed to put the final pieces in to support the merge with the nuclear infobox, and all seems ok. Any smaller tweaks/changes can be done even after the merge, as the part to support the merger is complete. If no one opposes, I will proceed with the history merge soon; putting the temp template into this. And redirecting the nuclear infobox to this after that. Rehman(+) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have several ideas for different layout and changes, but have not had time to show them. These proposals are better handled before rather than after merge. If there is no rush to implement new template, I request postponement. TGCP (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem ;) Just thought of getting this over with. Looking forward for your proposals. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 09:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This source code is complicated - are there any tools to work with? TGCP (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure; I haven't used any so far... Rehman(+) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Spreadsheets are much easier to use when experimenting, so I made an example text layout here: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?762hla0bg2gby27 using OpenOffice.org Calc. It is similar to the template I mentioned above. The priority is brevity and overview, with the most notable items at the top, and less notable details to be put below top. Actual example is much harder to show, but I will try. TGCP (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding turning this template into something like Infobox aircraft type, which you mentioned above, I have two concerns. First is that, well, I have absolutely no clue how to turn this into something like that. ;) No even sure if doing such a thing would support the merge (as other articles would still use the same altered template syntax).
 * My second concern, which somewhat makes me want to oppose this change, is that it will be an unnecessary complexity-addon for editors who use the current template. As even the merged template is quite simple, unlike the aircraft template, where there exist numerous different fields for aircrafts models, usage, etc.
 * For now, frankly, I oppose the "structural" change of the template. But of course, I await further inputs from users. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 11:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that layout should be simple to use - one complete template per type should be enough. I am still working on the other unrelated layout changes.
 * Regardless of internal layout, I suggest these changes and additions: Max 2 owners (link to ==Owners== section), cooling method, colors by fuel type.
 * "Cooling" could be dry, salt, fresh, grey, evaporating, district heating, desalination
 * Header background color by fuel - could be blue for wave/tidal, light blue for wind, black for coal (white text), brown for lignite and so on.
 * For example, Palo Verde would show " Owners: Arizona Public Service (29.1%), Salt River Project (17.5%), others " and " Cooling: Grey evaporating " . TGCP (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ for ownership details at template doc.
 * for ownership section linking: Majority of the articles does not have an "Owners" section. Even if they did, it would vary between "Owners", "Ownership", etc. Thus leading the link to be broken.
 * Waiting for new "Cooling method" field: Is adding this field for "Nuclear", "Solar" and "Other" sufficient? I mean, all of these are the only ones using cooling, right? ;)
 * Waiting for header colouring. Really good idea, but am stuck. I could change the individual header colours for different plant types, but, I don't think there is a way to change the main PAGENAME header for each. And not changing the header would look quite odd.
 * --Rehman(+) 02:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to sift through many articles anyway to implement new template, so adding Owners section to the few with 3+ owners is not too hard in the long run. Perhaps a Bot could make lists of conforming and non-conforming articles?
 * Colors can be defined by -fields. TGCP (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no clue how to use If for this purpose ;) Could you add it if you dont mind. Rehman(+) 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I tested this on a few of the hydroelectric power stations with no problems. I like it a lot, especially the different options to reduce clutter and a much needed map. The one field I am concerned with is "5yr_avg_annual_gen =". I don't recall seeing in the specs of any power station I have worked on, a 5 yr. average. Most of the time, the owner or operator lists an average annual generation or just an overall average. The five year may be hard to fill or require some math. So, I suggest a simple "annual_generation =". In the description chart, it can be noted that if the average is for a single year and not overall, put it in parenthesis, i.e. 5760 GWh (2008). I'd also like to nominate a certain wind farm for the first wind farm infobox.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the 5yr junk. It was inherited for Infobox nuclear power station; haven't actually thought through while adding it. ;) Thanks for pointing out. Rehman(+) 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Testing is nescessary, please go on. Some power stations have very varying annual output, such as Hoover Dam, so range min-max should also be a field, as suggested above. 5760 GWh (2008) is good. TGCP (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we have both—owner(s) and operator—fields? In case of several owners (particularly in case of wind farms or nuclear plants), only one of them is an operator or there is a special operating company. Also, e.g. in case of Ekibastuz GRES-1 the owner and operator are different companies. Beagel (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * . Rehman(+) 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to see more opinions on Rehman's excellent work here. There are several fields hidden in the old Nuclear template (some not covered by doc), Operator is one of them. New fields are easy to add.
 * I am currently building a different layout based on Rehman's, you may follow it here User:TGCP/Template:Infobox power station (temp)‎ (testing at User:TGCP/paloT) and copy to your own sandbox, but editing is intricate so I need to edit almost alone, but please offer opinions and certainly make your own template layout. TGCP (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to put in a comment to what's going on. I worked a lot on the individual nuclear power plants (worldwide) in the past, but I don't edit much any more. The nuclear power plant template has a pretty straight-forward function and I see no reason it couldn't be integrated into this template without incident. I have to come clean though, I made a fudged solution in order to copy the (beautifully made) NPP infoboxes from the German Wikipedia. I optionally accepted German names for the fields and printed labels in English. Those will obviously break unless the exceptions are programmed in which might not be worth it. Right now if I just replace Template:Infobox nuclear power station with Template:Infobox power station it doesn't print all the data without hitch. That might be because I just haven't read into the usage yet. Best of luck. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We might have a small problem there if articles use the German coding. But I doubt there would be many. Instead of having a stack of hidden code within the new template to support just a handful of articles, I suggest we put up a bot to update articles that uses the current German NPP infobox to the current NPP infobox in English. That way I don't think there will be any problem. Rehman(+) 12:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way; test (without save!) with Template:Infobox power station (temp)‎, not Template:Infobox power station as new template has not been implemented until consensus. TGCP (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The old (current) Nuclear template is well designed, but also has room for improvement, and can be merged with minor adjustments. There are not many Nuclear plants in the world, so this task should be manageable.
 * But we will need to adjust many of the hundreds (thousands?) of Power station articles to accomodate the new merged infobox, so we might as well make this infobox longlived. Better to make the effort now than to have continuous trouble for years. I suggest that everybody test the new template and read into the documentation, and compare with similar templates (use side-by-side windows). I am still working on an alternative layout, but I have little to show so far.
 * Perhaps we can attacth a clickable tag to the infobox so users can report something wrong with the way the individual articles use the infobox; that way we can implement the new infobox much quicker with less effort. TGCP (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Request: For location there are more options in use than implemented in the new template. As they are in use in some articles, that may mean loss of data. Please see the current template's code (not all parameters are included in the skeleton template!) and also fields which where used in the old UK power station infobox (the code is available here). I think that we need also parameters such as 'province/state', 'county', and all these English/Scottish specific locations. Beagel (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅: Added "country" and other field in the current infobox that are not included in the new. I have also added support for the existing regional-specific slots, but not included in the doc. Instead of different fields for each country, we may use the "locale" field. Because as far as I know, many countries have numerous different names (governorates, provinces, etc etc); adding all of them would only clutter the template. But of course, we can always debate on this. Some of the fields from the old UK box are not included in the latest versions of the current infobox; meaning they are not used anymore. Hence I have not included it in the temp. Hope I did right. Let me know of any flaws. Regards. Rehman(+) 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus on new template
Based on the above discussion, please add your current vote on the merge and change of the template. Please discuss above, and place your vote below. State whether you Support a merge now, Oppose the merge completely, or is Waiting for issues to be solved first. You may enter a short note.
 * Support as creator of the new template. I believe the necessary "structure" of the template is fit enough to support the merge. Additional fixed on styles, or new fields, can always be done after the merge, just like any other template. Rehman(+) 12:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for issues to be uncovered and solved, as they relate to structure and future use. TGCP (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe we should have also a formal WP:TFD procedure as this discussion had have a quite limited number of participants? Beagel (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Is every major kink fixed?--NortyNort (Holla) 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I know. Infrastructure is complete, just visuals and maybe new fields remain. Rehman(+) 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True, we have only a few heads here. I have requested for comments at WP:RFC, as TFD is mostly to do with deletions. Rehman(+) 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the entry at RFC and I wouldn't be confident in getting a better response. From my end, hydro, I think the template is ready to go. If any users have a specific problem, please say so. For assurance, you may want to take the infobox's from a few articles and place both of them in your sandbox for a new/old or before/after. Unless there is a major identified problem, I would bring Template:Infobox power station to WP:TFD and propose that it be merged with Template:Infobox power station (temp) and the temp deleted. That way, you get more eyes on it and it was formally replaced in a central Wikipedia area. In addition, the discussion is less likely to go stale.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, TFD discussion can be found here. Rehman(+) 11:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge complete -- Rehman(+) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Units of measure on new template documentation
Gigawatt⋅hour is a measure of energy, not power, and the documentation should be revised accordingly. Also, a conversion to the equivalent SI unit should be provided. Example: 1 GWh displays 1 GWh.

If the measure is GWh per year, that is a power, and should be converted to the watt. That unit is not supported by the convert template. To convert from GWh per year to GJ divide by the number of hours in a year. In the absence of better information, I would divide by 8766, which corresponds to a year of 365.25 days, then round to two significant figures to avoid the issue of whether a common year, leap year, or fiscal year was used in the original figure. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There a few of those quirks we are trying to fix in the new template - maybe we can report to a list page somewhere beyond this talk page? As for GWh per year, that is supposed to be annualized energy (production over an entire year) as opposed to temporary power (Nameplate capacity or average power) which is less useful as a plant descriptor. GWh per year can be a range, because some plants have very varying annual output depending on circumstances. TGCP (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all average powers, it is just that the period of averaging varies. What you call annualized energy is actually average power production over a year. Nameplate capacity would also be an average, but over some much shorter period of time. I don't know what time period is used when establishing nameplate power, but I imagine it would be in the range of a few seconds to a few minutes. Bear in mind, I am trying to make this understandable from the point of view of the person who understand enough about science to know what instantaneous and average power and energy are, but is not familiar with the jargon of the power industry. Wikipedia articles must be accessible to persons who are not indoctrinated with industry jargon. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's just that there is no common term for that amount of energy - GWh is the closest thing we have, and is used the most. Because we have nothing to relate it to, TJ is almost meaningless to most people without deep scientific knowledge, like the distance to Mars, but perhaps with enough usage that could be the new common term - the convert should be included. "Average power in year"="570 MW in 2009" could also be a good (although long) name, but does not show range. There are a lot of these challenges and compromises to discuss. I changed the GWh "power" to "energy" last week in my test here. I have found no fixed definition for Nameplate capacity, but seconds to minutes sounds right. It's good to see more opinion on this template. TGCP (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it requires deep scientific knowledge to understand TJ. The whole point of SI is that if you understand a prefix in any context (say, terabytes) and a unit in any context (say, the approximately 400 joules delivered by defibrillator), you understand the known prefix combined with the known unit]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually put what the manufacturer operator/owner gives about the plant average. Usually it is kWh, GWh and sometimes TWh. I wikilink the symbol and if a reader is interested, they can click on it and see what the joules equivalent is. This field is commonly supplied by manufacturers and we should make it easy by leaving it open and labeling it as such.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NortyNort, since there is no parameter named "plant average" I cannot evaluate your comment. Perhaps you would like to give a diff to an edit where you added the parameter you are discussing. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Average annual generation.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GWh is a common unit for describing annual generation of power plants. I strongly support NortyNort here. Of course, conversion to SI unit(s) may be added. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Average annual generation is not measured in gigawatt-hours, it is measured in gigawatt-hours per year. Therefore it is a unit of power, not energy. A conversion to the appropriate multiple of the watt should be provided. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC) corrected 05:03 UT.


 * Lets keep only annual generation (without average) with adding the year of generation. And for industry it is usually GWh (sometimes also kWh or TWh). Beagel (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Beagel's suggestion sounds reasonable, and easier to verify. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, Template:Infobox dam has the same field as well. Sometimes I have no idea what year the owner cites, so I just don't put it at all. As we know, annual generation can vary greatly.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative layout
I apologize to Rehman for the delay on my part in handling this template and associated debate. These 3 proposals have impact on layout and source code, and such different layouts require consensus and is best discussed before merger.


 * 1) I propose a somewhat different overall layout, modeled here.
 * 2) A section for steam cycle, which is common to nuclear, coal and some gas or solar stations. For example; nuclear reactors produce heat (but not electrical power), which then turns a steam cycle turbine to produce electrical power in a generator.
 * 3) Neutral (white or light) color in main header, and appropriate colors in subheaders:

Header background color by fuel - could be blue for wave/tidal, light blue for wind, yellow for solar, black for coal (white text), brown for lignite, green for biomass, and so on. Perhaps even a small symbol ? (wave, cloud, sun, atom...) TGCP (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry about box size, text size, orange header color, wrong text and missing lines - it's just a model. TGCP (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The merger at WP:TFD is just to ensure the template works, not particularly how it looks. We can change colors and move fields around once the merger is complete, if complete. The steam cycle field is one we would want to add before a merge. What data would be included in such field? Also, I like the new templates and am just concerned that if we replace the current template, some may not carry over properly. My tests have worked though.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox nuclear power station
Hi. Now that Infobox wind farm is merged into this template, and additional power plant type parameters are added, I would like move forward in merging Infobox nuclear power station into this template. Template codes are already included to support the merger (hence its now just a matter of redirecting upon consensus). Additional support parameters (such as in German, etc) are not included, as it is used by only a handful of articles (which can be replaced by bot); adding them would only clutter the main template. Rehman(+) 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. However, it seems that not all fields in use in the nuclear plant template are included in the new template. E.g. please see Fugen Nuclear Power Plant which looses most of information from the infobox. There could be others. Beagel (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC) It seems to problem with all infoboxes using Infobox NPP (redirected to the nuclear plant template). It seems they use fields not included in the documentation. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Infobox NPP was renamed all the way back in February 2008. It is more likely that only a few articles will suffer the fate as Fugen, as most would have already be updated by now, (even though some still uses it). What you do thing we should do? If you as me, I'd say to keep as it is; the current nuke box covers enough fields. And if needed, we could update the templates in each article. Rehman(+) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 106 pages seems to use Infobox NPP, 236 Infobox nuclear power station, and 138 Infobox UK power station. I don't know if this reasonable to fix manually or ask some bot for this task. Beagel (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proceeding merge: Since there were no opposes since October 15, I will now proceed in pointing that infobox to Template:Infobox power station. As for the above issue, I have now added all the support parameters that I know of; infoboxes should now show all info. If you find any support parameters that are not included, feel free to ask at Template talk:Infobox power station or my talkpage. If its a very old parameter which is used only by a few articles, consider updating the infobox instead. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 02:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK power station
Infobox UK power station redirects to this one, but the parameters as used in Torness Nuclear Power Station are not being displayed on the latter article. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a problem since the UK Infobox was merged to here a few months back. Fields such as,   doesn't provide a global view and/or are probably used only by a few articles. So I updated the article, instead of changing the template; avoiding cluttering the main template coding... Hope I did right. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What about all the other articles using the UK template? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't around these topics much when the merger took place, so I don't know what the plans were (ditch the odd fields? manually update templates? etc) during consensus. But if you ask my opinion on the UK fields, I say not to include it, per my above reason. For your question, I think what we can mostly do now is to update these articles manually. Or is it possible to give that job to a bot? Rehman(+) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Update: Looking at the original nomination, someone did propose to update the templates using automated methods; bots, which was never actually done... Rehman(+) 02:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it appears that the merger was not done properly; it should be reversed and the original template restored until such time as the job can be completed as was planned. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the merger between the "UK Infobox" and this? Rehman(+) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that the redirected (and deleted) UK infobox should be (temporarily) undeleted so that articles using it will display correctly. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; have the template back up, and then bit-by-bit update the articles to directly point at Infobox power station. Only thing is, I'm not sure how far this is possible, as apparently that template was history merged into this template some time back... Rehman(+) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what parameters aren't working? The two Rehman cited above?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There were more than those. Have a look at the old version of the Torness example, and others still using the UK template. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Only coordinate system seems still missing. Unfortunately I am not able to fix this myself. Beagel (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the following: where used 250px, this displays rather oddly in, but if altered to Didcot power station.jpg250px, it looks fine. The other parameter fixes I've needed to use are that latitude and longitude should be replaced by lat and long. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Standard infobox format
Hi. Apparently, this infobox doesn't use the standard Infobox template, which was actually inherited from Infobox dam. So, both these templates needs rewriting. I will carry out the change by this or the next week. And no, it doesn't need any more history merges and nonsense (due to the depth of edits made, a histmerge is useful compared updating in a single edit; to understand the methods used in editing and to understand and fix any problems in the future. --Rehman) ; it wont change anything except maybe the looks, I think ;) This is for your information. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 00:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently Infobox Dam doesn't use it as well. I am still trying to figure this out...and why it matters.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, waiting for technical aspects at Infobox to be corrected by an admin to complete this infobox too. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 10:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ too, voila! Now to update the documentation. Rehman(+) 15:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Depreciated parameters
To support some older parameters of merged templates, this template consists of special section after other sections. However, that means that also these fields are shown at the end of the template and not there where they logically belong. E.g. if the article uses template with fields 'country', 'region' and 'city' instead of 'country' and 'locale', it means that 'country' is shown at the beginning of the template in the general information section while region and city are used at the end of the template after technical specification. This is not the best solution. Beagel (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am currently working converting the entire template to a better coding style, per the above discussion. That would definitely solve all the remaining issues. Just waiting for technical aspects at Infobox to be corrected (which requires an admin). Kind regards. Rehman(+) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixing templates by bot?
All together, right now 1,136 pages uses Infobox power station. It is hard to say how many of them uses obsolete fields and needs update. Two weeks ago 106 pages used Infobox NPP, 236 Infobox nuclear power station, and 138 Infobox UK power station. There are problems with showing coordinates (not talking about drawing map) and showing images, it mentioning the main issues. In addition, also a number of pages using Infobox power station and Infobox Power Station uses obsolete fields. It would be a lot of work to check and update all 1,136 pages, so maybe it would be possible to sign for bot to make these conversions of fields? Beagel (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Which obsolete fields are you referring to? do they need to be removed, or re-associated with different fields?  obsolete fields are not in and of themselves a problem (the software ignores them).  -- Ludwigs 2  17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They need to be replaced by new/different fields. E.g. 'static_image' which was used by Infobox UK power station or 'Picture' used by Infobox NPP need to be replaced by 'image'; 'lat' and 'long' or 'coordinates' with the current coordinates system etc. A big issue is with different location fields which should be combined to single field 'locale' etc. There is a number of that kind of things. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The normal way of doing this is to use nested template parameters. for instance, write the code in the template as:  . That way old parameters are seamlessly included as default values of the new parameter, without a lot of overhead or fuss&bother.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, made the necessary fixes. Although, I still think we should put up a bot, just to speed up things. I did make edits like this (notice the edit summary) to most of the articles that use the old infoboxes, but I don't think that would make the change as fast as a bot would. Rehman(+) 01:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates
Something went wrong with coordinates since yesterday noon. Coordinates still create a map, but do not show in title or inline. Beagel (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a problem with the numbering. Check it now. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  06:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that would be my error in the last few edits. Thanks for fixing, Plastikspork. Rehman(+) 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the template could be set to translate decimal coordinates into degrees-minutes-&-seconds, a la Template:Geobox/legend. —WWoods (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be nice (at least to me), but I don't know how far that change would go smoothly, as different people prefer different styles, like UK and US variants of English. If that preference never existed, then we wouldn't have the decimal coords in the first place... Rehman(+) 07:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversions can be made manually at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/DDDMMSS-decimal.html . TGCP (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Header color?
Header color has been changed a few times now, and more changes are likely to follow. Perhaps we should discuss which one to use. I prefer a neutral color which is compatible with different sub-header colors by powerplant type as per Template_talk:Infobox_power_station above (light blue for wind, yellow for solar, etc). Or, if technically possible, the same color for both header and sub-headers in each category. TGCP (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that some sensible colouring should be selected. My only issue is if there is not enough contrast. I would actually prefer no colouring or a light shade of gray/grey.  However, I can see some rationale for using something else. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  16:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot updates
There is still a problem with showing 'static_image' field originating from the old UK power station infobox. Here is just one example. Beagel (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats because whoever filled the template used the full  code, which in most templates, shouldn't be used.  Reh  man  10:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is how the old infobox required the field to be filled. There a number of similar cases (less than hundred but quite close to it). Of course, over a time they will be fixed and replaced, of course, but it will take a time. This was actually one reason I proposed to request a bot to do this (not only changing the field name but also removing full code not necessary here). Beagel (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. Sorry, I thought it was "rare" and only for that page. Unfortunately, I do no know how to add support for pre-coded entries like, nor do I know how to put up a bot. I will try to surf through pages to see how to set a bot up, hopefully to update entire infoboxes.  Reh  man  11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a request at Bot Requests, hopefully someone responds.  Reh  man 13:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a problem with how "static_image" was being handled, but I agree that we should still do the bot run to translate the other parameters. In fact, I plan to run a bot through all the transclusions to get a list of all the parameters being used by the template, so we can see if we missed any. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a bot scan like that would be cool and helpful. Just a side note, do we have concensus to change  to   along with the big (future) bot update? The current style slows down a quick fill of the template by confusing the editor, as the "caption" stands out from "image" and "image_size". See the three "location_map..." for what I mean. Kind regards.  Reh  man  14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have my bot running now, gathering a list of all the fields being currently used. Once this is done, and we have a list of field translations, I can run it through a second time to perform the translation.  At this stage, I can change caption to image_caption if that is desired.  I don't think this would be controversial. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  15:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current list. I think some are fairly simply typos, but others may be left over from old versions of the redirected templates. If we can generate a translation list, I can have my bot perform the changes. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By my understanding we need following translations:


 * 1) annual_generation → average_annual_gen
 * 2) architect :  Although we don't have this field in the current template, there is no relevant field to translate, so I propose leave it as it is. Maybe it would be even worth to be added to the current template
 * 3) Architect → architect
 * 4) av_annual_gen → average_annual_gen
 * 5) BETREIBER → operator
 * 6) BETRIEBSAUFNAHME → commissioned
 * 7) BILD → image
 * 8) BILDBESCHREIBUNG → caption
 * 9) boiler_type : Although we don't have this field in the current template, there is no relevant field to translate, so I propose leave it as it is. Maybe it would be even worth to be added to current template (nuclear power stations and other power stations).
 * 10) B_Reactor and B_REAKTOR: should be combined with the reactors_const_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 11) B_Reactor_MW → reactors_const_mw
 * 12) B_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_const_mw
 * 13) BREITENGRAD → latitude - Needs updating coordinates system and location map
 * 14) BRUTTOGESAMTLEISTUNG → installed_capacity
 * 15) built → construction_began
 * 16) Built → construction_began
 * 17) capacity → installed_capacity
 * 18) Capacity → installed_capacity
 * 19) city → locale - Alternatively, leaves as it is
 * 20) closed → decommissioned
 * 21) construction → construction_began
 * 22) Construction → construction_began
 * 23) constructors : Although we don't have this field in the current template, there is no relevant field to translate, so I propose leave it as it is. Maybe it would be even worth to be added to the current template
 * 24) conveyance : was used for thermal (coal) power stations. Probably the best solution would be remove. Alternatively, leave as it is.
 * 25) cooling_water : was used for thermal power stations. Probably the best solution would be remove. Alternatively, leave as it is.
 * 26) coordinates, coordinates_, Coordinates, coords : Needs updating coordinates system and location map
 * 27) coordinates_format : obsolete, best option will be removed
 * 28) coordinates_type : Remove or leave as it is
 * 29) Cost → cost
 * 30) Country → country
 * 31) county  → locale - Alternatively, leaves as it is
 * 32) DURCHSCHNITTSEINSPEISUNG → average_annual_gen
 * 33) EIGENTÜMER → owner
 * 34) EINSPEISUNG → net_generation
 * 35) EINSPEISUNG_JAHR : year of net generation. Probably we could create a field for this
 * 36) El_Prod → net_generation
 * 37) El_Prod_avg → average_annual_gen
 * 38) employees : Probably we should recreate this field for other type of power stations. Alternatively, remove
 * 39) end → decommissioned
 * 40) End → decommissioned
 * 41) E_Reactor and E_REAKTOR : should be combined with the reactors_decom_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 42) E_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw
 * 43) E_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_decom_mw
 * 44) expires → licence_expires
 * 45) Expires → licence_expires
 * 46) for_year : year of net generation. Probably we could create a field for this
 * 47) fuel → primary_fuel
 * 48) fuel → installed_capacity
 * 49) fuel_type → primary_fuel
 * 50) generation → average_annual_gen
 * 51) generators → generation_units
 * 52) Generators → generation_units
 * 53) GESAMTEINSPEISUNG → net_generation
 * 54) HÖHE : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 55) HÖHE-BEZUG : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 56) IAEA Safeguard : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 57) image size → image_size
 * 58) irish_grid_reference : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 59) irish_name → official_name
 * 60) LAND → country
 * 61) LÄNGENGRAD → locale
 * 62) location → locale
 * 63) Location → locale
 * 64) london_borough → locale
 * 65) manx_name → locale
 * 66) max_capacity → max_planned_cap
 * 67) metropolitan_borough → locale
 * 68) metropolitan_county → locale
 * 69) mine_type : was used for thermal (coal) power stations. Probably the best solution would be remove. Alternatively, leave as it is.
 * 70) M_Reactor : should be combined with the reactors_decom_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 71) M_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw
 * 72) net_gen → net_generation
 * 73) Net_Prod → net_generation
 * 74) NRCFacInfo, nrc_region, PNRA Region : were used for US nuclear power stations with automatic categorization function. Maybe we should restore this
 * 75) offshore_dist → offshore_distance
 * 76) onshore_elev → onshore_elevation
 * 77) opened → commissioned
 * 78) os_grid_reference : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 79) ownwer → owner
 * 80) Pic_des → caption
 * 81) Picture → image
 * 82) POSKARTE → location_map
 * 83) P_Reactor : should be combined with the reactors_planned_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 84) P_Reactor_MW → reactors_planned_mw
 * 85) PROJEKTBEGINN  → construction_began
 * 86) r_active : should be combined with the reactors_operate_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 87) r_active_mw → reactors_operate_mw
 * 88) rated_speed → rated_wind_speed
 * 89) r_canceled, r_canceled_mw : Although we don't have this field in the current template, there is no relevant field to translate, so I propose leave it as it is. I also propose to add relevant field to the current template
 * 90) r_construction : should be combined with the reactors_const_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 91) r_construction_mw → reactors_const_mw
 * 92) Reactor, REAKTOR : should be combined with the reactors_operate_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 93) Reactor_MW → reactors_operate_mw
 * 94) REAKTOR_MW → reactors_operate_mw
 * 95) reciprocating_engines : was used for thermal power stations. Probably the best solution would be remove. Alternatively, leave as it is.
 * 96) region → locale
 * 97) Region → locale
 * 98) REGION-ISO : Best solution is probably to remove
 * 99) r_planned : should be combined with the reactors_planned_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 100) r_planned_mw → reactors_planned_mw
 * 101) r_shutdown : should be combined with the reactors_decom_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 102) r_shutdown_mw → reactors_decom_mw
 * 103) r_supplier → reactor_supplier
 * 104) r_type → reactor_type
 * 105) shire_county → locale
 * 106) shire_district → locale
 * 107) S_Reactor, S_REAKTOR : should be combined with the reactors_decom_mw. Leave it as it is and try to fix manually
 * 108) S_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw
 * 109) S_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_decom_mw
 * 110) STAND → as_of
 * 111) start → commissioned
 * 112) Start → commissioned
 * 113) State → locale
 * 114) static_image → image
 * 115) static_image_caption → caption
 * 116) station_name → name
 * 117) Status → status
 * 118) STILLLEGUNG → decommissioned
 * 119) Supplier → reactor_supplier
 * 120) technology : was used for thermal (coal) power stations. Probably the best solution would be remove. Alternatively, leave as it is.
 * 121) turbine_capacity → reactors_operate_mw
 * 122) turbine_height → hub_height
 * 123) turb_placement → wind_farm_type
 * 124) unitary_scotland → locale
 * 125) Utility → operator
 * 126) WEBSITE → website

Beagel (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I will convert these into bot code (perl) and get started soon. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  21:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For REGION-ISO, this is useful if someone specifies the coordinates, as it can be used to set the region parameter in the coord template (e.g., 'type:landmark_region:PE'), however we should use a different name. For coordinates_type, this is useful for setting the type in the coordinates template. For coordinates_format, this can be used to force either dec or dms formating of the coordinates. For the static_image, this will require some additional processing, since the syntax is different, and this field may be overloaded to add an additional location map. The multiple mappings to locale will require some work, to make sure these are actually merged, rather than adding multiple calls to the same field.  Other than that, I will most likely leave the ambiguous ones alone for now.  We can address those in a second pass (or by hand).  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Great work! Just wondering, I don't see the use of, as if you set in dms, it shows dms, and if you set in dec, it shows dec. So why would someone add dms and want to show ddd? Or is this more like a convert=yes type of thing?  Reh  man  00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it's a way to specify the coordinates in one format, but show another. For example, the referenced values may be in one format, but you want to display it in another format. I agree that it is somewhat trivial, especially considering that one can set one's own display format using custom CSS.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. I agree its a cool option, but I think its a little too much as each of the sub infoboxes are already too long (too much fields). And  which you created recently is also pretty redundant. If you look at my test on the footnote field, you could see what I mean. These fields unnecessarily lengthen the box, and is rarely even used by other boxes.  Reh  man  10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up after bot update
I would like to make an edit removing all the DEPRECIATED parameters from the template, as the bot update is now complete (is it?). I will do it in a few hours, please stop me if its a bad idea. Kind regards.  Reh  man 10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with this, just make sure they are truly no longer in use. If you could wait about 12 hours, I will run the bot through again and regenerate the table of parameters currently in use. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll wait ;)  Reh  man 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Field translations (first pass)
Okay, my bot has finished its first pass, and it has been pointed out that there were some glitches in this process that I need to correct. I would like to know which I need to have the bot correct, and which should be corrected in the template. Below is the list of translations that I had my bot perform in the first pass

"annual_generation → average_annual_gen", "Architect → architect", "av_annual_gen → average_annual_gen", "BETREIBER → operator", "BETRIEBSAUFNAHME → commissioned", "BILD → image", "BILDBESCHREIBUNG → image_caption", "B_REAKTOR → B_Reactor", "B_Reactor_MW → reactors_const_mw", "B_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_const_mw", "BREITENGRAD → latitude", "BRUTTOGESAMTLEISTUNG → installed_capacity", "built → construction_began", "Built → construction_began", "capacity → installed_capacity", "Capacity → installed_capacity", "caption → image_caption", "closed → decommissioned", "construction → construction_began", "Construction → construction_began", "coordinates_ → coordinates", "Coordinates → coordinates", "coords → coordinates", "Cost → cost", "Country → country", "DURCHSCHNITTSEINSPEISUNG → average_annual_gen", "EIGENTÜMER → owner", "EINSPEISUNG → net_generation", "EINSPEISUNG_JAHR → net_generation_year", "El_Prod → net_generation", "El_Prod_avg → average_annual_gen", "end → decommissioned", "End → decommissioned", "E_REAKTOR → E_Reactor", "E_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw", "E_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_decom_mw", "expires → licence_expires", "Expires → licence_expires", "for_year → net_generation_year", "fuel_type → primary_fuel", "generation → average_annual_gen", "generators → generation_units", "Generators → generation_units", "GESAMTEINSPEISUNG → net_generation", "HÖHE → elevation", "HÖHE-BEZUG → elevation_footnote", "image size → image_size", "irish_name → official_name", "LAND → country", "LÄNGENGRAD → locale", "location → locale", "Location → locale", "london_borough → locale", "manx_name → locale", "max_capacity → max_planned_cap", "metropolitan_borough → locale", "metropolitan_county → locale", "M_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw", "net_gen → net_generation", "Net_Prod → net_generation", "offshore_dist → offshore_distance", "onshore_elev → onshore_elevation", "opened → commissioned", "ownwer → owner", "Pic_des → image_caption", "Picture → image", "POSKARTE → location_map", "P_Reactor_MW → reactors_planned_mw", "PROJEKTBEGINN → construction_began", "r_active_mw → reactors_operate_mw", "rated_speed → rated_wind_speed", "r_construction_mw → reactors_const_mw", "REAKTOR → Reactor", "Reactor_MW → reactors_operate_mw", "REAKTOR_MW → reactors_operate_mw", "region → locale", "Region → locale", "REGION-ISO → coordinates_region", "r_planned_mw → reactors_planned_mw", "r_shutdown_mw → reactors_decom_mw", "r_supplier → reactor_supplier", "r_type → reactor_type", "shire_county → locale", "shire_district → locale", "S_REAKTOR → S_Reactor", "S_Reactor_MW → reactors_decom_mw", "S_REAKTOR_MW → reactors_decom_mw", "STAND → as_of", "start → commissioned", "Start → commissioned", "State → locale", "station_name → name", "Status → status", "STILLLEGUNG → decommissioned", "Supplier → reactor_supplier", "turbine_capacity → reactors_operate_mw", "turbine_height → hub_height", "turb_placement → wind_farm_type", "unitary_scotland → locale", "Utility → operator", "WEBSITE → website"

Please let me know if any of these were incorrect, and I can have the bot correct them. So far, Rehman has stated that "r_active_mw" should have been mapped to "installed_capacity" instead of "reactors_operate_mw". I have heard from Corella that there are problems with some of the "*_mw" fields, like "reactors_operate_mw" not showing "MW" to indicate that the units. I would say that if the field ends in "_mw", it would indicate that the field is a raw number, and the template should be adding the units. So, in short, can we identify which of these translations (if any) need to be fixed by my bot? For example, do I need to reverse the conversion of "r_active_mw", and/or are there others that I need to reverse? Once this is sorted out, I am happy to assist with converting others. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The bot is only renaming and not combining at the moment so IMHO Template fix is the best way to get MW units and descriptive names back on the labels. My simple fix was to add (MW) to the labels themselves - not very good. The not so simple fix is indeed to use template to auto-add units after the data field instead of adding  to the labels in the Template - this would require an integer test since I suspect some of the data already has units and don't want things like 1000 MW  . However if there is a plan for combining the data so it shows up like at Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant II, that is bot work - (that could be a nightmare to implement in a bot, for one thing the total installed capacities would have to be divided by number of reactors, etc.). [EDIT]Thinking further about that, this option faces problems since many plants have individual reactors of varying capacities.
 * If nothing can be done suggest reverting and blanking the depreciated parameters. While there will be some loss the information is nearly always duplicated in the articles. Corella (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have much choice. Now that the bot has translated all old parameters to the new parameters, translating all the new parameters to anything else would break the correctly-filled articles that currently used the new parameters. All I can think of now is to blank the "depreciated" parameters (as Corella suggested), and let things fix itself manually. Hopefully the update didn't go that bad and only a few articles ended up in this situation. Are you guys ok if I start removing the depreciated params (since now, none uses those, just wrongfully filled in the "new" parameters)?  Reh  man 03:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it, better though if the bot reverts then cleans the articles themselves. Cruft buildup etc. [EDIT] In fact blanking the old template parameters won't touch anything now since the labels have been renamed in the articles. Corella (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Better way, don't revert, instead get the bot to test whether the new fields are strings or just integers. If they are simple integers, delete them. That would fix the "no MW" problem without a revert. Corella (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just tell me what to do and I can code it up. I can check for integer only values. I can add units to integer only values, or remove the fields completely. I can also try to rollback prior field translations if necessary. By the way, here is the latest list of fields which are currently being used with usage counts. If you want to know which articles are using particular parameters, we can set up a tracking category. There are some fields which are being used repeatedly in the same template (e.g., locale), which I am going to start cleaning up now. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats a very interesting list. One of the things I worry about in terms of nuclear is how many general nuclear reactors (there are a lot of non-power reactors) are now using the Template:Infobox Power Plant Template. And how to find them. You can see theres heaps of reactor-specific stuff in there. As for opinion, I prefer, in order: Template fix (test if integer, append MW if necessary), -Template fix (rename labels), -Bot sweep to find any integers then delete them. If, of course the first Template fix is even possible like that, and not sure it is. Corella (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to put a selective Template fix into place as it seems to be possible according to the parser docs. It won't be quite right but close - hopefully will read as "Reactors decommissioned: 1080MW capacity" for the borked ones and no change for the new style ones. Test on integer and substitute in. This may fail. Corella (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Plastikspork, I think was nearly there with wraps but your complicated thing is good. The numbers of individual reactors (S_Reactor, Reactor, etc.) are lost but at least there is no insane figures showing anymore. Also a note to everyone: reactors_cancel_mw (changed once) was added in case of future reassignment. [EDIT]Corella (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be a standard parser function, but until then, there is complicated stuff like what I wrote, or you can just use something like if number, which works pretty well. I am always a bit nervous about adding to the transclusion depth, which is why I didn't just use that. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this table helps a lot. So here are some of the wrong moves I came across (please fill if you spot more):
 * fuel was moved to installed_capacity, instead of primary_fuel
 * r_active_mw was moved to reactors_operate_mw instead of installed_capacity

And these should be done (please fill if you spot more), in addition to any fixes from above:
 * turbines → generation_units
 * static_image → image
 * static_image_caption → image_caption
 * r_shutdown → reactors_decom_mw
 * S_Reactor → reactors_decom_mw
 * r_planned → reactors_planned_mw
 * Reactor → reactors_operate_mw

--  Reh  man 05:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. The fuel one wasn't my bot as far as I can tell, since fuel is still an active parameter.  However, I can generate a list of what is being used in this field so we can track down the inappropriate ones.  I can translate the others, and take an inventory of what is being used in "reactors_operate_mw" as well. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Added the integer test to installed_capacity (and max_planned_cap) so the no MW problem won't resurface when reactors_operate_mw moves. And I don't like this move - theres a semantic difference between installed capacity and operating generation capacity. Plant can be installed and not operating. Installed capacity should really be Operating capacity. Corella (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The new "isnumeric" stuff is a great way to deal with the problem; nice work. Just wondering, instead of making it display the "MW" if its just a string of numbers (as how it is now), wouldn;t it be better if it would display "MW" if the field is filled with anything? Because, the current (new) style goes in the format of, so why not make it auto for all?  Reh  man  10:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated locale field
Here is the current list of transclusions use the "locale" parameter more than one time: Cottam Power Station, Faridabad Thermal Power Station, Fawley Power Station, Feroj Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Plant, Ferrybridge power station, Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, Forth Banks Power Station, Fulham Power Station, Gandhinagar Thermal Power Station, Giral Lignite Power Plant, Glanford Brigg Power Station, Glanford Power Station, Grain Power Station, Great Yarmouth Power Station, Greenwich Power Station, Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Power Plant, Guru Hargobind Thermal Plant, Hams Hall Power Station, Hartshead Power Station, Hayle Power Station, High Marnham Power Station, Hinkley Point A nuclear power station, Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station, Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, Horden Power Station, Immingham Power Station, Ince Power Station, Kakatiya Thermal Power Station, Keadby Power Station, Killingholme Power Station, King's Lynn Power Station, Kingsnorth Power Station, Kingston Power Station, London, Kota Super Thermal Power Plant, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station V Stage, Kutch Thermal Power Station, Langage Power Station, Littlebrook Power Station, Manors Power Station, Meaford Power Station, Mejia Thermal Power Station, Methil power station, Mexborough Power Station, NTPC Ramagundam, Nashik Thermal Power Station, Neasden Power Station, Neptune Bank Power Station, Newlincs EfW facility, North Tees Power Station, Northampton Power Station, Northfleet Power Station, Padiham Power Station, Pandon Dene Power Station, Panipat Thermal Power Station I, Panipat Thermal Power Station II, Paras Thermal Power Station, Parli Thermal Power Station, Philadelphia Power Station, Portishead power station, Portrack Incinerator, Rajghat Power Station, Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Station, Ramagundam B Thermal Power Station, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Station, Richborough Power Station, Rihand Thermal Power Station, Rocksavage Power Station, Roosecote Power Station, Rotherham Power Station, Rugeley Power Station, Rye House power station, SELCHP, Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Station, Satpura Thermal Power Station, Seal Sands Power Station, Sheffield Incinerator, Sikka Thermal Power Station, Sizewell nuclear power stations, Spalding Power Station, Staythorpe Power Station, Stuart Street Power Station, Sunderland Power Station, Suratgarh Super Thermal Power Plant, Sutton Bridge Power Station, Teesport Renewable Energy Plant, Teesside EfW plant, Teesside power station, The Close Power Station, Thor Cogeneration Power Station, Thorpe Marsh Power Station, Tilbury Power Station, Ukai Thermal Power Station, Wanakbori Thermal Power Station, West Burton Power Station, West Ham Power Station, West Thurrock Power Station, Westwood Power Station, Wilford Power Station, Wilton Power Station
 * I am currently working on these, but any help is welcome. I will update this list again in about 24 hours. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (jump in) The power stations of India have flags in the Country field, it looks good and does not use extra space. Should we use flags everwhere? TGCP (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The power stations of India seem to belong to regions, such as Northern, Eastern and so on. How is that field merged? TGCP (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the six random pages I clicked, I only see one  field... I will check more, and will help out if I find it. Kind regards.  Reh  man  15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to open up the edit window to see it, and then do this. It's not a serious problem since the last one is usually the most specific, so the prior ones are just ignored.  However, it would be even better to just merge them. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Thanks!  Reh  man 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now we are at it, I think the word "Location" is more well-known, intuitive and straightforward than "Locale". Any reason why "Locale" should be kept? TGCP (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Field "fuel" is not shown.
 * Previous operators should not be listed in infobox, can we move them to the article? TGCP (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of "fuel" please use "primary_fuel". Why previous operators should not be listed in infobox? Beagel (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can a bot do the "fuel" to "primary_fuel" change? Previous operators are obsolete, and a waste of infobox space ;) . I prefer them in the article instead, either as a list, or as a sentence. TGCP (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A bot did update the fields recently, see above discussions. Regarding previous operators, it depends on the editor and the current size of the box. Personally, I don't mention it in the box; to keep it short, and because they are previous operators, which belong to a history or intro section. ;)  Reh  man 00:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but SporkBot has changed "fuel" to "fuel_primary" now, at least the many British I went through yesterday. TGCP (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most British power stations now merged, except Teesside. TGCP (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Field translations (second pass)
Okay, after the first few passes, here are the remaining translucions of repeated parameters These need to be inspected by hand, merging the fields if necessary. For example, like this or like this. Basically, one field is the number of reactors, and the other is the total capacity of the reactors. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 07:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current list of fields that are in use, sorted by the number of uses:

My script doesn't check to see which of these are currently enabled, but I plan to add that soon. Let me know if I need to do any more translations, or if you want to know which articles are using a subset of these fields. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 07:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. Just wondering, from where on earth did the 500+  come into Infobox Power Station? I don't think we ever used that field before, have we?  Reh  man  08:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we had. This field was included in the skeleton template of the old version, so most of templates added then have this field (in most of cases without any value). Beagel (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Field translations (third pass)
A few more passes have been made by hand, and I have added some new features to my bot code that scans all the articles. Here is the list of fields which are currently in use in articles

As you can see, the bot now also parses the template to determine which parameters are being actively used by the template. To assist with the clean up, the bot also lists the first 25 articles which are using each field. Here is that list for only the unused parameters

I could put these fields into a tracking category, but for now, this is the list. I am guessing that "Type" needs to be split into a particular "xxxx_type". The "r_canceled_mw" should be changed to "r_cancel_mw". The other "r_xxx" need to be merged with the corresponding "reactors_xxx_mw" fields. The "reactors_prop_mw" should probably be changed to "reactors_planned_mw". Some of the others could be potentially added to the template (e.g., xxx_fuel_capacity) if there is desire to do so. Let me know if you need the bot to perform any of the simple translations. The more complex ones should probably be done by hand. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer
Right now, we have field 'turbine_manu' only in the skeleton template of wind farm. I think it would be appropriate to be added also to other skeletons except solar power stations. Although these turbines are not wind turbines, also in case of other type of turbines information about the manufacturer is quite import one. Beagel (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do it, (not right now, but when I log in again). Kind regards.  Reh  man 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For nuclear, this field should be named as "reactor_manufacturer" right? If so, isn't that same as "reactor_supplier"?


 * No, reactors and turbines are different things and usually manufactured by different suppliers. NPPs have both: reactors and turbines. While "reactor_supplier" is a unique field for NPPS, "turbine_manu" applies for most of power plants (wind turbines, hydroplants, conventional thermal plants, nuclear plants). I propose only adding this field to the skeleton templates as it is already included in the code of template. There is no need to change the code. Beagel (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Then I don't see a problem adding it. Only thing is, with regard to using one code, the entire template is based on one sequence of code (which is numbered). So if you use, for example, "turbine_manufacturer" which is originally created for Wind, in Nuclear, then that field would show at the bottom, similar to the problem we had with Depreciated Params before converting the entire template coding. So as far as I know, we have to create separate codes for each :( Thats why we have things like,  ,  , etc, when all of this generally could point to  .  Reh  man  00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a problem. I added "turbine_manu" field to some nuclear plants' infoboxes (e.g. Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant) and the result seems to be fine. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion, I have now added separate turbine manufacturers for each type. Kind regards.  Reh  man 10:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactors canceled
The documentation currently doesn't have a parameter regarding cancelled nuclear reactors. You can still use the former "r_canceled =" or "M_Reactor" (which seem to work just fine) but a new parameter should be added (e.g. "reactors_cancelled"). I'm also not sure which parameter should be used for reactors that were planned but the construction never started. ¿Maybe a new parameter is needed? Regards. 85.50.116.123 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been proposed in two sections above (uncollapse the collapsed section). Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Box width and wrapping fields
If you look at Duane Arnold Energy Center, you will see that the infobox is stretched quite a bit. This is do to the non-breaking spaces in one of the fields. One could remove these, but then things look very strange, since the data is squeezed into around 5 or 6 character width, with disproportionately large field labels. This is do to the nowrap in some of the longer field names, e.g., Reactors operational (MW), which is over 20 characters wide. I believe the infobox is only supposed to be 23em, which leaves nothing for the data. Some ways to alleviate this would be to either (a) widen the box, (b) abbreviate the labels, or (c) allow the labels to line wrap. Another observation is that this "Reactors operational (MW)" suggests that the data will be a raw number, which means one could append the MW to the data, rather than having it in the label, or passing the data to a unit conversion template. Ideas? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reactors operational (MW)" comes from a field that is no longer used (and would most probably never exist again the bot is now updating fields). The updated field reads a shorter "Reactors operational", which should include data such as . Kind regards.  Reh  man  10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, this now looks much better with the new format, which checks for numeric fields and appends the units. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Geothermal power stations
We have different skeletons for different kind of power stations. Probably we need also a separate skeleton template for the geothermal power station. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't a geo just another thermal power station without fuel burn? Possible fields could be water source (top fresh or original), drill depth, coolant flow. Alternatively, a section called Steam Cycle could be common for geo, coal, nuclear, solar thermal and combined gas. TGCP (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Beagel, I thought of adding wave plants along with geothermal, but I don't seem to find sufficient fields unique to the type of power stations to create a separate box. Know any?  Reh  man 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Type" is a field (maybe it's already there) as there are many different types. Weight could be a parameter because most float, so weight translates directly to plant size (not capacity). Wave is probably too new and diverse to have settled into a lasting format. TGCP (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One field could be "offshore_distance". Beagel (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, so we can have: 1. Type (btw, we need to mention the types at geothermal energy, or have a separate article) . 2. Number of wells  3. Well depth  What do we put in "offshore_distance" (@Beagel)?  Reh  man  05:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's separate this discussion into Geo, and Wave. TGCP (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I thought "offshore_distance" was referring to geothermal...  Reh  man 08:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, does geothermal power stations use combined cycle generation too?  Reh  man 11:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, geo has no fuel burn to become prime mover, so only heat (not motion) is available as input for a prime mover (like nuclear whose "fuel burn" is not really burning). Coal only has prime mover potential (apart from heat) in the form of magnetohydrodynamics which Hans von Ohain tried to advance. If a geo someday becomes combined cycle, that would be notable, but AFAIK, not now. Sidenote: Most turbines are multistage which is more effecient than separate single-stage turbines. TGCP (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

installed_capacity net or gross?
Is installed_capacity in net or gross MW? As net_generation in same section is clearly net, I would assume net for all the other parameters in that "Bottom section". Same question applies to max_planned_cap, average_annual_gen. I must say the important distinction between net and gross is not clearly indicated in the output of this infobox. For nuclear in particular this distinction is important, and I think we should show both, clearly indicated. For nuclear net is most commonly offered in other sources, but we only have gross. Rwendland (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I remember, we always used to list the gross electrical capacity. But I don't seem to be able to find any links to supportive that fact. I will update the documentation to clarify this.  Reh  man 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumped-storage power stations
Hey. I really think we should have a "Dam information" section for the PS infobox. But that would add nine more fields; stretching the infobox longer. We probably could try collapsible headers to shorten the boxes, but am not sure. Anyone thinks that the dam section should not be added?  Reh  man 07:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent field rename
I am a bit concerned about this field rename; the new version drops the label text to three lines, which is not good. Any ideas on a shorter name? All I can think of is mention whatever needed in the documentation and revert the template back, but I don't feel like doing that without consensus.  Reh  man 10:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, text is too long. Also, manufacturers may be different. For now, I believe turbine is the most critical part of segment. If/when other parts become notable, we can include them. But overall, the issue would likely be resolved with a Steam_cycle segment, perhaps after we have settled more important issues. TGCP (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will revert now in good faith.  Reh  man 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the field is too long. Problem is, like TGCP stated, the turbine and generator manufacturer can be different. I think the turbine is more important but not by much. I don't want to over-complicate the infobox but it would be good to have both in there as they are both large parts in the goal of producing power. Another thought: how important is it to include either?--NortyNort (Holla) 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, adding separate fields is always better. But the problem we have here is that the infoboxs are visually (not in coding) way too long. So long that I feel sort of guilty adding new fields (see discussion below)... :( I've started this discussion, but I don't know how far it'll work...  Reh  man 14:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Capacity factor
It needs specification in the template's documentation if the 'capacity_factor' should be filled by the numeric value of ratio (e.g. 0.16) or by the percentage (e.g. 16%). Beagel (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Use what the source says. If the source says 0.16 use that. If it says 16% use that. But for short articles put this sort of detail in the main text of the article rather than the infobox. See comments about the purpose of an infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy. -- Johnfos (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they are actually the same thing. It is the same as using 10 GWh instead of 10,000,000 kWh. There is no contradiction with the source. However, some unified format makes things better to compare and helps to avoid confusion. Beagel (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I would say when in doubt follow what the source says. Johnfos (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw our comment. In the perfect world (and perfect Wikipedia) fully agree with you. However, it may be better idea to expand short/stub articles rather that to shorten infoboxes. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Beagel. I will work on expanding the solar articles, where possible. One thing I want to avoid is unsourced info creeping in. Johnfos (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Beagel: Yes, I agree that there should be a standard format to use. I have updated the documentation to reflect this. Hope that's what you meant. Kind regards.  Reh  man 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple units
It would be nice if the template supported multiple units. As it is, the date fields don't really support units that are started and completed at different times or have different capacities or fuels (by unit). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO the template is bloated to its limits, and adding more fields just makes it uncomfortably large. I've just changed its parameter descriptions; maybe that helps? Reh  man  02:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

'Decommissioned' field
The infobox has a field named 'decommissioned' it seems to be little bit confusing as it is quite often used for the date when commercial operations of the power station were terminated (station was closed). However, it is not the same as decommissioned. If this is not a major problem for the most of type of power stations, it is a problem with the nuclear power plants which have enormously long decommissioning period. E.g, in case of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, commercial operations were ended at the end of 2009 but the decommissioning will be finished only by 2030. Saying that the plant was decommissioned by 2009 is not correct, but it is very important date, which should be shown in the infobox. I know the problem with the infobox size, but maybe we should separate closure and decommissioning dates and add a additional field named 'closed'. These phases are already separated for the 'status' field, where we have separated statuses for 'Mothballed' and 'Decommissioned'. Beagel (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: replace flag icons per request. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG says: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Therefore, I made a request to use a bot to replace these flag icons with country names. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Replacing mini-flags with the actual names of countries looks like a good move to me. It's inline with policy and, more importantly, it's better for readers. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The article itself identifies the country of location enough as well. Especially if there is a map.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Reh  man  11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per the above; this should be an efficient way to resolve the problem of undue visual emphasis on one property (nationality) over many others in such articles. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Our readers can read. --John (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nomination, flagicons do not add any value. --Elekhh (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox dam
There is a discussion concerning usage of flag icons within template:Infobox dam, similar we had for this infobox. There was earlier consensus that in case hydroelectric power station has also a dam, it uses template:Infobox dam instead of template:Infobox power station as power generation information is integrated into dam infoboxes. Therefore, the discussion is relevant also for this infobox. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Net and gross generation parameters
I think a field is needed for annual net generation and propose changing 'Average_annual_gen' to 'Annual_net_gen'; and that it be defined as the net generation over the latest whole year. The reason is that annual net generation is one of the most reported parameters for power stations, showing the contribution a station makes to meeting the external energy load or demand. Gross generation, on the other hand, is less used because it includes generation used internally in the production of power for such things as fans and pumps.

I would also propose that the parameter 'Net_generation' be removed. The definition in the template (Gross power generation since commissioning…) is misleading. If it is ‘gross’ it is not ‘net’, and having it additive since commissioning generally makes it a moving target, unless the plant has been retired. Its significance is questionable and likely is rarely sourced. I'd suggest that if there were a reason to include this information, it could be added to the body of the article. PR Alma (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Emission information
I'd like to propose a modification to the template to include emission data, such as CO2 emissions for use with geothermal and cogeneration power stations with this information publicly available, courtesy of CARMA and the Center for Global Development. Rangasyd (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wave farm skeleton box
Based on previous discussions at various talk pages, I propose to create additionally a specific wave farm skeleton box. In addition to the common fields common for all power stations, I propose specific wave farm fields:


 * wave_technology (capture method). Methods are: buoy (point absorber, most of wave farms e.g. PowerBuoy); surface-following attenuator (e.g. Pelamis Wave Energy Converter); terminator, oriented perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation; oscillating water column (e.g. Islay LIMPET and Oyster wave energy converter); underwater attenuator. There may be more methods
 * converter_type (take off method). Take off methods are hydroelectric turbine (most of wave farms); hydraulic ram; elastomeric hose pump; pump-to-shore (e.g. Oyster wave energy converter), air turbine (e.g. Islay LIMPET); linear electrical generator. There may be more methods.
 * wf_converter_manu. Wave converter manufacturer
 * wf_turbines_mw. Number and capacity of turbines
 * location_type. Offshore (most of technologies); nearshore (e.g. Oyster wave energy converter); onshore (shoreline, e.g. Islay LIMPET)
 * offshore_area. Surface area used for entire facility.
 * offshore_depth. Average water depth of wave farms.
 * offshore_distance. Minimum distance from shore.

Any comments is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this would be quite useful. We obviously don't have a separate skeleton for wave farms, so adding them shouldn't be an issue. If no one object to this by tonight (UTC+05:30), I'll be happy to start working on it. Reh  man  01:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just some quick questions. What does the WF in  stand for? And also for , maybe we should name it  ? Does most wave farms use turbines?  Reh  man  12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I used "wf" in the meaning of "wave farm" just to differentiate wave farm converter manufacturers and turbines from other manufacturers and turbines. As of turbines, yes, it may be units instead or both. Not all wave farms use turbines but currently most of them are equipped with hydroelectric turbine. Wave power provides more detailed information. Maybe used ...turbines... if the converter type is hydroelectric or air turbine? Beagel (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've added the fields (notice some slight field name changes). Please revert asap if anyone notice anything fishy (but do give me the species of fish, so that I can attempt a fix). Also I'd really appreciate if someone could give me a hand on the doc pages (I need to go offline soon) :) I'll put in my input (if any) during the course of the week. Reh  man  13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Documentation is updated. Beagel (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As of
Accurate as of has a completely different meaning than as of and not something that I am willing to commit to. We update the plant as best we can, but that does not mean the information is accurate. What we can commit to is the date for the information, "As of", nothing else. Delphi234 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wind farm / Wind power station: Uninformative 'information' x3
The headings 'Turbine information', 'Wind farm information', and 'Power generation information' would all be better without the 'information' suffix, which adds nothing for the reader. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cogeneration
I propose to add a cogeneration field (similar to the combined_cycle field) to the other power stations template for using in case of combined heat and power plants. Also, adding installed_heat_capacity field for these power stations could be useful. Beagel (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is cogeneration a form of combined cycle generation? If so, is it a good idea to merge both fields?  Reh  man 05:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Combined cycle is process to use waste heat to increase efficiency of power generation. Cogeneration means that the plant produces both: heat and power. In case of cogeneration, heat is a product used by other industries or for district heating. Avedøre Power Station is just one of examples of combined heat and power plants with installed capacity of 810 MW of electricity and 900 MW of heat. Beagel (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it. Just a quick note, is this a /  field?  Reh  man  05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, cogeneration should be simple yes/no field. Standard unit for the installed_heat_capacity field should be MW as for other capacity fields, although some other units like Gcal/h and GJ/h are also in use. Beagel (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, added the fields. Just wondering, does combined cycle and/or cogeneration, apply to nuclear power station as well?  Reh  man 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Answering your question, theoretically NPPs are cogeneration (combined heat and power - CHP) power stations. In practice, even if they provide some of their waste heat for heating purposes, the most of heat is still waste heat and therefore they are usually not considered as CHP power stations. Beagel (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Was just wondering if we should add combined cycle and/or cogeneration for NPP. Kind regards.  Reh  man 11:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is only one reason why NPPs era not used for standard cogeneration: they are too far away from the users (no NPP in the middle of a city). But there could be industrial utilization of waste heat (and a NPP has a lot of it).--Robertiki (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Integrated solar combined cycle
Changing proposal. I propose to add a integrated_solar field (similar to the cogeneration field) to the other power stations template for using in case of combined solar and power plants. Also, adding installed_solar_capacity field (MWth) for these power stations could be useful. An example of a plant: where the solar field thermal power is about 60 MW(th), which yields about 20 MWe after the steam turbine. An ISCC plant is more a thermal plant than a solar plant (as until now often they classified it): a hybrid thermal/solar plant where the solar component is minor (like 472 MWe full power thermal, with solar covering at most 20 Mwe). The integrated_solar field should be simple yes/no field. Standard unit for the installed_solar_capacity field should be MW(th) as for other capacity fields, although some other units like Gcal/h and GJ/h are also in use. The tecnology is new, but now we have already a dozen operational in the world (classified once as thermal, once as solar ... a confusion). Once the template is ready, I will reedit all hybrid plants with the new template. --Robertiki (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I could use the thermal_power_solar field of the Solar power stations template. One new point is the temperature delivery of the thermal power. Example, 100 MWt at 350 C yields about 30-32 MWe, but 100 MWt at 550 C yields about 37-38 MWe. Obviously there is a price, to yield 550 °C you need a lot more collector surface than with 350 °C, albeit the thermal power is the same. --Robertiki (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is to define some classification. There are three classes of mainstream hybrid solar/thermoelectric systems: In all three types we have sharing of the steam turbine, generator and power transformer. Which is solar and which is "All other typed of power stations" ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * solar thermal (SEGS type) where there may be up to 10% contribution from backup gas burners to a primarily solar plant
 * hybrid solar thermoelectric (i.e.ISCC for example) where there may be up to 10% contribution from solar energy to a primarily thermoelectric plant
 * hybrid solar biomass plants (Termosolar Borges) where there may be 50% contribution solar and 50% contribution from biomass
 * Proposal:

we put them ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * if solar contribution more than 80% --> solar thermal plant (i.e. SEGS) and goes in the solar section
 * if solar contribution less than 20% --> solar integrated thermal plant and goes in the "other type of power stations"
 * if solar contribution is more than 20% and less than 80% --> hybrid solar/biomass or solar/thermal plant ... and where do

Website
Website should be specific to the plant or could be the owner website, without no reference to the power station ? --82.85.240.153 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to be related to the power station. Reh  man  00:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Template cleanup
Hi. I propose this change (link will be updated as discussion progresses/fixes are made). See sample usage. The changes include: -- Reh  man  13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Enabling alt-text for location map.
 * Permanently enabling relief maps.
 * Simplifying internal parameters by using a single label, instead of multiple. (uncontroversial bot change)
 * Changed colours of each section. Still working on function where for example, if wind is used, the whole template will labels that are the colour of the "wind farm" label.
 * Removal of pumped-storage. To use Infobox dam instead, for primary/upper dam. (bot to list usages for manual action)
 * Removal of fields. Mostly due to MOS:INFOBOX (to use only the most commonly available info, with the rest moved to text):
 *  : To be permanently active. Can we agree that nearly all times, the relief map is more informative?
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS. Also, as the infobox is about electrical power stations.
 *  : Same as above.
 *  : Same as above.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Rarely available info. Move to text per MOS.
 *  : Redundant in infoboxes. This was put in some time back due to the use of net-generation. We also have the last mod date at page-end if someone really wants to know.
 * Renaming of below fields. Either to accomodate merged parameters, or to add a low profile prefix to make the template look less cluttered and to easily distinguish subject. (uncontroversial bot change)
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *  l to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 *   to  
 * Mergers of the following fields, to enable the usage of same field over multiple plant types:
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :
 * The following into  :

Discussions
Removal/merging/renaming of fields will be done in a single run by the bot, hence you might also find simple cosmetic changes that would be otherwise be redundant. Please see the sandbox link on top, for knowing what the raw labels are named in the infobox. Just like with Infobox dam, I don't think there would be any significant issue (as it's mostly internal cleanup) but nevertheless, looking forward to your input. And as always, I will proceed boldly if there aren't any direct objections by a week or so. Best regards, Reh  man  13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * seems there are still some errors just like there were in template:Infobox dam (see the testcases). also, I did not see any discussion of the color change? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Woops, thanks for pointing out. I have changed the colours (using this Meta colour palette) to closely match the documentation colours (which also needs some tweaks). I have added this to list of changes above. For the coordinates, yes you are right. I wrote the new codes along with the dam template, and didn't take that fix into account. Will do the changes soon. Thanks. Reh  man  00:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would rather not remove the PS field from the infobox. For many PSPSs, especially those in China this infobox is used. The PS field was originally added to accommodate them. The upper/lower reservoir fields do a great job of displaying the information for each reservoir and helps readers gain a better understanding of how the PS works. The only time Infobox dam is used for a PSPS is if a major large dam forms the upper or lower reservoir. Some PSPSs are built to accompany a larger dam that already has a conventional HPP. The upper or lower reservoir for the large dams is just detailed in the text. Example: Tehri Dam. For the large PSPSs in China and other areas of the world both reservoirs are of similar size, as opposed to the former I mentioned. These similar reservoir are sometimes small circular dams that don't need a full infobox. Even if you used Infobox dam, I don't know what dam to feature for those particular PSPSs. They also have no conventional HPP. That makes Infobox power station perfect for them. Changing the infoboxes for ~20 PSPSs seems to be a counterproductive effort in my opinion when Infobox power station supports them well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm still on the edge with this one for two main reasons. The first is, or course, that the whole PSPS section largely doesn't belong in this power station template; nearly all fields clearly goes under the dams topic. The second reason is that the secondary reservoir info is something that doesn't really fit in an infobox, and could very well be placed in the article's text (considering the relatively low usage, that shouldn't be hard). Either way, it should at least be moved to the dams template. Lets see what others think. ? Reh  man  00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest problem with removing PSPSs from Infobox power station is that you have two dams of near equal size for many of them, so what dam you you primarily represent in Infobox dam, which can only give information for one dam? With some PSPSs, the dams are small and the power station is the biggest feature of the project, so Infobox power station is most suitable. Right now, I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel when we have a system that works good now. As I recall, you originally added PSPSs into Infobox power station and consensus at the time was that it is a good idea.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. I have no problems keeping it either place. Lets wait a bit longer and see where the discussions takes us. If nothing happens, lets keep the PSPS section the way it is, yeah? Reh  man  15:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good!--NortyNort (Holla) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I have added them back. I did these changes:
 * Left back "catchment area", as this is not relevant to "pumped-storage power stations" and is more of a dam thing. Same thing with spillways.
 * As discussed in the rest of the proposal, things like pump-generators and generators can be used in the more general   field. For those facilities that have separate "pump units", can we leave them outside the infobox (in the text)?
 * See the current version here. Please let me know what you think. Reh  man  07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, catchment and spillways are unnecessary if not awkward in the infobox. I don't think we need Penstocks, Reservoir depth or Reservoir area as well. The reservoir name, capacity and hydraulic head are most important. I opt to keep the pump-generators, generators and pumps in there. Some PSPSs have unique configurations (4 pumps, 2 generators or 4 pump-generators, 2 pumps, etc.) and having that information is good. It wouldn't be good to just have the pump-generators in there and no pumps when the infobox is supposed to give an overview at glance. I think it would be confusing. A few PSPSs have no pump-generators, just pumps and generators.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Depending on the PSPS article, can we remain to keep the pump-generators, or just generators, in  ? Are there any plant which has both of these separately? We can then keep the pumps in the upper plant-specific section. Hope I made sense. Reh man  00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, it confuses me a bit too. I think we should try to keep all three close (within the PS field) so the association can be made easily although I can see just "generators" dropped to a separate area. An example of a PSPS with bother pump-generators and pumps is Vianden Pumped Storage Plant. Castaic Power Plant is an example of a PSPS with both pump-generators and an extra generator. Most schemes have just pump-generators.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * True, they should be together. Just a suggestion; I could add the fields in the PSPS section as required, but all would automatically be displayed under "Active units" (at the bottom) as something like this: . Would that be right?  Reh  man  00:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah scrap that, it was a crappy idea which will make it confusing for most template users. It just feels odd for a power plant not using the basic "active units" field lol (I am infected with some template-i-osis). I guess there is no way around this. I'll update the sandbox and see how it goes. Reh  man  13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Beagel
I support most of the changes; however, there are some comments and objections: --Beagel (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Colours. It is nice to have a different colours but over a time I have started to prefer transparent/colourless infoboxes. I don't see what added-value colours will provide, so maybe we could simplify the infobox code and dismiss the colours? But this is my personal preference, of course.
 * 2) Developer field. I agree with removal. However, in the case this field has an inserted value and the owner's field does not, it should be useful if the value from this field is moved to the owner's field. Developer and owner are not always the same but this would probably help to avoid accidental loss of useful information.
 * 3) Constructor field.  This information is not always available, particularly in the case of older and less significant power stations. However, it is important information in the case of infrastructure (including power stations projects). I think that for clarification this field should be renamed EPC which is more precise term.
 * 4) Thermal capacity fields. Agree that for most of power stations and for some region/countries it is irrelevant. At the same time, for cogeneration plants this information is highly relevant. For some plants the thermal capacity is even more important than electrical capacity (Iru Power Plant and Avtovo CHP-15 being just first examples for this) and removing the thermal capacity will provide absolutely incorrect picture. Therefore I strongly oppose removing this fields. The infobox is about power stations but from the technical point of view the difference between the thermal power station and the heating plant is just the later don't have a generator installed. I don't think it would be justified to create a separate infobox just for CHP plants/heating plants. But I think that it needs some correction. Right know the installed thermal capacity and installed electrical capacity are provided in different sections. I proposed that both fields should be in the last section of the infobox just after each other and named "Installed electrical capacity" and "Installed thermal capacity". In this case the information is better understandable and we don't need to repeat the thermal capacity field depending of the type (geothermal, solar, other thermal) of the power station. So, by my proposal the fields should be ps_electric_capacity and ps_thermal_ capacity.
 * 5) nuke_type. The field's new name is confusing and without the template documentation (but how often the average editor reads dokumentation when inserting an infobox?) it would be hard to understand what it means. For clarification nuke_reactor_type would be more understandable.
 * 6) nuke_supplier. Even more confusing one. My first reaction was that nuke_supplier probably means nuclear fuel supplier. It would be better to name nuke_reactor_supplier.
 * 7) tide_type. It would be confusing as the next field would be tide_tsg_type. For clarification, instead of tide_type it would be better to use tide_technology.
 * 8) ps_units_manu_model. What that means? It was understandable what turbine_manu_other meant but the new name will create confusion. First of all, in the case of thermal power station unit and turbine are not synonyms. Unit consist of boilers, turbines and generator and usually all of three are provided by different manufacturers. Second, for the large thermal projects it is quite often taylor-made, so it would be hard to say what the model is. At the same time, in the case of wind farms, the model is very important information.


 * Thanks for the straightforward input. I have changed your bulleted list to numbered for easy reference, hope you dont mind. My responses:
 * I completely agree with you on the colour stuffs. To be honest, I was under the impression that the colours were already existing until Frietjes it pointed out, and hence thought might as well let it be since it's already in now. Will remove it.
 * Can get the bot to do the moving.
 * I do agree that this is valueable information. But I am still leaning towards removal per MOS:INFOBOX, as it's a field with rarely available information. Can we get the bot to list all uses for manual action (move to text)?
 * Understood. I will add electrical/thermal fields next to each other, at the bottom as a general field.
 * Agreed, will make the changes.
 * Same as above.
 * Same as above.
 * The field is intended to be used for the manufacturer and model of generation unit(s), which will be used of all power station types, instead of the current way where we have a separate param for the same thing for each plant type. The only other close alternative names that I can come up with is   or  . Any suggestions?
 * -- Reh man  12:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1,833 MWth Of course, in this case the template's documentation should provide exact guidelines for this field. Also, all articles having any of these thermal capacity fields filled should be listed in the technical list or category for a manual changes.
 * Some additional comments about these issues:
 * 3. Constructor/EPC. I still feel this information is better to be included but lets see what other editors think about this.
 * 4. ps_capacity. Actually your original proposal to have only one capacity field would work. In this case both — electric and thermal capacity — should be added to the same field. In the case of the above-mentioned Avtovo CHP-15 this will look this way: ps_capacity = 321 MWe
 * 8. ps_units_manu_model. I fully support consolidation of this field for all power station types. But I am still not sure how this field will be look like in practice. Maybe we could exam some examples to create a better understanding how it will work. E.g. Horns Rev 2 has now both fields (turbine_manu and turbine_model) filled, so ps_units_manu_model will look: ps_units_manu_model = Siemens Wind Power 2.3-93 or ps_units_manu_model = SWP 2.3-93 Is that correct? What about London Array which has only turbine_manu filled. Will it look just: turbine_manu = Siemens Wind Power ? How will this field look for Łagisza Power Station?  As it seems that information about turbine model is mainly available for wid farms and not so much for other type of power stations, maybe we could skip the model and have just ps_units_manu for manufacturer? I think that ps_units_manu is ok as it provides flexibility to include boiler, turbine and/or generator manufacturers. Maybe we could even merge nuke_reactor_supplier here.
 * Beagel (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Replies to above:
 * 4. Yes, I guess that seems more appropriate. I will work on it . Seems like the thermal fields is needed. Please see comments below. Reh  man  00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8. The horns rev example is exactly how I though of it ( ), using  for additional entries. The proposed field is currently named as " "; maybe we can name it " " or similar, that way we have the flexibility of either entering only the manu, or the model, or both?
 * For the nuke part, I was actually wanting to move "units operational", "units uc", "units planned" and "units decomd" all below to the general area, but that would kill the nuke template. Good thing you brought this up, cos I actually wanted to discuss this. Maybe we still could move them, and instead add something more unique to NPPs to the infobox?
 * -- Reh man  00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Horns Rev is a model example but what about London Array example where is only information about turbine manufacturer provided and not about the model? What would be the exact title of this field? Is it allowed to include the name of manufacturer without specifying the model? My point is that information about turbine/generator/boiler model is not very often provided by the sources, sometimes even not by the owner/operator or supplier itself. The exception seems to be wind turbines and nuclear reactors (if we will merge also nuclear in this field, of course). Therefore I propose once more to consider not including model info in the infobox and keep this field only for manufacturer. I also think that unit_manu or unit_manu_model is better understandable.

LMZ (unit 1 turbines) Electrosila (unit 1 generator) Ganz-Danubius (unit 2 boilers) EVT (unit 2 boilers) Marelli (unit 2 turbines) Franco Tosi (unit 2 generators) BHEL (unit 2 boilers, turbines, generators) Is this correct? I know this is an extreme example; however, we should also deal with cases like this. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to ask about another example, namely Neyveli Thermal Power Station. By my understanding the information for this would be: ps_units_manu_model = Taganrog Metallurgical Plant (unit 1 boilers)


 * Maybe if we renamed the field to   or   (I prefer shortest possible), we would have less problems with having just manufacturers/models? We could mention in the documentation that one could fill in either details, or both. As you suggested, the field name could be   (with a ps prefix).
 * For the extreme example, I think a good workaround to that would be:.
 * Also as I said earlier, I also think it would be nicer to move "units operational", "units uc", "units planned" and "units decomd" from nuke, to the bottom. Putting in new unique fields for nuke. Do you have any suggestions?
 * -- Reh man  07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed' to the mass renaming of parameters, seemingly on an arbitrary, change-for-change sake, basis. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you take in consideration the solar hybrid plants ? Ain Beni Mathar Integrated Thermo Solar Combined Cycle Power Plant, Archimede solar power plant, Hassi R'Mel integrated solar combined cycle power station, Kogan Creek Solar Boost, Liddell Power Station, New South Wales, Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, Termosolar Borges, Yazd integrated solar combined cycle power station are some examples and growing. --Robertiki (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Message above was for Rehman. About the thermal capacity, I have a problem with the Solar hybrid plants. Many use for the Solar field fluid, Thermal Oil which is limited to 400 °C. The Solar field heated Thermal Oil then produces satured steam at less than 400 °C. Following Natural Gas or Biomass burners superheat the steam to more than 500 °C resulting in better efficiency. Take Kogan Creek Power Station where reporters state that the Solar field produces 44 MW electrical at peak solar. That is nonsense. We have about 110 MWt solar capacity that, without the coal "boosting" from 400 °C to 560 °C, would nowhere give 44 MWe (at most 35 MWe). I would say that the only sensible thing to do is to state the solar thermal power, so I would like to save that field. --Robertiki (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. There will be a new general thermal power field. Thanks for the input. Reh  man  00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by theanphibian
My only major thought is the thermal power. This is meaningful for a large subset of plant types. Why not have a parameter universal to them all? Many won't use it, but many will. Or maybe it already exists in this form? It's not clear to me. Otherwise I agree with the reasons for a lot of the deletions, but sometimes for my own reasons. "Developer", for instance, can be multiple firms, depending on the type and generation. Many information sources sub-divide those into categories, like foundation, turbine-generator, boiler, electrical, and so on. Maybe operator is a meaningful field?

I'm not sure about the relief maps. I mean, why not have a nation-specific map? Who do you think your audience is? I remember I spent a lot of time doing those for nuclear plants of various types. It's been so long, I don't remember what approach we technically used. But for a nuclear plant in france, I would say the relief is nearly useless, but a nation-specific map is useful. When they see the map, they figure out it's France pretty quickly.

Maybe that is built into your plan? I'm not sure. I would advocate using the nation maps in every case possible. Otherwise, thanks for your hard work. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I will add a separate thermal capacity field per discussion above. I don't understand what you mean by nation-specific maps? Those relief maps show only the related nation of course. Random example. Thanks for your input. Reh  man  00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it. Your sample image had a picture of the world, probably to be general. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that's just a sample :) Reh  man  00:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Capacity ? you mean power.
What is the "ps_electrical_capacity" supposed to mean ? I see no definition of capacity which may correspond to "Current gross installed capacity in megawatts." Megawatts are a unit of power

After some searches, I think the correct definition is the one from nameplate capacity.

Does onyone objects changing the description of this field ?

Goulu 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goulu (talk • contribs)
 * Makes sense. I went ahead and changed it. Thanks. Reh  man  15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas field
What happened to the GHG field? Someone mentioned this information is rarely available, but the US EPA maintains a comprehensive database. Samyulg (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is not US-wiki, so availability of information for US plants does not mean this information is available globally. Also, this is applicable only for conventional thermal plants. Taking account the size of the infobox code, I think that it would be better to have this information in the body text, not in the infobox (and even for including in the infobox, it should be already included in the text). Beagel (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

nuke_reactor_type= values
The documentation for this field says:
 * enter any one of the following auto-expanding fields: =PWR, =BWR,  =PHWR,  =RBMK,  =GCR,  =AGR,  =FBR,  =PBR,  =MSR,  =AHR.

which I read to mean that I should use a value such as "PWR", and it would display as "PWR" in the infobox (the token value is "autoexpanded" to be linked). But the template currently appears to just display the field-value as entered. In the source, the child infobox created by data13 has: rather than some sort of  or similar token-handling logic. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * label2        = Reactor&amp;nbsp;type
 * data2         =


 * . I have no clue what happened to it. I remember that it used to switch automatically. Will check and update here. Thanks for the notice. Regards, Reh  man  11:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and added it so as to match the documentation. My guess is that this was planned, but eventually forgotten haha. Thanks for the notice. Have a good day. Reh  man  11:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Final parameter update
To complete the template cleanup/fixes which was started about a year ago, I am going to request the following, preferably in no more than one edit per affected article (to avoid unnecessary repetitive edits), so that these depreciated parameters can once-and-for-all be cleared from the template.

Step 1A: To replace
Parameters on the left should be replaced with those on the right. The list is big because all old parameters are listed, but the number of actual uses of some parameters should be small, very small, or even none.

Lead section:

Geothermal power stations:

Nuclear power stations:

Pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations:

Solar farms:

Tidal power stations:

Wave farms:

Wind farms:

End section:

Step 1B: To simultaneously remove
The following parameters needs to be removed from articles completely. Do not action on the articles if removal is the only task (i.e. those with no other replace action), as it will be a waste of effort and more of a dummy edit. Please list those articles that uses the below on which no action was taken on.



Step 2: To list uses
The articles using the following parameters needs to be listed for manual action.



Step 3: Re-scan and final actions
Once replacement, removal, and manual actions are complete, and once the template itself is cleared of all depreciated parameters, to rescan all articles which use Infobox power station, and list uses of parameters not included in the final template documentation.

-- Reh man  06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes to template
The template format was substantially changed, meaning that multiple infoboxes no longer work as they did.

Above it states that the changes would be done by bot edits" quote Removal/merging/renaming of fields will be done in a single run by the bot - but no bot ever fixed the affected pages.

In addition there was never any announcement of the change on any affected talk page.

eg Lincs Wind Farm is one of (probably all) wind farm articles affected.

This is an example of the type of changes that have to be made to restore the infobox to it's previous level of function. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincs_Wind_Farm&diff=605542614&oldid=604901204

Every wind farm I have looked at is affected, and no attempt has been found to register or fix the changes.

etc etc. This should be fixed.83.100.174.82 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some more backwards compatibility so that there is not a significant change in the information presented in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincs_Wind_Farm&oldid=604901204 this version] vs. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincs_Wind_Farm&oldid=605542614]. please let me know if you spot any other problems. I imagine the bot will run soon, but it seems  has been busy with other things. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait a moment! Before starts his bot, I would firmly suggest to change the "nuke_" prefix to "np_". "nuke" is really a bad choice, "to nuke" is synonymous to "to bomb". Let us say that using "nuke" for technical data is politically incorrect. It is already bad as how antinuclearism works with its propaganda in some countries, that it does not seem the case to nourish it even within the internal data structures.--Robertiki (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But its use in articles is massive (I think). I wonder how feasible it is to change it. Changing it is no big deal (I can do it if you like), but I would like to know what others think. Also, Plastikspork and Frietjes, are there any more bot runs pending? I kind of had to disappear from the internet for some time unfortunately. Lost track of a lot of things. Reh  man  11:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think there have been any bot actions related to this issue. all the bot has done this far is scan the articles to generate the list of pages that need manual attention before the bot can make automatic changes. do we have a concrete plan on what needs to be changed, or a tracking category to find the ones that need to be changed? Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the nuke task along with the rest, and have put up a bot request to sort out the cleanup once and for all, since the large majority of what we started with is done... Hopefully we can close this case soon. Reh  man  07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Capacity units
A value for  or   is displayed as entered whereas   is displayed with "MW". is documented as "Current gross installed capacity in megawatts" and the other two fields aren't documented at all. Should all "capacity" fields be MW and display (and be documented) as such? Would be easy to bot-locate any such fields that have values other than a simple number for manual conversion if that's the intent. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the only problem with MW auto-inputted is when a power plant has a capacity of 600 kV or something of that nature. I am not sure about, it seemed to override   and display as the same. Maybe it was intended to display the power draw when pumped-storage is in pump-mode. Rehman did much of this template, maybe he can help.--NortyNort  (Holla) 20:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the doumentation says for this field 'Current gross installed capacity in megawatts', so instead of 600kW the value should be 0.6 MW. Beagel (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DMacks and NortyNort, sorry I didn't notice the ping.  is depreciated (and so is  ), that's why it's no longer documented. Its function (auto MW suffix) are also based on how it was, and is only left that way to support older uses. It is advisable to update the articles with the latest code from the template page. Regards,  Reh  man  11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am little bit confused. Which field should be used to show the total capacity of the planned power plant which is not built yet? E.g. for Rampion Wind Farm, where is decided that there will be 116 turbines and max capacity would be 400 MW but models or other details are not clear yet, what should be the correct field to put information about 400 MW? 'ps_electrical_capacity' seems not correct field as the documentation states for it "Current gross installed capacity in megawatts". Beagel (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bug
There seems to be some kind of bug. replaces both, secondary_fuel and tertiary_fuel, with ps_fuel_tertiary, and removes one ps_fuel_tertiary as duplicates. There is no a problem so far if only the primary fuel is used but i may create problems if also secondary and tertiary fuels are used. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Beagel these were the instructions given above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Beagel my bot run was one-off. Yobot did not remove any duplicated fields. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bug fixed. It was not caused my me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Magioladitis for fixing my error. *thumbs-up* Reh  man  13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

the bot run introduced duplicate parameters, and not just the ps_fuel_tertiary problem. what is the plan for cleaning up this list? Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up about 160, but there are still many more left ... Frietjes (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. Really appreciated. Sorry for the trouble made. I only did what I was asked to. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see many duplications of ps_units_manu_model. If you tell what I have to do I can do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, they need to be corrected manually, but for example, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodlawn_Wind_Farm&diff=prev&oldid=648552765 something like this]. basically, the first is the manufacturer and the second is the model, which are combined into manufacturer and model.  the colon ':' may not be the best delimiter, but it works. another option would be to delimit with a slash, '/'. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, for the nuclear power stations, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arkansas_Nuclear_One&diff=648553441&oldid=648401070 this would fix it]. basically you have manufacturer/model information duplicated in the units_operational. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Magioladitis, are you able to list those as well, for manual action. Basically to scan for Infobox power station that has duplicated parameters. Apparently this has happened because two or more fields were merged into one. I suspect this happened only on wind farm/nuclear articles (because they had things like  and   that are both renamed). There shouldn't be much articles with such duplicated field, hopefully.  Reh  man  23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Approx. 200 pages. There were much more but thanks to Frietjes's effort they are becoming less. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the scanning happens automatically in this list. please help fix some. I already fixed over 200. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7 left. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The CatScan page doesn't load any more... Is it the same case with you? Reh  man  13:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The pages left can be seen: User:Magioladitis/sandbox. I am not sure of how to fix these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All pages fixed. Mainly thanks to Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hydroelectric power stations
. It was agreed long time ago that hydroelectric power stations (except pumped-storage stations) should use Infobox dam instead of Infobox power station. However, there is a number of hydroelectric stations articles still using this template. Is it possible to list all these articles, so we could to change the infobox? Also, when cleaning-up the unknown parameters and seeing incorrect infobox, please replace it. Beagel (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have a list, yes. I usually fix em' as I come across them. The only exception I find and leave with Power Station infoboxes are articles like Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Plant where the dam is a short weir and there is very little information on the structure and reservoir.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Water source
The template includes the fields 'np_water_source' and 'np_water_distance'. There are two issues with it. First, I am not sure if these fields should really included to the template. This is probably that kind of information which belongs to the body text but not to the infobox, particularly taking account that these fields are added only for the nuclear plants and not for other thermal plants. Second, if there is consensus that these fields should be kept, they should be expanded to all thermal power plants and therefore moved from the nuclear section into the last general section. Beagel (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does all nuclear power stations have a identifiable source for cooling water? If so, I am leaning towards keeping it (and the nuclear section is small enough anyways), and because of that, I also prefer keeping the water_distance field not make the other related field feel lonely. Just my thoughts. Reh  man  13:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are air-cooled nuclear power stations. There was also THTR-300. Nuclear power units are usually huge (up to and over 1000 MW), but smaller units may go without water. All nuclear power units with cooling towers could be capable of operating without water cooling. And any large thermal unit, without cooling tower, needs a water source. --Robertiki (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

All thermal power stations (not only nuclear but also conventional like coal, oil or gas-fired, or biomass-fired) should use cooling water, but it not always significant enough to be added. I still prefer to remove these fields, but if consensus is to keep them, this is also fine for me. But the issue is why we make distinction between nuclear power plants and other thermal power plants. If these fields to be kept, they should be expanded to cover also other thermal plants. Just look the Essex Generating Station. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be added to all thermal station types if it's going to be used. Currently, coal and other stations are being mis-identified as nuclear stations by contributors, probably because that's their only option to include this in the infobox. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEA_Northside_Generating_Station or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockport_Power_Plant, or Google "nuclear power station" wikipedia cooling water source. Ta1036 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be added also to other plants, not only nuclear/thermal. Think wind with integrated pumping storage, or for washing needs of big solar PV. I added ps_water_source into the last general section. If it's ok, confirm and I have only to delete the np_parameters. About water_distance I don't understand his importance. I will wait consensus before to proceed further and update documentation. --Robertiki (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I modified the description from "Cooling water source" to "Cooling source" opening the door to other cooling technologies. Example here: Brunner Island Steam Electric Station. If the name that follows the descriptions is that of a river or other water pool, it follows that water is the cooling medium, but it could also be the descripting name of the tecnology, as in "air-cooled" --Robertiki (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize now that the parameter should be named ps_cooling_source. That way it has a general, more useful usage. Correction done. --Robertiki (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In this case I think that np_water_source should be renamed ps_cooling_source and np_water_distance should be deleted. If there is a consensus, we should ask this to be done by bot. And yes, we need to update the documentation. Beagel (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I made these changes and updated the documentation accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)