User talk:Ita140188/Archive 2

Wikipedia Asian Month
Hi, thank you for participation in Wikipedia Asian Month. Please fill out the survey that we use to collect the mailing address. All personal information will be only used for postcard sending and will be deleted immediately after the postcard is sent. If you have any question, you may contact me at Meta. Hope to see you in 2016 edition of Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Loccioni group


Hello, Ita140188. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Loccioni group".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Alive Case page should not be speedy deleted
I am trying to create my Company Profile on wikipedia. All I was trying to do is testing how to create information box. And, I reference the code from wikipedia's page and paste it in my alive case page. And, edit the information to my own information. Please, do not delete this page. Thank you. I'm gonna edit as soon as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivecase (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Alivecase, please review Wikipedia's notability guideline to determine if your article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. As your user name suggest, there may be also a problem of conflict of interest with your submission. Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

CapFacs for wind farms
Hi Ita, sorry I had to revert your additions of capfac in List of offshore wind farms in Germany‎. I tried adding as is customary, but that just broke the table. CapFacs are very notable, and should be added whenever a suitable source can be found. Baltic 1 Offshore Wind Farm contains FLH, but we cannot convert them to CapFac because that would be WP:Original research. An outside source such as this is necessary for that conversion. TGCP (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Full load hours and capacity factor are exactly equivalent terms, with a conversion given by the formula CF=FLH/8760. This is not original research. It's the same as converting meters in feet or dollars in euro. If you feel like my arguments are convincing, please add the numbers back in the table. The reference for both numbers are in the relevant articles. And I think your edit broke the table because you added an open '{ {' in the middle ;) . --Ita140188 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the conversion is simple, however it should also be void of interpretation, which is less simple. FLH to CapFac is not common knowledge like meters to feet, and someone might disagree. I thought No_original_research was more strict, but as you and I are seemingly the only ones caring about this, I guess we can call that concensus ;-) So I added them back (I could not find a ref for 55% in AV). If the energy was given in GWh (very similar to FLH), I think that would be too much of a stretch as it involves even more interpretation - netto, brutto, delivered to grid or transformer etc. (the euro/dollar example depends on point in time and circumstances (exchange fee etc.), and is thus open to interpretation).


 * I urged user:Ernestfax to make the Template:Wind farm table including the capfac column back in 2010, unfortunately he has not contributed since 2012 - he made all the programming which I could not. TGCP (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Slightly related: Green energy (particularly wind turbines) is commonly accused of causing high electricity prices in Denmark (and by extension, world wide). Such confusion is widespread, and make it important to distinguish between cost and price. But taxes are the main cause, thus being notable, which is why I included the diagram in Wind_power_in_Denmark . See also Energy_in_Denmark and Economy_of_Denmark. TGCP (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe I was taking it for granted. It may actually be useful to have the wikilinks to underline the concept. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it can be clarified further? We use those simple words "cost" and "price" so often that we don't consider them to be separate concepts, but they are. This lack of clarity has served wind opponents well for decades. In fairness, another lack of clarity is the amount of wind power that is curtailed due to oversupply, and how wind power subsidy affects the economy of traditional power sources. TGCP (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ita, I don't understand your edit here to change the format and remove the Flag? The original purpose of the template was to make entries easily portable between country lists and regional lists such as List of offshore wind farms in the North Sea.

Btw, German capacity factors are here. TGCP (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, normal table entries are already portable, just copy and paste a row between two "|-". There is no need to make a template that essentially does the same thing. Using templates when not necessary just increases complexity for first-time editors. Also the need to port entries in wind farm tables seems quite limited to me. There are very few lists that duplicate existing entries in other articles (maybe 2 or 3 instances of each farm in different articles?). A more interesting idea is the creation of a single template that creates a list with all the wind farms over a certain capacity or in a certain country, depending on the input argument. Something like that would list all wind farms 100 MW or larger in Germany. This however would be soon possible through Wikidata. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a better discussion than when Ernestfax and I talked about it here - some of the purpose was to copy wind farms from a national list to a regional list, including the flag, there may have been other purposes. But if the only difference is the country/flag then I agree that the template is more complicated to edit than just adding country. Not sure why the template was made that way, but at least it gave a uniform structure across most lists - for several years. I agree that Wikidata is the preferred container for data, giving much more flexibility. TGCP (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How lovely to still be remembered after all these years, thanks TGCP ErnestfaxTalk 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back! --Ita140188 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DJ Rodin' Flash
I updated the article for DJ Rodin' Flash so that it fits into the criteria necessary for notability for musicians and ensembles. Is that good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernightmare101 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it seems to me that all the references given are self-published and not third party. This does not demonstrate notability. However, the final decision will be taken in Articles for deletion/DJ Rodin' Flash. To keep the article, third party verifiable sources will need to be added. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about being ranked on ReverbNation?
 * what about it? --Ita140188 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that count as a third-party reference

A kitten for you!
I saw your edits, and they deserve a cat. I have a feeling you like cats.

Janeloulou (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016
 Wikipedia Asian Month  Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!
Hi there! Wikipedia Asian Month is about to start. Here is some information about participating in the event: Best Wishes, Addis Wang Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
 * 2) Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
 * 3) Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
 * 4) If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
 * 5) If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Electricity sector in China into Hydroelectricity in China. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Literally the whole section was copied word by word from this book: . I removed the whole text and rewrote everything using different references. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Address Collection
Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Electronic Voting
I'm not sure that your recent move of the timeline of Electronic voting from the general category to just United States is a good idea. Perhaps a US specific timeline should be created for an article on electronic voting in the US, but this article needs a timeline for the world. Yes, the first use of e-voting was in the US, but the Netherlands used Nedap DRE voting machines for well over a decade, also Belgium. Later, India and Brazil got into the act. Several other South American countries belong in the timeline, along with Internet voting in Switzerland (Geneva first) and Estonia. The objections of Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet (We Don't Trust Voting Computers) in the Netherlands belong in the timeline just as selected anti-DRE work in the US. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be useful to have a general timeline. My reason for moving the existing one is that it is explicitly only covering the US, so to avoid confusion I put it in the relevant section about the country. Feel free to move it if you can expand it with more information from other countries. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops!
Sorry about my mistake on solar power in China! The industry really should've standardized on the subscripted form of that unit to avoid confusing dumbasses like me. -- diff (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * no problem ; ) It is quite confusing! --Ita140188 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the erroneous edit war on Nuclear weapon?
On the map, India is yellow and China orange. Someone switched them. I corrected it. You reverted, erroneously. What gives? NPguy (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * on the map I see, China is clearly yellow. I don't know if you are looking at a previous version of this picture, which marks China as orange (check the file history of w:File:Rael Nuclear use locations world map.png). --Ita140188 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still orange on my screen, but yellow in the source file. Apparently a caching error. Sorry! NPguy (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Politecnico di Milano.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo Politecnico di Milano.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate


Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

ITER page
You're a veteran at this. I'm a novice. What do we do next? And when? StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would go on and make the change in the lead that you proposed in the talk page. It's clear and concise in my opinion. However, we need to find a reference for the second statement about the total electricity consumed since it is not present in the link cited. Alternatively we can leave that statement out. Also I would add a clarification about the fact that ITER is not planned to produce any electricity. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done as you suggested. Can you please have a look? When I drop the paragraph into the main article, can I simply do a direct replacement of what is there? Do I need to code the hyperlinks any differently than I have, surrounded by square brackets, in the talk section? Thanks, Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, you can just replace the text. Hyperlinks work the same as in the talk page, two square brackets for internal links to Wikipedia pages and one square bracket for external links. Also for external links it's better to use the cite function that you can find in the top of the editing window: there is a menu with different citation templates you can use for news, web, journals etc. But just a link is also ok, others will fix the details. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you. I get the part about brackets. I have no idea what "cite function" is but I do understand that others can help clean up errors in my syntax.
 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Would you stop, man? I put there because the belong there, do not retract. If you do not know the subject then do not edit it. Teller Ede, Leo Szilard, they make the Nuclear weapon and Nuclear Reactor. And the Electricity_meter was Hungarian too the first alternating-current watt-hour meter. Ottó_Bláthy. Look it up, and do not retract to which you do not understand, or do not even know what you withdraw.--InterCity(IC) (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in Talk:Transformer many of these things have no clear inventors, since this depends on what you define as invention. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If no clear in Nuclear weapon that Hungarian-American invention then wiping out the category of American inventions or returning it to the list of Hungarian inventions. In the a article highlighting Hungarian inventor Edward Teller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the "American invention" category in nuclear weapon is referring to the place where the first atomic bomb was made. This is, differently from other cases, very clear, since it was the result of the Manhattan project in which people of several nationalities took part. It is not an American invention in the sense that "Americans" invented it, but just that it was invented in the United States. This is important to note because it determined the end and outcome of World War II and the start of the Cold War and it is therefore significant to cite (if the first atomic bomb was made in Germany, history would be very different today). Please do not take these questions personally and leave aside nationalism. I am Italian and still I don't try to add an "Italian invention" category in Nuclear reactor because the first nuclear reactor was made by Enrico Fermi. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Market share by country table
Hi Ita140188. I just checked the changes you made to the table showing the top 10 countries by market share. This simplification left the table a bit confusing for readers since there are a lot of N/As now. If intended as "not available" actually those market shares are indeed available, but depending on the year that country didn't make it to the top 10. Since the table is getting too big, there was not going to be room for 2018 in the previous format, but typically, what is done is to add the latest year and trim the oldest one. I believe if you restore the table showing the actual top 10 and removing 2013 it will look much better. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think about finding the missing values and adding them? I think the current format is cleaner (less repetition of country flags), more scalable, and allows to compare the same country across years. The actual top 10 for each year can be easily checked by sorting the relevant column. Anyway if you don't agree feel free to revert it. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes is doable, but it will not be the "Top XX" anymore. If you look at this table I just updated all of Europe here (I will take the top 14 in volume for 2017 plus Denmark and Luxembourg), plus I have China, Japan, US and Canada (the only ones missing ones from that table). Go ahead, I will completed it, but change the name to something like: "Selelected countries..." or "Main markets..." Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Wind power installed in Europe in 2013.png
Hi Ita,

the problem of this map is, that it is colored by absolute values. Of course you can imagine that bigger countries have much easier a larger wind power generating capacity than smaller countries. Larger countries automatically get darker colors, despite the installed capacity of a small country may be – measured relatively per area or per population – much more important. This is a cartographic mistake which should be avoided. So I would like to remove the map from all articles. I will create a new one with relative scaling and newer values, but I'm lacking fast internet in the moment so this will take a few more days.

Sincerely, DCKH (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be polite to answer me.--DCKH (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for late reply, I forgot to answer. I am ok with the removal of the map, but it would be nice that you provide an alternative before removing it. If everybody just removed what is not perfect without creating something better Wikipedia would be empty now. Also I am not ok with your removal of other images that, even though are not perfect, are better than nothing, without providing an improved version. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for demanding a prompt answer - we are all volunteers here.
 * If everybody just removed what is not perfect without creating something better Wikipedia would be empty now is simply untrue. Please tell me, what's the exact benefit of that file!--DCKH (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * very nice map. My only comment is that there is a gap between 30% and 40% which has no color associated, so it can be difficult to update in the future while keeping the same color code. But definitely better than the old map. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

what makes english superior ?
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genkai_Nuclear_Power_Plant&type=revision&diff=834302730&oldid=834180038

what is the problem of extra links in other languages ? Links on the internet zre not for ever, and can be lost whenever a site might decide to make some place for new articles...

You might include a link to an article in an Japanese newssite... with google translate this does not need to be very difficult.

Best wishes J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against non-English links (I am not a native English speaker myself). However, we are on the English Wikipedia, and English is preferred whenever is available. See also WP:LINKS. There is no need to have multiple references if the one chosen is from a reliable source. The problem of broken links is being addressed by archiving every reference used in Wiki, see WP:WEBCITE. Best, --Ita140188 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

template reattori nipponici
questo template per te è stato fatto a mano o in automatico? lo vorrei implementare in .it--Dwalin (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hi, if you can please write in English so that everybody can understand. I think the template was done manually (I am not aware of any method to create that automatically). Surely it is updated manually, as I am currently doing it. I am also planning a big revision soon. I think it would be very easy to transfer into another language wiki (just copy and replace the relevant text/templates?). Good luck! --Ita140188 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * sto parlando con te, non con tutta .en
 * si, mi ha risposto che è stato fatto manualmente. in ogni caso non lo ricopio pari pari in italiano, perchè non voglio mettere la separazione per tipologie (c'è già nella tabella dei reattori), e non mi piace la parte in cui si interrompe l'operatività. perchè è interrotto? allora mettiamo TUTTE le interruzioni per i lavori di manutenzione o quelle di fermata del combustibile. il reattore è operativo o non è operativo, bon. sul PRIS c'è solo la data di ritorno in funzione, non quella dell'ultimo spegnimento, andiamo a cercare su decine di fonti questi dati? naaaaaaaa. deve essere una infografica che mostra in modo chiaro e veloce tutto quanto. per i vari dati spicci si va a guardare nelle pagine singole. --Dwalin (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

tabelle nucleari
ti va di passare tutte le tabelle delle centrali da .it a .en? visto che qui ci lavori tu........--Dwalin (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * a che tabelle ti riferisci? --Ita140188 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * queste--Dwalin (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * queste informazioni sembrano essere gia' presenti in List of nuclear reactors e nelle pagine specifiche di ogni paese --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * quella tabella è in molti punti sorpassata, errata o incompleta. poi, non è meglio metterla nelle rispettive pagine nazionali? --Dwalin (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sto appunto facendo un aggiornamento generale della pagina. Se trovi informazioni non aggiornate, non esitare a modificare. Una volta che tutte le tabelle nella pagina sono pronte, si puo' richiamare la tabella come se fosse un template:


 * devi mettere nel template un "modify", altrimenti è noioso ricercare il template (o sono io che non conosco il modo rapido)--Dwalin (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buona idea. Si puo' fare aggiungendo  in ogni sezione con un link alla sezione. Aggiungo appena ho tempo. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * perfetto!
 * cmq di errori ce ne sono a bizzeffe in quella pagina, per dirne uno, hinkley point C1 non è ancora iniziato (anche se si trovano su internet video dell'EDF che mostrano l'avanzamento dei lavori, ma non so di cosa di preciso. cmq sia WNA che PRIS non lo riportano come in costruzione)
 * la pagina che stai modificando, non è ora una "lista di reattori nucleari di potenza" al posto di "lista di reattori nucleari"? prima c'erano anche quelli di ricerca, che ora non ci sono più
 * non faccio modifiche grosse perchè ho già .it da fare, se mi metto a fare pure .en non la finisco più....--Dwalin (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * non faccio modifiche grosse perchè ho già .it da fare, se mi metto a fare pure .en non la finisco più....--Dwalin (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Mah non mi pare che il caso di Hinkley Point sia molto rilevante. E' piu' un problema di mettersi d'accordo che di inaccuratezza. Ci sono fonti attendibili che dicono che e' in costruzione, quindi tecnicamente l'articolo e' corretto. Almeno per i paesi che conosco mi sembra non ci siano grandi errori. Comunque ho aggiunto il link sulla tabella per facilitare la modifica. In caso posso aggiungerlo su tutte con regex. E si', il titolo dovrebbe essere aggiornato, ma per ora va bene cosi'. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * si, ma quelli dovrebbero essere i lavori nel sito, non quelli della centrale. poi manca il carem 25 che è sia di potenza che di ricerca (è sull'RRDB), Shidaowan PWR e xianning non sono in costruzione. penly non è più programmato da alcuni anni. rajastan 1 è ancora catalogato come operativo. darkovin non è in costruzione. kursk II-1 è iniziato 2 settimane fa, non nel 2015. ce ne sono...--Dwalin (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)--Dwalin (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Credo che il problema sia che tu ti basi solamente sul PRIS, ma ognuno ha le proprie definizioni di che vuol dire costruzione iniziata. Comunque ho modificato un po' di cose. Se vedi grossi errori ti sarei grato se li correggessi. Gli articoli qui hanno una visibilita' molto maggiore rispetto alla Wikipedia Italiana (quella lista ha 365 visite al giorno in media ) per cui e' importante minimizzare gli errori. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * si, ma tu ti devi basare su una fonte autorevole. quali altre fonti autorevoli hai se non la IAEA, che è l'agenzia internazionale per l'energia atomica? poi se sono solo lavori di sbancamento ci sono altre decine di reattori in giro per il mondo in costruzione (in cina ci saranno almeno altri 20 reattori i cui siti sono pronti per ricevere la prima colata di cemento strutturale). WNA, che è la lobby delle aziende nucleari non lo riporta come in costruzione, e WNA è finanziata da EDF, ti pare che EDF non sappia che ha un reattore in costruzione?
 * EFFETTIVAMENTE......leggevo articoli che davano tempi di consegna maggiori del previsto e costi aumentati, ma li reputavo solo per problemi di licenze e per gli interessi accumulati sui capitali già investiti. trino 2 era era in costruzione? no, tutte le opere di sbancamento erano già fatte, reattori già ordinati e via discorrendo, ma non è mai stata fatta la prima colata di cemento, quindi si considerano come pianificati.
 * come rimaniamo? io preferisco basarmi solo sul PRIS (anche se WNA riporta xiaipu 1 in costruzione, ed il PRIS non si è ancora aggiornato). --Dwalin (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * stasera mi metto e controllo. aggiungo anche i reattori pianificati? e quelli proposti? --Dwalin (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Grazie per il lavoro su List of nuclear reactors. Credo che sia meglio non citare i "proposed", perche' ne sarebbero troppi e troppo spesso questi progetti non si materializzano. Non ho capito il tuo edit su Xiapu II. Non sapevo fosse in progetto un'altra unita'. Riesci a trovare una fonte? --Ita140188 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * quando c'è 1-2 proposed li ho messi, ma in cina dove sono oltre 100, no....lì non li metto i proposed.
 * qui. a xiapu dovrebbero fare un HTR, un'altro FNR, e 6 CAP. --Dwalin (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * qui. a xiapu dovrebbero fare un HTR, un'altro FNR, e 6 CAP. --Dwalin (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok mi era sfuggito grazie. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * maaaaaaaaaaaaa, se si mettesse l'aggiornamento? per i reattori pianificati l'aggiornamento è a maggio 2018, così si sa a che data è aggiornata la tabella per quella categoria specifica lì. molte centrali (cinesi) hanno un sacco di reattori proposti. ok, prima del 2025 non li inizieranno, ma così capisci la centrale che dimensioni finali avrà--Dwalin (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Cioe' intendi specificare a quando la pagina e' aggiornata? Io sarei contrario. Rimarrebbe implicito che la pagina E' aggiornata, il che non e' sempre vero. Le pagine dovrebbero essere sempre aggiornate per quanto si riesce, e se si trovano errori e' meglio mettere un "update" tag. (non so se ho capito bene il tuo punto) --Ita140188 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * yep. è che ho mantenuto questa forma del "tabella aggiornata al" per non dover aggiornare decine di tabelle ogni mese. ad esempio questa tabella la rifaccio a morte di papa, ci metto mezza vita ad aggiornarla.
 * cmq, non so se era chiaro, la dicitura riguarderebbe solo i reattori "planned", "planned reactors are updated to may 2018"--Dwalin (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * metto anche dei proposti se ci sono reattori pianificati nella stessa centrale. non in cina, lì devo girare troppe tabelle e mi viene lunga. --Dwalin (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

ti piace quindi com'è venuto? ho messo tutti quelli pianificati ed alcuni di proposti (questi ultimi negli stati dove c'erano pochi reattori, o per le centrali già con altri reattori). --Dwalin (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Mah, e' ok, pero' io non metterei i proposti. E metterli solo per alcune centrali o solo per alcuni paesi e' arbitrario. Per esempio, se non si conosce nemmeno il tipo di reattore che si pianifica di utilizzare, mi sembrano proposte molto molto teoriche con alta probabilita' di non materializzarsi. Il che non e' enciclopedico --Ita140188 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Altra cosa, da ora io comincerei a mettere le citazioni ad ogni nuovo aggiornamento. E' impossibile metterle a posteriori su tutte le tabelle, ma almeno quando si aggiornano e' meglio metterle. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * è un pò arbitrario, si, ma quelle centrali sono già programmate, quindi la licenza generica c'è già. si devono finalizzare i contratti e le licenze di espansione, ma il grosso del primo lavoro di approvazione è fatto.
 * per alcune nazioni, però, i programmi nucleari sono troppo vasti, quindi ci saranno molte modifiche. quelli sudafricani invece si faranno, lo hanno deciso. è meno "proposto" che l'n-esimo reattore cinese. sempre classificati come proposti, molto meno che altri esempi. o come anche quelli polacchi, non si sa ancora bene dove, ma hanno deciso di farli perchè hanno interrotto i finanziamenti al carbone. sono "proposti" perchè non sanno tipo e luogo, ma hanno pianificato di farli. gli emirati invece non si muove foglia, ci sono solo dichiarazioni d'intenti sul fare altri 10 reattori, null'altro.
 * faccio io o fai tu per mettere l'aggiornamento?--Dwalin (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ho trovato questa pagina, la conoscevi? la si unisce alla lista di centrali nucleari? --Dwalin (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Direi di no: aumenterebbe la lista americana a dismisura, e i reattori cancellati durante il planning non sono compresi in altri paesi. Direi di lasciarla come "see also" dove e' adesso. --Ita140188 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * di "unfinisced" ce ne sono 3 nella tabella principale. tolgo anche quelli o ci metto tutti gli infinisced, che però sono stati iniziati? perchè se consideriamo solo quelli da inizio 2000, mancano i 2 di summer.
 * solo per gli USA non ho messo i reattori programmati. gli USA hanno una classificazione molto contorta.
 * appena mi dici correggo, e correggo i pianificati. (blue castle non è più nemmeno fra i proposti). --Dwalin (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * La mia idea e' che se e' stata iniziata la costruzione di un reattore e poi e' stato cancellato, dovrebbe essere aggiunto. Ma se e' stato solo proposto e pianificato e poi cancellato, non e' rilevante. Non si puo' aggiungere tutto e la lista deve essere utile e concisa. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * non mi viene il view/edit in cina--Dwalin (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * tolto anche le altre tabelle. la mia idea era quella di lasciarne solo una per così maneggiare solo quella, ed avere meno errori/mancati aggiornamenti. infatti in quella cinese che hai riproposto ci sono molti errori. --Dwalin (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hai ragione, pero' una lista di reattori e' diversa da una lista di centrali. per paesi come Cina e Stati Uniti non e' pratico avere la lista di ogni singolo reattore (anche non attivo) nella pagina generale sull'energia nucleare nel paese (negli Stati Uniti e' impossibile anche avere una lista di centrali, dato che ognuna ha 1 o 2 reattori massimo, ce ne sono semplicemente troppe). Appena ho tempo aggiorno la lista Cinese. Tra l'altro io avevo archiviato la discussione pensando fosse inattiva, ma a quanto pare ci ritroviamo a parlare nell'archivio ahaha.. possiamo iniziare una nuova discussione piu' specifica magari nella main talk. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Solar power in Italy
Hi Ita! We are the students from Uppsala University working on the Solar power in Italy page. We noticed your edits to the page after our contributions, and were hoping you could provide advice for our further intended contributions. As of now we planned to revamp the page. If you find the time, could you visit my sandbox and take a look at our plans for the page? Any comments/advice would be greatly appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gemma.green16/sandbox

Thank you! Gemma.green16 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your contributions! Sorry for deleting most of the edits on solar power in Italy. As a general rule, you should not repeat general information such as what is solar PV or its benefits in an article about a specific country. A link to the relevant article is enough. Articles should be concise and strictly on topic. So the sections "Solar Photovoltaics", "Emerging Technologies", "Environmental impacts" do not belong to the Solar power in Italy article. If you feel you can add valuable information in the relevant article (such as photovoltaics, perovskite solar cell etc. ) feel free to add! Other suggestion: use the correct order for sectioning, that is after a section with "==" there should be a section with "===", not "====". Good luck with your studies! --Ita140188 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)