User talk:Ita140188/Archive 5

Sanmen Nuclear Power Station Unit 2
You are wasting my time, man. Not me. 47.251.3.230 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of patience, I've been here for over 10 years--Ita140188 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

figlio di koizumi
senti, tu che ste cose le saprai meglio di me, ma che mossa è quella di mettere all'ambiente il figlio anti-nucleare di koizumi? non ne vedo la logica. --Dwalin (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Non so, comunque la politica giapponese è quasi peggio di quella italiana, quindi non ci fare caso. Il futuro del nucleare in Giappone non lo vedo bene purtroppo. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ah ok, non so se essere rincuorato o meno dal fatto che i giapponesi siano peggio degli italiani.
 * per il vederlo bene non so, vederlo male neppure (non iniziano higashidori 1 l'anno prossimo?), annasperà ancora per un decennio, poi decideranno. intanto caleranno demograficamente ed i consumi crolleranno. vedremo. --Dwalin (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per mantenere gli stessi reattori che hanno ora (~40) e assumendo una vita media di ~40 anni a reattore, dovrebbero costruire un reattore l'anno solo per mantenere la capacità. Se va bene ne costruiranno uno nuovo ogni 20 anni. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * in 10 anni vedremo. sarà la cina a spingere (implitamente) a che corea del sud e giappone ritornino prepotentemente sui loro passi. --Dwalin (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

cina
mi scoccia aprire sempre nuove chat. zhangzou 1 iniziato il 16 ottobre, non si sa se anche il 2 e nessuna notizia degli altri 4 di sto luglio. cmq......una centrale nucleare non è un campo di fagioli, possibile che non si accorgano se sia in costruzione o meno? non ci sono ancora xiapu e bohai shipyard NPP sul PRIS.....--Dwalin (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guarda non ho idea di cosa stia succedendo.. secondo me è meglio aspettare di avere notizie più certe. Anche perché la stessa Reuters annunciava l'inizio della costruzione a Zhangzou tre mesi fa . Credo che il problema sia che le informazioni ufficiali sono poche e imprecise, e quelle non ufficiali sono in cinese. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Io ho messo solo 1 reattore in costruzione per ognuna delle centrali. Ho quindi cambiato solo la data di zhangzou 1. Vediamo.....--Dwalin (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * lo dice anche WNN--Dwalin (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

qui dicono che hanno iniziato due hualong one, ed anche qui lo dicono. solo che guardando la fonte della prima notizia iniziano nel 2020 e nel 2021], c'è stata solo la cerimonia dei progetti. tu ci capisci qualcosa? ho scritto anche a NucNet per avere altre info, visto che le loro fonti smentiscono l'articolo originale. --Dwalin (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * scusa mi ero perso il tuo commento. Hai ragione, guardando la fonte ufficiale sembra che la costruzione inizierà nel 2020 e 2021. Intanto ho aggiornato la lista con le nuove info. Hai avuto risposta da Nucnet? --Ita140188 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ancora niente. è strano che cannino così tanto una notizia quando hanno loro stessi riportato la fonte ufficiale!--Dwalin (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

ti faccio notare che su china WNA hanno tolto la centrale galleggiante dai reattori in costruzione, mentre rimane xiapu. --Dwalin (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Guarda ne so quanto te, in ogni caso la centrale galleggiante non era stata aggiunta su List of nuclear reactors, quindi per ora si lascia così. Vedremo. Rimane comunque l'incertezza su tutte le altre centrali in costruzione in Cina. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * era un aggiornamento. fino all'ultima volta che avevo controllato era fra i reattori in costruzione. --Dwalin (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Grazie!--Ita140188 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maruhan


The article Maruhan has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Crescent Dunes
Nice edits. Just wanted to say "thanks." One hears (or wants to express that) so rarely on the Wiki these days. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Levelized Cost of Energy
Hello Ita140188, I am wondering why on Dec 11 you reverted the edits I made to the LCOE article (as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.7.245.18)

The claim that LCOE is "the net present value of the generated electrical energy over the lifetime of a electricity generating plant" (which I hadn't realized also occurs in the short description) is certainly wrong in many ways. Firstly it is an attempt to define not the discounted market value of *all* the energy produced but the npv of the *costs* on a per unit basis. And it is indeed just an "attempt" as the decision to discount future power at the same rate as money is only one of many options (and probably not a good one as money depreciates with inflation but amounts of energy do not).

Furthermore, you also removed various places where I identified a citation needed and I don't understand why you think that the definitions and claims made in the article are self evident. Without such attribution it seems that they are just being presented as original research - which I believe Wikipedia frowns on. alQpr (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I think your objection is mostly about wording. The definition is correct since LCOE assumes that electricity can be sold always at the same price. Of course this makes it almost useless for assessing renewable generation technologies when they are not marginal players in a system dominated by fossil/dispatchable generators. It was developed to assess dispatchable technologies, thus this assumption made sense. Anyway, my problem with your edit is mostly about clarity. When you say "LCOE is an attempt ... " you are talking about the intended purpose of it, not its definition. I think we should start articles with just the definitions for clarity. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Graph vs file on Wind power by country
I see your point, but I noticed that the file I included was used on over 50 pages, so I figured it was going to be kept up to date. But I agree that since we have built-in graphing capabilities in Wikipedia, we might as well use them. Do you want to suggest changing it on all those pages? Of course, a problem with that is that one would have to change 50+ pages every time there is new data...

Perhaps there is a way to have the graph as well as its data in a central file that can be linked to and used? Best, KarlFrei (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. A possible solution to avoid updating many pages with the same information is the use of templates. We can create a template with the graph and then transclude it on each page like an image. Something similar to Template:Latest pie chart of world power by source. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Good news! I just learned something: SVG files are text files :-) Please save the file which I included here and open it using any text editor, e.g. Notepad++. The numbers for the graph are on line 41. BTW, the reason I had for replacing the graph was that the SVG file covers more years.


 * If you agree, I would like to ask you if you could kindly undo your own edit :-) Note that the SVG file has several other nice properties as well, for instance, it is multilingual. All the best, KarlFrei (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a belated happy birthday! KarlFrei (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahah thanks! Ok, you have a good point. Also the SVG does look better than the graph. Unfortunately Wikipedia graphs still look terrible. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Milan Metro
Dunque, ricapitolando: 1) inizia il processo annullando l'aggiornamento della sezione "Tickets", senza peraltro migliorarla o aggiornarla; 2) continua ad annullare il medesimo aggiornamento, senza peraltro migliorarlo o aggiornarlo. Insomma, un comportamento alquanto infantile nonché dannoso, sia dal punto di vista dei contenuti che del tempo perso.

Cancellando l'aggiornamento si perdono informazioni su: possibilità di interscambio nell'arco di tempo di validità del biglietto, possibilità di utilizzo di carte bancarie in generale (non solo di credito - vedere fonte), implementazione nel 2020 in superficie (vedere fonte), e altro. L'utilizzo della lingua iglese risulta inoltre meno preciso. "For the city center" è errato (vedere fonte).

Io mio occupo di ingegneria dei trasporti nella migliore università al mondo nel settore (ARWU, 2017) e ho un livello d'inglese C1 (certificato). Ita140188?

Saluti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssddmit (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Dove hai fatto l'università è assolutamente ininfluente. Per il mio inglese, vivo da 8 anni all'estero parlando inglese tutti i giorni. Puoi controllare i miei edits se hai dubbi sul mio inglese. Ho anche una certificazione C2 presa 8 anni fa. Parlando specificatamente delle tue modifiche:
 * "a standard ticket" non vuol dire niente. Stai parlando del biglietto per la zona 1-3, cioè il centro.
 * "since its validation" è sottinteso e non aggiunge nulla appesantendo solo la frase. Stesso discorso per il passante, che è semplicemente una infrastruttura parte delle linee S. E stessa cosa con "unlimited changes": basta dire che è valido per 90 minuti.
 * "can be substituted" è inglese maccheronico.
 * "by tapping in the orange gates..." Wikipedia non è una guida turistica, non serve andare in questo dettaglio.
 * "integrated ticketing" link è errato per WP:EGG. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * La risposta sull'università è ancora più irrilevante nella misura in cui non si fornisce una credenziale migliore. Inoltre i contenuti delle risposte sono perlopiù errati o fuorvianti:
 * "a standard ticket" è il biglietto ordinario, ovvero quello che da luglio 2019 costa €2 per 90 minuti. Errore: La zona 1-3 NON è il centro. Informarsi.
 * "since its validation" non è sottinteso: In altre città (es. Berlino) non si convalida. Ok sul passante, ma utile specificare, visto che spesso non è percepito come parte della rete urbana. "unlimited changes" non è sottinteso: in altre città (es. Toronto) è possibile solo un numero limitato di cambi, e pure a Milano era permesso un solo accesso alla metro e al passante fino a luglio 2019.
 * "can be substituted" è inglese chiaro e lineare; l'affermazione che non lo sia non è corroborata da alcuna fonte.
 * "by tapping in the orange gates..." è utile specificare, visto che solitamente ne è presente solo uno per fermata, e solo in un lato del gabbiotto (es. Udine M2).
 * "integrated ticketing" non mia modifica: ben venga una sistemazione.


 * Non vedo come l'università abbia a che fare con questa questione. Non siamo qui per vantarci ma per scrivere dei buoni articoli. Per favore evita di usare termini saccenti come "informarsi". Tu non conosci nulla di me, come io di te. Nel caso specifico, ho vissuto a Milano 5 anni e torno molto spesso, quindi conosco bene la città. La zona 1-3 corrisponde al comune si Milano e comuni adiacenti, un'area che è al centro del sistema tariffario e della zona metropolitana di Milano. Se si usa "standard" non si dà l'informazione che il biglietto è valido per un'area geografica limitata (per esempio potrebbe essere un biglietto standard vs un biglietto ridotto). Per tutti i vari sottintesi, il fatto che ci siano esempi diversi nel resto del mondo è ininfluente. Se non si specifica, è sottinteso ciò che ho scritto prima. E' negli altri casi che si deve specificare, non qui. Per l'inglese è questione di gusti, ma "can be substituted" non suona naturale. Per il punto successivo, ripeto di nuovo, Wikipedia non è una guida turistica. Ps. per favore firma i tuoi commenti con 4 tilde (~) per chiarezza. Grazie. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Solar power in Italy - Conto Energia (Feed-in tariffs) table
In the Wikipedia page "Solar power in Italy", the subsection "Conto Energia (Feed-in tariffs)" has a table that you added. The table says the MW Installed, Yearly cost, and Yearly cost per kW installed in each of Conto Energia schemes 1-5.

I tried to find the source of the table, but the link is broken. The source, the GSE home page, seems to be archived at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20160809083425/http://www.gse.it/en/Pages/default.aspx

However, when I check this source for data, the data are different from what you put on the Wikipedia page. I see these data: Conto Energia 2: 6,820.3 MW instead of 6,791.2 MW, and 3,282.9 instead of 3,270.1 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 3: 1,536.7 MW instead of 1,566.6 MW, and 638.8 instead of 648.9 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 4: 4,787.5 MW instead of 7,600.4 MW, and 1,681.8 instead of 2,469.0 million euros yearly cost The GSE home page did not actually list data for Conto Energia 5. I think your numbers for Conto Energia 5 were calculated to make a total of 6.7 billion Euros total cost after Conto Energia 5, and to make the total MW installed equal a number that you found somewhere (where?). (For Conto Energia 1, your table and the GSE home page have the same data.)

Maybe the data in your table came from a different version of the GSE home page, or from some other page? I am very interested to understand the source of data in the table you made, why there is a difference, and which numbers are actually correct. I wondered if the difference might be: Is there some way to tell which data are correct, and whether the data are for (1) indicative versus actual costs; and (2) include grandfathered projects with the scheme whose tariff they received, versus with the scheme active when they were commissioned?
 * 1) because earlier data were initial indicative cost estimates, and later data were actual commissioned costs; or
 * 2) because some data include grandfathered projects under a scheme, and other data include only projects commissioned during the dates of the scheme.

By the way, also, the total yearly cost might have exceeded 6.7 billion Euros, because installations after the cost reached 6.7 billion Euros could still receive incentives for 30 days (from June 6, 2013 to July 5, 2013), and because small systems might have received incentives longer. I wonder if there are any data about this.

This is my first Wikipedia edit of any kind, so I hope I am doing this right. (I came to this because I am trying to determine how much each calendar year's installations cost (million Euros per year of additional cost from one year's installations), instead of how much each scheme's installations cost, for my own research. If you have suggestions, I would be glad to know -- maybe there is a right way to discuss this; I am not sure for Wikipedia.)

--EconMan (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the interest, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! The table that I added with Conto Energia figures come from previous edits (for example, it was present before in image form here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_in_Italy&oldid=719629391). At that time I checked the source for the numbers and then turned the image into a table. I don't remember exactly what (if any) assumptions there were in the calculation (as it was 4 years ago). Anyway, if you feel like you have a better source with better numbers, please feel free to improve the article! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I appreciate the information on where this arose, and it is helpful to know that you checked the source at the time.  Best Regards.  By the way, if this section should be deleted now from your page, feel free, as appropriate. EconMan (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A follow-up: I determined that the information already in Wikipedia must be correct. The information that now appears in the Internet Archive copies of the Gestore Servizi Energetici (GSE) home page is from an older date, 3 June 2012, predating the end of Conto Energia 4. The Internet Archive dates displayed for the GSE home page are misleading, because the page loads and uses lots of subsidiary code files and other files, and those can have different archive dates. A subsidiary file named "contatore_fotovoltaico_dataEn.xml" contains the detailed data accessible via the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4, and that subsidiary file was only saved once at the Internet Archive, on 3 June 2012. The non-detailed photovoltaic counter data on the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4 exactly tally with those detailed data, indicating that they also must have come from information provided by GSE as of 3 June 2012. I conclude that the information entered by contributor Beebuzbar on 30 April 2016, and which Ita140188 confirmed when cleaning up formatting on 12 May 2016, must be correct. --EconMan (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow thanks for the thorough investigation! In the following days if I have time I will try to find an updated reference for those numbers to have a functioning link and to further check them. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great, thank you. If you do find an updated reference, I would be glad to receive a ping here as before (no obligation). --EconMan (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Graphs and charts
Hi Ita,

I came across an old comment of yours on the talk page of Graph:Chart and I remembered we interacted recently. I have now investigated SVG charts a bit and it seems nontrivial to use them. The instructions on Wikimedia are not very clear, I feel. And the problem with using third party software is that it tends to create SVGs that are not editable by a text editor.

Anyway what I was wondering specifically is what precisely the problem is with the built-in Wikipedia charts. While I certainly agree that all the graphs on the template talk page look terrible (very blurry and vague), there are other charts which look much better. Indeed, to me it looks like a difference between night and day compared to the graphs on the talk page! Also the particular graph that we discussed earlier actually looks fine to me; I only wanted to do it differently to get a global solution, which could be updated centrally.

You mentioned that the built-in system is canvas-based and inefficient. I am a beginner with respect to canvas and svg, but is the efficiency really a problem in this day and age? I have tried in recent days to get a discussion of SVG versus PNG going in various places, but nobody seems to be interested in discussing this, unfortunately. KarlFrei (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There are mainly two types of charts on Wikipedia: 1) the Template:Graph:Chart based on the Module:Graph, and 2) the Module:Chart. Both have problems.
 * The first option is well supported, actively developed, and theoretically more powerful and flexible. However, I think the output looks very ugly, as I was mentioning in my comment you linked. This is because the SVG charts created are converted into PNG for compatibility. You can check how the original SVG output looks like in preview mode (just edit a page with a graph and check the preview).
 * The second methods outputs graphs made of HTML DIV structures. This is not very scalable or flexible. Also, the current implementation has many limits, which at some point I was trying to solve by updating the code. You can check my progress at Module:Sandbox/Ita140188/chart2. Unfortunately I have had no time recently to dedicate to this so this project is practically abandoned. The previous chart on Wind power by country was based on this Module:Chart.
 * I think the future is with Module:Graph, which has much more potential. I just hope they make the output a bit nicer.--Ita140188 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The situation is even stranger than you describe. I did what you suggested (looked at a preview of a page with a chart) and then right-clicked on the chart to save the image separately. That image is a PNG file!! And it looks fine! Apparently, some kind of postprocessing is performed when you click publish, which makes the file uglier. This is really weird. I do not understand this at all. KarlFrei (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the future is with Module:Graph, which has much more potential. I just hope they make the output a bit nicer.--Ita140188 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The situation is even stranger than you describe. I did what you suggested (looked at a preview of a page with a chart) and then right-clicked on the chart to save the image separately. That image is a PNG file!! And it looks fine! Apparently, some kind of postprocessing is performed when you click publish, which makes the file uglier. This is really weird. I do not understand this at all. KarlFrei (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The situation is even stranger than you describe. I did what you suggested (looked at a preview of a page with a chart) and then right-clicked on the chart to save the image separately. That image is a PNG file!! And it looks fine! Apparently, some kind of postprocessing is performed when you click publish, which makes the file uglier. This is really weird. I do not understand this at all. KarlFrei (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, so it turns out it is not PNG, it is just saved as one. It is really confusing. KarlFrei (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding your statement about the future being with Module:Graph: that may be, but for the time being, it would be a shame if your work on this was lost. I saw on Module_talk:Chart that all you have to do at this point is restore all the tick marks for the graphs. As User:JFG wrote, this is how these charts look until now anyway. If you do this, then your version could be activated as replacement for the current module. I think it would be a big improvement, and any issues with spacing on individual pages (where ad hoc spacing was introduced) can be taken care of by users. It would be nice if you could do this. I would do it myself, but I do not know this programming language. I assume it is an easy change to make. KarlFrei (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with KarlFrei's suggestion. Like it or not, Module:Graph is widely used on the encyclopedia. It's much easier for editors to adjust spacing once the updated version is online, than to switch all charts to the Template:Graph:Chart (and sometimes that would be almost impossible, given the widely different approaches of those modules to building their charts). — JFG talk 08:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I added back support for pie charts and the x-axis tick marks. I think my solution is a bit of a hack, so somebody needs to check that it works on most browsers before implementing the change. Please try the new module and tell me what you think. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked and seems to work fine on the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I replaced the Chart code by your version, including the documentation. One small issue remains: your code refers to a file styles.css in your sandbox. I suppose this file styles.css needs to be placed somewhere else (and the reference to it changed in the code), but I could not locate it (even though your code kind of tells me where it is, Wikipedia does not show it to me when I go there...). Perhaps you could fix this? KarlFrei (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you. The file you are referring to is here: Template:TemplateStyles_sandbox/Ita140188/styles.css. In order for the css file to work it needs to be in the Template namespace, so it cannot be moved to the Module. For this reason, I am not sure where to put it. I propose to leave it where it is for now, since it works. In any case, the file is not essential: it only adds the responsive behavior when hovering with the mouse. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. I received a complaint about this change on my talk page. I am not sure what to do about it. Could you please have a look at it and perhaps respond? Thanks in advance! KarlFrei (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

List of nuclear reactors
Hello Ita

Concerning my revised extension with "half commercial" reactors. I meant: Their electricity was (or in little cases of still operating reactors is) sold, but without overall profit; the plant existed only with the help of state subsidies, for mainly research purposes. I think this completion would be necessary for factual reasons. Greetings--2A02:1206:455F:6E20:AC3C:E245:69E9:83CE (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the comment. Many power plants exist only with state subsidy or have other (even main) purposes. However, the condition for inclusion in the list is all reactors that sell electricity to the grid. This is independently of whether they make a profit or not, or if the reactors are also used for something else. This inclusion condition is mainly to exclude reactors on ships or submarines or reactors exclusively used for research (listed at List of nuclear research reactors). --Ita140188 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment is nill, seemed to be a technical problem! Your answer here is ok, thank you. --2A02:1206:455F:5BC0:4541:12C9:2897:DC9 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster: Revision history
I had edited the page because I believed the opening section was too long and made the navbox irrelevant. Guodata (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for contributing! Sorry for the revert, but that article is about a very delicate topic and a source of much controversy. Before making significant changes to the lead, please discuss in the talk page first, so that we can reach a consensus. Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

accetto la tua decisione
Ciao Ita140188, accetto la tua decisione ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy&diff=949191479&oldid=949002143 ). Guardate qui (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Molgreen ) e qui (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wind_turbines_in_Brandenburg ). Vedrete che le energie rinnovabili sono il tema del mio cuore.
 * ( tradotto con DeepL ) in tedesco: Hallo Ita140188, ich akzeptiere Deine Entscheidung. Schaue bitte hier und hier. Du wirst sehen, dass die Erneuerbaren Energien das Thema meines Herzens sind. Viele Grüße
 * Tanti saluti --Molgreen (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Posti letto in giappone
Guardando robe sul coronavirus, ho guardato i posti letto per nazione. Nei posti letto ci sono anche i posti delle case di riposo? La differenza rispetto l'UE è immensa. --Dwalin (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ciao, sinceramente non ne ho idea. Però mi hai fatto scoprire questa pagina: List of countries by hospital beds. Vivo da diversi anni qui in Giappone, quello che posso dire è che mi sembra che il sistema sanitario sia di altissimo livello. In ogni caso per ora qui è tutto tranquillo e non c'è alcuna misura di quarantena per ora. Speriamo bene! Spero tutto vada bene per te in Italia. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * si, ma è anche per come vengano classificati. in italia esistono RSA, sono case di riposo con una componente sanitaria fissa. sono a metà fra reparti di lunga degenza degli ospedali e case di riposo normali. negli ospedali quei posti letto sono in via di abolizione, quindi vengono depennati. in giappone? nel mio ospedale c'era un reparto diabetologia con cameroni da 6-8 letti, ora è stato abolito (per i molti meno problemi di diabete) ed è stato trasformato in ambulatorio. calo posti letto? SI. ma è anche calata la domanda. il numero dice qualcosa......ma se cambiano i criteri è un problema. in germania sono restii a definire "morto da coronavirus" qualcuno che aveva altre patologie, ma definire qualcuno morto per ipertensione è stiracchiatissimo. da ciò la mortalità distantissima da tutti i confinanti.
 * se in giappone considerassero "posti ospedalieri" le RSA, allora la differenza di posti letto sarebbe spiegabile. una parte con effettivamente più posti letto, e poi posti letto ospedalieri che non sono veramente ospedalieri. --Dwalin (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * qui dice che il sistema sanitario giapponese sia già al collasso, ma il giappone ha poco più di 8100 casi di coronavirus ed il quadruplo dei posti letto italiani. qualquadra non cosa. --Dwalin (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Come si direbbe su Wikipedia, "citation needed". Questi articoli che citano non meglio specificati "esperti" mi sembrano spezzo delle cazzate, per usare un termine diretto. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * appunto. queste parole non trovano riscontro oggettivo in alcun dato giapponese. buona giornata! --Dwalin (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

nuculare cina
huizou rinominata taipingling ed inizio ufficiale il 26 dicembre. --Dwalin (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Grazie, ho aggiornato la lista. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are fast...
Regarding this: I was about to self-undo, but you beat me to it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message ;) --Ita140188 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Revisions to Solar Power in India page
You have incorrectly undone my edit calculating solar generation as a percentage of the total power generation.

The link you deleted shows that power generation from non-renewable sources + hydro was 1,252.61 TWh in 2019-20 (page 1A). The renewable energy generation for 2019-20 is in the link that is still there (page p1B), which is 138.32 TWh.

1252.61 + 138.32 = 1,390.93 TWh. Hence 1,391 TWh for 2019-20 is the correct figure. Please check and confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana (talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I corrected your edit because you reported a solar generation of 5 TWh, while it is 50 TWh (from your source). Your calculation for the total generation in the same period may be ok, but it's not very clear from the sources you cite, for example in the first link it seems import from Bhutan is also included (that would mean this is consumption, not generation). In any case I will reinstate this percentage number. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving titles on disks
Enlighten me! If there is any official rule in en.WP that forbids me to improve titles on discussion pages. -- Manorainjan  07:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:TALK --Ita140188 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What? You mean: "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. "?
 * Better You read that whole page yourself!!
 * Now, will You revert Your revert? -- Manorainjan  09:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your change does not fall into any of these categories. It changes the sense of the original post, implying that the editor is asking specifically about Chinese reactors. This does not make it better, nor less one sided, nor more appropriate for accessibility. It does however change the intended meaning of the original post, which is against the guidelines (and common sense). So please if you want to create a new discussion, just add a new header. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As the guidelines mention, "threads are shared by multiple editors" there is no single intention owned by a single contributor and no exact and narrow scope of any discussion which could not and should not be widened. You may think, that the purpose of every discussion is only to press ones own individual viewpoint until one has beaten down all and every opposition. In that case, the header would be to describe this single intent and should not be altered, because it would reflect a change in the intent, which is not to be altered. But originally, the purpose of any discussion is to learn something new. It is to include differed viewpoints in a synthetic manner in order to achieve something better than what the single viewpoints have been as long as they have not been separated. therefore, the change in title reflecs the change in content of the expanded scope of the discussion and not the that the original poster would have changed his intention. It is a summary of the content. Encyclopedia is about facts not about intentions. Intentions are irrelevant here. It's not a blog or political propaganda. At least it should not be. It should be ever less a political thing. Try to distance Yourself from promoting intentions. Focus on facts! -- Manorainjan  09:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your change is at least controversial, since I am opposing it. So if you are really into it, seek consensus before making the change. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is only a talk page. No need to seek consensus just because You subjectively without any real argument do not like it. Even if it would be a content page, consensus would have to be sought on the basis of arguments. But You don't have any. You are externalizing You bad feelings and disturbing others needlessly and fruitlessly instead of solving Your own internal conflict. Your feelings are no argument in an encyclopaedic matter. If I would use Your reasons, which are no argument in any way, I could question each and every edit in WP just like this and say, it is controversial, because I oppose it. This is such a blunder! Come to Your senses! Be rational! -- Manorainjan  09:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)