Talk:Chapelcross nuclear power station

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've added a photo for now; I'll try to find/take a better one. --Guinnog 11:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. You're a busy bee. --Mais oui! 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry it took so long. --Guinnog 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Violation[edit]

Some sections of Operating Experience and Incidents seem to copy text directly from the citrated resources. Danielnez1 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

Should Chapelcross nuclear power station be renamed as Chapelcross nuclear power plant?

Power plants in the US are called "power plants", but power stations in the UK are called "power stations". The term "power plant" would be an aberration in the UK. Per WP:ENGVAR, WP does not pursue "consistency" across naming issue like this and it does favour use of the locally-appropriate name.

This has two now been renamed as "power plant", despite lack of prior discussion and also after being reverted, contrary to WP:BRD. I invite Trackteur to make some case for the renaming to "power plant". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Nuclear power plant and List of nuclear reactors, the number of occurrences for this appellation is very clear. Trackteur (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the title and text of Category:Nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom, of all its subcategories, and of all the members of those subcategories. The only "power plant" is this recently renamed Chapelcross. This could also, though less conveniently, be determined by examining the articles linked from List of nuclear reactors#United Kingdom. Note also that in that article, the subheading is "Power station reactors" throughout. I notice that you have renamed other articles to "power plant" e.g. [1] where you edit-warred over the text rather than open a discussion.[2] [3]. NebY (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have checked the number of occurrences of this page List of nuclear reactors ?. It's a generic term that applies not only to United Kingdom. Trackteur (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really propose to rename all the categories and articles in the Category:Nuclear power stations tree of categories, including for example all the members of the 42 subcategories of Category:Nuclear power stations by country‎, on the basis of a count of occurrences in the text of List of nuclear reactors? You'll need a well-advertised RM for that and you'll need to present a stronger case.

Wikipedia articles cannot be used to support edits or changes to other articles. In any case nowhere in that article does it describe any UK based nuclear power station as a 'nuclear power plant' 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The name of the place is "Chapelcross nuclear power station". All nuclear powerstations in the UK are called 'power station' (and all non nuclear facilities called 'power stations'. Googling 'Chapelcross nuclear power station' brings up 13,700 hits. Googling 'Chapelcross nuclear power plant' brings up none, so there would appear to be no supporting references for the change.

Once someone objected to the article being moved to a name never applied to the establishment in the UK, Trackteur had no right to restore the incorrect name without seeking a consensus here first. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is "nuclear power station" in UK common usage. Here is an example document by local government, using "Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station" in the title of a document. Rwendland (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Trackteur had

returned to editing
had edited Koeberg Nuclear Power Station to change [[nuclear power plant|nuclear power station]] to [[nuclear power station]][4]
had not further engaged with the discussion there, in which only only Trackteur defended their move in the face of similar arguments to those presented here but from a different group of editors
had not attempted to interfere with the restoration of that article title as Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, and
had only raised exactly the same arguments in both cases,

and given that there is a clear consensus here, I restored this article to Chapelcross nuclear power station. I am amazed to see that Trackteur has for the third time and without any further explanation, moved the article to Chapelcross nuclear power plant. I hope we are not seeing a return to the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that left Trackteur blocked last March. @Trackteur: please restore this article to Chapelcross nuclear power station per the above discussion and consensus. NebY (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chapelcross nuclear power station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2020[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berkeley Nuclear Power Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]