Talk:Nuclear power in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update requested[edit]

Please update the contents of the information about Indian nuclear power after the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.40.102 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much about Fukushima[edit]

Currently, Fukushima is mentioned three times in this article, once in the lead, once in the section on future plants, and once in the section on antinuclear protests. It seems to me it only needs a single mention, in the section on anti-nuclear protests. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources which discuss post-Fukushima issues for India, and here is another one that I have just seen: [1]. This discussion is certainly relevant to this article and it deserves to be discussed fully in the body of the article and should have a paragraph in the lead.
This material helps to bring neutrality and balance, as I think there has been a tendency for enthusiastic editors to get carried away with this article. It is full of promotional talk about expansion plans, "growth", and "huge deposits of natural uranium". And I notice that the third paragraph seems to be saying that India is "constructing 9 more" nuclear power reactors, whereas the PRIS database says that 5 reactors are under construction. There is a considerable amount of unsourced (or poorly sourced) speculative material about planned or proposed projects and this should be removed. Johnfos (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this reads like a promotional piece for India's nuclear power program, and most of the unsourced material should be deleted. But I don't think three separate sections on Fukushima is the way to counterbalance that. Let's have one good one. That Jaswant Singh Op-Ed from the Guardian should be cited. NPguy (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Fukushima issues deserve to be discussed fully in the body of the article and should have a paragraph in the lead. Johnfos (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be sufficient to have one paragraph in a single place in the article and maybe a phrase or a sentence (not a full paragraph) in the lede. NPguy (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the criticism of nuclear power plants to controversy section. This was earlier in the list of power plants section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.89.114 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions of unsourced material[edit]

I think the recent edits go too far in deleting "unsourced" material. Some of the supporting information was in the wikilinks, and I think much of the information on future reactor plans was correct, but needed citations. In that case I prefer to leave the text with the {{Citation needed}} tag. But I will leave this for now to see if other editors come up with better sourcing. NPguy (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks are not citations and cannot be used as such. Material that has been tagged as "citation needed" may be removed at any time, and should not be restored unless citations are provided. Each entry in a Table also needs a citation, and List of offshore wind farms shows how this is done with a dedicated Reference column. Johnfos (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to delete text when the supporting information is in wikilinked articles. It is lazy. Better to import the citations from those articles. It may be justified to delete uncited information, particularly when it is dubious, but for information that is likely correct it is not constructive. Better to look for supporting citations. NPguy (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such a fuss about the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced info from an article. It really surprises me, especially since I raised the issue beforehand on this Talk page, see [2], where I said "There is a considerable amount of unsourced (or poorly sourced) speculative material about planned or proposed projects and this should be removed". Johnfos (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When someone points out that you are lazy, and you have been using lazy methods, YOU NEED TO FACE UP TO THAT FACT, rather than WHINING about it. If the citations were given elsewhere in other articles in the Wikipedia, just copy them. Elsewise is simply the lazy way out, and you need to be more industrious than that.
We have way too much of this in the world today: people whining about things instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing something about it. Shame!
Dale101usa (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot anyone count power plants?[edit]

As of July 2012, the text in this article states six nuclear power plants, BUT the map that is given shows eight. Hence, the number of nuclear reactors is also very questionable. Sorry, but the whole numerical disagreement is pathetic when we are talking about numbers that can be counted on the fingers and the toes.
Dale101usa (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power plants where and why?[edit]

There is not one word in the whole article about any rationale about the locations of the nuclear power plants in India. Surely, there must have been some.
Here in the United States, the nuclear power plants were generally built:
1. In regions with little hydroelectric power, such as Illinois, Missouri, Florida, Southern California, Texas, Connecticut.
2. Around large cities and industrial areas, such as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and so forth. For example, Los Angeles is fed power from a large power plant south of the city at San Onofre, California, and by America's largest nuclear power plant, the Palo Verde Power Plant in Arizona.
The San Francisco area and Los Angeles receive power from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. 3. Closer looking could probably find other reasons for the locations.
Dale101usa (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone cite the nuclear power article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestoneageman (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is kashmir ?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_location_map.svg


Dear sir ,

The link which i posted above my message shows india without kashmir ! this is shocking to find that popular website providing wrong informations . I kindly request you to make appropriate changes. kashmir belongs to india , india alone! its not a foreign country.

122.174.49.96 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Map shows territory under actual control of India shaded orange, with a dashed line around the whole of Kashmir, including the territories controlled by Pakistan and China. I believe that is the standard way of dealing with disputed territory. NPguy (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information about Supreme Court's verdict on anti-nuclear PIL[edit]

http://www.infoqueenbee.com/2013/05/details-of-supreme-court-of-indias-2.html

Follow this link and it is clear that although the Supreme Court of India had rejected the PIL, it didn't do so on the grounds of not being experts/not having experts' opinions. The article referenced to from Times of India is misleading, hiding information and misrepresenting the thought process of the Supreme Court of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.172 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear power in India. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear sector status data lost[edit]

I am unhappy about this edit. Before that, I could at a glance, look how much nuclear planned generation or under construction, and so on. But what bothers me more is that I seem unable to recover the old tables. The trick with "edit" to copy/paste the old table seems not more to work.--Robertiki (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a summary table may be better in this case. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the tables from the old revision. This was a purely a technical help, I don't favour one table over the other. —Gazoth (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map report[edit]

Why J & K Map is not complete???? 2405:204:522A:1FC:B719:1E12:1C3D:7095 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section on capacity factors needs update[edit]

The part about capacity factors says it was a huge issue in the past but has improved now. I think this is better illustrated by stating the CF for an earlier year (2008 or so) and then the one for 2021. It is needlessly confusing to mention the lifetime weighted availability factor as of 2021, and then the availability factors for 2 years (2019-21). The paragraph also needs to be shortened in my opinion, I don't think the topic warrants more than two lines in the lead section. (Edited for clarity and added more issues) Sadbarrett (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

-Nizil (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power_in_India&oldid=1199660291"