Talk:Inga dams

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inga dams article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: DRC Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Democratic Republic of the Congo portal This article is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Dams High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams 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.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

French version[edit]

I have just done detailled articles about Inga dams and projects on the French version. The 39,000 MW project is not Inga III (only 4,500 MW) but the Grand Inga project. Vberger 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last paragraph as I felt it was not suitable for an encylopaedia due to its editorial nature. It read:-

"The power grids will not reach the hundreds of millions of Africa's rural poor. The Inga project departs from the Millennium Development Goals of small-scale sustainable energy projects adopted by 191 countries at the UNMillennium Summit. Megaprojects like this often imply social, economic and environmental disruption of people's livelihoods, lands and culture." Booshank 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Booshank has it right but should perhaps have gone further. The current last para or 2 is contentious and sounds lobbying. I've added an NPOV tag to the section. Liam Proven (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineman comments[edit]

- The output of the whole dam aite is so large that it could not be used in Africa alone due to system security issues - but it is feasible to interconmect all African grids and to those of Europe with large mutual benefits. http://www.claverton-energy.com/vision-2020-and-beyond-dr-gregor-czisch-ex-kassell-university-discussed-the-integration-of-african-power-production-internally-and-with-europe-to-fully-exploit-the-vast-hydro-power-available-at-the.html - paper by Dr Gregor Czisch, Kassell University.

The above insertion was removed by AL with the comment: August 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Gasification do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. User A1 (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The removed comment is perfectly valid - the Grand Inga dam could not be built without interconnection to Europe, due to securing issues and funding issues. The links are not advertising they are to authoritative experts sources - so why was the addition which is perfelty valid removed. I intend to re insert it unless I get a valid explanation. Also a link to this article which explains that it may well get world bank funding. http://www.claverton-energy.com/fury-at-plan-to-power-eu-homes-from-congo-dam-grand-inga-world-bank-supports-controversial-80bn-project.html

The point is that the source is too large to rely on for the whole of Africa alone - it could fail and throw the whole grid down. By interconnection with Europe, Europe can provide back up to Africa at no extra costs. Thanks Engineman (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose to merge the Grand Inga Dam into this article. The Grand Inga Dam is currently very short article and merging it here with restoring deleted information will create more comprehensive overview of Inga dams. Also all other dams are included in this article. Beagel (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose. Only because that the Grand Inga dam has some level importance; one that would be larger than the Three Gorges Dam. Which also begins construction in later this year. Thus, making chances of expansion. Although, i too had second thoughts for the article. So lets wait for more comments... Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Dam → Inga Dams – This is not a single dam, but two existing and two proposed dams. Therefore, Inga Dams or Inga dams seems more accurate title. Also, we already have an article with a title History of the Inga Dams. Beagel (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems like common sense. Jenks24 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-capitalization. Either leave it or use Inga dams; the "dams" in this context is almost never capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. The capitalisation doesn't really matter to me as long as it gets pluralised. Jenks24 (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.