User talk:MrRenewables
Welcome!
Hello, MrRenewables, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Johnfos (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
GA nomination
[edit]I nominated Photovoltaic power station for GA review, but a heads up, you are going to need to add about 10-20 inline references, and should remove the references from the lead section, and duplicate that information (The largest sites under construction have capacities of hundreds of MWP and projects at a scale of 1 GWP are being planned) in the body and put the references there. Apteva (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Cluster
[edit]As far as I can tell the word cluster refers to a group of similar industries, and is an investment term, not a technology term, and does not apply to a group of solar farms.[1][2][3][4] Apteva (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- The term 'photovoltaic cluster' has certainly been used as you say - mainly applying to Germany. The word 'cluster' as used in this article, is not meant to be a technological expression; merely using cluster in accordance with its dictionary definition "bunch of similar things growing or occurring together". I can't remember where I first saw this use, but a few examples are here, here and here. Is there a better description you can propose?
- These clusters are often called 'solar parks', but so are individual power plants, and even wider collections. I think it is important to be able to differentiate between a single power station, such as Waldpolenz Solar Park, a cluster such as Qili Photoelectricity Park and a collective such as Gujarat Solar Park (which is little more than a moniker for all the solar power plants in the entire state of Gujarat).
- Indeed I was going to suggest that the List of photovoltaic power stations is adjusted to make this distinction. At present it is misleading that entry 2 on the list is actually a cluster of several photovoltaic power stations of which the largest is only 25MW. By contrast, entry 3 is a single plant of 200MW, which in turn is located within a solar cluster totalling over 500MW (but which doesn't appear in the list at all). My recommendation would be to list the 'clusters' separately. Although I am only aware of seven at present, I'm sure there will be more in the future. I also share RaAmun's view that the list is getting too long and should be curtailed at 50 or 100MW.--MrRenewables (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that the size will continually need to be increased. Another way of doing this is to break the list up by size and keep all of them. The most common way of dealing with groups of solar plants is to just call them a single solar park, whether developed by a single developer or by multiple developers. For example, SEGS is called a single solar plant, although it is actually nine separate solar power plants in three locations scattered over a distance of 40 miles. I would wait to see if the term cluster becomes commonly used before adopting it here. Our job is not to lead but to follow. A name needs to be commonly used for us to use it. Golmud is not commonly called a cluster, and we should not be creating that term for them. In the second and third examples of cluster given, such as "A Solar park is a concentrated zone of solar plants that are built in clusters", the word cluster is just used as an English word, and is not used for the solar park, which they are calling the "Rays Solar Park", not the Rays Solar Cluster. Apteva (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the guidance. Will revert to the expression 'co-located plants'. I still feel that the list is in some ways 'comparing apples and pears'. You clearly wouldn't support separate lists, so I will just put some annotation in the comments column to clarify.--MrRenewables (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that the size will continually need to be increased. Another way of doing this is to break the list up by size and keep all of them. The most common way of dealing with groups of solar plants is to just call them a single solar park, whether developed by a single developer or by multiple developers. For example, SEGS is called a single solar plant, although it is actually nine separate solar power plants in three locations scattered over a distance of 40 miles. I would wait to see if the term cluster becomes commonly used before adopting it here. Our job is not to lead but to follow. A name needs to be commonly used for us to use it. Golmud is not commonly called a cluster, and we should not be creating that term for them. In the second and third examples of cluster given, such as "A Solar park is a concentrated zone of solar plants that are built in clusters", the word cluster is just used as an English word, and is not used for the solar park, which they are calling the "Rays Solar Park", not the Rays Solar Cluster. Apteva (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Photovoltaic power station GAR
[edit]If you have some time, there are a large number of suggestions on the second GA. We can also look at the first GA but that was reviewed by a wp:sock who was quickly blocked. Since it was two months ago, the procedure is to fix everything, remove the transclusion on the talk page, then ask for a new review. Alternatively the reviewer might just pass it if they see that everything has been fixed. I notified them that it should not have been failed before at least seven days and preferably four weeks had elapsed to allow all the fixes to be made, and that the GAR needed to be transcluded onto the talk page so that it could be seen. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this - it's very helpful to see the comments (without which the decisions seem pretty random!). Many of these issues can be addressed; I'll try to spend some time on it over the next week or two.--MrRenewables (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I received a request on my talk page to clean up the references for photovoltaic power station. While I disagree that it is a requirement for GA, it never hurts, and I will be working on fixing these, time permitting. You are welcome to pitch in as well. Who knows, someone might add some brilliant writing and make the article FA, which does require consistent citations. Apteva (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK I'll do some cleaning up when I can. I personally don't believe that quoting retrieval dates to the actual day adds much! (but presumably 'rules are rules')--MrRenewables (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is not in the rules, it is just their interpretation of how it should be done. It is, though, much more common to see a full date. Apteva (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK I'll do some cleaning up when I can. I personally don't believe that quoting retrieval dates to the actual day adds much! (but presumably 'rules are rules')--MrRenewables (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I received a request on my talk page to clean up the references for photovoltaic power station. While I disagree that it is a requirement for GA, it never hurts, and I will be working on fixing these, time permitting. You are welcome to pitch in as well. Who knows, someone might add some brilliant writing and make the article FA, which does require consistent citations. Apteva (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, MrRenewables. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (The Solar Generation) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating The Solar Generation.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
It would be useful to add some book reviews to this article.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:Thanks; good suggestion. I'll have a look when I've got a bit more time. MrRenewables (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Photovoltaic power station
[edit]I have started an individual good article reassessment of Photovoltaic power station which was rated "good" in 2013 and I think it needs modernizing. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)