Talk:Hartlepool nuclear power station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents


[edit] Dubious tag

Many local people are also opposed to the move - the power station lies just one mile from the resort of Seaton Carew.

Yes. And? Lots of things are near to other things - could someone explain why the assertion that it is one mile from Seaton Carew is relevant to "local people's" (whoever they may be) opposition? Are these people BANANAs, or is there some particular reason why proximity to Seaton Carew is important? DWaterson 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the resort is financially important to local people and they fear that new nuclear installations in the vicinity will deter visitors.

Seaton Carew is a run down resort of dubious value. More likely, the people of Hartlepool are just opposed to any changes in the town. I live around 4 miles from the power station.
'A run-down resort of dubious value?' Somewhat subjective no? The fact that the Hartlepool reactors are within a mile of Seaton Carew - a tourist resort and popular leisure beach - is relevant in people's opposition to it - Hartlepool was and is the closest reactor to a substantial urban population in the UK. Your opinion on Seaton Carew's value is is irrelevant to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.72.201 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hartlepool Power Station was originally going to be named "Seaton Carew Power Station", but since there was so much objection to it by the people of Seaton Carew, and general support for it by the people of Hartlepool, it was forced through with the name of "Hartlepool Power Station". The main reason for a replacement not going ahead is its proximity to very large petro-chemical works, most of which didn't even exist when the original power station was built and of the ones that did, they've become much bigger since. And Seaton Carew is a run down resort, there's no denying that, but some people still love it. Barry m (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Hartlepool nuclear power station

I have reverted User:Pencefn's recent change, which was a cut-and-paste move to Hartlepool nuclear power station. This cannot be done as it breaks the GFDL, and in any case Hartlepool Power Station is the correct name and in accordance with naming conventions. DWaterson 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute this naming convention as many nuclear power stations are named Name nuclear power station. Stewart 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the question of whether the power station is nuclear is a red herring - it could be gas, coal, or pixie dust; they should follow the same convention irrespective. It seems to me that there are two possibilities in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions; either "Hartlepool Power Station" is a proper title, in which case it should be capitalised as for a proper noun, or "Hartlepool (nuclear) power station" is just a description of a power station that is located in Hartlepool. If the latter, then you are correct that subsequent words should be decapitalised. In terms of Ghits, there seems to be a slight bias for "hartlepool power station" (697 hits) over "hartlepool nuclear power station" (522).
For comparison purposes, there seems to be no consistency. On the one hand, we currently have Didcot Power Station and Battersea Power Station, but we also have Ferrybridge power station and Sizewell B nuclear power station. Which should prevail I leave as an exercise to the reader. Perhaps time to propose a new naming convention? DWaterson 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst precedent is unclear, I prefer the proper noun form, which would give "Hartlepool Power Station" per British Energy [1] and the HSE [2]. -- Ratarsed 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no consistency. Where is it best to initiate a discussion aimed at getting some, do you think? We should also take into account that a large number of articles will be affected that describe power stations in non-English speaking areas, but which are quite newsworthy in English culture, for example Montalto di Castro nuclear power station, Juan Cabrera, and Tarapur Atomic Power Station. Andrewa 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub category

I think this also belongs in Category:Nuclear power stubs, but it's been twice removed now and I don't feel like making an issue of it. But it is a nuclear power station! Andrewa 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading the category description, "articles relating to Nuclear Power, including reactors used for power generation", I interpret that as types of reactor (Magnox, AGR, etc.) as opposed to instances of a type of reactor (Hartlepool power station, Bradwell power station, Dungenesss power station, etc.). Corroborating this is that there is no parent-child relationship between the two (Electric power stubs is a common parent though).
As this article refers to a specific power station, it seems more relevant a stub category than the more vague nuclear power stub category. I think it's counter productive for an article to be in more than a couple of stub categories, as it can detract from the article as a whole, which is why I removed the less specific stub categories the other day. -- Ratarsed 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A strange interpretation IMO. I can't see any reason that reactors used for power generation needs to mean a type of reactor rather than an individual reactor. ISTM they should both be included. Of course there is no parent-child relationship between the two stub categories; Not all power stations are nuclear, and not all nuclear power stubs are about power stations. But the categories overlap. Such stub category structures are common.
But more to the point, the whole idea of stub sorting is to provide a means of connecting Wikipedians to particular articles they'd like to expand. Many of us are particularly interested in nuclear power stations, rather than others. So we haunt Category:Nuclear power stubs to find them. The description fairly plainly includes them - they are nuclear reactors. It's a small, well defined stub category.
Neither that category nor Category:Power station stubs seems big enough to warrant creating a separate category for nuclear power station stubs. So, as the categories are overlapping but not redundant, why can't the article be in both? That seems the logical thing to me. Andrewa 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)