Energy Category‑class | |||||||
|
Okay, the "Nuclear energy in..." is a blatant overlap with "Nuclear Technology in..." We need to delete that. Sure, we have a category for the power plants, but then there's the companies, the technology, the fuel cycle facilities, maybe even the anti-nuclear groups, oh, PLUS the research organizations and the regulatory bodies. But these have been going in the Nuclear Technology categories, not the Nuclear energy ones. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a number of articles named 'Nuclear power in ...' such as Nuclear power in Germany, Nuclear power in Russia or Nuclear power in the United States. However, in March this year a sock puppet of a banned user created a number of articles named 'Nuclear energy in ...' by moving information from Nuclear energy policy by country.
Articles named 'Nuclear power in ...'
Articles named 'Nuclear energy in ...'
The problem is that there is no clear division which articles should be named using term 'nuclear power' and which ones by using term 'nuclear energy'. By my understanding, information about nuclear power generation should be go to 'Nuclear power in ...' while all other information about nuclear energy should be go to 'Nuclear energy in ...' articles. At the same time, in most of cases there is not enough information to justify creation of two separate articles. In some cases, there is also articles named 'Nuclear technology in ...' such as Nuclear technology in Canada and Nuclear technology in the United States. My questions are:
Beagel ( talk) 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the anti-nuclear movement it is nuclear power. -- eiland ( talk) 08:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK... to sum up what I think is being said above:
Whether articles etc covering all aspects of nuclear technology are best titled nuclear energy or nuclear technology has not yet been addressed.
There's one objection to this, citing the possibility of confusion because nuclear power can also mean nuclear weapon state and therefore preferring nuclear energy as the term for nuclear power generation.
Despite this objection, do we have a working consensus? Andrewa ( talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Above, Ivolocy mentioned that Nuclear energy would contain all sorts of nuclear energy, also for example, nuclear submarines, and Nuclear power would be just power generation. I disagree. A nuclear powered submarine works well doesnt it? But anyway, this is a total non discussion as nuclear energy in would just redirect to nuclear power in... and well, the nuclear technology pages, that is indeed something totally different, much broader that nuclear power or energy, also hospitals, military should be included, so i think we should not go there, as we all kind of agree that we are talking here about the nuclear energy sector in the countries. To get rid of all confusion, why not name the page: Nuclear energy sector in Poland? -- eiland ( talk) 07:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
By my subjective understanding 'nuclear power' and 'nuclear energy' are not interchangeable terms and have slightly different meaning. I think it could be drawn like this:
nuclear power → nuclear energy → nuclear technology
where nuclear power means only generation of electrical power by using nuclear fission / nuclear fusion; nuclear energy means the whole energy cycle including uranium mining, nuclear fuel production, power generation, and waste management; and nuclear technology means nuclear energy plus all other fields like production of radioisotopes (nuclear medicine) and nuclear weapons. Also nuclear spacecrafts and nuclear submarines belongs by my undrstanding into the 'nuclear technology' articles. In the perfect world we should have all the three articles for each country, but of course, in the real world this is not justified as there is no enough unique information for the three comprehensive articles. Probably there should be one technology/industry article (I am not going to discuss these articles right now) and one nuclear power / nuclear energy article. I think that both options are possible but certainly some standardization is needed. It seems that all the above-mentioned articles deal with 'nuclear power', but as I said, if there will be consensus supporting 'nuclear energy' in the titles, it is fine with me.
There is also one more problem. Actually most of 'Nuclear energy in X' articles were spin-off from Nuclear energy policy by country articles (without proper tags about copying/spin-off information, by the way, which also needs to be fixed). That means that in some cases like Nuclear energy in Denmark these articles not about the nuclear energy (there is no any in e.g. Denmark), but about the nuclear policy of these countries. So, it seems that for Denmark and some other countries the more correct title should probably be 'Nuclear energy policy in X', but this will even more complicate the mess with articles titles. Beagel ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting also that nuclear energy is currently a DAB [4], while Nuclear Energy redirects straight to nuclear power [5]. It's a mess IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been inactive more than a week. I try to summarize which practical proposals could be implemented to go forward with this issue:
Is that correct? Is there anything else we can do based on the above discussion? Beagel ( talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As an editor who only checks back in from time to time, I found a request for participation on my talk page so I'll share my 2 cents. I've read the original post on this subject and bits and pieces of the conversation. I would lobby for nuclear power nomenclature. Overwhelming, the articles are about the civilian use of the technology, and the word "power" does have a slight leaning to electricity production. The "Nuclear power in ..." articles are not just a part of the set of articles on nuclear technology, they're a part of the set of articles on energy and electricity production in general. "Nuclear power" should be used just as "wind power" is used.
Of course, my primary concern is to express acknowledgement that those new "nuclear energy in ..." articles need to be cleaned up, and support of Beagel's efforts to do so. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Any progress on the issue? As of 2016, this inconsistency still prevails.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This page has a subpage at /Template. Linking here so not orphaned from its parent. — Scott • talk 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Energy Category‑class | |||||||
|
Okay, the "Nuclear energy in..." is a blatant overlap with "Nuclear Technology in..." We need to delete that. Sure, we have a category for the power plants, but then there's the companies, the technology, the fuel cycle facilities, maybe even the anti-nuclear groups, oh, PLUS the research organizations and the regulatory bodies. But these have been going in the Nuclear Technology categories, not the Nuclear energy ones. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a number of articles named 'Nuclear power in ...' such as Nuclear power in Germany, Nuclear power in Russia or Nuclear power in the United States. However, in March this year a sock puppet of a banned user created a number of articles named 'Nuclear energy in ...' by moving information from Nuclear energy policy by country.
Articles named 'Nuclear power in ...'
Articles named 'Nuclear energy in ...'
The problem is that there is no clear division which articles should be named using term 'nuclear power' and which ones by using term 'nuclear energy'. By my understanding, information about nuclear power generation should be go to 'Nuclear power in ...' while all other information about nuclear energy should be go to 'Nuclear energy in ...' articles. At the same time, in most of cases there is not enough information to justify creation of two separate articles. In some cases, there is also articles named 'Nuclear technology in ...' such as Nuclear technology in Canada and Nuclear technology in the United States. My questions are:
Beagel ( talk) 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the anti-nuclear movement it is nuclear power. -- eiland ( talk) 08:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK... to sum up what I think is being said above:
Whether articles etc covering all aspects of nuclear technology are best titled nuclear energy or nuclear technology has not yet been addressed.
There's one objection to this, citing the possibility of confusion because nuclear power can also mean nuclear weapon state and therefore preferring nuclear energy as the term for nuclear power generation.
Despite this objection, do we have a working consensus? Andrewa ( talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Above, Ivolocy mentioned that Nuclear energy would contain all sorts of nuclear energy, also for example, nuclear submarines, and Nuclear power would be just power generation. I disagree. A nuclear powered submarine works well doesnt it? But anyway, this is a total non discussion as nuclear energy in would just redirect to nuclear power in... and well, the nuclear technology pages, that is indeed something totally different, much broader that nuclear power or energy, also hospitals, military should be included, so i think we should not go there, as we all kind of agree that we are talking here about the nuclear energy sector in the countries. To get rid of all confusion, why not name the page: Nuclear energy sector in Poland? -- eiland ( talk) 07:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
By my subjective understanding 'nuclear power' and 'nuclear energy' are not interchangeable terms and have slightly different meaning. I think it could be drawn like this:
nuclear power → nuclear energy → nuclear technology
where nuclear power means only generation of electrical power by using nuclear fission / nuclear fusion; nuclear energy means the whole energy cycle including uranium mining, nuclear fuel production, power generation, and waste management; and nuclear technology means nuclear energy plus all other fields like production of radioisotopes (nuclear medicine) and nuclear weapons. Also nuclear spacecrafts and nuclear submarines belongs by my undrstanding into the 'nuclear technology' articles. In the perfect world we should have all the three articles for each country, but of course, in the real world this is not justified as there is no enough unique information for the three comprehensive articles. Probably there should be one technology/industry article (I am not going to discuss these articles right now) and one nuclear power / nuclear energy article. I think that both options are possible but certainly some standardization is needed. It seems that all the above-mentioned articles deal with 'nuclear power', but as I said, if there will be consensus supporting 'nuclear energy' in the titles, it is fine with me.
There is also one more problem. Actually most of 'Nuclear energy in X' articles were spin-off from Nuclear energy policy by country articles (without proper tags about copying/spin-off information, by the way, which also needs to be fixed). That means that in some cases like Nuclear energy in Denmark these articles not about the nuclear energy (there is no any in e.g. Denmark), but about the nuclear policy of these countries. So, it seems that for Denmark and some other countries the more correct title should probably be 'Nuclear energy policy in X', but this will even more complicate the mess with articles titles. Beagel ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting also that nuclear energy is currently a DAB [4], while Nuclear Energy redirects straight to nuclear power [5]. It's a mess IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been inactive more than a week. I try to summarize which practical proposals could be implemented to go forward with this issue:
Is that correct? Is there anything else we can do based on the above discussion? Beagel ( talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As an editor who only checks back in from time to time, I found a request for participation on my talk page so I'll share my 2 cents. I've read the original post on this subject and bits and pieces of the conversation. I would lobby for nuclear power nomenclature. Overwhelming, the articles are about the civilian use of the technology, and the word "power" does have a slight leaning to electricity production. The "Nuclear power in ..." articles are not just a part of the set of articles on nuclear technology, they're a part of the set of articles on energy and electricity production in general. "Nuclear power" should be used just as "wind power" is used.
Of course, my primary concern is to express acknowledgement that those new "nuclear energy in ..." articles need to be cleaned up, and support of Beagel's efforts to do so. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Any progress on the issue? As of 2016, this inconsistency still prevails.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This page has a subpage at /Template. Linking here so not orphaned from its parent. — Scott • talk 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)