Talk:Bilibino

question...

I am curious... why was a nuclear reactor placed in such an isolated place? Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the website of the power plant, the location was chosen due to the discovery of large gold deposits near Bilibino in the end of the 1950s. Apparently, building a nuclear plant was deemed to be the best option to provide the gold mining operations with energy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:55, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Cold

The temperature reached -74 °C? Is that true? Then Bilibino would be the Pole Of Cold, not Verhoyansk or Oymyakon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.65.56 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely to be true, but that's what the source used to support the Climate table reports... Of course, that source is hardly reliable, so if someone could replace it with something better, it'd be great. If no one steps up to this task, the current table should probably be simply removed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2013; 11:57 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the current table should be removed, since the other values are actually truth-likely, maybe just remove that record low value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.90.18 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that a whole table should be thrown out because there is one typo. It would show more common sense to add a note highlighting the probability of a typo. I don't think it is a fair leap of logic to assume one typo means a whole source is unreliable. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the persone typed "7" instead of "5" or "4" (-54 °C or -44 °C are just normal record low values), I think the note should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.90.18 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's all possible, of course, and there is a good chance that the rest of the table contains accurate information, but it doesn't change the fact that the MeoWeather website, compiled by who knows by whom, can hardly be considered a reliable source :) Is there nothing better out there?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2013; 16:31 (UTC)

There is this one but it isn't a reliable source as well. http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Bilibino-weather-averages/Chukot/RU.aspx and Thought, the values of that meoweather table are trust-worthy since they are similar to nearby locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.90.18 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source can be found here. "Looks trustworthy" isn't one of the criteria :) To summarize the guideline, a source may contain perfectly accurate information yet still be considered unreliable. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 12:10 (UTC)

The problem I have with your line of reasoning is that it seems ultimately to be derived from the discovery of one typo. To be honest, I can't anythinig in RS that would indicate that the discovery of an error means that a source is probably unreliable. In fact, the phrase used in the overview ,"common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process" would seem particularly relevant. Common sense would indicate that the figure in question is an error rather than anyting symptomatic of the source being unreliable in general. To be honest, I can't really see what elements of RS this typo causes the source to contravene, although it is rather long so I may have overlooked something. Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not my reason. The discovery of a typo brought my attention to the source, true, but even if there were a way to show that every piece of data in that table is completely accurate, it wouldn't have changed the fact that the source itself is not reliable. And it is unreliable because it is not produced by a reliable third party; in fact, it's impossible to say who exactly produced it and where the data ultimately come from! If I, say, copy government weather records and publish them online without attribution (and without supplying my own credentials), the records themselves will still be accurate, of course, but that wouldn't make my website a reliable source. As WP:RS puts it, "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Meoweather.com doesn't meet any of that. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 13:32 (UTC)

furthermost North-East corner of Russia

When I first read the sentence I could not understand where Bilibino was. So i made a good faith edit of the geographical location in the lede to improve a) understandability by inserting "in the furthermost North-East corner of Russia, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. and b) English language, since it sounded awkward. Ezhiki reverted saying in the edit summary "there's no such thing in geography as "the corner of Russia"". I disagree. wikipedia is not a geography textbook, but an encyclopedia. Countries can have corners when you look at their shape and its an easy way to describe location for people who do not use coordinates on a daily basis. Because of the emotional reaction (edit summary content and reverting action) I presume the argument of the reverting user is not "prima facie", but actually something else. I presume the user was hurt in pride (as inhabitant or geographer ?) which was not intended as this talk post shows, or something else, that should/could be communicated here.

I will replace the word corner with the word 'part' and hope that is ok with the user. If not, I ask for discussion here instead of reverting, since I have more WP:copy edits (= improvements) waiting to save, which due to the reversion were blocked as edit conflict.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is most certainly not a geography textbook, but this does not make using amateurish language a good idea. Besides, there is plenty of identifying information in the article already. One can click through to Chukotka Autonomous Okrug to learn where it is, one can utilize the excellent coordinates service to pull down a map or to click through to a list of map services (no specialized knowledge required!), or one can simply look at the map already available in the article's infobox. If that's not enough, we could also mention that the town is in the Russian Far East, an established geographic region with a self-explanatory name (which is not the case with "furthermost northeastern corner", especially considering that the actual "corner" is located in the Western hemisphere), but even that would be terribly redundant—with this thinking, such an explanation should be added to every article about localities in that part of the country, and there are literally hundreds of them. Wikipedia has wikilinks for a reason, after all!

And please, don't make assumptions such as "hurt in pride" (note that I'm neither an inhabitant nor a professional geographer)—doing so does nothing to improve your argument. There was nothing wrong with you being bold and making an edit, and there is nothing wrong with another editor taking an issue with an edit and reverting. Per WP:BRD, the next step is discussion, and I appreciate you starting one. What are your thoughts regarding the redundancy I mentioned above, for example?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2014; 19:32 (UTC)

you, who cant even ping ( notify me) I feel it is not worth arguing the point - you seem so belligerent, not responding the least to my argument. I obviously hit a nerve, I can see . you cannot hurt me with the accusation of using amateurish language (furthernmost northeeast !!).--Wuerzele (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of hitting a nerve, there is no need to be so bitter about this. This here is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an amateur geography club. If you are not willing to occasionally see your edits questioned or to discuss alternatives, there is very little I (or anyone else) can do to help work things out; here or in any other article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2014; 13:44 (UTC)

Is'nt it so that, if some text is relevant for an article, but not having correct language, then we should improve the language, not erase all the text?--BIL (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but if you read my comments, you'll see that I proposed an alternative to the erased text, as well as explained (and ask for further input) why it is likely to be redundant regardless of phrasing (i.e., I questioned if the addition was relevant in the first place). I have not heard anything back in return besides an allegation of "belligerency"... not exactly a promising development to find middle ground!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2014; 20:40 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bilibino. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316160015/http://www.bilchao.ru/engine/download.php?id=631 to http://www.bilchao.ru/engine/download.php?id=631
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708140330/http://www.cscap.nuctrans.org/Nuc_Trans/locations/bilibino/Bilibino.htm to http://www.cscap.nuctrans.org/Nuc_Trans/locations/bilibino/Bilibino.htm

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) 23:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the population stay in Bilibino all year?

Do they stay the whole year or just summer (or winter)? Any information on this? I would expect them to live there all year around.Eheran (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)