Talk:Narva Power Plants

95%

From either "Figure 2005" or "Oil Shale Energetics in Estonia", I don't see "In 2005, Narva Power Plants generated about 95% of total power production in Estonia". Instead, there described "In 2005, about 95% of total power production in Estonia came from oil shale". Well it's okay if the Narva Plants is the only plants on oil shale, but was that written in the reference(s)? --Selcitraxif (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the PDF file of "Estonian Energy in Figure 2005" is partly corrupt. However, I updated this reference by "Estonian Energy in Figure 2007", which says: "AS Narva Elektrijaamad generates 95% of total power production and supplies the town Narva with heat." Beagel (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus to split.

It has now been over half a year since this discussion about spliting took place. The article hasn't change much since then, except for an additional section added on the new plant. I have decided to remove the tag, there wasn't any overridding concensus for splitting the pages off and keeping the tag when discussion has been long inactive is unhelpful particularly to editors trying to work through backlog. I would suggest that if the original proposer still feels that the article would benefit from splitting they reinitiate discussion or draft a new proposal. Thanks, -France3470 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi. I propose this article (currently covering Narva, Balti and Eesti) to be split into the three titles mentioned. I am not very sure what Narva is (whether a collective term, or a separate power plant), but the two (or three, depending) are quite large and notable plants. And would be better off as separate articles. Just like what no.wiki and et.wiki did. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Narva is a name of the city in which vicinity Eesti and Balti plants are located. Narva Power Plants is an official name of the technological complex of these two power plants. Until 2008 the complex included also shale oil plant which is now an independent legal entity. I not support splitting right now as most of sources covers these plants as a single entity, not as a separate units. Beagel (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Not pushing, but I thought it would be a good idea since Eesti and Balti (now ignoring Narva per above) are listed individually in lists and maybe some articles in the English Wikipedia, and also the Estonia Wikipedia (Estonia is where the plants are located too) lists the plants separately. Perhaps we could create a disambiguation page at Narva?

If you still oppose the split, then don't you think it is better to list a collective "Narva Power Plants", instead of "Balti" and "Eesti" separately, in lists? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Notice: I notified WP:Energy and WP:Estonia about this discussion. Beagel (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't know, both the power plants are large and notable (plus 15 km apart) and could have their own articles. At the same time it's true that their collectively referred to as Narva Power Plants - which is also the name of the subsidiary of Eesti Energia managing the plants. Having 3 separate articles (one for the company, two for the power plants) seems like a reasonable idea, though in that case the article solely about the company might be somewhat superfluous (no need for having separate articles about all Eesti Energia subsidiaries). K731 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We could have a simple disambiguation page, and possibly a brief description, at Narva Power Plants to avoid overlapping... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: At the moment I'm not seeing any need for a split. The page currently serves the purpose of explaining both the collective grouping of "Narva Power Plants" as a power generation complex as well as sufficiently explaining details about the "Balti" and "Eesti" plants in separate sections. If there was a lot of information on the two plants (I’d say about 3 times more information, at least) they may warrant there own pages. As it stands now though the page is a short one and in this case splitting the information over three pages would very inconvenient for the viewer. In terms of how it is listed on other wiki pages- simply referencing to the particular section should be sufficient. -France3470 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.