Talk:Solar power in India

attribution and plagiarism concern

The section on Status of Solar Energy in INDIA has been borrowed in totality from his URL: Advantages of Solar energy Can we have it attributed in a proper way? Rohini (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Y re-worded this section and included reference to this URL Johnson487682 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If we talk about Solar power in India, I am working on preparing a nice article on this and then post it over here: http://www.advantagessolarenergy.com/ by attaching a reference link to this page, so that everyone can get know about the both. hope my work will help guys out. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soberoi (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I can share the presentation Ideas about advantages of Solar energy by sharing this link.. hope this will help you all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.44.81 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Units

Solar water heaters

The page states

"Bangalore has the largest deployment of rooftop solar water heaters in India. These heaters will generate an energy equivalent of 200 MW every day".

These units do not make sense, and should either be just "200MW" or another unit, ie "200MW hrs (days?/years?) every day" However, the original source also quotes "200 MW every day". I suggest removing "every day"?

SDF

F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.227.239.118 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Needed Graphs

Could someone please include statistics showing the installed capacity of photovoltaics as shown on similar articles for other countries? This graphic would add considerable perspective to the growth of solar power in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.108.166 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

chart added Rmhermen (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've been working on the copyediting problems with this page & while I don't think the ce is finished, I think (hope!) it is improved. I still have a question about the last paragraph in the 'Challenges' section; i.e.

It is prudent to encourage solar power plant installations up to a threshold limit (say 7000 MW) by offering direct or indirect incentives.[126] Otherwise, dubious short sighted financial operators from all over the world could take over the industry to encash the liberal Indian bank loans offered by installing substandard and shorter life solar power plant equipment with overrated nameplate capacity.[127] The solar power purchaser (DisComs, etc.), solar power transmission agency (TransCos) and the Indian financial institutions should insist for annual penalty payment from IPPs for not meeting minimum guaranteed capacity utilisation and long term performance guarantee for the equipment backed by insurance coverage to ensure that the guarantee works even after the OEM becomes bankrupt.[128][129][130]

This does not sound like 'neutral voice' to me but since I'm pretty new as a Wikipedian I was not confident in changing the language beyond the first sentence or 2. Would be appreciated if someone could advise or take a bolder approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwidgeon (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Concentrated solar power should be added.

This article lacks information about concentrated solar power (i.e. not PV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.67.241 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Advert template

Hipal believes that this article warrants an advert maintenance template, I believe it doesn't. I'm creating this section in the hopes that consensus can be reached regarding the requirement of said template. Frequent editors of this page are requested to pitch in. Prolix 💬 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at the references? How many just in the lede should be removed like the Forbes one that I just removed? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, bad sources are not akin to advertisement. Please explain how you can justify classifying poorly sourced content to advertisement? Prolix 💬 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that poor, promotional, and non-independent sources are exactly what creates PROMO problems, as well as almost all other content problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, what are these non-independent and promotional sources you speak of? Solar power in India is primarily a government initiative, so it follows that most sources would be from the government. Prolix 💬 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't need to argue for minimally acceptable sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, we aren't. If you can't be bothered to justify your edits then don't bother making them. I came into this discussion hoping to understand the reasoning behind your addition of said template, its up to you to keep it civil and productive. Prolix 💬 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's up to us both. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, sure. What are those sources you speak of then? Prolix 💬 03:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

most sources would be from the government That's the problem right there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, why is that a problem? Any data regarding solar power in India will come from the government. All 'secondary' sources are just paraphrased versions of the government's data. All of this still doesn't justify an advert template. There are maintenance templates specific to the over use of primary sources: {{primary sources}}. Why not use that instead? Prolix 💬 15:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, what is objectionable about the reference (given below) to be removed from both lead and a sub section? It is given in the lead and a sub section to inform that the solar tariffs prevailing in India are not the least though the installation cost/MW capacity is the lowest.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/historic-result-as-portugal-claims-record-low-prices-in-700mw-solar-auction

Is it not tampering with neutrality or exhibiting bias or vested interest? The ref. is a very crucial and relevant data to know India's solar power status in a global perceptive.124.123.165.82 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The publisher is a trade news website that tends to be highly promotional in general, that has a conflict of interest.

The article is an announcement, a warmed over press release.

I didn't touch it, though I did look at some of the other refs from the same publisher. They're not the worst of what we're using, but in-world and highly promotional. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If the publisher is not reputed, can I add same information from another reference or publisher?124.123.165.82 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's what we need, references that are independent. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

All 'secondary' sources are just paraphrased versions of the government's data. No. See WP:PST, WP:NOT, and WP:IS for discussions on the importance of secondary and independent sources. We want sources that can determine encyclopedic value in a historic context. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, Even so, none of this points to advertisement. The primary sources template would be far more appropriate. Prolix 💬 16:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to fit the definition and characteristics and the policies it links: SOAP and POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)