Talk:NTPC Dadri Solar Power Plant
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Ktdk in topic Merger Discussion
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merger Discussion
editRequest received to merge articles: NTPC Dadri Solar Power Plant into NTPC Limited; dated: September 2024. Proposer's Rationale: Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have seperate article, All plants are owned by one company. Discuss here. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know where its coming from. The plant pages are made as per WP:NBUILDING which states "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." Now, it depends how you interpret it. Reaching out to @Scope creep for their thoughts on the matter. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge They are likely notable but detailed of each are contained in tables in the main NTPC Limited. If you added a coordinate, type and commission date fields to the tables and perhaps an image along with a reference, you could probably merge the whole lot of them, since most of them are so badly referenced. scope_creepTalk 17:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep This way, we can keep the important details about each plant while making the information clearer. I will begin working on expanding the table. Charlie (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CharlieMehta: I would wait until the merge discussion is finished. Some of them are fairly well referenced considering the size of them. I would wait a least a month or two until all these merge discussions are finished. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep Okay. I will wait for the outcomes, and in the meantime, I will look for any images I can find that can be used under fair use. Charlie (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CharlieMehta: I would wait until the merge discussion is finished. Some of them are fairly well referenced considering the size of them. I would wait a least a month or two until all these merge discussions are finished. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: The reason mentioned is flawed. Each plant has its own unique history. Agree that some of the pages are badly referenced and does not contain significant information. But why don't we improve these pages. Another reason I oppose the merger because in the US several coal fired powerplants have their own pages with content similar to the Indian coal fired power plant pages not only that pages related to most coal fired powerplants around the world have minimal content. The proposal by @Scope creepScope creep to add more columns will be enough is also flawed what about the project cost expansion of the plant details and if incase if the plant has some accidents or incidents or Reception or controversies. And also technical details of the plant such as which steam turbine is being used Kudgi Super Thermal Power Station has additional details such as technology being used and several other details. Ktdk (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- The reasoning that ownership alone negates the need for a separate article is flawed. NTPC owns over 40 power plants, each with its own unique history, specifications, and role in the power grid, which merits individual coverage. By this logic, assets like ships and submarines wouldn't require separate articles simply because they belong to a Navy, which clearly is not the case. Just as vessels have distinct operational details and historical relevance, power plants, including Dadri Solar Power Plant, deserve their own space on Wikipedia to provide comprehensive information to readers. Consolidating all into the parent company's article would diminish the depth of detail that each asset offers. iAshwinDeshmukh Deshmukh.3851 talk 21:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is true to a point, but Wikipedia isn't is business listing for every tiny asset and every one of them doesn't need to be standalone notable. It is not a directory of power stations or indeed any other type of asset that a particular company owns. This tiny power station lists several properties including size and location that could easily be put in the table in the main article. Many of them are-notable but looking at this a second time it likely fails WP:NCORP, by a country mile. There is no standout feature for this solar park that makes any different from any solar park. Not a single thing. I kicked off the merge really in the hope that we have a discussion about why they are listed and find a better way to represent these. Either way its not staying in current form. scope_creepTalk 09:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your point on "Wikipedia isn't is business listing for every tiny asset and every one of them doesn't need to be standalone notable". And I also agree on "There is no standout feature for this solar park that makes any different from any solar park. Not a single thing." But what about my point details of expansion of the project or project cost and Reception or controversy. Some power plants have how much electricity is being produced. Ktdk (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is true to a point, but Wikipedia isn't is business listing for every tiny asset and every one of them doesn't need to be standalone notable. It is not a directory of power stations or indeed any other type of asset that a particular company owns. This tiny power station lists several properties including size and location that could easily be put in the table in the main article. Many of them are-notable but looking at this a second time it likely fails WP:NCORP, by a country mile. There is no standout feature for this solar park that makes any different from any solar park. Not a single thing. I kicked off the merge really in the hope that we have a discussion about why they are listed and find a better way to represent these. Either way its not staying in current form. scope_creepTalk 09:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)