Talk:Krško Nuclear Power Plant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

730MWth[edit]

The statement "730MWth" in the summary at right appears to conflict with the text in the article body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.91.146 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in the lede[edit]

Regarding the Croatian translation of the name which an IP keeps removing - I don't see why it shouldn't be there. The plant was built by Sovenia and Croatia, it was and is still is jointly operated by Croatian and Slovenian companies, and the issues of joint governance were a major stumbling block in the two countries' relations during the decade following the dissolution of Yugoslavia. In fact, the agreement which was supposed to settle unresolved issues concerning Krško even caused the Croatian Prime Minister Ivica Račan to resign in July 2002 ad his Cabinet of Ivica Račan I to be dissolved. The Croatian name of the plant is thus pretty relevant I'd say. For all these reasons I'm reverting the lede back to what it was until 29 October. Timbouctou (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody needs to get their minds off this silly obsession with translated article titles. Translations are not meant to be treated as symbolic tokens of acknowledgment of the "relevance" of the article topic to this or that country. Other than for this symbolic reason, the Croatian translation has no encyclopedic value at all. Neither, in fact, has the Slovenian translation. I am therefore removing them both. Non-English versions of article topics are for things that are proper names. "Nuclear power plant" is not a proper name but a mere descriptive phrase; as such, the translations are trivial. The fact that "nuclear power plant" is "jedrska elektrarna" in Slovenian and "nuklearna elektrana" in Croatian is material for a dictionary of Slovenian or Croatian, but has no value as encyclopedic information about this specific plant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reported them at Wikipedia:ANI#92.63.27.251... I contend that listing the original terms is helpful for the readers because they can search for them elsewhere to help verify the article content. Regardless, that's a simple content dispute, whereas cherry-picking which term to exclude is a crude violation of principles defined by WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovene name is quite relevant and is an official proper name. I think the Croatian name does not have such a status. --Eleassar my talk 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Slovenian name(s) are merely descriptive phrases, and so is the Croatian version. Therefore they are redundant, regardless whether they are "official" or not. For comparison, I can't find a single example of a French translation of title in any of the articles in Category:Nuclear power stations in France, Category:Nuclear power stations in Germany, etc. I will thus remove your insertion. Timbouctou (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nuklearna elektrarna Krško is the official proper name of the company operating this power plant.[1] I'll therefore add this information to the article, because it is quite relevant. --Eleassar my talk 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is not about the company, it is about the power plant. Its proper name is thus irrelevant. we don't need to translate the article on Flag of Slovenia to say it is in fact officially referred to as "Vlajka Slovinska" in Slovenian, do we? Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the information about who operates the power plant is essential. I would not dispute having an information about the official name of the Slovene flag in the relevant article, if it had one. --Eleassar my talk 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it probably has one since it is defined by law - i.e. it has an "official name" which is in turn just a descriptve phrase, the same as it is in any language of the world. As for the Krško company, it is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lede already. Timbouctou (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. As there are cases of French power plants with their French name written in the lead (e.g. [2], [3]), I think that they're therefore not shunned upon. Per WP:AT, "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph", and of course a capitalised Slovene name of this power plant is a significant alternative name, proper (which I think it is, because it is capitalised) or not. I think the name should therefore be re-added to the lead. In the Manual of Style, there are foreign terms written even for objects that are not proper names at all, e.g. crisp bread (see MOS:Ety). --Eleassar my talk 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are clutching for straws here. The majority of similar articles do not have native-language descriptive names in lede. As for WP:AT - define "significant alternative name". Is the Slovenian translation of exactly the same English phrase (capitalised or not) significant for its article on English Wikipedia? And MOS:Ety refers to formatting, more precisely, the use of italic script "for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". But whatever dude, you have obviously made up your Slovenian mind. Speaking of which - which Slovenian translation of "Krško Nuclear Power Plant" do you consider to be "official"? JEK or NEK? And do you have a reference for it? Timbouctou (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and btw I find it ridiculous that you think Slovenian name is relevant while Croatian is not - when the plant's own official website is in Slovenian and Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Both names are relevant. It's true that the majority of such articles don't state the native name, but was it removed or has it not been added yet? Many do contain it. If you'll have a look at other articles, you'll see that there is no hard rule about whether to state these names (if we can write the descriptive Latin names in articles on bones and use the descriptive native names of stadiums to title articles on them, why should we entirely avoid the native name out here? This simply seems as an exaggeration.). A significant alternative name is in my opinion one that frequently occurs in relation to this power plant. --Eleassar my talk 00:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that both names are relevant. One of the points in providing relevant native language names is identifying how the subject is named in languages that have most sources covering it. (This is particularly important when English name is not a straightforward translation - does not really apply in this case.) That would certainly make sense here. GregorB (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation[edit]

I know I am not alone in needing an explanation of how to pronounce Krško correctly. Someone who knows could help? Ottawakismet (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per IPA: ['krʃko]. --Eleassar my talk 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krško Nuclear Power Plant. 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:

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) 03:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krško_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=1208045739"