User talk:Ita140188

Provinces of Italy

Hi. I noticed at Provinces of Italy, it still had listed Province of Bari among the active provinces, for a total of 111, so I've removed it. I also noticed that there are some discrepancies with the Italian wiki article, such as the number provinces (110 English wiki, and 107 on Italian even though they list 110 in the table). Also the total populations and other statistics in the table do not match whatsoever even if the one in English is a little out of date. For example, the total number of comuni, and the total population on the Italian wiki says 38 million, which seems odd because shouldn't that number be closer to the 60 million population? I am not an expert in Italian geography and noticed you have edited the page a number of times and was hoping you may have the interest to look into this. Grazie. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

quando gli rispondi, fai attenzione alle città metropolitane. cagliari si è staccato dalla provincia, ora c'è cagliari e sud sardegna. --Dwalin (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, same with Naples, Florence, Venice, etc metropolitan areas that are included in the list here but not at the Italian wiki since they have not been considered provinces since 2015. I suppose that's the reason the population at the Italian wiki is much lower. But this should be reflected here as well. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: The situation is quite confusing and constantly changing. I think the article should change focus and be about second level institutional bodies, including provinces, consortia, and metropolitan cities. I gave up updating the article before because of the extremely confusing situation in recent years. Also sorry for the revert but I think Bari belongs to the table as long as we are listing all other metropolitan cities. --Ita140188 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed all the metro cities are still listed. I will try and replicate what they have at the Italian wiki list and move the metro cities to the previous provinces table as they are fundamentally not provinces anymore. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: As I mentioned, I think we should change the focus of the article rather than splitting the table. It would be more informative to have a table listing all second-level bodies, with a column specifying if it is a province or a metropolitan city or other. The article may be renamed accordingly. I think this is especially important now since the status of many provinces is changing year by year, so having everything in the same table makes it much clearer and easier to update in case of changes. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with having them all in the same, but I wouldn't be opposed to having them in the same list if we differentiate them by something like colour coding. I am also hesitant to put them in the same list because it would throw off the population totals at the bottom of the table. For now, I've put the provinces of the previous metro cities in the "disbanded provinces" section along with the four from Friuli-Venezia Giulia and some from Sardinia. It is also confusing as to what they actually include as a province. They say there are 80 active provinces, so are the free municipal consortia from Sicily not technically included? They include these in the Italian wiki list, but for some reason also include the 4 abolished ones from Friuli-Venezia Giulia and state a total of 107 instead of 103. If the consortia and these four are included in the list, I don't see why the Italian wiki also does not list the 14 metro cities in the list. The Italian wiki also actually has separate articles for the consortia municipalities, while the English wiki does not. I see the new metro cities are included as institutional bodies of second level in Italy, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the old provinces of the metro city articles in "disbanded provinces" and add back the metro city articles to the provinces list. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: may you don't know, but provinces (except the 2 of trentino, reported in constitution for the creation of the special region) have been abolished in 2012. but not formally abolished, because constitutional referendum of 2016 rejected the abrogation of provinces from constitution. so they are empty shells. so, provinces in italy might be between 2 and 107, and no one can say you the real answer, because there is no real answer. --Dwalin (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: In my opinion, the table should list all second level divisions. As Dwalin said, provinces have no administrative powers anymore. Separating so called "provinces" and municipal consortia or metro cities seems arbitrary. The table as it is now is still grouping things that are not even called provinces. Moreover, as you mentioned initially, it is very confusing that the total population does not add up to the total population of the country or that for example Rome province was "abolished". I propose to reinstate the table as it was, with an extra column or color code to distinguish different denominations. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. So metro cities back into the long table with a colour code, colour code the six consortia, add the four abolished ones from Friuli-Venezia Giulia to the main table with a colour code, colour code autonomous provinces, but what should we do with the ones from Sardinia and the former provinces pages of the metro cities? Maybe those can be listed at the end of the table like they are now with text, but omit the table as the text for those should be fine. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

How's that? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I am ok with your proposal. I am also not sure what to do with former provinces pages of metro cities. Maybe these can be linked in a footnote to the metro cities in the table? --Ita140188 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I just replaced the colors with lighter ones for better readability. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Work has begun on a copy-edit request you posted for the Machine olfaction article

@Philologia Sæculārēs: Thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. As I don't know anything about the subject matter I'm not always sure how to change the wording so if you have any knowledge of the subject and felt like having a look at what I've done so far (am up to Localization methods, just about to do a bit more), please do. Thanks, --Philologia (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ita140188:Oh, and I've asked several questions on the talk page to help me edit, if you happen to know any of the answers that'd be great. Thanks--Philologia (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Philologia Sæculārēs: Thanks for the good work. I tried to fix a few things I noticed. But I think we need someone who knows this topic in order to improve further. Unfortunately I have no time at the moment to work on this. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. At least it's pretty readable now (I think). There was some pretty garbled English in there before. I've left a message at the Robotics Portal asking for someone to look at it.--Philologia 19:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:GliderMaven

la sua discussione è totalmente vuota, e la svuota sovente, soprattutto quando riceve warning. su en:wiki è consentito? in it:wiki no. --Dwalin (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ho notato. E' davvero fastidioso e credo sia scoraggiato, ma non penso sia vietato. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

a me sembra n'a cagata...--Dwalin (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

uncloak

Are you willing to uncloak? We did some good work a year ago. I'd love to know who you are. (But I respect your privacy if you need that) StevenBKrivit (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I remember and I appreciate your work here. However, I would prefer to stay anonymous, sorry. But thank you for the interest! --Ita140188 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

ITER

Hallo.Please have you got an official list of ITER suppliers? I contacted by phone ITER and they told me they haven't an official list of suppliers. So now tehre'll be a main newspeaper research. If you deleted , you could have the list. Have you it? Can you give me it? Waiting for your answer , thank you very much indeed.95.250.187.143 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your revert. As you said, it is necessary to have reliable third-party sources to make these claims. Let's wait and see what the investigation finds. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I know unofficially the list of companies, but ITER doesn't provide the official one.

The suppliers are all the most important power companies, Schneider, Mitsubishi El., General Atomic, Leonardo and others. It's a very good projecyt but there's a very grey public communication about it.95.250.187.143 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked here? --Ita140188 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thermoelectric power (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cigarette consumption base rate?

Could you please clarify in the article if List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita is per-capita of smokers, or per capita of total population, both smokers and non-smokers? A not about when updated figures are expected would also be great, as it would save editors wasting time trying to update it. It's useful list, thanks for your work on it! HLHJ (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the source is specified in the article. The numbers are cigarettes per year consumed in the country divided by population of the country over 15 years of age. There is no guideline for how often articles should be updated, but having data for 2016 seems very reasonable at this point, especially since there is no more recent data that I know of. Also, these numbers tend to change quite slowly with time. I think an update tag would be justified on data from at least over 5 years ago. Updating articles take time and there are other priorities too. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Brain simulation - added chapters NEST and AGI

"not helpful" as comment - enough to revert back, without any argueing? Sorry I expect more guidance ... why do you think it's not helpful? Not enough explained, or thinking that (human) brain simulation could reached only by most closely biological simulation like "Human Brain Projekt"? I guess the wikipedia should not end in advertising for one single project, even if it's a very big one. And it's obviously not clear who will finally win the race about most efficient and usable simulation - the University Institutes, the big Data Companies or eventual other today not known clever guys or players? I think all of them should keept open to learn from each other, there I'm asking to show those activities here as well. Thinking like MP3 for Brain Simulation, others might still like to hear CD's or Analog Vinyl Discs ;-) Knowledgebase S (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgebase S: Hello, sorry for not enough explanation in [1]. Of course it's good to have more examples of projects, but the way you added the information is not acceptable in Wikipedia. You only added quotes without context, and only referenced to primary sources. You need a coherent text supported by third-party sources that demonstrate the notability of each project. If you have, please feel free to add the info back! --Ita140188 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Growth of photovoltaics

Hi Ita140188, thanks for your copyedit in Growth of photovoltaics. I look forward to collaborating with you on the article after the Snapshot report 2019 has been released by IEA-PVPS this spring, which will definitely require an update. I, for one, think it would be helpful to discuss the article (potential amendments, used sources, etc), before this report will be released, so that we are on the same page. What caught my eye in your last edit above was that:

1. single newlines have been introduced within the 1st and 3rd paragraph (why?), and
2. a {{cn}} has been added to the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph (maybe questioning the given 3%-figure?).

I think it would be great if we had an discussion about the article as soon as possible. What you think? Best, Rfassbind – talk 12:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: Thank you, I appreciate. Also thanks for your work on the article. Replying to your points: the new lines in the code do not change the appearance of the rendered paragraph, I added them just for clarity while editing. In my opinion the code is clearer if each sentence starts in a new line, but obviously it's my opinion and there is no guideline for that, so feel free to remove new lines. For the second point, yes my doubt is about the 3%, where does it come from? Anyway yes let's have a discussion on how to improve the article before the new report is out. Do you have any ideas? --Ita140188 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thx for your quick reply.

• Linebreaks: as linked above, there is not clear policy against their usage within paragraphs, so I'll try to respect your practice although it doesn't seem sound to me.
• The 3%-figure for 2018 is the result of the 2.55% figure (2017) extrapolated with the preliminary 27% PV-growth for 2018. This would give 3.24% if total demand were to remain unchanged. I think this is an excellent example for us to find common ground. Yes, there is no such figure, and yes, it's mandatory that all data is properly sourced. But this case, in my view, is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. By contrast, it would be utterly illogical to assume that the 3%-figures would not be correct as it is a rounded figure, and there is just no way that the underlying global electricity consumption would have fluctuated that much in 2018 for the 3%-figure to be off even half a percent. Moreover, the original "2.55% and approximately 3% of global electricity demand, based on 2017 and 2018 installations" that was change to "about 2.55% and 3% of global electricity demand in 2017 and 2018" is actually making the statement less correct, as PV-deployment in late 2018 hardly contributes anything to the overall electricity supply for that same year. That's why the cited source used the term "represents" which I tried to clarify even more by using "based on".

During the next few weeks, I'll prepare a list of issues I have with Growth of photovoltaics including sources (less stand-alone CleanTechnia/Greenmedia blogpost, but more reports from a limited set), scope of the article (reduce, no country-table with 2015, 2016 and 2017 figures—but with last years results only, and expanding on predictions, even historic ones) and layout. I will post this list here so you can give me some feedback if you wish. Rfassbind – talk 14:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up, just added a 2019-projection (lead and infobox). I will now stop making any changes on the article. Rfassbind – talk 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────┘ Hi Ita140188. IRENA has released its Capacity Statistics 2019, the report on p.24 gives a cume PV-capacity of 480 GW for 2018, while estimates in Growth of photovoltaics assume about 510 GW. That's a large difference. So I guess its best to wait for IEA-PVPS'es Snapshot Report 2019 which should be released soon, don't you think? Rfassbind – talk 16:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: Hi, thanks for the update. The estimate in Growth of photovoltaics is from BNEF. It is a projection from a different source, so I think it's normal that there may be large differences. As you suggested, I think it's better for consistency to wait for the stats from IEA-PVPS, which has been the reference for most of the article. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

carem

è anche nell'RRDB--Dwalin (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dwalin: bisogna decidere se inserire automaticamente tutti i reattori nel RRDB o avere una selezione. Da quanto dice il database il Carem è utilizzato per "materials/fuel test experiments"? Dovrebbe essere pensato principalmente per la produzione di energia, non per la ricerca da quanto ne so. In ogni caso, si può riaggiungere se credi sia meglio. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

è in tutti e due, non sta a noi decidere se sia di ricerca o da produzione elettrica. il CEFR è nel PRIS ma non dovrebbe aver prodotto ancora 1Wh dal 2010. da ciò, lo si mantiene in tutti e due. --Dwalin (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Non avevo neanche notato il CEFR nella lista. Tra l'altro la lista per la Cina è assolutamente incompleta, ci saranno decine di reattori per la ricerca in Cina. Comunque per me va bene inserire tutti i reattori in RRDB. L'importante è essere chiari. Magari si può anche specificare nell'articolo. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In pratica List of nuclear research reactors è stato lasciato incompleto e incasinato, servirebbe un sacco di lavoro per renderlo accettabile. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

anche Brennilis, in francia, e' sia PRIS che RRDB. --Dwalin (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing "Dispatchable generation"

Hello Ita140188, I see you have reversed the changes I made to the definition of "dispatchable generation" to remove the errors and wrong statements in it, and have re-introduced those errors without providing any explanation as to why it is desirable for those errors to be present. The first error is the statement that wind and solar PV power cannot be controlled by the system operator. The fact is they can be controlled. The range of control is between zero and the level at which the driving resource is available. I believe it is misleading and inappropriate to have this error in the Wikipedia page. By recognising this fact, it becomes necessary to alter the definition of "dispatchable". Rather than including wind and solar PV within the scope of dispatchable generation (if that was the answer then practically every generation technology would be dispatachable and the word would become meaningless as a way of grouping generation technologies) I think it is better to alter the definition so as to capture the true meaning of the current use of the word. This led me to include the words "within and up to their design capacity" in the first sentence. If you have an alternative wording that captures the same meaning I will be happy to consider it. Another consequential change I made was to the second paragraph, which replaces the incorrect statement that wind and solar PV cannot be controlled, with an appropriate correct statement. Again I would be happy for you to propose alternative wording if you find mine unsatisfactory. The second error is the omission of concentrating solar thermal from the list of dispatchable generation technologies. The Wikipedia page on concentrating solar thermal lists it as dispatchable, so for consistency it should be listed here. If you disagree with that categorisation you could consider revising the concentrating solar thermal page. In my opinion having consistency between a top level article like this one, and the more detailed articles on the individual pieces, is an important consideration. The third error is the replacement of "speed" with "speeds" which is a non-critical fixing to achieve correct English grammar. Farmerkeith (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Regarding your main points: 1) dispatchable generation indicates a generation source that can be dispatched (that is, controlled) by the system operator. This means that the unit can follow a set point of generation (within its capacity and ramping constraints of course). This is not true for wind and solar. What you refer as "control" is actually called curtailment. Of course anything can be just disconnected from the grid. If we called this "control", then the word would become meaningless. The point is the operator cannot decide to produce 1 MW from a solar plant at 2 am in the night. 2) The article refers to "The only types of renewable energy that are dispatchable without separate energy storage". Solar thermal plants use thermal energy storage to be (partly) dispatchable (up to the capacity of the storage unit). Thermal solar plants by themselves are not dispatchable. The fact that nowadays most solar thermal plants are coupled with thermal storage is just the result of cheap thermal storage, not a requirement of the technology in itself. When batteries become cheaper, solar PV will probably be more often than not coupled with batteries. This does not make solar PV dispatchable. It makes the plant (solar PV+batteries) dispatchable up to the capacity of the battery. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ita140188, thank you for your explanation. I would like to make sure I understand what you are saying, which is that wind and solar cannot be "controlled" but can be "curtailed". In this context, "controlled" means to generate power anywhere from above zero and up to the generator's design limit; while "curtailed" means to generate power anywhere from zero up to less than the level dictated by the availability of the energy resource it depends on. Have I got this correct? Farmerkeith (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Miscanthus giganteus

Can you write in plain english what to correct (and where) in order to improve the article? I'll try my best, I want it to be a really good. I agree that encyclopedia articles should not be essays, by the way. But I really tried to write as close to the quoted research as possible. Please point out where you think I'm writing an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Perennial Hugger: Thank you very much for your work. Sorry for the poorly explained tags. Some areas of improvement for the article can be: 1) increasing the integration in Wikipedia by adding relevant wikilinks and see also links; 2) breaking up sections that are too long (also creating more complex section hyerarchy); 3) rewriting the lead to summarize the content of the article. If I have time I will read the article in detail and give more help. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Have updated the article according to these suggestions, and also tried making it more encyclopedia-like by removing value-laden words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

nucleare cina

da qui sembra che la cina abbia avviato la costruzione di 2 centrali. ma non trovo news in inglese. tu? il PRIS tace e lo stesso WNN. non è che fanno casino e hanno capito che erano gli SMR galleggianti programmati per fine anno, o il contratto per i 4 VVER a tianwan e xudabao? o al max trovo questo, che sembrerebbe appunto quello di cui parla--Dwalin (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dwalin: Secondo me si sono sbagliati. Questo articolo parla della possibilità di riprendere la costruzione quest'anno, ma non sembra ci siano notizie certe. Sono sicuro che quando le nuove costruzioni partiranno sarà una notizia grossa su tutte le maggiori fonti. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

ok, almeno forse abbiamo chiarito tutto. cià--Dwalin (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

For the Audi page, why did you undo all of the updated information? Cbenyola (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted because the edits were poor quality (broken sentences), unreferenced, and removed referenced content. Please add reliable sources when adding new content. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Charging station

Yikes, no you're absolutely right. I accidentally edited an old revision. Dumb of me, sorry. ... richi (hello) 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)