Talk:Nuclear power in India

message: Please update the contents of the information about Indian nuclear power after the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.40.102 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update requested 

message: There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: As of July 2012, the text in this article states six nuclear power plants, BUT the map that is given shows eight. Hence, the number of nuclear reactors is also very questionable. Sorry, but the whole numerical disagreement is pathetic when we are talking about numbers that can be counted on the fingers and the toes.Dale101usa (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot anyone count power plants? 

message: There is not one word in the whole article about any rationale about the locations of the nuclear power plants in India. Surely, there must have been some.
Here in the United States, the nuclear power plants were generally built:
1. In regions with little hydroelectric power, such as Illinois, Missouri, Florida, Southern California, Texas, Connecticut.
2. Around large cities and industrial areas, such as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and so forth. For example, Los Angeles is fed power from a large power plant south of the city at San Onofre, California, and by America's largest nuclear power plant, the Palo Verde Power Plant in Arizona.
The San Francisco area and Los Angeles receive power from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
3. Closer looking could probably find other reasons for the locations.Dale101usa (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: can anyone cite the nuclear power article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestoneageman (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power plants where and why? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_location_map.svg
Dear sir ,
The link which i posted above my message shows india without kashmir ! this is shocking to find that popular website providing wrong informations . I kindly request you to make appropriate changes. kashmir belongs to india , india alone! its not a foreign country. 
122.174.49.96 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is kashmir ? 

message: http://www.infoqueenbee.com/2013/05/details-of-supreme-court-of-indias-2.html
Follow this link and it is clear that although the Supreme Court of India had rejected the PIL, it didn't do so on the grounds of not being experts/not having experts' opinions. The article referenced to from Times of India is misleading, hiding information and misrepresenting the thought process of the Supreme Court of India.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.172 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading information about Supreme Court's verdict on anti-nuclear PIL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nuclear power in India. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922045157/http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=321896 to http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=321896
*Added  tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LV1MaFnmkXkJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576002761899077484.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am unhappy about this edit. Before that, I could at a glance, look how much nuclear planned generation or under construction, and so on. But what bothers me more is that I seem unable to recover the old tables. The trick with "edit" to copy/paste the old table seems not more to work.--Robertiki (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a summary table may be better in this case. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I have restored the tables from the old revision. This was a purely a technical help, I don't favour one table over the other. —Gazoth (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear sector status data lost 

message: Why J & K Map is not complete???? 2405:204:522A:1FC:B719:1E12:1C3D:7095 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map report 

message: The part about capacity factors says it was a huge issue in the past but has improved now. I think this is better illustrated by stating the CF for an earlier year (2008 or so) and then the one for 2021. 
It is needlessly confusing to mention the lifetime weighted availability factor as of 2021, and then the availability factors for 2 years (2019-21).
The paragraph also needs to be shortened in my opinion, I don't think the topic warrants more than two lines in the lead section. (Edited for clarity and added more issues) Sadbarrett (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section on capacity factors needs update 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: * https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indias-first-indigenous-700-mwe-n-plant-starts-working-at-full-capacity-in-gujarat-pm-calls-it-milestone/amp_articleshow/103258805.cms
-Nizil (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update