Talk:List of conventional hydroelectric power stations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of conventional hydroelectric power stations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

List of conventional hydroelectric power stations is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2010	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
March 1, 2010	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
September 29, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former featured list candidate

Location

I would also add location (i.e. province, municipality and so on) to the table. --Mac (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 'List of Power Stations' by Continent as the geographic location as used in the list of Africa. This way it allows better reference to rivers that are international eg Nile / Danube / Mekong etc. Likewise many Power Stations supply countries across international borders, as in Europe particularly, but also Paraguay / Brazil / Argentine etc; so my preference would be to have a listing "Thinking Globally" -- Shunterdownunder (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sortation by power (MW)

Whoever uploaded the initial list used a period '.' instead of a comma ',' as a thousands separator. This sorts a large dam like Three Gorges with gigawatt output (1.x GW, 1,xxx MW) as less than smaller dams with ratings of 100+ MW. Unfortunately, I'm still new at this, I don't know how to correct the listings. Karanne (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the source listing so it sorts correctly. Karanne (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I suggest we merge the List of largest hydroelectric power stations article with this one. I mean, we can simply find the larger ones by clicking the sort button can we? If thats a bad idea (probably due to the immense size of the target article), option two would be to list all hydroelectric power stations that are above 1000MW (not 2000) and remove similar additions from the other article. What do you think? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Depends on how long do you want this list to be? Do you want it to be exhaustive? Just in Quebec, we have over 50 major hydro stations (over 100 MW). And as it stands now, the current trget needs a lot of work, as is it large and not very useful. Bouchecl (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. Just for comments sake, lets wait and see what other editors think...

Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Current list in simply too long, even sorting work on strong computer only. 1000 MW seems like good border. Other can be moved to geographically based lists (by continent or country). --78.108.106.253 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a good idea to only list the ones larger than a certain margin (ie. 1000MW). This would also be within WP:Notability too, aside being an extra long list. But again, lets see what other users think. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Segmenting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe it will be a good idea to segment the lists into (class-intervals just for exmple):

List of hydroelectric power stations (100 to 1000 MW)
List of hydroelectric power stations (1000 to 2000 MW)
List of hydroelectric power stations (larger than 2000 MW)

With "List of hydroelectric power stations" acting as a disambig page. It sound like a bad idea, even to me, but it may help. Its seems like the only way to shrink these enormous lists. All comments welcome. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman, that sounds like a better way to classify the massive list, one of the general accepted methods wouldn't really apply to Wiki.--NortyNort (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the only ideas until the IP in the above discussion proposed the current plan; move all below 1000MW to regional lists, which was completed today... IPs do be quite helpful at times, dont they? :) Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think moving the hydro stations below 1000 to just regional lists can help some get "lost in the fray" if a user is looking for them. The Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Project for example is 690 MW but very sophisticated and has had a lot of publicity because of not only the beauty in its engineering but its environmental effects too. The ability of a user to sort the list is a major plus.

On a separate note, I have noticed that you have been changing some of the "projects" to the dam names. I agreed developers use "project" maybe replacing it with "scheme" would suffice better. The aforementioned project has 5 dams included, I redirected the name of the largest of them to the project page. Also, the Karun-4 dam is a hydroelectric dam but serves several other purposes as well. Maybe it is better left the "Karun-4 Dam" which is its official name.--NortyNort (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should try to name all (uncontroversial) titles to a "Dam" title. It would make things look neater and reduce much confusion. Dont you think? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose this idea. In most of cases, the dams are integral part of the hydroelectric power station and in the first case, they would newer built without the power station. We should look every case separately and I have to ask you to stop the changing of titles from power stations or power plants to dams without proper move discussion. I don't there is any valid reason for moves like this or this. There is also some problems with capitalization of titles of some other power plants when capitalized title is not the official name and therefore caps should not to be used according to the WP:TITLE.

In addition, could you please explain why you removed Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station from the list. That true that after the accident this power station is temporarily out of order, but it could be shown in footnotes or add the column for remarks, not just removing it without any explanation. Beagel (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel. Firstly i have to agree on all the renamings, a user did message me about this, and i do accept that some of the renamings were wrongful. Please accept my apology. As for the removal of that entry, i did see a "2009 stopped" in the "destruction date" slot, which made me think that its gone for good. So since you said that it will resume, i will list it asap. Please understand. Have a nice day. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why a notes/location portion is important...maybe in conjunction or separate from the coordinates. Or an asterik* next to the name explaining that the station is currently down. In the case of naming, the dam is an integral part of the power station and most often, I see the power station named after/because of the dam. Sometimes, it is officially referred to by the government as a power station, usually when the dam's sole purpose is power. I won't rename the article unless I have strong evidence to. --NortyNort (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reconstruction

I have changed the article from this to this. Changes were:

Moved stations smaller than 1000MW to regional lists
Added some images
Added column for coords (pending to complete)
Sort table in alphabetical order
Added GeoGroupTemplate

Please do let me know of any shortcomings on this change. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have lost data, for the sake of what, beauty and speed? Burger81 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Burger81. We havent really lost much, as most of the removed were added to regional lists. The ones which were totally gone are the ones without any references. Please do add them back (here or regional-lists, whichever relevant) if you have the references. Besides, the page was 67KB long, which was well over the recommended size; the page needed to be cut smaller. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may use ^{[citation needed]} without deleting, if there is no reference.Burger81 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a lot of entries were removed from the list that weren't sourced. Many are big hydro power plants in Brazil and Canada that do exist. It's a lot of data and it makes a page large, but it is good data for people doing research. It would make one of the best free resources for this data on the web. If one can't be cited, it should tagged ^{[citation needed]} otherwise we lose it and it may never make it back on the list. This will take time...--NortyNort (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i should've added the citation template instead. Please do give me some time, till the current ongoing works are completed (such as the pumped-storage list). Will add back as much as i can from history. My apologies for this. Kind regards to both. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of hydroelectric power stations → List of conventional hydroelectric power stations — Or a similar title. Have a look at Template:PowerStations (or hydroelectric generating methods); note the four types of hydroelectric power stations. The current title seems too broad. Any suggestions? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support My initial reaction was to oppose this as too precise. However, having looked at the other lists linked at Template:PowerStations, I think the proposer has a valid point. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support only if... there is a run-of-the-river power station list as well. Power stations on this list, like a bunch on the Columbia River, are run-of-the-river. If you move this list to conventional, another list would have to be made and those removed. We already have a List of largest hydroelectric power stations to cover the overall largest. So, conventional and run-of-the-river would close the loop on the 4 types. This is a good idea, I can help. --NortyNort (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; created a short run-of-the-river list. Though, need help in moving the relevant entries from this list to that. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought the Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dam's were run-of-the-river but I can't find much solid proof on the internet yet. The problem with the list may be that there aren't too many. Their designs often limit their capacities. I don't see a problem though with lowering the threshold of 1000 MW for power plants like the Lower Granite Dam's to make a larger list. --NortyNort (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the capacity-limit of the run-of-the-river list by a quarter, to 750MW. If the list booms larger than this list, we could increase it back to 1000MW. So, since there seems to be no trouble with the above page move, I will carry it out now. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Manic-5 and Manic-5-PA

I don't think merging the data about the Manic-5 and Manic-5-PA is consistent with how we treat the Robert-Bourassa/La Grande-2-A stations, which are independently listed. All four of these stations are considered distinct by Hydro-Québec, the owner/operator of the facilities (see here) and were built at different times. I'm asking because if we are to merge sister facilities such as Manic-5 and Manic-5-PA, we would then have to consider the Eastmain-1 (507 MW)/Eastmain-1-A (768 MW) complex as a single 1,275 MW power plant. Bouchecl (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally created the Daniel Johnson Dam article. Later the Manic-5 article was merged into it and Manic-5-PA added, It makes sense because the dam provides water for both. The only problem I saw is having three separate and small articles, one on the dam and two on the power plants. I agree that the power plants are different entities but do we have enough info to make three articles? At least we should definitely separate the two power stations on this list. The dam is also notable in itself for its size and type. I would love to move the French version of the dam's article into Wikipedia, it has a lot more information. --NortyNort (Holla) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, and it would be difficult to write a 20K piece about a plant whose construction was completely overshadowed by the much bigger James Bay Project (phase II).

Anyway, with regards to Daniel-Johnson Dam, I'll see what I can do as far as translating and merging part of the French article into the English one (so many articles to write, so little time!). If you don't mind the few typos and clunky turn of phrases... But, my main point was about the list. I wonder how should we handle situations like the one we're faced with: combine the two sister plants or treat each one as a separate entity and list them as such? Either way, we need some consistency. Bouchecl (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little off topic in my response but in the middle I agreed that they should be separate on the list if HydroQuebec lists them differently. They also were built about 20 years apart as well. They have nice pics on the French article as well. My Google translate doesn't do a job on it though.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I split them on the list but made the "g" in generating and "s" in station capital because that is what HydroQuebec uses from what I read.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was in a holding pattern, waiting for Rehman to show up, since he made the earlier edit. As far as capitalisation is concerned, HQ use lowercase in their latest annual report, here. But I'll defer to the native speakers :) Bouchecl (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well if there is a huge problem with it, then revert. I didn't see that he had put both back under the DJ dam. I agree with the split as they are listed separately and it is the norm for HQ. The common problem is that the DJ Dam is very notable, so both of the Manic-5s often get put under it. If both were like the Hoover's Nevada and Arizona powerhouses, where they are most often refereed to as the Hoover Dam powerhouse, than it would be better to list them as DJ dam.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bouchecl and NortyNort, sorry I didn't spot this discussion. I am perfectly cool if you guys like splitting the article. Just though that putting it together would gain popularity. The initial merging decision can be found here. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel-Johnson Dam as the name of the common article for the dam and the two powerhouses is fine with me (it's consistent with the principle of least astonishment). My point was about the listing on this page and future additions to it in cases where you have two powerhouses smaller than 1,000 MW individually but larger than 1,000 MW when combined (Eastmain-1 and Eastmain-1-A for instance). For the sake of consistency, I'm arguing in favor of assessing each powerhouse separately. Bouchecl (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run of the river vs conventional

I think the distinction is hogwash - as a matter of fact I know it is, I"m from a BC Hydro family and was raised around all kinds of dams and powerplants. Pretending that "run of the river" is somehow different, when some of those projects now being built in BC are largely than some so-called "conventional" projects is a spurious distinction; and in cases like Daisy Lake-Cheakamus, the Alouette-Stave-Ruskin, Wahleach, Whatshan and other projects, they are very distinct from so-called "conventional" dams, which much more resemble run of the river except in scale; all those are diversion projects, bridging watersheds or reversing their direction (as in the case of Whatshan). This to me is another case of rearranging deck chairs without actually doing anything useful, and winding up with a result that is overly specific and not really accurate, nor is it the most common usage - and the most common usage does not have "conventional" before hydroelectric development/station, it just doesn't. It's a jejune distinction created by the marketing people for run-of-the-river promotions and should be reversed. I"m not around enough and with enough web access to take part in an AfD, but this is another case of where my valuable time is taken up by somebody doing something that's not just plain wrong, and contrary to guidelines, but ultimately spammy, or covertly spammy...."conventional" should be removed from the list's title.Skookum1 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, you may go through the original move proposal. Also keep in mind, the current title is now linked to by numerous articles across the Wiki. But of course, if you really want to move this page, you may start another proposal. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original move proposal, by looking in the history, and the logic there is as flawed as your defence of it here. The title makes a spammish distinction that really isn't a distinction; hydroelectricity is hydroelectricity, unless you're using heavy water to try and initiate a tritium-helium reaction (i.e. cold fusion). And it doesn't really matter all if "numerous article across the wiki" are linked to this title; that's easily solvable by a bot; and if those articles have been adjusted in favour of the bias this title evinces, then they've been spammed/p.r.-ified too and should be changed. This title change is one of those "moving deck chairs" bits of uselessness and time-wastingness that makes Wikipedia frustrating and largely irrelevant to people wanting to do useful edits and valuable contributions, because it creates fictional and illusory distinctions that serve no useful purpose; the "most common usage" of hydroelectricity does not need specialization based on irrational arguments pushing p.r. agendas - being confronted with a "fiat" decision like the previous move proposal and told "here, you can change it if you want to initiate further process" obscures the fact that the original process was flawed, and expecting those pointing out that flaw to start another process, which will also probably be dispensed with by the same half-logic and gullibility that this one was, serves little purpose....if you don't see that that proposal is flawed, and you take part in the next one, there's little point in trying to explain to you why you're wrong because you'll clearly defend the wrong position next time around, too....Skookum1 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you are angry or something. ;) Trust me, I have absolutely no problem in moving the page, so much as long as you can start a new formal proposal (new section, correct templates, bla bla). At this point, I do not, in any way, oppose to your future-proposal; I haven't seen a clear (summarized) proposal so far, thats all. No offence buddy. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is accurate when some people call run-of-the-river "damless" or "without" reservoir because that isn't true. And yes often company's will use that as enticement. However, they technically do have a different design and generating method and I still support a separate list. Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity explains that the larger designs are indeed still harmful to the environment. A reader can figure that out in the article and if an editor disagrees with one specific "run-of-the-river" project, inclusion can be argued with reliable sources. I think the MW threshold should be dropped further though to add more facilities to the list. One of the points to r-o-r is to have smaller reservoirs, so they inherently are going to produce less.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NortyNort: exactly. The distinction is purely a POV/p.r. one. Rehman: what exactly is conventional then? Diversion projects like the ones I mentioned - another that comes to mind is the Nechako Diversion and the associated Kemano Powerhouse, which burrows under a mountain range and involves no dams; Bridge River has only one conventional dam/powerhouse arrangement, its uppermost tier at Lajoie Dam/Powerhouse; the next like Nechako/Kemano burrows likewise through a mountain range, delivering the waters of the Bridge River to Seton Lake and two powerhouses there, and at the final tier the third resevoir was originally a natural lake raised by what is little more than a concrete weir and then the water is carried by canal, bridging smaller rivers twice, before burrowing through a small hill to deliver the water to the final powerhouse. The Cheakamus Project likewise involves a dam that has no generating facility, but is storage only for a tunnel which pierces yet another mountain range to deliver water from Daisy Lake, in the Cheakamus River watershed to the Cheakamus' parent stream, the Squamish, many many miles upstream from their confluence at Cheekeye. Wahleach also involves a completely diverted-through-the-mountain system; Alouette-Stave-Ruskin there's an upper storage/diversion dam, a tunnel through to another watershed, at the second tier the old falls is just a storage dam while another watercourse was established on the other side of hillock, which is now an island, and the tailrace becomes the feed reservoir for a storage dam which built penstocks through adjacent bedrock. Buntzen Lake similarly diverts Buntzen Lake into Indian Arm. This is such a pattern with BC Hydro that even WAC Bennett Dam is not directly connected to Gordon M Shrum Generating Station, they blasted a hole in bedrock through the canyon abutment, rather than build the powerhouse on the dam. So what I'm getting at is who and what decided there is such a things as "conventional"? I know the answer - it was the marketing departments of the run-of-the-river guys.....so it's p.r., it's spam, it's POV.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrcruft

The inclusion of national flags here is only decorative and has no real purpose; they should be removed. I don't have time... Skookum1 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is for decorative purposes ;) Please see WP:MOSICON. I oppose removal of such flags in these types of lists. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on that page " * 2.1.1.1 Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". I don't see a good reason here; maybe the engineering company logo is more suitable, actually, if anything's going to on here; but this isn't the Olympics, and not a suitable place for national flag-waving. I find it hard on the eyes, myself, and makes me not want to read the table as they dominate its appearance; what should dominate the table is elevations, volume of reservoir, height of dam, generating capacity etc. The flags are a side-issue, repetitive, and garish (as national flags tend to me, nationalism itself being garish in nature).Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

There was a problem with list peer reviews and this article's PR request needs to be completed (see above). Thanks and sorry for the mixup, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/nathpa/specs.html
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/xiaolangdi/specs.html
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/caruachi/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/ertan/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gurihydroelectric/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/ita/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/tala/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of conventional hydroelectric power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of conventional hydroelectric power stations. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 50 external links on List of conventional hydroelectric power stations. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of conventional hydroelectric power stations. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness - accuracy concern

Just looking at this list it appears that Mica Dam and Revelstoke are missing. Each is probably at least 2000MW capacity. Is someone vetting these lists for accuracy? 2001:56A:6FE6:4958:BCB5:ADC9:358E:1D95 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangjiaba Dam is 7750 MW

The power station’s installed capacity is 7.75 million kilowatts (eight 800-megawatt giant turbines and three large-scale turbines of 450,000 kilowatts), and the average annual power generation is 30.747 billion kilowatt-hours.

https://www.reduper.com/industry/energy/power-station/hydro/xiangjiaba-dam/ 2001:B011:C040:2444:989B:6271:875:3A3C (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]