Wikidata talk:WikiProject Energy

Separation of technologies and power stations

I had a look at the subclass of (P279) structure of all power station (Q159719). There is a mixture of plants and technologies (e.g. different types of wind turbines). I would suggest to separate the subclass structure of technologies and power stations (actual implementations). I would like to hear your opinion on this. --Katjos (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If I understood this correctly, power stations should not use subclass of (P279), and should instead use instance of (P31) only... Rehman 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I already started to change all power plants I had a look at and which used subclass of (P279) to instance of (P31). --Katjos (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Power plants

For Commons contributors here not watching the CFD on Commons, please take a few moments to review the above proposal to standardise category names on Commons. Thank you. Rehman 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Identifying how to store power station data

If we look at power station infoboxes (example on English Wikipedia), there are a lot of specific data related to each type of power station (i.e. geothermal power station, wind farm, nuclear plant, etc). Currently there isn't a standard way to save that data to Wikidata.

The below table is an attempt to standardise that. Let's discuss, test, and populate the table, so that it could be shared on other projects. Please ignore redlinks as the table was expanded upon the infobox power station template on English Wikipedia.

From the looks of it, it seems like we may need new properties created. Rehman 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Update: Table has been completed, and can be found at en:Template:Infobox power station. Rehman 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussions

This section was moved from Wikidata:Project chat#Specific power station related properties

Hi. Anyone have any clue as to how to add data for specific types of power stations? For example, how to add the below information in geothermal power station items:

1. Power plant minimum geothermal temperature requirement
2. Number of geothermal wells
3. Maximum depth of geothermal wells
4. Geothermal hot water production

I've been trying to figure this out for many months without luck. Hence any help is very much appreciated :) Rehman 14:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: First could be operating temperature (P5066) with qualifiers (if it's the same as the minimum operational temperature); second could be has part(s) (P527) with quantity (P1114) qualifier. I don't know about the other two. I've never edited these items before so you should probably wait for a third opinion. Jc86035 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jc86035. I went ahead and added the first two at Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330), but the first generates an error. Will wait for more opinions on 3 and 4. Cheers, Rehman 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging members of Wikidata:WikiProject Energy: User:ArthurPSmith and User:Katjos. Rehman 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: vertical depth (P4511) works for depth. product or material produced or service provided (P1056) with qualifiers for production? Or total produced (P1092)? The errors you mention come from the constraints on existing properties, but those can be adjusted if needed; these seem to me to be perfectly appropriate applications of the properties. Initiate a discussion on the associated property talk pages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ArthurPSmith. Yes, I had a similar thought about those constraints and started a discussion at the property talk. I will continue doing so accordingly. I've added vertical depth (P4511) to the table above. product or material produced or service provided (P1056) seems the best option based on its listed examples, but I can't seem to figure out how to state something like "produces 1100 litres of hot water per second" on Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330).

If you do have the time, please also do feel free to add suggested properties to the table above for other cases as well. I'll try working it on real items and see if it works. :) Rehman 14:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Here are my two cents for the discussion: I would also use has part(s) (P527) for item 2. and 3. together with corresponding qualifiers. For point 1. I think that operating temperature (P5066) has to have a qualifier to state that it the minimum temperature. However, I was not able to set a minimum value for other entries and would be interested how you would do this. Also, could you please clarify what you exactly mean with this? I would read in the English Wikipedia rather that the wells produce hot water with at least 190°C (Min. source temp.). Then it could be also a qualifier of 4. For 4. unfortunately the German Wikipedia is not very precise. I guess that the wells produce 1100 liters (1800 liters stated in the German Wikipedia) of hot water per second. Therefore, I added a qualifier to state that the output regards the well output and not the thermal nameplate capacity. --Katjos (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Katjos:.

• Yes, there should be a way to state that it is the minimum value. I have marked this issue as pending on the table for now. Need to check with a property expert. The minimum operating temperature is the point at which the geothermal power station can start generating usable power. #1 and #4 are not related. #4 is after the heat is used, hence the water temperature is almost always much cooler.
• With regards to the hot water output, yes you are correct. It is not equal to thermal nameplate capacity.

Thank you. :-) Please do watch this page if you would like to help in the other areas as well. I plan to go section by section. Feel free to update the table yourself as well. Cheers, Rehman 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: I would like to help in other areas. To start I went over the table you created above and collected some comments:

1. I guess the list is a first draft of plants. What is missing in my opinion are run-of-the-river power station (Q1411996) and battery storage power station (Q810924)
2. I did find it hard in the past to find best practices for entering certain types of power plants. What do you think about to collect a list of such power plants for each type mentioned above?
3. I think we could also describe the status of a power plant the same way construction_began is described in the table. In my opinion this would be the most consistent way.

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katjos (talk • contribs).

@Katjos: Thanks; could use all the help I can get! :) Yes there are a few more variants, but I am currently only focusing on the types covered here. Run-of-river are classified under hydroelectric plants, and their data are somewhat different. I plan on doing those after the above task. Also, energy storage is a power station feature, and not a method of power generation. Hence not included above. It would of course be used as a basis for the energy storage parameters.

Regarding list of power stations, that could be easily obtained via SPARQL or a wikipedia category when we're ready to apply the mapped parameters. For now, to test parameter feasibility, I've linked one or more power station items in each coloured sub-section header, in the table above. Status parameter is a bit tricky. Look at the reference note on that row for a potential workaround. Cheers, Rehman 05:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Thanks for adding the power plants as best practices to the table. For me as an infrequent editor this is quite helpful. I had a look at the reference note for the status argument. I still think significant event (P793) with different values for the states would be the most consistent solution. However, I do not think this matter is very urgent to be solved now. I will have a look at the table in the coming days. Maybe I can add some of the mappings. --Katjos (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Katjos: You may be right on the status parameter, I'm not too sure myself. Need to run some test cases to see if it fits well. Cheers, Rehman 06:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Katjos: Hi again. I just had a deeper look at your above suggestion; I think we are suggesting the same thing. Is it possible for you to show an example (maybe on a live item, if it makes it easier)? Thanks! Rehman 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman:: Sorry for my late reply. I have been quite busy the last days. Please have a look at Berlin-Steglitz Battery Energy Storage Station (Q58842016). I added there both approaches to describe the status of the plant. However, I did not find a proper wikidata item to describe an operational status. I would be happy for your feedback to this. If you want to try this approach further, I could test this approach on Mellach CC power plant (Q1495007). This one is fairly new and was also mothballed for some time due to market conditions (high gas prices and low electricity prices). --Katjos (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Katjos: Hi. The table has been completed and can be found here. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on the template talkpage or here. Once the final bits are added, I will copy the table to Wikidata:WikiProject Energy so that other projects could also follow the data structuring format. Please also do test the trick with operational status, and let me know if you are happy with that approach? Best wishes, Rehman 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/feed-in tariff

Hello. The above property proposal has been created yesterday. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Property was created, see feed-in tariff (P6826). --Te750iv (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/solar irradiance

Hello. The above property proposal has been created today. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 11:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Property was created, see solar irradiance (P6876). --Te750iv (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/capacity factor

Hello. The above property proposal has been created today. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 06:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Property was created, see capacity factor (P6639). --Te750iv (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Power station "showcase items" with "best practice" statements, or alike

Idea split off from the discussion at Topic:V4263szvbn4yev4x:

Status quo from my POV:

• Wikipedia/Commons infoboxes already make use of power station data from Wikidata to a relatively high degree.
• More data from Wikipedias (infoboxes, categories) and from other sources are being imported to Wikidata, sometimes following different statement schemes.
  –> Confusion about, or misinterpretations of statements (or their usage) are not frequent, but common (and: not every wanted type of statement is available yet).
• Relevant improvements have already been made in modelling (better matching of infobox entries and Wikidata statements), at least for some languages. Efforts are ongoing (see e.g. above).
• Generally, it should be easy to describe many power stations by statements (e.g. thermal power stations or wind farms, because they are coherent structures).
  –> But, especially in the hydropower (Q170196) section, a couple of contradictory combinations with strange results may occur (e.g. as a matter of focus: power station/dam/barrage/reservoir/lock/etc? Only one item for a complex, or interconnected items for individual facilities? see my first post).
  –> In addition, systematic and/or special conflicts can be triggered by a variety of other aspects (e.g. changes in type/capacity/status/ownership/etc over time, partial disassembly or extensions of facilities, even confusion about used technologies due to some still unsolved interwiki conflicts/translation issues which tend to propagate from one wiki to another). Such cases need attention, too.

Suggestion:

• We should collect/select a set of power station items – at least 1 per type, including special combinations – that we then try to "make perfect" together with as many well-sourced statements, and as many translations as possible.
• Such items would be very useful as vivid "best practice" examples for other users (like showcase items are meant). And they could be used as live test cases for infobox improvements by different language communities.

I have no list of good examples yet. Tips and comments welcome. --Te750iv (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Te750iv, Rehman: et al. interested energetic editors. As I promise, I've prepare a set of cases (maybe not a showcase item, yet) with 6 differents power plant technologies. You can see them at en:special:permalink/908409813 or in cawiki version at ca:special:permalink/21578020. Both of them without manual parameters. I followed the rules described in the infobox documentation to fill WD. I saw some aspects of that proposal that I think must be improved. But, while I write a summary to discuss together, please take a glance to the cases and tell me if they are enough representative, or you want to make me any suggestion. Keep in touch, Amadalvarez (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: At first glance, the set on both pages looks good. I compared the items with what the slightly different infoboxes show. The capabilities of both templates are already astonishing in some parameter details, and especially in regard to the multi-lingual approach of cawiki; really great! Will tell in case I spot an issue. --Te750iv (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Te750iv:. My wish is that the other WPs use our infoboxes and left theirs troubles behind !. I saw a couple of problems in cawiki version caused because a contradiction with the properties of your proposal, that I followed to do the samples. I'm preparing a documentation to share with your (and Rehman that I will ping later) in order to explain my point of view. See you, Amadalvarez (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Amadalvarez, Te750iv:. This is great. I've attempted it before, but it was simply too much work to juggle alone. Regarding complex entities like hydroelectric facilities, the ideal/correct way (in my opinion) would be to have separate Wikidata items for each component (i.e. an item for the dam, an item for the reservoir, an item for the power station, etc). These separate related components can be called together with some code for infobox use. I hope to do this for Infobox dam on enwiki at some point.

Also just a heads up regarding the enwiki infobox power station template. While the majority should work well, the last section (i.e. ps_units_xx) is still under development, and may not work entirely as expected when using a Wikidata-only mode. User:RexxS is helping me code that part in Lua, as it will have a more advanced function.

P.s. I apologise if I have missed any previous pings; I'm going through a critical phase in RL, hence I need to focus there for some time. But of course, if there is anything you need from me, do feel free to ping. I get emails for all pings, and will drop in whenever I can. Cheers, Rehman 02:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Thanks for your notice and the tips. No need to apologise. I'll try to work up a little concept, but need time for that, too (looking up things, evaluation of first ideas…). I wish you all the best! Take care. --Te750iv (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Take care of yourself. Wiki is an amusement, always must be behind RL priorities. As I commented before to @Te750iv:, I wrote Wikidata:WikiProject Energy/Review-1 about "how many items should we have". I'll appreciate your comments. Amadalvarez (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Amadalvarez, Te750iv. Hope you're both doing well. Just want to update you that Template:Infobox power station is complete, and thus now supports every type of power station, while being fully Wikidata supported. The importance of that here on this WikiProject is that the template also now has a (completed) table on how to structure the data of power stations. I've copied parts of that table to this project page as a start, but I am absolutely sure there is a better way of displaying it here, considering the central/multilingual nature of Wikidata. As always, any feedback is welcome.

On the note of example Wikidata items (i.e topic of this thread), I've started a list on the template itself (needs expansion). We could probably sync that list here as well. Simultaneously, I am currently working on making these articles fully based on Wikidata (I'm going top to bottom, so examples are on top of the list). User:ScottDavis is also working on a similar task for Australian power stations. Hopefully articles from these tasks could become good examples.

Echoing what I mentioned before; hydro facility's wikidata structure are not yet mapped/designed as that is a separate project altogether (as it consists multiple components that should be separate Wikidata Q-items: dam, power station, reservoir, river, etc). Cheers, Rehman 14:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: When I red your comment about hydro facility's wikidata structure, I translate my ontology page from documentation of cawiki infobox and copied it in Wikidata:WikiProject Energy/Review-1 to share with you. After that, ScottDavis ask a question and you can see my answer below. Amadalvarez (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Land use under/around a wind farm

Does anyone here have experience or ideas for what the best wikidata property is to encode the land use under/around a wind farm? The English Wikipedia infobox presently uses has use (P366) but that doesn't quite meet the semantics as the wind farm does not use agriculture (Q11451), cattle husbandry (Q2153464) or wilderness (Q911871) (or any other land uses or subclasses that are not presently supported). There's a conversation near the bottom of en:Template talk:Infobox power station#Wind farms and wikidata that triggered this enquiry. --ScottDavis (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Project Chat discussion did not conclude with a solution: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/10#How to define the usage of land over which an onshore wind farm is built upon?. This is something we should discuss further. Rehman 13:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relationship between hydro power station, dam and reservoir

What should be the correct Wikidata relations between the entities for a hydroelectric power station, the reservoir that supplies it and the dam that creates the reservoir? I am finding power station articles in other language Wikipedias, but many of the English Wikipedia articles are about the dam, with the power station mentioned in it. I found some power station articles where the English version redirects to the hydro scheme containing several power stations. I have used part of (P361) to link the power station to the scheme and has part(s) (P527) to link the scheme to any power stations and dams I have found in the scheme. Not all hydro power stations are part of a scheme to tie them together that way. For example, Hume Power Station (Q61448251), Hume Dam (Q21946958) and Lake Hume (Q1780129). The dam and lake are linked to each other but not the power station at present. Thanks. --ScottDavis (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Hi, some months ago I made a description to explain this point to @ Te750iv, Rehman: that we developed in cawiki. :By chance, today I prepare and add the complet ontology for the dam & reservoir items as we have created a hundred of power station in order to follow previous talk in this page, after Rehman completed the description for the rest of type of stations.

In our case, the dam infobox shows all its data, together with some of the reservoir info. If the reservoir has a separate article, the infobox just show the reservoir information. You can see a demo of dam & reservoir in https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Infotaula_edifici/%C3%BAs#Funcionament_a_les_infotaules. Ask me if you any doubt. Amadalvarez (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This is great, Amadalvarez. I will go through this in the next couple of days, and provide feedback. Cheers. Rehman 10:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Amadalvarez, it was a pleasure meeting you last week (by surprise!). Regarding the above, I agree with your ontology, except that I feel we need to have separate Wikidata items for dams, reservoirs, and power stations. Some reasons:

• Dam items should be separate and exclusive. This is not only to avoid complexity - but also to establish an exclusive ontology for dams without a power station (i.e. irrigation dams). Dams also have other complex applicable properties, such as roads it support, dam volume, spillways, spillway type, it's own coordinates, etc.
• Hydroelectric power stations have exclusive properties such as penstocks, discharge values, distance from water source (reservoir), etc, in addition to standard power station values such as installed capacity, production, separate coordinates, etc.
• Reservoirs on the other hand, should in my opinion be standardised so that the ontology could be applicable for lakes, and other water bodies.

Separating such items also simplify cases where the dam, reservoir, and power station, have completely different names. For other readers who may not be aware; fetching data to Wikipedia infoboxes from separate items is quite straightforward. An example would be the wind turbine specifics, which are obtained from the wind turbine q-item, through the wind farm item, to the English Wikipedia's power station infobox. Rehman 16:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Rehman:, I was really happy to have the opportunity to talk in person with you. The "de-virtualisation" is one of the most interesting moments for this community. I hope you got a good return home. If you like to have stations separate from dam, is not a problem if we find a good way to link reservoir ↔ dam ↔ station. Look that now we have dam (P4792) and reservoir created (P4661) to make the first relationship; so,we need to find a way (new property/properties ?) to link the station, if separate. Any proposal?. Regarding the ontology of reservoirs, my proposed ontology is directly applicable to any inland waterbody, well, plus P4792, obviously. I do not incorporated in the reservoir's ontology some other common properties as, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), named after (P138), ecoregion (WWF) (P1425), located in/on physical feature (P706), located in protected area (P3018), coastline (P5141), species kept (P1990), state of use (P5817), etc. that,obviously may used. Now I incorporate this aspect on the ontology to have a full description, as I did with additional properties for dam. Amadalvarez (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I raised this question for the lake, dam and power station all called "Hume", but different language Wikipedia editions have articles focused on different elements. I found the situation by searching Wikidata for power stations in Australia and noticing the ones without English-language names. There are other instances where the power station is several kilometres from the dam wall. It's difficult to decide where to put the coordinates (for example) or which OpenStreetMap feature to associate with a single Wikidata item that represents them both together. source of energy (P618) should just be set to water (Q283), rather than the Dam or Reservoir objects. Perhaps located in or next to body of water (P206) can link the power station to the lake, but is it really accurate if the turbines are several kilometres downstream or in the next valley over the ridge? If they are spatially separated, perhaps there is no direct relationship between the power station and the dam wall. --ScottDavis (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding linking the dam and the power station: the power station could have has part(s) (P527) as penstock (Q1260995), with qualifiers origin of the watercourse (P885) as the dam item, and quantity (P1114) for number of penstocks. Rehman 15:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The dam item could also have has part(s) (P527) as penstock (Q1260995), with qualifiers quantity (P1114) for number of penstocks, and terminus (P559) as the power station item. Rehman 15:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

has part(s) (P527) and has part(s) of the class (P2670)

To translate a concern raised by @Olyon01: on Topic:Vboeeh0lu222alup in French.

At some point, we introduced has part(s) of the class (P2670) for use in some cases where previously has part(s) (P527) was used.

Notably, if you have specific instances, e.g. the plant Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant (Q1371612) and these have parts that are not specific to that instance.

In this sample, it would have for four cooling tower (Q193886) as values of has part(s) of the class (P2670), but it would have "Cattenom tower #1", "Cattenom tower #2", "Cattenom tower #3", etc as values of has part(s) (P527) if there were such items. Most of the time one uses the qualifier "quantity", P2670 should probably used and not P527.

Accordingly, I'd update "Number of chimneys" and "Number of cooling towers" to the more recent property. --- Jura 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I replaced all P527 with P2670.

I have also modified "Source of cooling", I propose to indicate the river directly with coolant (P588). Olyon01 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jura and Olyon01. Just pinging here to inform that these parameters are currently used in infoboxes on enwiki, so we may need to take this slow so as to not break things. I haven't had the time to look into this in depth; just saw it on my watchlist, and letting you know. Cheers, Rehman 03:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Olyon01, Rehman, Jura1: I'm completely new to this project and wanted to add some data to Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (Q1032792). It has two operational VVER-1000 (Q4101889) reactors. If I understand Wikidata:WikiProject_Energy#Nuclear_power_stations correctly, I should add this (please confirm):

• powered by (P516) VVER-1000 (Q4101889): but how do I indicate the number of reactors?
• has part(s) of the class (P2670) water-water energetic reactor (Q35957): but this is already implied by the isA of VVER-1000 (Q4101889), isn't it a normalization issue?

I think we should use powered by (P516) only for individual named reactors (to be able to reflect their history, cost, etc etc), and has part(s) of the class (P2670) to reflect the type of reactor. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wind turbine height for a particular wind farm

I have been using Wikidata to hold the infobox information for ENWiki infoboxes. This has generally worked well, but I've hit a problem for Warradarge Wind Farm (Q78439596) under construction using V136-3.45 MW (Q71812982) turbines on 84m towers. I've put 84m in too many places, but the only one to work is the local override in the ENwiki article as the turbine wikidata says it is on 93m towers. This has already been briefly discussed at en:Template talk:Infobox power station#Overriding turbine height for a particular wind farm. The brochure I found today says tower hub heights of 82m, 105m, 112m, 132m, 142m, 149m and 166m. (page 15, V136-3.45 MW IEC IIB/IECIIIA Facts and Figures). I seemed to be able to set the power rating to display in the infobox using a qualifier, but not the tower height either as a qualifier or a property of the wind farm. Any advice on which is the "right" way to express this? Thanks. --ScottDavis (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I later raised this at Wikidata:Project chat#Discussion on the "right way" to encode exceptions. The only response so far is that either a qualifier on the turbines or the height of the wind farm should be fine. --ScottDavis (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The above Project Chat discussion was unfortunately archived without a solution: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/01#Discussion_on_the_"right_way"_to_encode_exceptions. Rehman 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scott. How are you doing? Following-up on this, I noticed that V136-3.45 MW (Q71812982) was created slightly incorrectly. The models should be in the form of "V136-3.45 MW", as that is the full (registered) model number. Hence, there should ideally be separate "V136-xxxx" Q-items for each of the different capacity models. My RL schedules are easing up, hence I hope to get the height issue sorted soon. Will review deeper and comment again. Cheers, Rehman 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rehman. Thanks for coming back to this. It looks like you are right - oops. The sales brochure[1] seems to have eight models of V<hight>-<power>, but some of them have multiple tower heights, so we will still hit the problem at some stage. Page 15 of the brochure seems to offer V136-3.45 MW with hub heights of 82m, 105m, 112m, 132m, 142m, 149m and 166m. --ScottDavis (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Scott, sorry for the late reply. Everytime I look at this case, I kind of get a headache. At this point, without the help of more Wikidata experts, I cannot think of a way to model this data, without causing more issues. I've commented on the open thread at en:Template talk:Infobox power station#Overriding turbine height for a particular wind farm. On the other hand, can I go ahead and change the turbine model error above? Do you by any chance recall the uses of that item (i.e. if changing it would cause any issues)? I'm basically going to rename (i.e. change the label) of the first one (to V136-3.45 MW), and create items for the additional models. (Alternatively, you can also do that if you like) Kind regards, Rehman 14:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the turbine model Q-items. Will comment on the other issue on enwiki. Rehman 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sequence of hydroelectric power stations

Greetings from Sweden. Trying to model all the powers stations in a river and would like to indicate the order. One could use follows/followed by but that requires defining implicit ordering (downstream or upstream) another option would be something like adjacent station for rail lines with a direction qualifier with upstream or downstream. Thoughts? Belteshassar (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Belteshassar. Have a look at #Relationship between hydro power station, dam and reservoir. I'll try to work on the ontology this week, so we can work on populating the data. Cheers, Rehman 11:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Rehman for the reply. Looking forward to seeing what you cook up. I’m going back to my home town in a few weeks and I’m planning a photo tour and maybe a trip to the local library to make sure I capture all the info on the many 100 year old hydro power stations around. After digging a bit deeper, I’ve concluded it probably doesn’t make sense to model the ordering along the river on the power station items, because several of the reservoirs have multiple power stations from different eras (although currently modeled as a single item). A better solution might be to let the ordering be made on the linked reservoirs, similar to any other bodies of water. Belteshassar (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

KWh vs K Wh

Hello. I intend to do a series of reverts of [goodfaith] edits such as this (i.e. adding a space or dot) - done by User:Toni 001. As I briefly explained at Talk:Q2051195#Unit_symbol, this is going against the common usage of the term. For such mass changes, a discussion would be required first. As a courtesy, I'll do the revert in a couple of days, if anyone else would like to show support in keeping the amended versions. Cheers, Rehman 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Note that the English Wikipedia article mentions both versions (with and without space/dot). Would anybody object to state both in unit symbol (P5061)? Best wishes. Toni 001 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, as these were on my watchlist. It would be helpful if User:Toni 001 could self-revert similar edits themselves. I'm fine with reinstating them later, if we can first have some sort of consensus. Rehman 03:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of all units containing either variant:

select ?unit (group_concat(?symbol; separator = ", ") as ?symbols) where {
  ?unit wdt:P5061 ?symbol . filter (lang(?symbol) = "en")
  filter (contains(?symbol, "W h")|| contains(?symbol, "Wh"))
} group by ?unit

Try it!

Toni 001 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)