Talk:Alcoa Power Generating

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV and controversy over APGI relicensing

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This is a very controversial topic, and I suggest the last three paragraphs in the "Yadkin Division" section are not in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Specifically, the information does not represent all sides of the issue. For instance, there is no mention made of the governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations who signed the Relicensing Settlement Agreement. One suggestion would be to remove the controversial material until a final resolution is made by FERC or the court(s). If you insist on including it in the article, then I suggest a subsection on the controversy with all points of view being more fairly and accurately represented. YadkinRiverRat (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping for some input from previous editors. I've just posted a revision which I think is more event-based and neutral. I'll supply needed citations when I have more time. It's my opinion that if we go into more detail, especially if we open up the pandora's box of reporting opinions, talking points and "he said, she saids", this will become an extremely long section. I think this section also needs a current events template. YadkinRiverRat (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I tried to provide balance where I could. Most of the coverage I've seen has been negative. I guess I'm ultimately responsible for this mess since I saw the need for an article, though maybe someone else would have created it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess "previous editors" was me. No one else contributed any of the controversial material. I didn't see any of this until I made some edits today.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found some pro-APGI material while dealing with a correction and inconsistencies regarding Erin Brockovich. I've added more pro-APGI information too.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the NPOV tag because only User:Ktr101 responded, at User talk:Ktr101#APGI.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Relicensing process as a current event

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm baffled as to the removal of the current event template, and undid it. :) I don't know if you're familiar with these happenings. I've kept the entry short and simplified, but it's an ongoing process which could fill up pages and pages, and, frankly, has in local newspapers. It's unresolved, and is certain to continue until resolution is reached. Why isn't that a current event? YadkinRiverRat (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) While most media coverage has been within North Carolina, there has also been national press coverage. --YadkinRiverRat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to guidelines kept somewhere, an event has to normally be notable on a nationwide or worldwide spectrum. The relicensing procedure is a very local event in Wikipedia terms and thus it doesn't really qualify for the template tagging. I live on Cape Cod and we have had the Cape Wind issue going on for the past ten years. The entire process isn't a massive event even though it is an ongoing project. This brings up the issue of having an ongoing process as an event. Looking over the article, this has been going on a mighty long time. As a result, not all of it can be considered an event because it has gone on so long. If you look in the articles in Category:Current events, you will see that all of them (I'm assuming someone is cleaning it out) are younger than seven days. I've think we've allowed exceptions to the rule in the past such as the Olympics and presently the World Cup but otherwise we like to keep our events current and not old. I am going to remove it now and it can be reinstated pending the outcome of this discussion should we agree on something otherwise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notablility

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I didn't intend for the controversy to get this detailed, and I'm unsure how to present this, but:

"Having the state take over the Yadkin dams would involve a series of complicated maneuvers that would have the federal government agreeing for the first time to take control of a private hydroelectric project and then having the state buy it."Bonner, Lynn (2010-06-27). "Perdue, Alcoa vie over river". News & Observer. Retrieved 2010-07-01. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

We definitely have national coverage.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GL6LM00.htm

The Associated Press June 29, 2010, 5:51PM ET text size: TT Erin Brockovich worries about NC river pollutionVchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found a correction in an article I had used as a source, so I took advantage of that to revise and add some more details. I used Yes Weekly to confirm Brockovich spoke twice in one day; some of the other sources didn't acknowledge this although you know they wouldn't have made a mistake like this. Wake Forest University hasn't been outside Raleigh, North Carolina for years. In fact, she spoke IN Raleigh and at Wake Forest the same day.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edits by Ballard47

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This person didn't go about it correctly (inserting the "approved version" into the text in large print) but wanted some changes to the article. Once I realized the person was presenting the version of the article he/she wanted, I decided most of the recommended changes would probably be acceptable provided they are sourced. Look at this and this. One of the proposed changes seemed like speculation and I didn't bother with it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think the article has actually been improved. At least the wording looks more professional.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can someone give the recent additions a look and make sure there are no WP:COI problems? I don't feel qualified to judge.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as uncontroversial merge. Ajpolino (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at a newspaper article about APGI's Badin operation which said Tapoco had been sold. So I looked at the Tapoco section of this article, and at the separate Tapoco article. It appears that there's not much in the other article and it might be best to put it here, since most of what is there concerns APGI and not the current owner Brookfield.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:08, 11 November 2013 (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.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Alcoa Power Generating Inc.. 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) 07:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic