Talk:Areva/Archives/2013

Untitled

This article read a lot like an ad --AW 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC) There is a lot of unsubstantiated claims. For example, what is the source for the claim that Areva is No.1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.156.241 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Areva.png

Image:Areva.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought fair use of logos was fairly well established. theanphibian 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Areva is not an acronym

So why write it in capitals ?--ArséniureDeGallium 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.areva.com/servlet/home-en.html and here: http://www.areva.com/servlet/operations-en.html. As you can see it is written "AREVA" all over the place. It's not just a logo thing. So why did you move this article back to "Areva"? ---Majestic- 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it doesn't matter whether "AREVA" is an acronym

As with many companies of European origin (e.g. GLOCK), the name is properly written in all capitals. The internal AREVA style guide indicates the same. This company's name is properly written AREVA (ALL CAPITALS). Steven (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain it, but this really bothers me. This article should be "AREVA" in all-caps. Can anyone provide a a reason for not changing it? Each reference to AREVA should be in all-caps. Areva Nc should be AREVA NC. Areva Np should be AREVA NP, and so on...Steven (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I thought Areva merged all of the separate parts; Areva NP, Areva NC (formerly Cogema), Areva T&D so that they're now all just simply Areva. My information is a little old, and I'm not an expert on Areva. This article really needs attention from someone who knows what they're talking about. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending Move of this Article

I propose moving this article from Areva to AREVA as well as related artcles to their all-caps counterparts and furthermore to change all references to Areva in the text of the article to AREVA. This would be consistent with the AREVA-published style guide. I propose making this change by 00:01 2008-05-01 (UTC). Any objections?Ratherthanlater (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I capitalized the name of the company in the article. It would be great if you would please just keep it and not change it back. It is the proper format of the spelling of the name, pursuant to company policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherthanlater (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on the Matter of Renewables v. Nuclear

I think it was reasonable to leave it at "Energy Company" as opposed to Nuclear. Although I AREVA is a renewables company too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherthanlater (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"350 Millionen Euro "

• http://www.manager-magazin.de/geld/artikel/0,2828,558153,00.html

194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up Needed

This article is in serious need of clean up. A lot of the information is either inaccurate, incomplete, or just not correct at all. Please cite sources.Ratherthanlater (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

VA Tech ELIN is not Virginia Tech

VA Tech ELIN is an Austrian engineering company and not associated with the university Virginia Tech. I removed the link that directed VA Tech ELIN to Virginia Tech University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.254.241 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy - Top Importance?

I'm not part of WikiProject Energy, but Top importance articles should really be the top topics - Electricity, Nuclear Power, Petrol, Wind power, fine; but this company? Surely 'High' importance at most for any commercial entity?

EdJogg (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New reactor type?

• Robin Pagnamenta, The Times, March 22, 2010, Areva develops new nuclear reactors that 'destroy' atomic waste, The Australian

Apparently the new reactor will be able to break down actinides that are created as a product of nuclear fission. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag removed

This article is at an advanced enough state where the general "cleanup" tag is no longer helpful. The problems that still exist are of a specific nature now. Thus, only tags addressing much more specific issues will be helpful. Of course, what's more helpful are edits themselves. ask123 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge Areva NC into Areva. Any information about Cogema's history not included in Areva will be copied to Talk:Areva. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I am worried that at the moment there is a point of view fork between Areva NC and Areva. Both cover the uranium mining in Niger, but the Areva article is almost entirely positive about the subject, the Areva NC article almost entirely negative. The majority of the current Areva NC article is about the uranium mining in Niger. I propose merging them to make the main article more balanced.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the point of view fork problem you highlight. This touches on what should happen to a company WP article when that company is absorbed/merges into another company, which ultimately will happen to most companies. The Areva NC article was originally called Cogema. If you merge the old company article into the new company article, it becomes unbalanced to retain a large history of the old company in the new company article, so some history is lost to WP. My view is that the ideal approach is to leave the old company article unrenamed, changing to "was" etc and noting the merger, and the new company article has the future events of the renamed subsidiary. So I'd be inclined to rename Areva NC back to Cogema, and move/merge post 2001 events into the Areva article - I think this could resolve the POV fork issue and leave a hook for anyone to record more about the extensive 1976-2001 history of Cogema. (And might be helpful if Areva is in future broken up, which seems pretty plausible to me). But this is a bit more work, and is it worthwhile enough? Rwendland (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that if you want, although personally I'm not sure it's worth having an article for Cogema at the moment as there are only a couple of sentences about pre-2001. Would it be better to have a Cogema stub, or to wait for someone to create it if they wanted to write the article?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead now with the merge. I personally don't think there's enough pre 2001 history in Areva NC to warrant a separate Cogema article, but I'll any relevant text to this talk page, so someone else can create the Cogema article if they wish.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

NB. I'm still planning to merge this but it was a bigger job than I expected and I haven't found time yet. If someone else wants to do it, you're extremely welcome.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These articles are not merged yet and it seems that probably it would be better to keep them separate. To avoid confusion, it would be better to move Areva NC back to Cogema, change it to the past tense (is → was) and state clearly that it is about the former company existing before merging into Areva. Beagel (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the majority of Areva NC is currently about stuff that happened after the companies merged. I'm happy to have a Cogema article as you suggest, but we still need to sort out where to put all of the post-2001 information from Areva NC.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)