Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Rosatom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by CountHacker in topic Proposed merge of ARMZ Uranium Holding into Rosatom

Advertising fears

[edit]

Someone had noted this was like an advert in 2023 and it hadn't been edited much since so I changed a couple of sentences or so. If that's what they were getting at, they got what they want. If they were referring to the company as 'not needing the publicity of a Wikipedia entry' then I'm all for it, as I believe these Russian, sanctioned, organisations need to be completely overhauled and in some sense questions need to be asked as to why Wikipedia hosts this sort of thing including links to their websites which I basically cannot legally access due to the sanctioning (without breaking the law possibly). Users really don't need this political and legal minefield and Wikipedia needs to be more friendly and accessible. I liken some of it now to detailing events during the holocaust without actually acknowledging there was a holocaust - that's how bad it's got, it's a bad situation. To a great extent our governments are dealing with this stuff, the sanctioning is vast and we are at a war footing anyway. I can't travel to Moscow without a major step change in relations (then I could if I wanted, in theory) as I don't want the grief upon returning and I don't want to deal with them on their current set of terms when I'm over there. So I would like Wikipedia to be less underground, less about vast sections of pre-2022 stuff at the expense of a useful article about what is currently relevant and what reads well as an article. If a company has been sucked up by the Russian war machine and nobody will deal with it, then there isn't much relevance to hosting this site for historical posterity of no audience that gives a hoot and for political propaganda gain that just seeks to prop up the hysteria mill that has encouraged this ageing dictator to try to set his mark. You get the idea.--148.252.146.215 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correctness

[edit]

"was established on January 29, 1992 as a successor of the Ministry of Nuclear Engineering and Industry of the USSR. " - This organisation are widely known in USSR/Russia as "Minsredmash" (Ministry of medium machine-building). In fact, it's a soviet nuclear brand. IMHO, this fact must be described in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.8.139 (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply



Is this the same group as in The World Is Not Enough? Bayerischermann 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I guess the organisation in the film was based on the real organisation. But don't expect to meet Christmas Jones in the real organisation. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

[edit]

A law adopted by the Russian parliament and signed by the Russian President transformed the status from Federal Agency to state owned company called Rosatom. Please change the Article's name to Rosatom. Superzohar Talk 13:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If this is the only reason for the move proposal, then I'm afraid it's premature. We don't automatically follow every official name change. See Wikipedia:naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is not only the change of official name, but also change of the legal status. It is not anymore state agency, but state corporation. For this reason the name including "federal agency" is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Interesting... so you're saying that this should be an exception to the normal policy at WP:NC?
There are some, but not many. It would probably be easier to argue that the common usage has changed to reflect the official and legal usage, if in fact this is the case. But to reiterate, we don't automatically follow official name changes, even those that reflect changes of legal status. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Finances

[edit]

Has anyone been able to find information on this corporation's finances? Is it profitable? --76.170.19.29 (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sure. But numbers in the article are crazy (900 trln $, really?? 9 times more than global GDP?) and incorrect. Current capitalization of Rosatom is somewhat 2 trln rubbles, which is approximately 30 bln $.   Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.180.130 (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why the rename? Propose undo unless good explanation

[edit]

Why was this article renamed "Rosatom (Russian state corporation)", seemingly corntrary to WP policy, when there was no disambiguation problem?

  • WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used"
  • WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
  • WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."

Unless a policy based explanation of this rename is provided, I propose we undo the rename. Rwendland (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Reply

Recent semi-protected edit requests

[edit]

A new WP editor has made 10 edits to this talk page today, requesting semiprotected edits. The same editor was then able to make the requested edits, and apparently did so, which essentially rewrote the article.

This seems to go against the whole notion of semiprotected status, given that the software was tricked by 10 talk-page edits.

As an editor with next to no familiarity with this article's subject, I am not in a position to analyze these recent edits' contribution to WP. I hope that such extensive revisions can be reviewed by another qualified editor soon.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@CamillaVuillermoz: To be perfectly honest, looking at the article as it existed yesterday and comparing it to the article as it exists now following your changes, the new version is much worse in my opinion. Your edits are all over the place, don't conform to Wikipedia's manual of style, and rely almost entirely on primary sources. It's starting to look like an advertisement. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it looks for all the world to me like you're editing with a conflict of interest, if not editing as a paid contributor. Can you please explain what you're doing with this article? ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@ElHef:I am a student in Industrial engineering, I have done an analysis and a research on the nuclear energy market, for my studies. I had to choose a nuclear company and to study it accurately. Unfortunately, this is the first Wikipedia page I write, I have no experience. I did not try to edit with e conflict of interest or as a paid contributor, I just noticed the previous article contains lot of errors. If you can tell me what I can improve or modify, I will be delight to do it. Since my lack of experience, I look forward to any kind of suggestion.

Proposed merge of ARMZ Uranium Holding into Rosatom

[edit]
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.
No consensus with stale discussion. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the content in ARMZ Uranium Holding can easily be explained in the context of Rosatom, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Bar. Czarking0 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - Don't see a clear need to merge the page. The ARMZ Uranium article isn't a short stub, and it should be notable on its own right on one of the largest uranium miners in the world. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your expansion of ARMZ. I agree with your assessment that ARMZ is no longer a stub. I will change it to start class. I think you lay out good reasoning for the oppose. I'll wait to see others opinions. Czarking0 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2025 (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.