Jump to content

Talk:Wind power in the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫
{{Talk header<!-- |search=yes -->|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Energy|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Environment|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=High }}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=C|importance=high}}}}
{{WikiProject Energy |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=Mid }}

}}
⚫
{{Talk header<!-- |search=yes -->|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 14: Line 14:
|archive = Talk:Wind power in the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Wind power in the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=60 |dounreplied=yes\|small=Yes}}

== Public opinion: Edit reversion by GliderMaven ==

A report by an MP who has received documented complaints from his constituents IS public opinion. The MP in question has served as shadow Secretary of State and is a reliable source of facts.

Whether the complaints 'come of anything' is immaterial. They are still public opinion. He reports that 600 planning objections were overruled, so perhaps nothing will indeed come of them. If so, that simply underlines the level of corruption involved. It does not make it excusable to ignore the complaints. Just, corrupt.

Meanwhile, the first para has references to 'Natural Power' 'EWEA Wind IS Power' and E-On, all PROMOTERS and SELLERS OF WIND ENERGY PRODUCTS. (The E-On link is dead) Others are from the BBC and the EU, both fanatical renewables supporters. In addition to being questionable sources due to self-interest, the self-referenced cites contain unsupported claims for the product which are in no way related to public opinion. They violate WP's rules on self-referencing and use of the platform for soapbox-style advertising. If anything should be deleted, it is the first para in this section.


== Missing information ==
Overall, I feel it is time that all self-referenced cites were banned from renewable energy pages, and all claims for the products made in Wikipedia required to be referenced from an independent source. The fact that renewables vendors' advertising material contains exaggerations on a scale far greater than in typical advertising of other products, has been known for a long time. Such material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --[[User:Anteaus|Anteaus]] ([[User talk:Anteaus|talk]]) 08:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


I recall a single experimental wind turbine located near the North Yorkshire coast about 30 years ago well before the current boom. I came here looking for some more information on that but couldn't find anything in the history section even though it must have been one of the very first in the UK.
:The section in question is clearly about the ''general public'' rather than being about arbitrary groups of people, and I don't think a section on 'public' in the sense of small groups of people like MPs would be practical or very useful. I'm not personally finding the BBC to be fanatical about anything, and if you genuinely believe them to be so, since they are a publicly funded body, you should definitely take that up with their complaints department. In the meantime, [[WP:RELIABLE|Wikipedia standard]] is compliant with the use of references to BBC's material.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 13:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Yes, lots of the extensive early UK wind history is missing. WEG (Wind Energy Group), [[Andrew_Garrad | Andrew Garrad]] and friends, [[Renewable_Energy_Systems|RES]], [[RenewableUK|BWEA]], etc, etc, etc. An article about WEG would be welcome. Most of the information out there about WEG is pre-internet, all in paper, but a few YouTubes around.
== Spawn? ==
--[[User:Davagh|Davagh]] ([[User talk:Davagh|talk]]) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This article has grown rather large, nearing the 100k suggested limit. The section on offshore could be spawned into a new article. The offshore and onshore lists are also articles on their own, and could be limited to perhaps 10 entries here. [[User:TGCP|TGCP]] ([[User talk:TGCP|talk]]) 11:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
: Sure, it is getting rather unwieldy. Perhaps [[Offshore wind power in the United Kingdom]]? It seems [[List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom]] and [[List of onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom]] already exist but the info from this article could be merged into them if it is not already present. As you say, we probably only need the 10 largest offshore and onshore on this page. [[User:Delusion23|<font color="green">'''Del</font><big><sub><font color="black">♉</font></sub></big><font color="green">sion'''</font><font color="black">'''23'''</font>]] [[User talk:Delusion23|<font color="green">(talk)</font>]] 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, a split would help improve readability and manageability of the article. Tables limited to 10 lines would help too. regards, [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 20:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
::No, this is incredibly often misunderstood. The size of the raw file has *nothing* to do with splitting; that gets bumped up by all the wiki annotation without affecting the readability much at all. It's actually nowhere near the relevant 100k limit, and it already has subarticles anyway. The stats for the article currently are: 28 kB (4730 words). You're supposed to consider a split at around 50kB of ''text''/10,000 words, we're about half that.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 21:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


== The lead should be more readable ==
== External links modified ==


I just copyedited the first para and the last sentence of the lead is fine. How about moving the rest down into the body and summarizing in the lead as:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


From 2023 all windpower reduces the price of electricity: but in earlier years onshore wind built before the mid-2010s and offshore wind built before the late 2010s (sometimes) increased the price of electricity.(cite https://www.ft.com/content/f0e1496b-a535-4227-b39c-a2c6befffa87)
I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Wind power in the United Kingdom]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700077893 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100824052515/http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk:80/newscontent/92-r1-r2-extensions.htm to http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/92-r1-r2-extensions.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110615053608/http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/rounds_1_2_site_extension_awards.pdf to http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/rounds_1_2_site_extension_awards.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817232625/http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/MML%20final%20report%20for%20CCC%209%20may%202011.pdf to http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/MML%20final%20report%20for%20CCC%209%20may%202011.pdf


Or do you have a better suggestion for lead readability?
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.


[[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


:done [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 07:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:25, 18 July 2024

Missing information

[edit]

I recall a single experimental wind turbine located near the North Yorkshire coast about 30 years ago well before the current boom. I came here looking for some more information on that but couldn't find anything in the history section even though it must have been one of the very first in the UK.

Yes, lots of the extensive early UK wind history is missing. WEG (Wind Energy Group), Andrew Garrad and friends, RES, BWEA, etc, etc, etc. An article about WEG would be welcome. Most of the information out there about WEG is pre-internet, all in paper, but a few YouTubes around. 

--Davagh (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be more readable

[edit]

I just copyedited the first para and the last sentence of the lead is fine. How about moving the rest down into the body and summarizing in the lead as:

From 2023 all windpower reduces the price of electricity: but in earlier years onshore wind built before the mid-2010s and offshore wind built before the late 2010s (sometimes) increased the price of electricity.(cite https://www.ft.com/content/f0e1496b-a535-4227-b39c-a2c6befffa87)

Or do you have a better suggestion for lead readability?

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1235288589"