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
→MW vs GW: new section
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 18 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}}

== Spawn? ==
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)
:::Let's not get too hung up with article length; it is just one factor to be considered when splitting (see [[WP:Split]]). [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 08:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==


== Missing information ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


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.
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


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.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
--[[User:Davagh|Davagh]] ([[User talk:Davagh|talk]]) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


== The lead should be more readable ==
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


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:
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)


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)
== MW vs GW ==


Or do you have a better suggestion for lead readability?
Para 2 says; "total installed capacity of over 14 gigawatts: 9,004 megawatts of onshore capacity and 5,098 megawatts of offshore capacity.[5] "


[[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
9MW + 5MW is 14MW, not GW so one of these sets of figures is the wrong SI unit...


:done [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing the GW one, (because the UK's total capacity is 50GW) but I'm not sure enough to edit.

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"