Talk:Wind turbine

Accidents section for removal

The accidents section consists of incidents of machinery failure, and shows only one case of a human life lost which is a very good safety record. Other turbine articles such as Gas Turbines and Steam Turbines do not show individual, or even notable, incidents of machinery failure so I propose the accidents section is removed, or cut down. Any thoughts? I will leave this comment for one week before removing the accidents section.

Jfh2012 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This section adds no real value, there's no completeness to it, and no real hope of it being complete. The incidents listed lack details for the most part, and and when they have them they're not from reliable sources. Let's remove this section.

Jburstein 15:26, 20 May 2013

I finally removed this weird section. Andol (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Though not an accident, 8 turbines blew down in typhoon Usagi. As turbines move offshore, this may be a notable risk. TGCP (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-biggest-wind-turbines-4154395/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sleep deprivation from low frequency noise

No mention of this problem in the article. But wind turbines constructed near residential communities cause sleep deprivation. Families have abandoned their homes due to this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.215.193 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Source?AnalogWeapon (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Most produced model of wind turbine?

I tried improving the article by adding the following section but it has been reverted numerous times by another editor, who seems to believe that it is a revertable offense on Wikipedia to ever add any material with "requires expansion" tags for some reason. I think we can all agree that whichever wind turbine model/design does hold the record for highest production/manufacture run, it is worthy of inclusion in the "records" section. I've tried looking it up with my favorite search engine to no avail.

Much like the record for most-produced aircraft, it should be here in the records section.

Most produced model

• You have been reverted because you first added just an empty subsection, and then after being reverted repeatedly added a claim with a reference that didn't in any way support your claim. Either do it right, providing a solid source that explicitly supports your claim, or don't do it at all. We don't guess/speculate, we report facts. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the rules of wikipedia that states you can't add a section, leave it completely empty and tag it as "requires expansion", as long as the section heading is relevant. The above was the first edit of mine you reverted, the latter edit was on incorrect guidance by you in the edit history of the article to provide something, anything, and to not leave the section completely blank?

Unless you can cite me a rule in support of the rationale you used in the edit history when you first reverted my semi-blank "most produced model" edit, then should my 1st edit not be included the article, in the hopes that the article can be improved by readers who happen to know a reference for the most produced model. This is, after all, how wikipedia works, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect guidance? I said you should add something to the subsection when creating it, not just a header and an expand-template, I did not say that you could add whatever wild unsourced guess you wanted to it. That's not how things are done here on WP. So stop trying to blame others for what you did, and read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability before adding anything again. Thomas.W ^talk 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You said to add something, when leaving it just as it was as - requires expansion - is well within the rules of wikipedia. I really don't want to add anything, just want to know the most produced model, friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me where it says that you can add an empty section/subsection header and more or less demand that others add material there. The normal way to do it is to make a suggestion on the talk page of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter here is, does a verifiable source exist that states the most produced model of wind turbine? If one does, that's excellent, and the info should be included. If not, then we probably shouldn't have an empty section. It doesn't look good, and there's no guarantee a verifiable source will materialize. I think the sentiment for trying to include to info is very much in good faith, and I appreciate the IP's attempt the improve the article. Without a verifiable source though, I don't think there's much else to be done. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Skyraider1 for your input and realization that my edit was very much in good faith. However I am sure such a reference does exist, if we include the -requires expansion tag- someone who does have the reference at hand will add it and then the article will be improved. If however the section is absent in the records section then it is unlikely this someone will feel compelled to add the data. That is, after all how I've come to learn how wikipedia improves itself, does it not. Simply not wanting it there because it "doesn't look good" is a bad excuse in my opinion.

Anyone working at this "World Wind Energy agency", would have to know right? - http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

So I shot off an email to the above organization, I'd imagine if the section was now actually in the article and had its -requires expansion- tag glaring at them, they'd be more likely to help us out than the present scenario were they will arrive and won't see a need for supplying a reference to the most produced model of industrial wind turbine. Fingers crossed I suppose.

02:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk)

Getting an email from them won't help you, it has to be a published source. Follow the links I gave you on your user talk page, and read about reliable sources and verifiability. Thomas.W ^talk 02:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that, and it actually will help, as I asked them for a published source, and even if they don't respond with a source, the name of the model itself would be a more than half the battle in searching for a WP:RS myself. Seen as you don't seem to care about finding out.

31.200.141.109 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Images

The image in the "Types" section with the caption title "A turbine blade convoy passing through Edenfield, UK" does not seem relevant to the text. I suggest that it should either be removed, or a new section should be written discussing how wind turbine blades are very large components that are assembled in a factory and have special needs for transport logistics. The section can then refer to the image, or the image can at least be in the section. Of course, the section would also not contain original work like I have just done here, be verifiable and follow other Wikipedia editing guidelines. Jray310 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)