Talk:Wind power in the United Kingdom

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.

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. --Anteaus (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia standard is compliant with the use of references to BBC's material.GliderMaven (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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. 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. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 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, 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.GliderMaven (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wind power in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)