This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of onshore wind farms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jeez, can someone organize this page from the largest to smallest? And maybe create other pages like "Wind Farms in South Asia" "Wind Farms in Oceania". Tri400 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Would a completion date be useful on this. There seems to be quite a few items which are either in planning or being built. AndrewLeeson ( talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently this page lists projects with an installed generating capacity of 80 MW or more. I propose that we increase this cutoff to 100 MW or more, which would exclude some of the smaller wind farms, and reduce the length of the main table somewhat. Johnfos ( talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
How accurate is this? I think some citations are needed. The Benton County Wind Farm is under the proposed table, it is completed. It was built before the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm construction started. They are adjacent Wind Farms, both located in Benton County, Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.200.248 ( talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Where did the Twin Groves 1 figure of 359 MW come from? I see 198 MW here: http://www.awea.org/projects/projects.aspx?s=Illinois Switzpaw ( talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone who can read Romanian please have a look at these two WF listed and check if they are the same one under two different names. Looks a bit odd to me.
As the number of large wind farms expands, maintaining this list has become quite time consuming, and the list has become quite long. I would like to propose that we include only wind farms of 120 MW and above, to keep things manageable. Thanks. Johnfos ( talk) 07:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of mixing operating and under construction wind farms? Instead of well comparable list it is just crystal ball edge list. I propose to move under construction to separate table or to at least separate column (as many projects are expansions of those current operating) -- 78.108.106.253 ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI a third opinion is normally only requested if the dispute is only between two editors, I'm not sure if user Inwind or Johnfos forgot to log in when starting this section, or if Vicarious is adding a third opinion but did not label it as such. Normally it is labeled in a subsection. Anyway, without looking at the article I would say that there is no point in combining planned or under construction wind farms with operating wind farms, nor is there any point in excluding under construction or planned wind farms from the operating section if they are already operating at the level specified in the criteria, i.e. 100 MW, 120 MW. Just a comment, it would be wise to not set the limit for exclusion so high that it only allows inclusion of the U.S. wind farms, nor so small that the list is too long - although if it is it can be moved to a sub-article. Now I will look at the article history and see who has been fighting over what. Ok, it is a disagreement over adding the column "status", and sorry to say, Inwind, that column has got to be removed, because if it was included it would open up the question of why are not all wind farms listed in the same table? It is a useless column. What is done in List of offshore wind farms is not applicable, because offshore is not as mature as onshore (bad name by the way, but I can not think of a better one), but I am not sure which version of the article you are looking at there, because I do not see a status column there either. I see a commissioned column, and that column is ok, although I'm not sure most would use the word commissioned for their wind farm. I would just remove the column, as the year is became operational is not terribly important. I am not going to revert the last edit, because there are a bunch of edits of the list that intervened and I can not see which list is accurate. I would say - please do not add a status column, or I will find it appropriate to remove it. 199.125.109.33 ( talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello. I have done some restructuring and cleanup in the article ( see change), similar to what i did to the List of offshore wind farms article. Please do feel free to let me know of any shortcomings/false edits. Regards. Rehman( +) 10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I dont understand why this version was reverted to this because it has too many icons, as this note says. I mean, visually, it does look better, just like this, this, this, this, etc. The linked page on the summary (WP:MOSICON), doesnt say to not use it the way it is. If it did, then shouldnt editors object to the other similar existing articles? And if it were only the icons that was a problem, whats with the entire revert? No offense, but i just didnt feel like it was a good move. Regards. Rehman( +) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Having been asked to provide a third opinion, here are my thoughts on this: First of all, no more reverts. You have not broken the three revert rule but you are close. Per the WP:BRD cycle, Rehman should not have reverted Johnfos after he undid his change - Rehman made the edit (B), Johnfos undid it (R), so next should have been a discussion on the talk page (D), not another revert. I have no experience when it comes to this particular part of the manual of style ( WP:MOSICON) but I agree that Rehman has a valid point when he points out that other similar pages have used country icons instead of plain links for a long time now, so it can be assumed that the community indeed has accepted this kind of use (per WP:SILENCE). The relevant section of the guideline (i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not use too many icons) does not define what constitutes "too many" but it uses the word "clutter" for situations to avoid. Personally, I think cluttering means that the icons are merely used for decorative purposes and make it more complicated for the reader to read the text in question. In this case, the icons serve a useful purpose, i.e. make it easier for readers to discern recurring countries and does not complicate the text reading at all (since it's a list, not a prose article). As such, I think the icons can be in this article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Appropriate use which mentions "aid[ing] navigation in long lists or tables of information" as a appropriate use for icons. On a side note, Johnfos, you should not have reverted the whole restructuring over this single issue but instead have manually undid only those parts of the change. Per WP:RV, it's never a good idea to revert a whole edit if you only disagree with parts of it. Hope that helps. Regards So Why 11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Things do seem to have got rather confused... I have not reverted the whole page over a single issue, and thought it would help if I just try to expand on and clarify the three issues I have mentioned so far (in my post of 00:48 6 January):
For all of these reasons the new version is just unacceptable, and I am forced to revert again. Johnfos ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not advancing in this discussion until further third-party comments are made. My final comments for now:
Besides, whether i have one edit, or a million edits, what does that has to do with this discussion? I will now temporarily stop edits on this page, and will standby for third-party views. Rehman( +) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Reason: The dispute described in the WP:3O listing is about user conduct: "Even after being told by SoWhy to not revert again Johnfos keeps on doing it without a valid reason." WP:30 is only for content disputes; Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts is for opinions relating to conduct. Moreover, four editors are taking part in this dispute, two of whom have already offered third and fourth opinions. A WP:3O Third Opinion is no longer available, per the guidelines at WP:3O, since more than two editors are involved in the dispute. If the dispute continues, then you might want to consider moving on to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, an RfC, or some higher form of dispute resolution. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
I agree with N2e's conclusion that "it is not beyond the pale to set up a table that would include a place for an expected inline citation for the assertions in that line of the table", and suggest we try this initially with the Proposed wind farms table, where there are quite a few citations, and see how it looks.
As for the most recent unsuccessful 3o request from Rehman, I again put this down to inexperience. Johnfos ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have received a request from Rehman to become involved. In response I have come here and read through the above discussion, and found that Rehman has individually approached at least seven editors to ask us to intervene, as well as posting to Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will give a few brief opinions on the issues which seem to be at stake, but before I do so I would like to give an opinion on how this dispute has been handled. Asking for a third opinion when two editors are in a dispute is a very good thing to do. Asking a fourth editor for an opinion is sometimes a good idea, if the issue at stake is important enough. I am doubtful, however, whether this issue is vital enough to justify asking seven editors to step in. The dispute is about the formatting of a table and similar matters, which do not seem vital enough to justify the amount of effort being expended on it. I would suggest to both Johnfos and Rehman that they may like to think carefully about whether they think this dispute is worth the amount of time and work they have spent on it, or whether they would prefer to leave it and spend their time editing elsewhere. Having said that I shall make a few comments on the issues being discussed.
There are a few other issues that come up in the above discussion, but as far as how the article should be edited is concerned I think I have covered the main points. As far as the comments which editors have made about each other are concerned, I hope we can all agree that everyone concerned is acting in good faith, and that, however much we disagree about how this article should look, we all deserve respect.
Finally, to summarise my opinions: All the references should be kept. Personally I prefer the layout in the original version, except that I think the flag icons are an improvement. However, details of how the information in an article are laid out are almost never important enough to make this much discussion worthwhile, and certainly not in this case. My advice to all concerned is to leave this article and move on to make helpful edits in other parts of Wikipedia. Everyone involved is a constructive, helpful, and experienced editor (yes, 2500 edits is a significant number), and our efforts could be more usefully employed elsewhere, rather than continuing this storm in a tea cup. I hope my comments have been helpful: I have put some time and effort into trying to be helpful. Any comments about my attempt, critical or otherwise, will be welcome, here if relevant, otherwise on my talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In the light of comments of editors here, I have made some changes which hopefully are a reasonable compromise. There are three main changes and some smaller changes. Firstly, a "References" column has been added to the Proposed wind farms table and the citations we have are now in that column, see [2]. Secondly, two "More sources" tags have been added to the article to encourage editors to add more citations, see [3]. Thirdly, I have linked some of the country names so that readers may gain easy access to the national wind farm list articles, see [4]. Johnfos ( talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input
JamesBWatson (
talk ·
contribs). Aside being a little upset due to
Johnfos (
talk ·
contribs) act of reverting the entire edit (when his problem was only a few), my main concern was his behaviour. Dont you think he could have started (and progressed) the conversation in a much better manner? Refer to the comments made by
SoWhy and
N2e (and
TransporterMan, refering to move the request to
WP:WQA), its mostly concerned with his behaviour. Even in my very first comment, i did mention to feel free to let me know of any shortcomings/false edits. I dont understand why he couldnt detail his problem without insulting the other editor? I couldnt spot a single "sorry" or similar mannered word from this guy. I strongly oppose to people who think that wikipedia is a race to the highest edit count, its simply not. A collaborative effort like wikipedia should have collaborative editors, not competitors. I strongly agree with your comment to stop storming in a teacup, in fact i have tons of work in real-life with even more to help improve wikipedia; i wanted more attention for users to see what this guy is, aside the revert. And no, thats not the reason why i've invited seven editors; its because some of them were temporarily off wiki, of which i only found out after requesting. I will now back down as i have made my points. Once again, thank you for your time and patience in typing that big but helpful comment
. Kind regards.
Rehman(
+)
02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As the topic says. The tables and wordings are horrible. Can someone other than the author please take a look at it? Thanks a ton. 203.81.107.230 ( talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Things seem to have got a bit out of hand with this article. I think the basic problem is that we are trying to include too many wind farms, without enough citations. I wonder if a reasonable solution might be to follow the approach used at List of offshore wind farms, where focus is on the top 25 operational wind farms and a reasonably small selection of others which are notable. At least one supporting citation is included for each wind farm. I think this approach would improve the article. Johnfos ( talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be very little information on Chinese wind farms here. Does anyone have a credible list. according to the wind power article they have more than anyone else but I can only see a few listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 ( talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on re-including the coordinates in the tables. If we see this simply as a table full of coordinates, then I agree that there isn't that much value, and it makes sense to just keep the coordinates on the article pages and not have it clutter up the tables. However, also included on the page previous was the kml template which allows people to automatically generate maps showing the locations of all the wind farms, which I believe is a very valuable feature for an overview article. Additionally, one can export the data in other formats such as kml and rdf. If you look at List of offshore wind farms you'll see that someone has painstakingly created a map showing the locations of the largest farms, but this same effect can be achieved using the kml template. Cheers, - Mr3641 ( talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A group of wind turbines may be called a "wind farm". But which circumstances determine that a group is "one wind farm" or "several wind farms" ?
Some suggested differentiation criteria for whether multiple phases constitute a single windfarm:
But time of completion, distance and amount of grid connection points may also be of influence. TGCP ( talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Above, I wrote that if we can answer the question: what is the purpose of this article? then we'll be in a good position to restructure it.
To get started, here's a few of my ideas, about what it might be for (and not for). There might be a bit of a contradiction in these points - I don't really have a good answer to the question, and I'm just throwing some answers in to prompt discussion.
It could be for:
It is probably not for;
Ernestfax Talk 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of onshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on List of onshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=New{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hunton.com/practices/news.aspx?gr_H4ID=1039&gen_H4ID=16654When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the growth of windfarms worldwide, would be an interesting thing to track, and it would help to record the dates when each major windfarm started construction & when each became operational. For those researching windpower, and renewable energy, it will be easier to identify & compare earlier windfarms with more recent ones, with these suggested dates included.
Hope this idea will catch on, not only for this page, but any type of listing page for energy/renewable energy plants. One could do the same thing for "lists of solar-panel 'farms'/'production facilities'", as well as for the off-shore windfarms.
Leexixue ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed three farms from the list. I can find no details that the Chinese ones were complketed to the size announced and the Australian one was at least partially cancelled. If anyone can find up-to-date sources?
Wind farm | Country | State/ province |
Coordinates | Current capacity ( MW) |
Notes/Refs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ulan Qab Wind Farm | China | 6,000 | [1] | ||
McIntyre Herries Range Wind Farm | Australia | Queensland | 2,023 | [2] | |
Qiji Wind Farm | China | Qinghai | 1,300 | [3] |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of onshore wind farms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jeez, can someone organize this page from the largest to smallest? And maybe create other pages like "Wind Farms in South Asia" "Wind Farms in Oceania". Tri400 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Would a completion date be useful on this. There seems to be quite a few items which are either in planning or being built. AndrewLeeson ( talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently this page lists projects with an installed generating capacity of 80 MW or more. I propose that we increase this cutoff to 100 MW or more, which would exclude some of the smaller wind farms, and reduce the length of the main table somewhat. Johnfos ( talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
How accurate is this? I think some citations are needed. The Benton County Wind Farm is under the proposed table, it is completed. It was built before the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm construction started. They are adjacent Wind Farms, both located in Benton County, Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.200.248 ( talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Where did the Twin Groves 1 figure of 359 MW come from? I see 198 MW here: http://www.awea.org/projects/projects.aspx?s=Illinois Switzpaw ( talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone who can read Romanian please have a look at these two WF listed and check if they are the same one under two different names. Looks a bit odd to me.
As the number of large wind farms expands, maintaining this list has become quite time consuming, and the list has become quite long. I would like to propose that we include only wind farms of 120 MW and above, to keep things manageable. Thanks. Johnfos ( talk) 07:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of mixing operating and under construction wind farms? Instead of well comparable list it is just crystal ball edge list. I propose to move under construction to separate table or to at least separate column (as many projects are expansions of those current operating) -- 78.108.106.253 ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI a third opinion is normally only requested if the dispute is only between two editors, I'm not sure if user Inwind or Johnfos forgot to log in when starting this section, or if Vicarious is adding a third opinion but did not label it as such. Normally it is labeled in a subsection. Anyway, without looking at the article I would say that there is no point in combining planned or under construction wind farms with operating wind farms, nor is there any point in excluding under construction or planned wind farms from the operating section if they are already operating at the level specified in the criteria, i.e. 100 MW, 120 MW. Just a comment, it would be wise to not set the limit for exclusion so high that it only allows inclusion of the U.S. wind farms, nor so small that the list is too long - although if it is it can be moved to a sub-article. Now I will look at the article history and see who has been fighting over what. Ok, it is a disagreement over adding the column "status", and sorry to say, Inwind, that column has got to be removed, because if it was included it would open up the question of why are not all wind farms listed in the same table? It is a useless column. What is done in List of offshore wind farms is not applicable, because offshore is not as mature as onshore (bad name by the way, but I can not think of a better one), but I am not sure which version of the article you are looking at there, because I do not see a status column there either. I see a commissioned column, and that column is ok, although I'm not sure most would use the word commissioned for their wind farm. I would just remove the column, as the year is became operational is not terribly important. I am not going to revert the last edit, because there are a bunch of edits of the list that intervened and I can not see which list is accurate. I would say - please do not add a status column, or I will find it appropriate to remove it. 199.125.109.33 ( talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello. I have done some restructuring and cleanup in the article ( see change), similar to what i did to the List of offshore wind farms article. Please do feel free to let me know of any shortcomings/false edits. Regards. Rehman( +) 10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I dont understand why this version was reverted to this because it has too many icons, as this note says. I mean, visually, it does look better, just like this, this, this, this, etc. The linked page on the summary (WP:MOSICON), doesnt say to not use it the way it is. If it did, then shouldnt editors object to the other similar existing articles? And if it were only the icons that was a problem, whats with the entire revert? No offense, but i just didnt feel like it was a good move. Regards. Rehman( +) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Having been asked to provide a third opinion, here are my thoughts on this: First of all, no more reverts. You have not broken the three revert rule but you are close. Per the WP:BRD cycle, Rehman should not have reverted Johnfos after he undid his change - Rehman made the edit (B), Johnfos undid it (R), so next should have been a discussion on the talk page (D), not another revert. I have no experience when it comes to this particular part of the manual of style ( WP:MOSICON) but I agree that Rehman has a valid point when he points out that other similar pages have used country icons instead of plain links for a long time now, so it can be assumed that the community indeed has accepted this kind of use (per WP:SILENCE). The relevant section of the guideline (i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not use too many icons) does not define what constitutes "too many" but it uses the word "clutter" for situations to avoid. Personally, I think cluttering means that the icons are merely used for decorative purposes and make it more complicated for the reader to read the text in question. In this case, the icons serve a useful purpose, i.e. make it easier for readers to discern recurring countries and does not complicate the text reading at all (since it's a list, not a prose article). As such, I think the icons can be in this article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Appropriate use which mentions "aid[ing] navigation in long lists or tables of information" as a appropriate use for icons. On a side note, Johnfos, you should not have reverted the whole restructuring over this single issue but instead have manually undid only those parts of the change. Per WP:RV, it's never a good idea to revert a whole edit if you only disagree with parts of it. Hope that helps. Regards So Why 11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Things do seem to have got rather confused... I have not reverted the whole page over a single issue, and thought it would help if I just try to expand on and clarify the three issues I have mentioned so far (in my post of 00:48 6 January):
For all of these reasons the new version is just unacceptable, and I am forced to revert again. Johnfos ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not advancing in this discussion until further third-party comments are made. My final comments for now:
Besides, whether i have one edit, or a million edits, what does that has to do with this discussion? I will now temporarily stop edits on this page, and will standby for third-party views. Rehman( +) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Reason: The dispute described in the WP:3O listing is about user conduct: "Even after being told by SoWhy to not revert again Johnfos keeps on doing it without a valid reason." WP:30 is only for content disputes; Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts is for opinions relating to conduct. Moreover, four editors are taking part in this dispute, two of whom have already offered third and fourth opinions. A WP:3O Third Opinion is no longer available, per the guidelines at WP:3O, since more than two editors are involved in the dispute. If the dispute continues, then you might want to consider moving on to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, an RfC, or some higher form of dispute resolution. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
I agree with N2e's conclusion that "it is not beyond the pale to set up a table that would include a place for an expected inline citation for the assertions in that line of the table", and suggest we try this initially with the Proposed wind farms table, where there are quite a few citations, and see how it looks.
As for the most recent unsuccessful 3o request from Rehman, I again put this down to inexperience. Johnfos ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have received a request from Rehman to become involved. In response I have come here and read through the above discussion, and found that Rehman has individually approached at least seven editors to ask us to intervene, as well as posting to Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will give a few brief opinions on the issues which seem to be at stake, but before I do so I would like to give an opinion on how this dispute has been handled. Asking for a third opinion when two editors are in a dispute is a very good thing to do. Asking a fourth editor for an opinion is sometimes a good idea, if the issue at stake is important enough. I am doubtful, however, whether this issue is vital enough to justify asking seven editors to step in. The dispute is about the formatting of a table and similar matters, which do not seem vital enough to justify the amount of effort being expended on it. I would suggest to both Johnfos and Rehman that they may like to think carefully about whether they think this dispute is worth the amount of time and work they have spent on it, or whether they would prefer to leave it and spend their time editing elsewhere. Having said that I shall make a few comments on the issues being discussed.
There are a few other issues that come up in the above discussion, but as far as how the article should be edited is concerned I think I have covered the main points. As far as the comments which editors have made about each other are concerned, I hope we can all agree that everyone concerned is acting in good faith, and that, however much we disagree about how this article should look, we all deserve respect.
Finally, to summarise my opinions: All the references should be kept. Personally I prefer the layout in the original version, except that I think the flag icons are an improvement. However, details of how the information in an article are laid out are almost never important enough to make this much discussion worthwhile, and certainly not in this case. My advice to all concerned is to leave this article and move on to make helpful edits in other parts of Wikipedia. Everyone involved is a constructive, helpful, and experienced editor (yes, 2500 edits is a significant number), and our efforts could be more usefully employed elsewhere, rather than continuing this storm in a tea cup. I hope my comments have been helpful: I have put some time and effort into trying to be helpful. Any comments about my attempt, critical or otherwise, will be welcome, here if relevant, otherwise on my talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In the light of comments of editors here, I have made some changes which hopefully are a reasonable compromise. There are three main changes and some smaller changes. Firstly, a "References" column has been added to the Proposed wind farms table and the citations we have are now in that column, see [2]. Secondly, two "More sources" tags have been added to the article to encourage editors to add more citations, see [3]. Thirdly, I have linked some of the country names so that readers may gain easy access to the national wind farm list articles, see [4]. Johnfos ( talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input
JamesBWatson (
talk ·
contribs). Aside being a little upset due to
Johnfos (
talk ·
contribs) act of reverting the entire edit (when his problem was only a few), my main concern was his behaviour. Dont you think he could have started (and progressed) the conversation in a much better manner? Refer to the comments made by
SoWhy and
N2e (and
TransporterMan, refering to move the request to
WP:WQA), its mostly concerned with his behaviour. Even in my very first comment, i did mention to feel free to let me know of any shortcomings/false edits. I dont understand why he couldnt detail his problem without insulting the other editor? I couldnt spot a single "sorry" or similar mannered word from this guy. I strongly oppose to people who think that wikipedia is a race to the highest edit count, its simply not. A collaborative effort like wikipedia should have collaborative editors, not competitors. I strongly agree with your comment to stop storming in a teacup, in fact i have tons of work in real-life with even more to help improve wikipedia; i wanted more attention for users to see what this guy is, aside the revert. And no, thats not the reason why i've invited seven editors; its because some of them were temporarily off wiki, of which i only found out after requesting. I will now back down as i have made my points. Once again, thank you for your time and patience in typing that big but helpful comment
. Kind regards.
Rehman(
+)
02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As the topic says. The tables and wordings are horrible. Can someone other than the author please take a look at it? Thanks a ton. 203.81.107.230 ( talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Things seem to have got a bit out of hand with this article. I think the basic problem is that we are trying to include too many wind farms, without enough citations. I wonder if a reasonable solution might be to follow the approach used at List of offshore wind farms, where focus is on the top 25 operational wind farms and a reasonably small selection of others which are notable. At least one supporting citation is included for each wind farm. I think this approach would improve the article. Johnfos ( talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be very little information on Chinese wind farms here. Does anyone have a credible list. according to the wind power article they have more than anyone else but I can only see a few listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 ( talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on re-including the coordinates in the tables. If we see this simply as a table full of coordinates, then I agree that there isn't that much value, and it makes sense to just keep the coordinates on the article pages and not have it clutter up the tables. However, also included on the page previous was the kml template which allows people to automatically generate maps showing the locations of all the wind farms, which I believe is a very valuable feature for an overview article. Additionally, one can export the data in other formats such as kml and rdf. If you look at List of offshore wind farms you'll see that someone has painstakingly created a map showing the locations of the largest farms, but this same effect can be achieved using the kml template. Cheers, - Mr3641 ( talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A group of wind turbines may be called a "wind farm". But which circumstances determine that a group is "one wind farm" or "several wind farms" ?
Some suggested differentiation criteria for whether multiple phases constitute a single windfarm:
But time of completion, distance and amount of grid connection points may also be of influence. TGCP ( talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Above, I wrote that if we can answer the question: what is the purpose of this article? then we'll be in a good position to restructure it.
To get started, here's a few of my ideas, about what it might be for (and not for). There might be a bit of a contradiction in these points - I don't really have a good answer to the question, and I'm just throwing some answers in to prompt discussion.
It could be for:
It is probably not for;
Ernestfax Talk 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of onshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on List of onshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=New{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hunton.com/practices/news.aspx?gr_H4ID=1039&gen_H4ID=16654When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the growth of windfarms worldwide, would be an interesting thing to track, and it would help to record the dates when each major windfarm started construction & when each became operational. For those researching windpower, and renewable energy, it will be easier to identify & compare earlier windfarms with more recent ones, with these suggested dates included.
Hope this idea will catch on, not only for this page, but any type of listing page for energy/renewable energy plants. One could do the same thing for "lists of solar-panel 'farms'/'production facilities'", as well as for the off-shore windfarms.
Leexixue ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed three farms from the list. I can find no details that the Chinese ones were complketed to the size announced and the Australian one was at least partially cancelled. If anyone can find up-to-date sources?
Wind farm | Country | State/ province |
Coordinates | Current capacity ( MW) |
Notes/Refs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ulan Qab Wind Farm | China | 6,000 | [1] | ||
McIntyre Herries Range Wind Farm | Australia | Queensland | 2,023 | [2] | |
Qiji Wind Farm | China | Qinghai | 1,300 | [3] |