Talk:Green Park business park

webjockey 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Shouldn't this being sprotected?

I won't re-insert the fact about the turbine using power on still, wind-less nights. It is quite possible of course that when the wind doesn't blow, the blades turn by Magic. ChrisRed (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who lives near (or even drives past) this turbine at night cannot fail to wonder how the turbine blades continue to whizz round at full service speed when barely a blade of grass moves and steam rises vertically. I think removing the fact that the turbine consumes power at night is typical of the 'Climate Change Heresy' censorship that seems to be creeping across Wikipedia. I would say that on balance there is no need for a citation for such a physically self-evident fact. So, unless anybody can provide a clear citation that the blades turn themselves by perpetual motion / wizardry / the will of God / voodoo etc, I'm putting it back in. 160.84.253.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and someone will be removing it immediatley. As you are adding the fact, it is up to you to find a citation to back it up, not everyone else to find a citation to disprove it. Also, for your info, I live near the turbine, and I manage quite successfully to "...fail to wonder how the turbine blades continue to whizz round at full service speed when barely a blade of grass moves and steam rises vertically". 1), they don't - full service speed is fast, and the blades can go quite slowley, and 2) this thing is efficient. It really will turn with barely a gust. So, if you can find a citation to proove that it is powered at night, then by all means add the fact back in. Otherwise, don't. _Talk Islander 08:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? I'm surprised there isn't a 'MMGW HeresyBot'. Sorry, I couldn't be bothered. Put it down to 'Green Magic'. BTW if the thing is going round 'fast', then it's just windmilling...when it's generating it needs to go round at a constant steady speed for the alternator to synchronise with the 50Hz mains. Likewise when it is being driven at nights, it goes round at a steady speed because it then becomes an a.c. motor being driven by a fixed-frequency 50Hz 3-phase supply. Oops...sorry...I blaspheme :-) 160.84.253.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. BBC wind for Reading tonight is Westerly at 5mph becoming South-West at 7mph. I am looking at it now, but I will be going home at 4.45. Please pop out after dark and tell us all (honestly) what the turbine does during this 7mph 'gale' :-) 160.84.253.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(untab)OK, for one thing, I'm one of these sad people that couldn't give two hoots about 'green' things. Sorry, I feel the media shove it down our throats too much, and it's kinda switched me off to the whole topic. My stance here is purely to keep things factually correct.

This turbine is an Enercon E66. Directly from the stats for this turbine (available here): an average wind speed would be 14mph, not miles above what you cite. The Albany Wind Farm also uses E66s, and states that the minimum start-up speed is a wind speed of 2m/s, or around 4 mph. Lower than that which you state. Also, as for the alternator synchronising - again, do your research. The beauty of the E66 is that it operates at variable speeds: "The turbine operates at variable speed, which means that the blades speed up and slow down with the wind. The blades move very slowly reaching a top speed of 22 RPM in the strongest of winds (which is only one revolution every three seconds).". With older turbines, what you said would probably not be true, but here it is. A constant wind speed is not required. Go away and thouroughly read all this material, and then come back and argue your case - here's a hint, you won't be able to. _Talk Islander 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said...let's just leave it as 'Green Magic'. The planning authorities obviously swallowed all the 'greenwash', so why shouldn't we?. 160.84.253.241 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the comments that you've edited out, but I'm not particularly in the mood for a fight ;). Like I said, if you can cite something to prove your point, I'll activley encourage you to re-add it. Until then, we'll leave it as 'Green Magic'. _Talk Islander 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same here. I'm not one of those stubborn people who pursues a pointless argument to the death, and anyway I love the idea of a wind turbine that actually makes wind, just like on Tellytubbies. :-) I just hate this idea of 'greenwashing' things, so you have people thinking they are saving the planet by installing solar panels, which in reality make enough power to heat a fish tank. Likewise 'Green Park' with its greenwash name, green windows and gimmick wind turbine. A 180 acre nature reserve or a forest is green - not a 180 acre business park. Best Wishes, Live long and prosper. 160.84.253.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony of the name[edit]

Added my thoughts on "green"park any citations would be greatfully recieved.... Smartse (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Green Park Business Park. 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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

This page was proposed for deletion by Rhododendrites on the grounds:

Not seeing evidence of WP:GNG. Excessive detail based on primary sources (or unsourced), and some routine coverage. I see the wind turbine has received some minor coverage that isn't actually coverage of the business park (and not quite enough to carry notability on its own).

I agree that the article has acquired some content of doubtful notablity (like lists of occupiers by building and colours of signs) and I have tried to deal with this. I also agree it needs more secondary sources. However none of these mean that it is non-notable, but rather that more work needs to be done to justify that notability. I think that common sense suggests that business park with dozens of buildings, hundreds of acres of grounds and thousands of employees ought to be notable. For now, therefore, I have replaced the deletion proposal with a refimprove. Between us, we should be able to justify that notability. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris j wood: Agreed re: your first points, but have to disagree with I think that common sense suggests that business park with dozens of buildings, hundreds of acres of grounds and thousands of employees ought to be notable. In fact, I'd be inclined to think the opposite (or, to be more precise, that most business parks, shopping plazas, housing developments, etc. are not going to be notable, with some exceptions of course). There may be notable businesses that employ those employees and occupy space in the park, but I've not seen many sources that provide significant coverage of a business park itself aside from to say that it exists and routine local business news (openings, closings, renovations, events, etc.). That said, I'm content to leave it alone for now and revisit down the road if you feel confident there are reliable sources independent of the subject that provide significant coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I'm not sure that I understand your objection to routine business news. WP:GNG requires that an article subject is notable; it doesn't require it to be exciting. I'm still working on it, but at present the article has eleven cites. Of these, I would say that five are primary or trivial (the Ecotricity one, the Terry Bolsher one, the bus timetable, the conference centre and the triathlon). And three of the remaining six secondary cites are from the same newspaper, which gives us four distinct significant secondary sources (two local newspapers, a national property publication, and a professional body). I'd say that is a reasonable starting point for notability. More clearly needs to be done to the article, but that is enough for today. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Chris j wood: What I mean by routine business news is along the lines of WP:MILL, which includes business parks as a standard example, and the trivial coverage outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH. Of the ten sources cited, the first and third are this sort of routine coverage; the second is marginally better, but very short and I think many would still consider this strictly local interest (WP:AUD, for example); there's an argument to be made for the fourth, though industry-specific advocacy organizations are often poo-pooed at AfD since they're not really independent of the source (i.e. they promote members, sponsors, etc.); the fifth is a transportation schedule; the sixth is effectively a press release, written by an employee of the company it's about (Terry Bolsher of Aarsleff Piling); the seventh is a company website about one of its projects; the eighth is either primary/promotional or routine; the ninth is the race website itself; the tenth is probably the strongest one, being specifically about the park['s sign] and apparently independent of the subject, but doesn't seem like something that would have much interest beyond locally.

Just to be clear, I'm not detailing these to give you a hard time about this. I'm content to leave it be for the time being if you're confident there's more out there, but I would be very surprised if an AfD ended in keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I don't think there is much difference between your analysis of the cites and mine. I would certainly agree with you on the fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth; these are all primary source cites whose purpose is to verify descriptive statements of facts in the article, and of no use at all in determining notability. I think you may have misread the eighth; it relates to the course of the Reading Half Marathon starting at Green Park and has no bearing on the triathlon (a completely unrelated and much less notable event); however it is somewhat incidental and again its main purpose is to verify descriptive statements, although I guess being the start of a fairly major road race cannot harm Green Park's notability.

I'm intrigued that you think the tenth is the strongest. It never occurred to me that this added much to the notability. I added it simply to provide some verification of the already existing text on the coloured signs. My initial inclination was to remove that text altogether as it doesn't feel very encyclopedic to me, which I guess is just another way of saying it "doesn't seem like something that would have much interest beyond locally". However I more or less fell over the source looking for something else and thought I might as well keep the text for now; I may well change my mind later.

That leaves us with the first to fourth. On rereading, I would agree the first (which isn't one I added) is rather incidental than on my original read. Pretty well agree on the second. I'm surprised you were able to take a view on the third, as I seem to have done something stupid with the url (now corrected), and this is the one I would have said is a strong one. Its primary topic is Green Park, and it covers an important event in its history, as well as giving some good numerical details (value, size, etc). The fourth is also quite strong in asserting notability, but (as you say) that does hinge around the independence of the Landscape Institute; their website says they are a charity which ought to legally preclude them from acting on behalf of members in the way you suggest, but it is probably worth being a little circumspect.

As for WP:MILL, I must confess I'd overlooked the specific reference to business parks. On the whole though, I don't see it offering a huge objection. The image that accompanies that essay clearly shows that the author was thinking of an entirely different scale of place to Green Park. I do realise the article needs more work, and I don't particularly want to keep disturbing you. I suggest that I do that work (which may take me a few days) and then take another look. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]