This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The column on "Website" should not be the main purpose of a column in the table for sources. The main need, per WP:V and WP:RS, is for a verifiable, reliable secondary source, for any and all claims made in Wikipedia. Sometimes, a primary source, such as the website of the company or government entity building a wind farm, is the best we have, at least temporarily. But I do think that "website" should not be the point of the column; a verifiable source should be. If we are to make the assertions made in this list, we want to find better sources than mere company websites, whether those sources are accessble via the internet (always preferable, per WP:V) or not. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, as WP:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria suggests; I guess the option "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" is the one until a country has like 50 offshore wind farms. I think the Website column is fine, but Refs column definitely need to be added. I revised the UK template in List of offshore wind farms in Denmark to suit most countries. Amount of columns is an ongoing issue; the many parameters on 4C is bewildering. TGCP (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Another column should be price achieved (per kWh or MWh). As Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will cost £92.50/MWh, a new benchmark has been established, and offshore wind seems less costly. TGCP (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)