Jump to content

Talk:Centrica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

(Question) I'm Sure its Lloyds TSB who bought goldfish, not Morgan Stanley (Lloyds part-owned it already). Worked for goldfish before the sale and BG before and after so i don't have a reference just remember when they sold it, perhaps it can be changed and a reference sought if the editor prefers

(Answer dated Dec. 2006). Initially sold to Lloyds TSB, joint shareholder at the time. More recently sold by LTSB to Morgan Stanley.

Fair use rationale for Image:British Gas (logo).PNG

[edit]

Image:British Gas (logo).PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Canadian holdings?

[edit]

Specifically Direct Energy and Enbridge. On the same subject, the article for Enbridge does not mention its acquisition by Centrica, though it is mentioned on the Direct Energy page.216.234.58.18 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

total energy production

[edit]

does anyone know what is the total electricity production of the centrica group in gwh? -- eiland (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split of British Gas section

[edit]

Have suggested splitting the British Gas section into it's own page. As Direct Energy and Oxxio have their own pages, it only seems logical that British Gas should as well, especially given the company's notability and the amount of information that could be contained within said page. Also, I feel it's quite confusing from a customer perspective - to search for British Gas and not to get information on the company (in fact a proposal to this idea was suggested in 2006 on the British Gas disambiguation talk page). Thoughts? kevmaguire 16:45 1 October 2009 (GMT)

I do not believe there is enough material to warrant this yet Dormskirk (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]

Centrica has just established exploration and production operations in Trinidad and Tobago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.94.210 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Gas wikipedia page

[edit]

I made a common sense edit by changing the now defunct British Gas plc to British Gas. Again this this is a common sense edit. If your're against this talk here. Do not undo!!!

--Fox starfish (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Note it says Please do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. The page history for British Gas is a bit more complicated, as the article was originally there, before it was split/moved. I think it will need an administrator to sort it out and move the history to the correct places. The first thing to do would be to follow the procedure to list the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Then it can be discussed as to whether the move should happen, and what pages should be moved where. --Vclaw (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I’ve seemed to have missed the punchline here.

Vclaw (+ Barryob who undid page move) have same ‘Scottish type’ wikipedia contributions and who both within hours trying to stop this “End of the World” change. Perhaps you should just be addressed as VclawBob to avoid confusion.

The British Gas PLC wikipedia page (from now on to be referred to as PLC) which describes British Gas as being defunct etc is very misleading to the general public who like myself are looking for encyclopaedia type information for British Gas such as it having over 16 million UK energy customers - which unfortunately for me took ages and ages to find this information - one reason is because there was not (before I made the change) a current wikepedia page for British Gas - which to be frank, is just ridiculous. Instead the only page on wikepdia with information about British Gas (which is a name known not just across the UK but all over the world) is about the ancient entity British Gas PLC which ceased existance 15 years ago. Any information with regards to a PLC should exist as a section in the history of British Gas. This is common sense and I think 99 out of 100 people would agree with this and also that this change is for the good of the Wikipedia project. Fortunately a lot of the foundations of Wikepdia are based on common sense.

Unfortunately VclawBob I think you are the 1 out of 100 people who would disagree and also feel your passion for keeping the PLC page is misguided.

Furthermore after reading the Wikipedia:Moving a page guidelines I feel your argument is false as this actually supports what I have done. As per the guidelines one thing that I didn’t do but will rectify shortly is to ask for the help of an administrator to clean up the transfer in the: Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen

VclawBob I want to thank you for creating the original British Gas plc Wikipedia page in the first place, but your baby has grown and now has to gone to university so please let him go, as I am sure we both have better things to do with our time.

If you are reading this and agree to whats been said and that wikepedia should have a page for British Gas it would be appreciated if you would take a couple of seconds to state your support here.

--Fox starfish (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not disagree with whether or not the page should be moved. I just said the proper procedure should be followed. So list it on Requested moves, and discuss it first, then it can be moved properly if there is consensus. See the policy on Wikipedia:Article titles, for what pages should be named, and whether disambiguation is needed. There have been several separate companies branded "British Gas", so there needs to be some way of distinguishing them. Also see the guidelines on Wikipedia:Edit warring, do not repeatedly revert other people's edits. --Vclaw (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest to “follow the procedure to list the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves.” Well news flash, I followed the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page which states “If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page”.

Obviously I expected no reason for a dispute, I mean jees who would when it’s is a common sense move.

Burger King is a famous company & brand and what do you know there is a Wikipedia page (with no company suffixes!) which is great for finding information – just like I needed for British Gas a couple of days ago – but unfortunately at the time I couldn’t find the information because there was no page on Wikipedia!

If you are genuine in your support of the Wikipedia project I feel you should let this rest. If however you want to continue to dispute this then I would suggest leaving things as they are for a few days (and not starting an edit war) to let the dust settle, see if there are any other (non-pseudo!) third parties that want to have their say and go from there.

Also I’ve got better things to do with my time (haven’t you?), so I really hope this will be the last on topic. --Fox starfish (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the requested moves page, you would see it says to use the "Move tab" at the top of the page, not cutting and pasting. Note the Move tab is not available for newly registered users (like you). Also the requested moves page says "If any of the following situations applies to the requested move, it should be treated as controversial: There is an existing article at the target title". Which was the case here. Also see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your edit was reverted, so the next step is to discuss, not edit warring as you seem to be. It is interesting that you are referring to others as "pseaudo", seeing as you only registered 2 days ago, and you have copied someone else's user page. --Vclaw (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have been following this discussion and am concerned that Vclaw has decided rather to continue dialogue and discussion or seek resolution to start edit warring. The discussion regarding this has only been open a matter of hours.

Having read what’s been said I feel that Fox_Starfish is quite right to make the page move and agree this is “Common sense”. I cannot understand why someone is extremely passionate about the PLC page which states British Gas as defunct and is likely to confuse the general public. I have reverted the pages back because for me edit warring rather than discussion by Vclaw is not the correct Wikipedia etiquette and is more like dictatorship behavior when seeking consensus should be priority.

Also having glanced at the contributions of Vclaw and Barryob and their both “Scottish related” contributions I feel Fox_starfish has a point that it is very obvious socketpuppetry.

Vclaw also states that there was an existing article for British Gas I checked this out and in actually fact there was NO existing Wikipedia “article” just a redirect.

It is quite obvious that there should be a page for British Gas and suspect Vclaw is either a disgruntled customer or has some political reasons for not wanting this and Wikipedia is not a political battleground or a business directory for disbanded PLC’s 15 years ago but an encyclopedia.

Upon consideration I’ve decided to escalate the actions of Vclaw (and his alter ego Barryob) for sockpuppetry and edit warring. I feel this will not be the end to the matter so am also going to look into dispute resolution.

--Medic [ talk ] 20:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Medic. Discussion, consensus and common sense sounds good to me! Those things are like the pillars of Wikipedia !--Fox starfish (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested update for Centrica article 194.176.222.228 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Barbara, Corp Comms Officer, Centrica 8 November 2013194.176.222.228 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi, I’m Barbara and I work in the Digital Media team at Centrica. Thank you for your interest in Centrica, we have been reviewing the article in Wikipedia which we agree is comprehensive and covers all the main topics for Centrica. However, there are three areas that are no longer factually correct and I would like to suggest the following changes to the content (see suggested draft below) which I believe conform to ‘Wikipedia: Neutral point of view’. I am happy to have a go at this myself but we would prefer it if a Wikipedian who follows us could review my suggestions and update as appropriate:

1. Operations section – changes reflect changes to Centrica’s operating areas and addition of oil exploration as well as gas Centrica's operations are principally focused on the supply of electricity and gas to businesses and consumers in the United Kingdom and North America. Centrica Energy also generates electricity in the United Kingdom and has gas and oil exploration and production operations in the Irish Sea, Norwegian and Dutch sectors of the North Sea, North America and Trinidad and Tobago. Norway and Until 2010 it had gas exploration activities in Nigeria, these were wound down in 2009. Centrica has some back office functions located in India and South Africa. Published information for hatnotes - Where Centrica currently operates - 2012 ARA page 2 or on the Centrica web site under - Investors/reports/2012ar/index.asp?pageid=96 Withdrawal from Nigeria 2009 ARA Centrica Resources (Nigeria) Ltd page 150 or Note 43. Principal undertakings on the Centrica web site under - Investors/reports/2009ar/ index.asp?pageid=84 - Centrica Resources (Nigeria) Ltd no longer a subsidiary from 2010 page 141 or Note 43. Principal undertakings on the Centrica web site under - Investors/reports/2010ar/index.asp?pageid=42

2. Principal divisions and subsidiaries section – changes reflect update to wind farms status • Wind farms – in 2009, Centrica completed its 180MW Lynn and Inner Dowsing offshore wind farm development and announced plans to build the £725m Lincs offshore wind farm capable of generating over 270MW, fully operational in July 2013 . Centrica has also submitted applications for consent for two offshore wind farms, Docking Shoal and Race Bank, totalling 1160MW. Subject to approval and construction, by the middle of the next decade these three projects, together with existing operational wind assets, would give Centrica more than 1.75GW of generating capacity in the UK, capable of meeting the annual needs of more than 1.2m homes. Race Bank received Government consent 6 July 2012. Docking Shoal did not receive Government consent. Published information for hatnotes - Lincs fully operational News release 1 August 2013 on the Centrica web site News and Views /index.asp?pageid=1041&newsid=2828 Race Bank Government consent PDF on the Centrica web site Our businesses/Centrica Energy/Renewables/Race Bank.

3. Shareholdings section - reflect announcement regarding nuclear new build and share repurchase programme In 2009, Centrica purchased a 20% stake in nuclear power generator British Energy from EDF Energy. The company now produces 14.3% of its electricity from nuclear (the second highest rate in the UK), helping it to achieve the lowest carbon emissions of the major providers.[28] Centrica has also acquired an option to purchase a 20% stake in EDF's subsidiary, NNB Generation Company (NNB GenCo).[29] NNB GenCo is planning to build an additional 6.4GW of nuclear capacity in the UK. Centrica announced decision not to participate in UK nuclear new build and launched £500 million share repurchase programme on 4 February 2013. Published information for hatnotes - News release 4 February 2013 on the Centrica web site News and Views /index.asp?pageid=1041&newsid=2646 Thank you 194.176.222.228 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Barbara, Corp Comms Officer, Centrica 8 November 2013194.176.222.228 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Centrica. 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).

  • 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) 04:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centrica. 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).

  • 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) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centrica&oldid=1206596908"