Talk:List of onshore wind farms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Organize Please[edit]

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 you mind if I made this article into a sortable wikitable? -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I did it without your permission anyway. But now I need you to double check a few things for me. Firstly, I think "Generation Capacity" pretty much means maximum electric power. But I didn't know for sure, so I leave it up to you to decide on column headings. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Anphibian! Thanks again for your enthusiastic editing. -- Johnfos 08:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under construction[edit]

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)

There seems to be remarkably few wind farms in the main table which are still under construction. Which farms were you thinking of? Johnfos (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. There is a list of proposed wind farms at the bottom of the page. If there are any unbuilt projects listed in the main page I can just move them down there.AndrewLeeson (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

100 MW cutoff?[edit]

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)

Done... Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I would propose that the criteria for inclusion on this page be that the wind farm is one of the 10 largest in it's respective country or that is is larger than, say, 350 MW. That would eliminate a lot of the clutter on the page. --71.38.172.8 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

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)

I'v updated it now. Feel free to change any others which are incorrect - thats what Wikipedia is all about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLeeson (talkcontribs) 15:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
From the coordinates specified, I tried to find the two listed Australian wind farms on Google Earth. The location names match the coordinates, so there are probably no typos there. The locations have high-resolution coverage with good shadows and are shown as copyright 2011, so the individual turbines should be easily visible. Well, they are not. I looked around the area for a good half hour and found zip. Lots of far smaller things - houses, sheds, water tanks, trees, cars - are clearly visible, but no turbines. Maybe someone who is better at finding them than I am can have a look?

Old_Wombat (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The copyright date relates to the dataset as a whole: individual aerial images may be up to a few years older. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Twin Grove wind farm[edit]

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)

This source says the two phases of Twin Groves will have a combined total of 359 MW: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/grainjournal/windtoday_q208/index.php?startid=18 Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like your figure is as of the end of 2007. As of Feb 2008, Horizon wind energy's web site reports the entire farm has a total capacity of 396 MW (Phase I: 198 MW + Phase II: 198 MW). [1] Since this is all one farm, it makes sense to combine the figures as Twin Groves - 396 MW on the list. Switzpaw (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's fine... Johnfos (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanian wind farms[edit]

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.

  • CEZ Fântânele Wind Farm 600 Romania
  • Tomis Team Dobrogea Wind Farm 600 Romania
It seems pretty clear from Wind power in Romania that these are two different wind farms... Johnfos (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Raise threshold for inclusion from 100 to 120 MW?[edit]

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)

Thats fine with me. You are right, with wind power expanding, it will get more and more difficult to maintain the list. By the way, there is also a separate list for [wind farms]. So, I'd suggest to not list the offshore farms again in this list. What do you think? Splette :) How's my driving? 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, unless there is further discussion, I'll cut the tail off the list. As for List of offshore wind farms, it is badly out of date and incomplete, and I've raised the matter on it's Talk page. Johnfos (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I disagree, but I'll answer there Splette :) How's my driving? 01:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Operating and under construction mixing[edit]

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)

As you know, many wind farms are built in stages. So often phase 1 is completed and operating, and phase 2 is under construction. So it seems sensible to have the joint heading "Operating and under construction". Johnfos (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Once a project has got to the construction phase it is an operating wind farm and should be listed in the table. Some wind farms however have significant expansion plans. Therefore I have added a column to provide a brief status. More information can also be added through notes and references.Inwind (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You are trying to cram too much information into a Table that is already very large, and I am reverting again. Detailed information should go into the articles about specific wind farms. Moreover, the distinction between "completed" and "under construction" wind farms is blurred because wind farms are often built in stages. And please put any external links at the end of the article where they belong. Johnfos (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
And all the question marks are very unencyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The table is large, however more specifically, it's long, not wide. I'm using a vertical monitor and that's still the overriding aspect. I might be missing something, but it seems like earlier a consensus was reached to remove farms smaller than 120 MW but I still see those listed. Anyway, I don't think adding a 4th column is a detriment, but making the list shorter might be useful. As for the status being fuzzy, it's a text box, not a boolean field, which allows for some fuzziness. There is already one item that says "completed, expansion planned". As the situation fits it can briefly explain, for example "30% complete", or "operating at 100 MW, expanding to 200 MW". As for the question marks, I don't know of any policy for or against them, but if you really dislike them, I don't object to them being blanked. Vicarious (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

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)

Restructuring[edit]

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)

If you are going to "reconstruct" a popular article, it is always best to discuss it first. Unfortunately your version has far too many flag icons, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons); links like this USA would be better. And table titles and several citations at the top of the main table seem to have been lost. Also, the issue of whether we need individual citations for each blue linked article, where a citation is just one click away, needs to be discussed. So I am reverting your version again. Johnfos (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved discussion from this talkpage. The discussion was mistakenly placed there.

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)

As far as I know I haven't done any recent revert on this page. Happy editing. Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Johnfos. Firstly i have to apologize for posting on the wrong page. Coming to the topic, you still havent told why you made a complete revert. Your point ...whether we need individual citations for each blue linked article... is not true, simply because i didnt add them, it was already there before my edit. Table headers are redundant since a level-two header is already in place. No offense, but I have now reverted again, in good faith, and have also requested a third-party view on this issue. If it is decided that the older is better than the current, i would be happy to step down and learn from my mistakes. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 10:09, 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 SoWhy 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):

  1. I generally don't have a problem with flag icons, but there are just far too many flag icons on the revised page. There must be close to 100 USA flags and links to the United States in the article -- there is just no need for this. It doesn't help the reader and makes the article unencyclopedic. In fact it now seems like the article is promoting nationalistic pride in the USA. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) says that "While small icons can be useful in Wikipedia articles in some circumstances, there are also problems associated with their misapplication and overuse". Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking and underlinking says "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links". I have suggested that providing a few links like this USA, to national wind farm list articles, would be better.
  2. We now have a references column in the main table which is virtually empty. It is unnecessary in my view as the vast majority of articles are blue linked and a citation is just one click away, in the specific wind farm article. I am happy to create more blue links if that will help. And (as discussed below) some overview references were already provided at the top of the main table, and more could be provided there if necessary.
  3. Table titles and several citations at the top of the main table seem to have been lost. This is where general references should appear in my view; these are references which discuss a group of wind farms and provide an overview of what is happening. Titles of tables help the reader know what is in the table below, and should be kept.

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 really have no idea of what your problem is... No offense, but for your info, if you click the revert button, it will revert the whole edit. Your points:
1. I really dont know what to say. Are you going to remove all the flag icons of the big bulk of articles that currently exist?
2. The references were not removed. They were moved to the relevant sentences above the table.
3. Same as 2. It was not lost; it was moved to the relevant sentences above.
--Regards. Rehman(+) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've articulated things quite well, but you still "really have no idea of what [my] problem is". You don't seem to understand that "I generally don't have a problem with flag icons", but that this is an extreme case. You don't seem to understand that "we now have a references column in the main table which is virtually empty", and which needs to go. You don't seem to understand that "titles of tables help the reader know what is in the table below, and should be kept". And you're trying to teach me about using the revert button.
No offense, but I put this down to inexperience on your part. You've been doing some silly things (like posting a note relating to this on the wrong page) and have been on WP for less than a year and have only done about 2,500 edits. regards, Johnfos (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not advancing in this discussion until further third-party comments are made. My final comments for now:

  • "I think I've articulated things quite well": No you havent.
  • "we now have a references column in the main table which is virtually empty": If we are to list all onshore wind farms, we would need it. There are numerous more of such farms of which a wikipedia article doesnt exist. So, are you going to create all those articles? You would definitely violate WP:NOTABILITY.
  • "titles of tables help the reader know what is in the table below": If only the reader can move his/her eyeball about two centimeters (an inch) up, it would help the article look much neater.
  • "I put this down to inexperience on your part": That would be the most childish and ridiculous thing i've ever heard in my editing career.
  • "like posting a note relating to this on the wrong page": For your info, i was editing that page at the time too. I've already mentioned about the error. Its once again, very childish of you, to bring that back up.
  • "been on WP for less than a year and have only done about 2,500 edits": At least i have a good history with editors here. For your info, its never the edit count that tells who is the better editor. I strictly dont do unnecessary repetitive edits when i can just combine all.

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)

I am not familiar with this article, and have not had a chance to make a judgement on the overall restructuring edits by User:Rehman. I will however weigh in on two points.
1) Let's discuss the article, not the editor. It does not matter how few edits an editor has, and 2500 is not a small number anyway. WP policy is to provide great respect to anonymous editors based on the quality of their edits and their working to build consensus in the community etc. Rehman is obviously a serious WP editor who has been contributing non-anonymously to WP for some time. Let's discuss WP policy and it's applicability to this article, not the perceived experience level of any Wikipedia editor.
2) Wikipedia policy (WP:V) is that an article is explicitly not to be sourced by other articles in Wikipedia. Rather, reliable secondary source citations should be provided by all editors who want an assertion to stand. Unsourced assertions may be challenged by any editor (regardless of the number of their previous edits in Wikipedia) and, per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So while most of the assertions in this article that are currently sourced to other Wikipedia articles have not, yet, been challenged by any editor, 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. N2e (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
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)

Request for another opinion[edit]

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.

  1. Unfortunately your version has far too many flag icons, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Personally I don't agree with the example given by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) of "cluttering" with icons: I think both in that example and in this article the icons help to make it instantly visible what countries are involved. In fact I agree with SoWhy on this. However, since the Manual of Style is a recognised Wikipedia guideline we should take it seriously. My own approach in such cases is to be willing to let my own judgement override the guideline if I feel a particular case justifies doing so, but to back down willingly if anyone disagrees: where editors have different views the Wikipedia guidelines should normally take precedence. Please note that I say this even though I personally disagree with the guideline in this case.
  2. Table titles and several citations at the top of the main table seem to have been lost. True, and I don't see "If only the reader can move his/her eyeball about two centimeters (an inch) up, it would help the article look much neater" as a convincing response. We should be able to see instantly what a table is about, without having to search through the accompanying text. In fact such titles serve much the same "see instantly what is going on" purpose as flag icons. In addition "it would help the article look much neater" is a personal opinion: I don't think tables look neater without titles, and one editor's aesthetic judgement is not a criterion for deciding.
  3. The references were not removed. They were moved to the relevant sentences above the table. Can someone clarify this? I can't see any references above the table in the newly edited version that were not already there. Have I missed something?
  4. Also, the issue of whether we need individual citations for each blue linked article, where a citation is just one click away, needs to be discussed, followed by whether we need individual citations for each blue linked article... is not true, simply because i didnt add them, it was already there before my edit and by Wikipedia policy (WP:V) is that an article is explicitly not to be sourced by other articles in Wikipedia, and also by some other comments. There are two separate issues being confused together here: (a) do we need the references in the table? and (b) if we have the references should they be given an extra column of their own? On (a) (which, as Rehman rightly points out, was not introduced by him: he merely moved the existing refs into a new column) I think it's a mistake to see this as a question of giving other Wikipedia articles as references: it is rather a question about whether the reference to an external source needs to be duplicated in two articles. I think the answer is "yes", because we cannot guarantee that the other article may not be edited and lose the reference: therefore this article should contain copies of the references. On the other hand (b) is just a matter of layout, not content, and is just a question of personal opinion as to what looks best. My own preference is to have the references with the name of the wind farm, not in a separate column, but I don't think it a big enough issue one way or the other to argue about, and I suggest that anyone who does think so might like to read Wikipedia is not that important.

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)


Moving forward[edit]

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 Face-smile.svg. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive79#User:Rehman regarding this issue. Johnfos (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And what exactly is the reason for starting the discussion after the discussion is over (i backed out)? Rehman(+) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

This page looks like junk[edit]

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)

Fix it, as far as you think its right. Thats what wikipedia is all about! Best regards. Rehman(+) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As one small effort to start a cleanup, I have tagged {{citation needed}} all of the unsourced, redlinked, alleged wind farms in the Proposed section. Per WP:V, even the bluelinked claims need to be cited, as Wikipedia is explicitly not considered a reliable source for article claims; see WP:CIRCULAR. But I think it is best to start slowly to give other editors some time to add citations for these claims before removing them. N2e (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for revising the article[edit]

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)

Done. The page looks a lot cleaner now. Johnfos (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if new look is better. Situation in List of offshore wind farms is very different from this article. Top 25 cover big part of offshore installations, but top 25 (why 25? why not 30, 40 or 50) of onshore is only a tiny part. Previous capacity based table seems more reasonable for me (we can discuss about raise to 150 or 200 MW). Also reduction of lead seems to be too radical for me (at least total world nameplate capacity have its place there). --Jklamo (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There are eight inline "citation needed" tags in the article at present and I think these should be dealt with before we consider anything else. Converting red links to blue would also help to consolidate what we have. Then we would be in a better position to consider how to expand the article. If we expand the article without dealing with existing cn tags and red links then it will just get into the same mess as before. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The list is now an alphabetical Top41 which is too long in my opinion. I suggest, like above, that we cut the list to 25 (or even shorter) because that amount gives an overview - we cannot have detailed lists because there are so many wind farms. We can use the same format for continental and national lists, so we get both overview and detail and cover nearly all important wind farms, not just the biggest 100 or whatever. A similar approach has been used for Lists of offshore wind farms by country / area. But that also implies figuring out what "one wind farm" actually is - see new section below. TGCP (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree, the list is too long and should be cut down to 25 entries. TGCP, I know you have done much good work with the offshore lists, and wonder if you would be prepared to "work your magic" on the onshore lists too... regards... Johnfos (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and thanks, although it was ErnestFax who did the heavy lifting on the offshore articles ;-) . I want to get a few more opinions about organizing this article before going to work. We could copy the template from List of offshore wind farms in Sweden and write Altitude instead of Water depth. Also we can make a Category:Lists of onshore wind farms to blend continental, national and state levels because Jklamo has a point about the many other onshore wind farms of similar size. The really neat part of ErnestFax's work is that we can WP:Transclude items from one list to another, so we can easily create massive lists!
Also, please consider below what "One wind farm" actually is? TGCP (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite Johnfos, and for the mentions TGCP. I guess the question here for me is: what is the purpose of this article? I think we may have lost sight of the answer to that question. On the list of offshore wind farms it was easier: a list of the Top 25 largest offshore wind farms gives us good coverage of the key countries involved, and a very large proportion of global installed capacity. That's different for onshore. I think that if we can synthesise a good answer to what is the purpose of this article?, then we'll be in a really strong position to restructure it. ErnestfaxTalk 08:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese wind farms[edit]

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)

Inclusion of coordinates for auto-generation of overview maps?[edit]

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)

OK, I'm convinced, and would support this proposal... Johnfos (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I had also noticed your addition of the coordinated to the U.S. wind farm list and had wondered if the change should be kept. But after seeing how it allows generating the overview map using the kml template, there was no question in my mind that it was a valuable addition. --Aflafla1 (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What is "One wind farm" ?[edit]

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" ?

For onshore, we might copy these criteria for offshore, suggested by Ernestfax :

Some suggested differentiation criteria for whether multiple phases constitute a single windfarm:

  • 1) if they've got the same operator, they might be one windfarm, whereas if they've got different operators, they're definitely separate windfarms.
  • 2) if the contract between the operator and the customer (grid or whoever) jointly covers multiple phases, so that invoicing and payment is done as if they were a single windfarm, they're 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)

What is this article for? (and what is it not for?)[edit]

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:

  1. listing the largest 25 onshore wind farms by capacity (maybe, maybe not. As I wrote above, we did this with offshore, because the top 25 give a decent indication of the most active countries, and also between them cover a very large proportion of global capacity. And both of those things will continue to be true for at least a couple of years. I suspect neither are true of onshore)
  2. wind farms that are individually notable: largest by continent; first of a kind; first grid-connected onshore wind farm in its continent; first wind farm in the world to reach 1kW/10kW/100kW/1MW/10MW/100MW/1GW/10GW capacity; largest wind farm not grid-connected;

It is probably not for;

  1. listing every wikipedia article on an onshore wind farm: this would be better done by adding all those pages to an "onshore wind farm" category, and then just pointing to the category list page. Does this category exist yet? How complete is the categorisation?
  2. giving an indication of global coverage: such an article might be useful, and might already exist - and would have a map showing all the countries where onshore wind is already installed, that sort of thing. But this List is not that article.

ErnestfaxTalk 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)