Talk:Gas initially in place

Linkages

@Velella: - you seem to be someone who cares about how information connects meaningfully and directly. I do the same with knowledge (we can make that distinction another time maybe). This article is a stub and may well remain as such, being the explanation of an acronym commonly used in the oil & gas sector (GIIP) but commonly misunderstood by those outside. But perhaps creating stubs is not the best way to achieve this - the number of links will grow as the subject gets deeper penetration. I am not a Wikipedia expert but my aims are sincere and I would like to be doing this the best way. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Guy WF Loftus - For what little it may be worth, I do understand the very real differences between, amongst other things, data, information, knowledge and understanding. It has been an integral part of my professional life. Tagging [[this article as an orphan was not a criticism, simply an invitation to others to search our appropriately linked articles. I do however have some reservations about the article that I was going to raise in the future if it wasn't substantially improved. At present it is little more than a dictionary definition of an acronym. Wikipedia does not maintain dictionary definitions as articles. I am also concerned about the capitalisation of the title which only appears to be in title case to match up with the acronym. I suspects that this, and other similar articles, might best be dealt with by the existing articles that lists the acronyms in the oil industry. I do also have issues with WP:COI in one of the articles that you have been working on where you have made it clear that there have been contributions from members of a professional society. However, those members do not appear to have made a COI declaration as required. I will address this on the relevant page, but you may wish to anticipate my next posting by ensuring that those declarations are in place. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree - it is nothing more than a dictionary definition of an acronym (I took my cue from Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) as an entry but I will de-capitalise as you suggest because it appears to not be best practice even for acronyms. I do think this article does have scope for improvement (as does EUR) for those with the content knowledge to pitch in. I also agreed that it could be folded in another article but having examined candidates (I have the content knowledge), they don't yet exist. It is also (guilty admission here) a convenient way for me to be able to insert GIIP and allow people to hover over it without cluttering the narrative flow with a prosaic definition - again... perhaps not best practice (maybe better as a footnote to maintain flow). I suspect you and I could have interesting discussions about "data, information, knowledge and understanding" (I share the passion) but that is another red-thread... Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)