Talk:List of offshore wind farms/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article

Hi. I started this list. It needs lots of work, especially citations and reference links. All the pages that it links out to should have links coming back in. The source data is the various wind energy associations, cross checked against the BMT Consult A/S report (the de-facto who's who report for the wind industry). Need links out to the approriate pages on industry association websites. Needs to be extended with new tables for projects consented and projects in developement. Davagh (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start. I'll try to add a bit of information... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep it accurate. London Array is NOT under construction; it will need to go into another table. Davagh (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I just quickly checked the London Array article which said construction would start 2008, but having a closer look I realize that info is from 2 years ago. So maybe it needs to be moved to Proposed. In fact the proposed section might become very long and hard to maintain I am afraid. Btw, since you are UK, have you heard/read any news about what is going on with London Array (especially after Shell dropped out) and when production actually may start? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up and restructured article. Please do feel free to let me know of any shortcomings. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New info

This publication of the EWEA should give a pretty up to date list of European offshore farms. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

list of danish offshore windfarms can be found here http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/UndergrundOgForsyning/VedvarendeEnergi/Vindkraft/Havvindmoeller/Sider/Forside.aspx. the list claims to be update in january 2010, seems like quite a few are missing.

Redirect?

This list is badly out of date and incomplete, and so it misleads readers. For example, it only lists four proposed offshore wind farms, whereas List of wind farms lists 19. I think it is confusing to have the two lists. I would like to see List of offshore wind farms become a redirect to List of wind farms, or perhaps just be deleted. Johnfos (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree for several reasons. The list of operating offshore platforms is entirely up to date (according to this document at least. This is the state of art of Dec 2008) When I will find the time I will update the 'under construction' list as well. As for the 'proposed' section, I don't think it makes much sense. Its impossible to keep this up to date. (Btw the same is true for the onshore wind farms. Until last year Germany held the largest installed capacity of windpower, yet the list doesn't mention a single wind park in Germany - just 2 of the proposed offshore farms [while the above link lists 25 proposed offshore farms above 120MW in Germany])On the other hand there are a few large proposed offshore farms (e.g. London Array) that already got an article, so they propbably should be mentioned somewhere. Wind power is growing exponentially, so a complete list of wind farms will get very long very soon. Therefore I think it makes sense to split onshore and offshore. Also the offshore list here is more detailed than the onshore list. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that it is best not to have a list of proposed offshore windfarms here, so I will put a couple of links in its place. As for the "under construction" section, thank you for offering to update that when you have time. The list of operating offshore platforms also needs to be updated because there are many offshore wind farms listed in the linked document as being "in operation" which are not included here.
I will hold off editing List of wind farms for now, until this article takes better shape, as the content of the two articles are inter-related. Johnfos (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of the operating wind farms shown in the document mentioned were not included in the initial list of operating wind farms because they consisted of single turbines - and so by definition were not wind-farms. The number of offshore wind farms being proposed worldwide is probably into three figures now. Many of them will probably never be realised. There may be a way of sub-categorising proposed offshore wind farms so as to show the most likely; and therefore allowing inclusion of projects that get a lot of publicity (like London Array and Cape Wind). Something like "application submitted", "consent granted", "financing apporved", etc. Davagh (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've tried to update some of the article in the light of comments made. See what you think... Shouldn't "Lynn and Inner Dowsing" be listed as two separate wind farms? Johnfos (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just take care to keep it factual. eg. there is no way 400MW of Bard Offshore 1 will complete this year. There are a number of projects at advanced stages that are not included: Bligh Bank, 140MW, which could start constructing this summer. Nordergründe 90MW, which could start constructing next year. Côte d'Albâtre, 105MW the first French offshore wind farm is another interesting project at later stages of development. Plenty of others. It's always hard to catalog proposed projects...even if proposed completion dates are stated in developer's marketing material it doesn't neccessarily mean they'll ever even by built. They have to be financed first! Current credit crisis doesn't help, Project Finance is taking a hit. I guess some disclaimer on the table that explains prospective projects are only that, and dates are subject to change would help and add credibility? Davagh (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources and citations

Please be sure that all additions of offshore wind farms to the article, whether operational, under construction, or planned, are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for all claims made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added wind farm claims before, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}}. N2e (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert by Johnfos

Moved to this talkpage. The discussion was mistakenly placed here. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info

Despite the best efforts of several editors (including myself) over a period of some months, there is still a tremendous amount of information on this page which is not substantiated and verified by the sources given. A considerable number of links are dead, and I have begun to add an inline "dead link" tag to these. The article states three times that information is up to date as of January 2010, but the sources used for this statement are dated in 2009, so I have added a "not in source" tag to these statements. Details about the make and/or model of wind turbines mostly seem to be not in the sources provided, so I guess a "not in source" tag could be added there too.

We need to be careful not to claim too much and should avoid providing information that goes beyond what the cited sources actually provide. Johnfos (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. And the use of the "not in source" tags is a helpful and courteous way to identify any you've found so someone can either fix them, or the claims can be removed, so that the overall quality of the article is good. N2e (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by 70.191.125.82

Please note that I have reverted your edit in which you reverted two attempts in removing Operation Mustard Seed from the list. Wikipedia is not a place to list everything that takes place; in this case, your project (no offence meant). The entry you keep re-listing is with an installed capacity of 0.0012 MW, well away from being notable. G-hits shows almost no verifiable results of its notability. I will have to ask you stop re-listing it without a valid reason. No harm done, just to notify. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Rehman. So I will revert the recent re-addition of this non-notable wind apparatus, by the same anon editor. N2e (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that other edits on OMS have been made to the Floating wind turbine article by an anon editor with a somewhat different IP address: 70.191.122.210. See 2010-02-18T12:13:28 in the history page, for example. So this may be bigger than the single IP Rehman has been looking at. N2e (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably the IP is the same editor, just from a different (neighbouring) PC? My opinion on the floating wind turbine article is, to completely remove OMS, it does not seem to be anywhere near notable. As a matter of fact, since this is wikipedia, we could be the ones triggering the creation of additional (hence, unreliable) secondary sources. But then again, this is just my opinion. What do you think? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

On your first comment Rehman (re floating wind turbine article), sure, I would support that. I just felt that it might be best to tag it (editor no. 1 identifies potential problem) and let other editors come along, in time, and consider removing the seemingly non-notable and primary-source cited info on a lake science fair project. By all means, you, and any other editors, are welcome to weigh in over there. Not sure I understand your point on the second part of what you wrote. N2e (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will remove the OMS from there too. What i meant is that, in some cases, when information on non-notable subjects are included on wikipedia, some people (who are personally interested on the topic) create new websites based on the information here on wiki. Thus, we editors, might mistaken those sites as a verifiable source, not knowing its just a circle. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get what your were saying now. I ran into exactly that problem on the article about (a very interesting) astronaut and entrepreneur named Franklin Chang-Diaz a few weeks ago: a problem of an article that is now sourced by a flyer put out a few years ago by a well-meaning group, but said flyer was sourced from Wikipedia, probably from unsourced claims at the time. Definitely a WP:CIRCULAR problem. In fact, I haven't had the time to get back there and clean it up. N2e (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

The article lead, if taken literally, is overly broad. Currently, the first two sentences read:

The following page lists all offshore wind farms that are currently operational or under construction. Farms that are below 100 MW are not listed.

Per Wikipedia notability policy, it would seem that "all" in the current lede sentence cannot be correct. Nor is the second sentence complete: clearly size matters, but a notable wind farm ought to be listed if it is sub-100 MW. I think the Hywind floating structure meets this criteria, for example.

So what ought the rough inclusion criteria be for this article? Clearly, notability is not optional since it is standard WP policy. But what about size? Should we have a rough lower limit for wind farms to be listed here? I do not see anyplace on the Talk page where a multi-editor consensus was ever reached on this topic. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be quite a fair point. Problem is, adding a table like "list of notable wind farms" would only probably create a debate club on its inclusion criteria. Perhaps we could:

1. Lower the limit to 50 MW, as only a handful are more than 100.
2. Launch a discussion at WP:Energy, with a shortcut here, regarding the notability criteria.

May help? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article is messy and should be cleaned up. I propose a Top20-list by capacity, which will automatically establish an upwardly moving lower limit and sort out the no longer notable. Additionally, a smaller list can contain the farms notable for various reasons, such as first, new tech, famous or other (with subsequent heated debate ;) ) See example at User:TGCP/test

Note: sorting by capacity does not work immediately in current list! It sorts alphabetically at first click, so that 2MW HyWind is "more" than 180MW Robin Rigg! Only by clicking twice on the sort button does numerical sort become active. TGCP (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional operational offshore windfarms

There appears to be another half-dozen or so windfarms listed in the table in the Renewable Energy World source, refname=rew20091008, that are not currently listed in the article. These include Ronland, EmsEmden, Hokkaido, Breitling, Sulzhong and Hooksiel. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of offshore wind farms appear. We have to make up our minds about what this list should show - all wind farms or just notable ones?

I repeat my suggestion: A Top20-list and a few others, that's it. See example at User:TGCP/test

Also, we might sharpen requirements for "Proposed" to only include projects that have filed for authority review, not just projects that someone dreams about. TGCP (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely support the suggestion of a top 20 list and a few others. Otherwise, this page will become completely unmanageable, with dozens of new offshore wind farms under construction. How about a Top 20 operating offshore wind farms by nameplate capacity; plus a table of any that are under construction that are larger than the smallest operating wind farm in that top 20 (i.e. they'd be in the top 20 if they were commissioned now), plus a table of offshore wind farms that are notable in their own right (e.g. demonstration plants for Hywind etc) Ernestfax^Talk 11:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) ...

Oh, and maybe a table of (up to ten of) the biggest proposed wind farms too, if they'd appear in the current top 10, were they commissioned today. Only 10, rather than 20, because "proposed" is going to be a changeable list, and we should keep it manageable. Ernestfax^Talk 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC) ...

And I agree with restricting that list of proposed wind farms, to those that have at least filed for some kind of permit or consent (e.g. the UK round 3 sites, which have landlord's consent from the Crown Estate, but which do not yet have planning permission) Ernestfax^Talk 12:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the main list should be restricted only by nameplate capacity; 50MW. And if entries increase in the future, increase the MW limit, and move smaller entries to regional lists. Just like what we did to this article. Listing by "top xx" doesn't really make sense. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair comments - I didn't imagine we'd have unanimity on this. I would note that the lists you've pointed to are far from complete, and reinforce the point about manageability. A "top 20" makes at least as much sense to me as an arbitrary capacity threshold, which then rises as more and larger windfarms get built - that just makes the maintenance job harder. At least a "top 20" has a chance of being complete and correct some of the time. The 4cOffshore windfarm database currently lists 722 offshore wind farms, which are at various stages of proposal, consent, construction and operation.Ernestfax^Talk 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]

Notability is the usual criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, as long as undue weight is not given to any particular aspect of a subject being covered in the article. I believe "Top 20" will be difficult, and potentially unworkable, in practice as the very aspect of limiting any article to "top 20" necessitates someone making the decision as to what the "top 20" are. If there is no single reliable source that publishes, and keeps current, a "top 20" listing every year, the Wiki-editors who make the decision would essentially be violating wikipolicy on synthesis and no original research.

Limiting the article by size of the windfarm might work, but I can foresee some difficulties there as well. For example, any new technology wind turbines, by definition quite small when prototyping or when only a few have been built, would be left out. For example, all of the offshore floating wind turbine installations would be left out. Such a scope limitation would thus make the article have a non-nuetral point of view. It is not hard to imagine that that various interest groups might prefer only the large ones be in Wikipedia; e.g., big corporations vs. small startups, or fixed-bottom technology companies over floating-technology companies. But we don't have to find such a case of factional interest. Wikipedia should simply maintain a nuetral point of view.

So I am thinking that notability is the correct criteria to use here. For example, the 28th windfarm—of, say, 60 MW capacity— in a country or region with many windfarms, is likely not notable. However, the first or second windfarm in a country or geographic area with few or no windfarms is quite likely notable. Ditto for the 200th fixed-bottom windfarm (likely not notable) whereas even the small early floating offshore wind installations are notable. That's my two cents. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not likely; Top20 is easily maintained as nameplate capacity is an unquestionable parameter, and frequently used in other lists such as the List of largest power stations in the world. That does not constitute WP:OR. Regional lists should be developed for regions, not global. As for notability outside the Top20, they are mentioned in a list of their own on the same page. Again, see User:TGCP/test for an example. That "other notable" list will surely be the subject of a lot of discussion and change, and rightfully so - such is the nature of development. But I do not see it as a victim of special interests, as these developments take a lot of time. TGCP (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a possible consensus here? Notability is a pre-requisite - that's a wikipedia standard, isn't it? Can I suggest that being in the Top 20 of the world makes a windfarm notable per se? As are the plants which are demonstrating new techniques - for example, jacket foundations in 48m depth (Beatrice demonstration project). If those techniques become standard, and there are several windfarms at that depth, then Beatrice demonstration becomes a historical curiosity, but is arguably no longer notable. Whereas if there are a hundred windfarms planned in the range 50-200MW, then just being over 50MW isn't at all notable. Similarly, if the Top 20 operating plants have (say) capacities of 100-500MW, then if there's one under construction of 1,000MW, then that's notable. And if there's one proposed, and going through consent procedures, that's 9,000MW (Dogger Bank, UK), that's notable too.

The first offshore windfarm for country X might be notable, but it might not. I mean, it is notable from the perspective of that country, but may not be from the perspective of global offshore windfarms. The first offshore wind farm in Africa, or Australasia, would be notable, because then it's a whole continent, rather than just for a country.

Ernestfax^Talk 10:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I firmly believe in keeping current sections separate (operationel, under construction and proposed), if that is what you mean. It seems we all believe that new technologies/conditions should be listed as well - I suggest listing those in a separate, small list as shown in User:TGCP/test, as their purpose is different, and their status is likely to change much more frequently than large operational ones. The number of wind farms under construction is not likely to grow wildly, so that list section will likely be manageble for several years. Opinion mostly seems divided between having a Top20-list or certain capacity, and whether regional differences affect notability. I have started Category:Lists of offshore wind farms by country to promote that aspect. This should be adequate, and I don't think opening the door for a host of other notability issues is the right way to make a useful main list - that should be reserved for the "Other notability"-list. TGCP (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me weigh in again. I think we are making progress toward a consensus that can get us to a better article. Let me comment on several aspects of the discussion above.

1. Re the test page put up by TGCP. I think the User:TGCP/test page is a useful illustration of what the article might morph into. Thanks for doing the work to demonstrate it!
2. That being said, I want us all to be sure we don't lose good article content because of parallel development of two different "forks" in the article, one in the mainspace and one as a test page. Whenever we determine consensus is reached, the new article edits ought to be made using the old mainspace article as the starting point for the changes, as of the date of the determination.
3. I have no fundamental problem with the utilization of some criteria to reduce the list of "all offshore windfarms" to a subset of "all." I don't think we have yet reached a consensus on how such a subset would be determined, and then maintained without excessive wiki-conflict on, for example, which windfarm in multiple non-coordinated sources would take the no. 20 spot (if we agreed on, say, top 20 as the criteria).
4. I think that the addition of a smaller table of "notable" offshore windfarms that may not meet the criteria above is an adequate solution to covering all notable offshore windfarms. Good idea TGCP.
5. The new graph of offshore windfarms by capacity and date is a useful one. To meet WP:V, it will be important to have clear identification of the reliable source from which each date claim and capacity claim is made. I think there may be an easy way to do this, but the work should be done to increase the verifiability of the graphic before it goes into the mainspace.
6. Given that the title of this section on the Talk page is Additional operational offshore windfarms—and that it was initially started merely to point out that there were some wind farms, however small or what some might think would fail a test of sufficient notability—that were not mentioned in the (then) current Wikipedia article, I think it would be useful if someone would concretely "propose" some set of changes in a new Talk page section, so that can be reviewed and consensus developed.

Onward, N2e (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1&2. thanks, testpage is just an example and is not developed.

3. if Top20 or capacity is the only parameter for inclusion, then it is straightforward. Wind farms notable for other reasons than size are simply put in the "Other notables" list.

5. sources are given in the file (.odf), but such a large dataset is not likely to be fully referenced in one place - many places contribute. Lists and other metadata may not need to be referenced; for example, List of symphonies by name and the WP:Featured pictures File:Giant Plane Comparison.jpg does not seem to contain references. WP:V is in conflict with WP:BOLD here, but as all data is referenced in the adjoining articles for our lists, it should not be nescessary to reference each and every data in a mere list. See List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom for an example of a list that is adequately but not fully referenced. I have developed a common template in List of offshore wind farms in Denmark (see entry Horns Rev 1, the others are not yet functional), and referencing ALL data on each line amounts to a lot of work. Alternatively, very few data will occur in a list, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Again, all data is referenced in the associated article. Red links should be fully referenced in the list, though.

6. additional wind farms is a part of the problem - if the number was constant, we would not need to discuss, but we could repeat the discussion in a new topic.

7½. We could also have two list pages! One called "Complete list" for (nearly) all wind farms, the other "Short list" for capacity restricted entry. Either way, "Under construction" and "Proposed" should be with the short list to comply with WP:Article size.

(the edit summary comes from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner ). TGCP (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]
1. Yes, applause and thanks to TGCP for that very helpful illustration, I support that or something very much like it.
2. Agreed - as TGCP says, it's there as an example to illustrate, which it does very well.
3. Definitely useful if we can agree an objective criterion in advance, as a tiebreaker. Can I suggest that if the twentieth spot is tied, the earliest one to be fully commissioned, gets the slot, and later ones fall off the bottom. i.e. list selection is based on a primary criterion of installed capacity (descending, i.e. largest first) and secondary criterion of commissioning date (ascending, i.e. oldest first)
4. Agree to a smaller table of "notable" offshore windfarms that may not meet the criteria above
5. Great chart. 4cOffshore has all of that data, so it's a single verifiable source.
Ernestfax^Talk 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

a problem; 4c seems to be user driven like Wikipedia, at least partly, and users are likely to be commercial. Refs are pretty good though. Watch out Wikipedia, this is a narly competitor - at least we can milk it for refs ;) TGCP (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

About whether the number of wind farms under construction is likely to grow wildly - according to 4c there's at least a couple of dozen heavy-lift vessels (jack-up barges and floating cranes) under construction at the moment, so the industry is gearing up for rapid expansion into 2012. I'd suggest that a 10MW windfarm (with no new technology or technique) under construction isn't notable. It would only be notable if it's big enough to make it into the top 20 Ernestfax^Talk 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a revised article scope

Following on from the discussion in the previous section, I propose that the article be revised as follows:

It no longer attempts to list all offshore windfarms, but instead lists only the notable ones.

I propose that this would consist of the lead, plus four tables, plus "see also" and "references" sections; this structure is derived from the great example by TGCP:

1. Notability for operational windfarms would be determined by being in the top 20 largest operational wind farms in the world. The top 20 is to be determined (as a primary criterion) by installed nameplate capacity. As a tiebreaker (secondary criterion), the date of full commissioning would be used, taking an older windfarm of capacity X to have higher ranking than a newer windfarm with capacity X.
2. Notability for windfarms under construction would be determined by having a planned nameplate capacity that is larger than the installed nameplate capacity of windfarm at position 10 in the operational top 20. i.e. if it was the only windfarm to be newly commissioned today, it would be in the top 10. (position ten, rather than twenty, to keep it manageable, as windfarm size is growing over time, so there could easily be two dozen windfarms under construction, where each of them would on its own merits make it into the top 10)
3. Notability for proposed windfarms is that they have entered a formal stage of seeking consent (planning permission, regulatory approval, public sector approval of some kind), and that their proposed nameplate capacity is larger than the installed nameplate capacity of the windfarm at position 10 in the operational top 20. (i.e. if it was the only windfarm to be newly commissioned today, it would be in the top 10). The rationale for ten rather than 20 is as above, and is stronger, because the list of proposed windfarms will be more changeable than the other lists
4. Notability for other windfarms is that they have some unique distinguishing notable feature. This could be their sea-depth, technology, exceptionally high capacity factor, longevity, installation technique, first to be installed on a particular continent, and so on.

Ernestfax^Talk 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC) edited: Ernestfax^Talk 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. TGCP (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I support in part and withhold support in part, while offering a few comments. I support all of the notability proposal. And I support the main idea of limiting the scope of this list to something less than all windfarms. I continue, however, to think that "top 20" will be a bit hard to manage in the real-world of Wikipedia, with lots of editors happening by long after those of us discussing this today may have moved on to other articles and other interests. I would prefer seeing the article-worthy windfarms be determined by capacity rather than "top 20". I realize this would let the article grow a bit over time, and might therefore come up for reassessment in two or five years, but something like 50 MW (or whatever other number we could get consensus on) does make the windfarm fairly notable for the region it is in (e.g., 50 MW would likely be more than 20 towers, affect local seaborne navigation, provide substantial amount of regional energy, etc.). I also note, if all other commenters in the next 7 to 14 days support "top 20" over capacity, then I too will support the "top 20" scope limitation on the article, but only if the article is also renamed such that "top 20" is a part of the article name. I don't want to mislead wike-readers so think that any "top 20" article should "make the implicit, explicit" right in the article title. My two cents. N2e (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the list should be around 20-30 positions in order to maintain brevity and size reasonable, especially with the 2-3 other lists on the same page. A Top20 name might be partially misleading when the page also includes these other non-20-lists, but I would accept that. A good Top## is Top 20 motor vehicle producing companies, a differrent template could be List of pharmaceutical companies. I do not understand why you see a Top20 list being any harder to manage than a capacity list ? They both operate on the same single parameter. The difference is, the Top20 will always (=most of the time) have the same size, while Cap will need to be discussed every now and then. For regional notability, we have Category:Lists of offshore wind farms by country which could be supplemented by Category:Lists of offshore wind farms by continent .. TGCP (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as I can see that there is a need to limit the lists in order to keep things manageable. However, I wouldn't bother having an Other section, as this really would just clutter the page. And I would also suggest that the Proposed section be kept to a minimum as this is quite speculative. In the Operational section I would try to list at least 25 wind farms, as I think this should be the main list on the page. Johnfos (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent - replying to all four previous replies)
So, errr, does that count as some kind of consensus? Or not? Does it need another round of proposing a format, trying to make everyone happy? Something along the lines of:

• Rename to "Lists of largest 25 and other notable offshore windfarms"
• Top 25 operating windfarms by nameplate capacity
• Top 10 under construction by nameplate capacity
• Top 10 proposed and with official consent, by nameplate capacity
• A shortlist of otherwise globally-superlative offshore windfarms: deepest water, highest capacity factor, oldest operating, first in each continent, first-of-a-kind technology.

Ernestfax^Talk 07:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can entice a few more opinions by posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills ? TGCP (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable now with what Ernest is suggesting. But there is no need to rename the page; simply explain the scope of the article in the lead. If more input is required, I would suggest approaching User:Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

N2e, how do you feel about leaving the page title unchanged, but making it clear in the lead, what the scope of the page is? (it's fine by me) Ernestfax^Talk 03:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with the same name provided that significantly notable wind farms are included, even if not in the top-25. If, on the other hand, it is only the "top whatever", then I believe the page title should reflect that. Excluding the notable (say, newest or "latest" technology) windfarms just because they are not as big as the largest shallow-water, fixed-bottom technology windfarms being built for the past thirty years, will just lead to the creation of yet another variation of list of ... offshore wind farms article, which will (in my opinion) ultimately, after many months and wiki-discussions, get combined into this article. Wikipedia is about notable information, and notable new technologies should not be left out, as I articulated earlier in the Talk page. N2e (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support top 25 existing and top 10 under construction and proposed criteria. Don't support Others section. If necessary, make addition top sections, e.g. top 5 deepest water etc. Beagel (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support top 25 existing and top 10 under construction and proposed criteria, while I don't support a generic "Others" section, I do think it is necessary to have another section for strongly notable wind farms like the early (but smaller in size) floating-turbine-technology deep-water wind farms (for example) that may not fit the largest capacity criteria. My rationale is explained in the previous section, Additional operational offshore windfarms, in a comment by me dated 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC). Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Partly support; top 25 operational is OK, but top 10 under construction is not a good method. The problem is when a wind farm under construction moves to operational e.g. Rødsand II, the top 10 requires me to hunt for another 10th biggest wind farm under construction to refill that list. I find that under construction should have all projects that are larger than smallest project in operational list. This means that the under construction list will potentially be longer for now, but as the average size of operational wind farms grows over the coming years the under construction list will limit itself. Likewise for proposed list. --Rif42 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - I see your point. We should have at least one farm, under construction larger than the smallest operational, ready for inclusion at all times, either visible or commented out. TGCP (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent again) Proposed revised version: User:Ernestfax/test5 I've removed stuff from the lede that belongs on a page that discusses offshore wind farms generally, rather than on this list page. Any comments? Shall I transfer that, to the live "List of Offshore Wind Farms" page? Ernestfax^Talk 14:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with only one exception. The five listed in the top 25 that have no source should be removed, and the five next largest for which we have reliable secondary sources should be added to the list. If the five removed are later sourced, they will of course be added to the list and the smaller ones (then would be smaller than no. 25) would be removed. Per Wikipedia core policy of WP:V, we should certainly not be including any items to the top 25 list that are unsourced. N2e (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a comment in the page source to the effect that references are required only for "red links", which I took to mean only those windfarms that don't have their own wikipedia page. The 5 you're referring to all have their own wikipedia page. If necessary, someone can copy over the references from those pages to that table. If it's a dealbreaker for consensus, I'll try to find time to do it, but if anyone else wants to help, then please please do. Ernestfax^Talk 07:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way to do it. Wikipedia specifically disallows the citation of other Wikipedia articles as a source for claims in another article; it is in core policy WP:V. So the point is, for any claims an editor wants to be stable long-term (i.e., left alone, able to withstand verifiability challenges) in a Wikipedia article, the editor making the assertions should ensure that each claim is backed up by a reliable source. N2e (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - refs will be provided. Work and attention should be directed at contributing refs rather than removing content, particularly when refs are this easy. The existence and size of blue link wind farms may be like saying Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic, so contrary to my earlier statements about lists, Wikipedia:List#Listed_items do require each claim to be referenced. Blue link is simply a pointer to where to easily copy a reference from within that article. Further claims can simply be omitted until referenced, rather than deleting the whole wind farm entry. TGCP (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is only a link to another article, with no claims beyond the blue link, then I agree: it would not need a citation. But if an assertion is made like "350 MW" or "one of the top 25 wind farms by capacity", then the claim should be cited, even in an article that is mostly a list. I agree however that the citation question need not hold up a consensus on the article scope. I was just answering Ernestfax's question about whether his sandbox project was ready to go. N2e (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1