This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This needs to be pointed out. It is NOT true that 5% of power generated in California is wind generated. California only reaches 5% if you include power purchased from other states. You can look at the EIA Electric Power Monthly and you will see that instate Wind generation is not 5% of total instate generation. The reports that 5% of power in california comes from wind ALL eventually source to the reference I've cited, which states that that includes power purchased from other states (in the fine print). This caveat needs to be included here to avoid being POV. --Aflafla1 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
From the wiki style manual
Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy.
I can't see a real purpose for including data that's fairly old. The charts give an idea of how the production varies in a year. More than two or three year's worth don't really provide more insight. --74.38.72.190 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Trends are important, and cannot be derived from just 3 years of data. I'm sorry but this is not a large data table by Wikipedia's standards in any way.GliderMaven (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Too much statistical data is against policy.Reply
Trends of seasonal variation can be seen in the two or three years of montly data. Overall time trend information is still in the chart of energy growth.
.jpg){kind=small}
