Talk:Ervia

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

Attn 83.70.162.24 / 83.71.71.208 / 83.70.165.202 / 83.70.218.144[edit]

We seem to be getting into a revert war. I am open to discussion of a better version. Please post here. --Cavrdg 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Irish Water[edit]

Irish Water is going to be in the news every day, and will be for some considerable time. I think now is the time for the split off to a main article in Irish Water... Hard Irish Water (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. While I'd normally be inclined to agree, I would note that, until last week, (when I added it) despite the fact that Irish Water has been national news for some years, there wasn't a single line in this article about it. So I'm not sure that there is huge impetus for a split. Also, norms on splitting would suggest that there should be a little more content before splitting. (Otherwise the resultant article would be very thin). In any event, whenever the split occurs, we should be careful to use reliable third-party sources (on this, the split article, or any other article for that matter). I note this because some of the content that you added seems to read like opinion or editorial. I guess that you're relatively new to the project, but the following content in particular is somewhat problematic under guidelines for tone, NPOV and sources:
While having laudable positions on fairness and affordability, neither Irish Water nor the CER have considered the total cost of consumption of the water products that are proposed for sale, or at least have not published any analysis of the cost of consumption.
Saying that anything is "laudable" is an opinion. Who's opinion is this? Also, do we have a cite to support the assertion that they haven't considered costs? Or done or published any analysis? (I suspect you're right, but we can't just because it's true doesn't mean we're excused from needing supporting cites).
It is clear that to understand both fairness and affordability, one has to understand total costs incurred in consuming the product.
This especially reads like an opinion or editorial. Unless it is presented or clarified whose opinion this is (with a cite confirming who expressed that opinion and its relevance), then it can't really stand as it is. The stuff about the regulatory controls is OK. (But again could do with a cite). Guliolopez (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

A recent series of edits sought to bring this article up-to-date (which is probably a good thing). However, the approach wasn't inline with guidelines. Specifically, much of the new and updated content was copy/pasted verbatim from the [company http://www.bordgais.ie/corporate/aboutus website]. (We simply cannot do this.) In addition, some of the "history" content was removed without explanation. (Not sure why the content on deregulation wouldn't be relevant). Given the WP:COPYVIO issues, I've had to put everything "back" the way it was. If updates are required, then we should make them directly and in-line (and without wholesale "copy and paste" of content from other sources). Would suggest that, if there are any problem or "out of date" sections, we identify them here, and talk about the best way of addressing. Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per my note on a user's talkpage, and possibly because I hadn't clearly signposted my previous note here on the article talkpage, the COPYVIO material was readded. Unfortunately I've had to remove it again. While the article can undoubtedly (as I note above) be improved, it isn't appropriate to make those corrections or improvements by copying content from other and copyrighted sources. If there are small corrections to be made (like brand names, dates or incorporation status notes that are no longer up-to-date), then these can probably be addressed directly. However, if there are bigger issues to address (or for some reason it is felt that large sections of the article are to be excised - as was the case in some of these edits), then these should likely be discussed. Certainly if there are any "close association" issues to be considered and balanced. Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ervia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ervia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ervia&oldid=1201801399"