Talk:Wind power

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wind power article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 2 months

Wind power was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
November 10, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Environment: Sustainability High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

Energy Top‑importance

	Energy portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Mills High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wind turbine was copied or moved into Wind power with this edit on 17 August 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Intermittent power sources#Terminology|dispatchable]] The anchor (Terminology) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Should the "Impact on environment and landscape" section be moved to lead of main article and excerpted back here?[edit]

That would have the advantage it would be less work to keep up to date I guess - for example I might trim it slightly and add a couple of sentences specifically about offshore Chidgk1 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't see anything in the section that needs constantly updated? I also disagree that the section needs trimmed. It's already one of the shortest in the article and is concise, relevant and well-sourced. So it's already a snippet of the main article, which is much longer. ~Asarlaí 13:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I did not mean to make it shorter in the long run but to trim a bit to add new info. Originally the info was in 3 places but I recently combined the lead of the main article with Environmental_impact_of_electricity_generation#Wind_power As offshore wind power is growing so fast nowadays I feel the emphasis should be a little more on the offshore to keep it relevant - for example presumably there will be research on whether floating is more environmentally friendly than concrete-based which can first be detailed in the body of the main article and then summarized in the lead. So I think it would be good for those kind of updates to automatically come through here. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome more info being added, but I don't think info needs to be removed first - the numbers could be trimmed however. Offshore wind power might be growing, but the article says there is much more on-land wind power right now, so we should focus slightly more on that. ~Asarlaí 08:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else got an opinion for or against excerpting? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asarlaí Not sure if your "I disagree" above is about excerpting or changing the content. I just noticed the content is also in Wind_farm#Impact_on_environment_and_landscape - so are you and others now in favor or opposed to excerpting? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Environmental+impact+of+wind+power&namespace=&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 that Johnfos did the first of the 4 excerpts back in 2011 - anyone else got any thoughts on whether it should also be excerpted here? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

moved to the lead of the main article and excerpted back here - as the lead of the main article is now excerpted to 5 articles including this one it should be easier to keep up to date there rather than in the 5 articles Chidgk1 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper - above is the discussion - would you like me to explain in more detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I don't see a consensus for your cuts, though? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to cut anything - the idea is to avoid having to do future updates in so many different places. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stop using excerpts for mainspace pages. It's generally bad practice and lowers the quality of articles. So I am definitely against this change --Ita140188 (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that way back in the 2000s (perhaps before the "excerpt" template was created) an enthusiastic editor duplicated this info in several places.

The excerpting of this info was started back in 2011 by @Johnfos and I think he did right. I am not sure how many duplications of the info there were in his time but when I started not long ago there were 5 or 6. Now it is down to 2 as far as I know.

I find it tedious to try and keep the info up to date in 2 different places and I suspect future editors will too. So I feel that this excerpt would increase the quality of the articles as I and hopefully others will be more motivated to keep the info up to date. For example I added a sentence about underwater noise to the lead of the main article and I am not sure I can be bothered to repeat that edit here or keep them both up to date in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request, Broken Link[edit]

There is a broken link on the "External links" section on the IEA's Dynamic Data Dashboard. It has been moved to a new domain which can be found here: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/renewables-2021-data-explorer?mode=market&region=World&publication=2021&product=Total

Could someone with access please update this? ~~ EnergyAnalyst2 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not able to update this article yourself? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in requesting these edits that I seem to have gained access to edit them, I will correct that! Thanks for pointing it out. EnergyAnalyst2 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should non-electricity be in History section?[edit]

@Ita140188 You tagged because “The article seems to be exclusively about producing electricity from wind power, but then history section talks about windmills and sails” so you think that should be removed from history? Or if not what do you suggest? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be removed from history and the page on history of wind power would explain it only. More can be included on the development of the electricity producing wind turbine over time and what companies were involved on the Wind Power page history section. Also, should the definition be revised to Wind Power is the process of generating energy from the wind as apposed to useful work? (the short description of the article is about producing electricity) Just my thoughts. Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(or people involved) Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep the information about historical use of wind power, but we need to be explicit from the lead that this article only deals with electricity production. The history section should then reflect this, briefly talking about pre-electricity uses but then focusing on the history of wind power for electricity production (which is mostly what it already does actually) --Ita140188 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have excerpted - feel free to revert and solve the problem your way if you prefer Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No legitimate source for the claim that Hammurabi had a plan to use wind power[edit]

I was interested in the information that Hammurabi might have used wind power and tried to find more details only to discover that every reference I found about this (on Wikipedia or otherwise) ultimately cites the 1976 book The Generation of electricity by wind power by E. Golding which has a single throwaway line about it and which itself only cites The Story of the Rotor by Anton Flettner from 1926, which has a single throwaway line with no source whatsoever.

the Golding book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Generation_of_Electricity_by_Wind_Po/lRojAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Hammurabi

the Flettner book: https://books.google.com/books?id=W99NAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&vq=hammurabi&dq=flettner%20the%20story%20of%20the%20rotor&pg=PA95#v=snippet&q=hammurabi&f=false

I have only just created an account to post this and can't edit the page myself since it's protected, but it seems to me that this information has no real source and should be removed? If so can someone with access remove it? Minovi (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]