Talk:Energy accounting software

Not a speedy
Engineman is a well-known WP editor in the energy area, although perhaps he is a little reluctant at times with citations. Please allow him the opportunity to improve this article on a potentially important topic. I and other editors will be on the lookout for any spam links that may be added here. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, as long as we have someone to blame if the article goes all to hell :) I'm declining the speedy, but this article could use some work.  I deleted the text that was in the  template; it said: "This article cites several manufacturers and no doubt others will be added by other users.  The EnergyCap article is a quite blatant piece of promoting one manufacturer." - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys - why is it not appropriate to start a list of vendors - there are many, and i thought we could add a table showing the various attribute of each?

The entry on gas engines mentions the various vendors - and the reference below gives 3 vendors but is rather out of date?

cheers \engineman Engineman (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of many small vendors with links to their websites is likely to appear as spam to many editors. But a table about the major vendors would be more encyclopedic, especially if supported by third party citations. Perhaps the ideal approach would be to select a few of the major vendors and start a stub article on them, and then they could appear in the Table here as a wikilink, which would attest to their notability. cheers Johnfos (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

merge
sodrry about not discussing this.....it seems to me, as an ex user of utitility billing software that it is a distinct stand alone item. The key is its ability to make sure a) the bill data is correctb) they utility have worked out the bill correctly all of which is far more complicated than it sounds.

All sorts of other things can be bolted on to this, such as monitoring and targetting, but for many users - such as water companies, steel works, refineries and so on this is irrelevant - they just want to know the bill is correct.Engineman (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When I proposed the merge I started this discussion over at Talk:Energy management software. For the moment I will respond here, but might be cleaner (if you don't object) if we cut and paste this discussion over to there - just so it is all together for the record, and in case others join in.


 * I agree that energy accounting software appears to be a proper subset of energy management software. Energy management software could have elements of control, which accounting software would not.
 * My point was, rather than having lots of teeny articles, which duplicate material and haven't evolved much in a year or more, it makes sense at this time to combine the articles. Combining will reduce duplication of content, mean fewer articles for editors to watch, less for readers to browse (since they don't know until they get here that the article is just another stub).
 * Once the article on energy managment software (or its subsections on energy accounting software) grow sufficiently, then splitting out energy accounting software might make sense (or maybe split on other lines - whatever makes sense then).
 * I think it makes sense that in a merged article, energy accounting be maintained as a subsection of energy management software. The merge I did (though it needed some polishing) maintained that structure.  Zodon (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)