Talk:Gas initially in place

Linkages
- you seem to be someone who cares about how information connects meaningfully and directly. I do the same with knowledge (we can make that distinction another time maybe). This article is a stub and may well remain as such, being the explanation of an acronym commonly used in the oil & gas sector (GIIP) but commonly misunderstood by those outside. But perhaps creating stubs is not the best way to achieve this - the number of links will grow as the subject gets deeper penetration. I am not a Wikipedia expert but my aims are sincere and I would like to be doing this the best way. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * - For what little it may be worth, I do understand the very real differences between, amongst other things, data, information, knowledge and understanding. It has been an integral part of my professional life. Tagging this article as an orphan was not a criticism, simply an invitation to others to search our appropriately linked articles. I do however have some reservations about the article that I was going to raise in the future if it wasn't substantially improved. At present it is little more than a dictionary definition of an acronym. Wikipedia does not maintain dictionary definitions as articles. I am also concerned about the capitalisation of the title which only appears to be in title case to match up with the acronym. I suspects that this, and other similar articles, might best be dealt with by the existing articles that lists the acronyms in the oil industry. I do also have issues with [[WP:COI in one of the articles that you have been working on where you have made it clear that there have been contributions from members of a professional society. However, those members do not appear to have made a COI declaration as required. I will address this on the relevant page, but you may wish to anticipate my next posting by ensuring that those declarations are in place. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - it is nothing more than a dictionary definition of an acronym (I took my cue from Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) as an entry but I will de-capitalise as you suggest because it appears to not be best practice even for acronyms. I do think this article does have scope for improvement (as does EUR) for those with the content knowledge to pitch in.  I also agreed that it could be folded in another article but having examined candidates (I have the content knowledge), they don't yet exist.  It is also (guilty admission here) a convenient way for me to be able to insert GIIP and allow people to hover over it without cluttering the narrative flow with a prosaic definition - again... perhaps not best practice (maybe better as a footnote to maintain flow).  I suspect you and I could have interesting discussions about "data, information, knowledge and understanding" (I share the passion) but that is another red-thread... Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)