Talk:Geothermal power in the United Kingdom

Requested move
I propose to move this article to Geothermal power in the United Kingdom to be in line with country specific series. Beagel (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. 'Geothermal power in the United Kingdom' would be more accurate here, as '..in Britain' would exclude Northern Ireland, which I don't think is intended. Terraxos (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been moved from Geothermal power in Britain to Geothermal power in the United Kingdom -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close – Please debate individual cases. — JFG talk 06:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

– Geothermal energy is not only used to produce electric power, but may also directly provide heating and cooling, often in conjunction. Many of these articles already primarily refer to "Geothermal energy", and go on to describe projects that are not limited to the production of electric power. All in all, the titles should follow the content, but should also provide the appropriate scope to discuss the whole topic. If there's more to say specifically about geothermal power production in a country, the article may be split at a later point. Note that the associated categories have also been nominated for a rename, which in principle should happen anyway, but optimally in conjunction with the main articles. -- PanchoS (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Geothermal power in the United Kingdom → Geothermal energy in the United Kingdom
 * Geothermal power in Australia → Geothermal energy in Australia
 * Geothermal power in Canada → Geothermal energy in Canada
 * Geothermal power in Chile → Geothermal energy in Chile
 * Geothermal power in China → Geothermal energy in China
 * Geothermal power in Denmark → Geothermal energy in Denmark
 * Geothermal power in El Salvador → Geothermal energy in El Salvador
 * Geothermal power in Germany → Geothermal energy in Germany
 * Geothermal power in Iceland → Geothermal energy in Iceland
 * Geothermal power in Indonesia → Geothermal energy in Indonesia
 * Geothermal power in Italy → Geothermal energy in Italy
 * Geothermal power in Japan → Geothermal energy in Japan
 * Geothermal power in Kenya → Geothermal energy in Kenya
 * Geothermal power in New Zealand → Geothermal energy in New Zealand
 * Geothermal power in the Philippines → Geothermal energy in the Philippines
 * Geothermal power in Portugal → Geothermal energy in Portugal
 * Geothermal power in Romania → Geothermal energy in Romania
 * Geothermal power in Russia → Geothermal energy in Russia
 * Geothermal power in Turkey → Geothermal energy in Turkey
 * Strongly oppose. particularly the moving en masse. I agree that there is more than geothermal power, but if a article starts with a specific topic (as power) it should be preferable a split or a new general article that links to the older, more specific, article. I find that moves are somehow disruptive of the article cronology, so they should be kept as a minimum. Anyway, the moves should be discussed on a case per case basis. Why change topic to Geothermal power in El Salvador, Geothermal power in Indonesia, Geothermal power in Italy, Geothermal power in Kenya, Geothermal power in the Philippines, Geothermal power in Portugal ? If a editor has created and mantains an article about geothermal power why should we change the topic ? Instead, create a new article (or split, if there is some content) about geothermal energy and place a link to the more specific, existent article about geothermal power. --Robertiki (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not just "more" than geothermal electricity (a.k.a. power), direct usage of geothermal energy for heating is by far the older technique but still is at least as widespread, if not the globally dominating usage, including a split in the U.S. (see Geothermal energy, Geothermal energy in the United States (sic!) and this 2015 report). Furthermore, all articles I saw, certainly including Geothermal power in Canada, China, Iceland, or in the United Kingdom, to name a few, aren't restricted to geothermal electricity, but go on to describe direct heating and combined projects. Articles even explicitly refer to "Geothermal energy" and/or cite sources that say "geothermal energy" rather than "geothermal electricity". The word power is a bit ambiguous, so is sometimes interchangeably used with energy, an ambiguity that is certainly not worth preserving. Finally, there's not a single really comprehensive, good article that would come close to allowing a WP:CONSPLIT, let alone a WP:SIZESPLIT. And if you're really concerned about page histories, then splitting articles is disruptive, not expanding their scope. And regarding the precious work of the authors, splitting a small article into even smaller stubs is what might be considered disruptive, not keeping the article intact. --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the US split should be merged/resolved. Sorry, but general statistical evaluation don't justify changing name of a article with only info about power plants. Where only content is about heating, I agree for the name move (but only because heating usually has spare info so not to merit a split). About "geothermal electricity" is not usual english language (more as german or italian translation), you should use "geothermal power" where electricity is the end product. What are your meanings of "power" ? From a english stand point there are no doubts: Power station, see third type. --Robertiki (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehm, yes. Geothermal electricity is no proper English. Not that I'm proposing to rename any of these to "electricity", but just saying. Let's wait for others to weigh in. --PanchoS (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Geothermal energy in the United States should be moved to Geothermal power in the United States. --Robertiki (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing to support only the present article move, which has no info about geothermal power plants in UK (wrong name from the start). --Robertiki (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the only one with a wrong title, but thanks for reconsidering. :) --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As said, I prefer a case per case talk. --Robertiki (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just created, as an example, Geothermal energy in Italy with a link to Geothermal power in Italy. A editor has only to describe the geothermal resources of a country to create an acceptable stub where the original geothermal power article was a complete and article only about elecriticiy production. No split, but a new article, new topic. As said, every case is different. --Robertiki (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

CN¥
 * Comment (consider this procedural): Geothermal electricity has been moved to Geothermal power per RM. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)