Talk:Integrated Resource Plan

Removal of opening paragraph
@Pabsoluterince I'd like you to please give your reasoning with removing the opening paragraph. I sourced from the refs, but I didn't copy wholesale. Why was this removed? Thanks Maqdisi (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am currently writing a reply on your talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing
Okay, thank you for that. It seems I have trouble with one other thing, which is stating goals or statistics: "affordable power, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased water use, varied electrical generation sources". This could be in a bullet point form, but it can't be summarised without infringing, as this is the stated goals of the plan. The same goes for "procured a total of 6 422 MW, with 3 876 MW operational and available to the grid. Independent Power Producers have commissioned 1 005 MW" Maqdisi (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Maqdisi. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do this at some point. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is looking good now, well done. If you still need any help, just ask. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources.
This page could use some. A quick google search found these.
 * 1) https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/energy-efficiency/big-holes-emerge-in-sas-integrated-resource-plan-for-electricity/
 * 2) https://ndcpartnership.org/case-study/south-africa%E2%80%99s-integrated-resource-plan
 * 3) https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/integrated-resource-plan-2019-where-here
 * 4) https://theconversation.com/south-africas-new-energy-plan-has-sparked-strong-emotions-heres-why-69383
 * 5) https://theconversation.com/south-africas-future-energy-mix-wind-solar-and-coal-but-no-nuclear-111106
 * 6) https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-a-new-energy-plan-but-will-it-break-the-bank-69302
 * 7) https://www.climate-laws.org/geographies/south-africa/policies/integrated-resource-plan

Feel free to remove any that you don't like and such. Or simply ignore if not helpful! Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that this article be split into two articles, |Integrated Resource Plan (South Africa) and Integrated Resource Plan (energy planning), as they are used around the world for energy planning. See section in Energy planning. Phosphoreux (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current situation is inconvenient: a generic term leads to an article on one particular instance. I support the change with an exception of the names. The Integrated resource plan (un-capitalized) IMO shall describe the generic term Integrated resource plan (disambiguation) shall point to both articles, as "integrated resource plan" is just a term for planning of capacity in advance in the non-deregulated markets. There is not much to split, the generic-term-article needs to be written practically from scratch. --Викидим (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that you would be able to do the split yourself; do you have any plan for content that would be WP:UNDUE to add at Energy Planning? If not, one could also make a disambiguation article between this page and the section in Energy planning. Felix QW (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that we have a consensus here, so I have started an Integrated resource planning article (there is nothing generic here to be split h, IMHO). Once it reaches a point of a full-blown stub, we can discuss rearrangement of the names. Викидим (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your efforts! I'd say just go for it, redirect Integrated resource plan to Integrated resource planning and add a hatnote. The capitalised title can stay here, and also get a hatnote. Felix QW (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Викидим (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)