Talk:List of onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom

List of cancelled projects
I think we should have a section on this page to list those that did not go ahead, for example because of planning permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.39.200 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. At the moment it appears impossible to keep the page current: this proposal would make that situation much worse. Maybe that would be a separate list if and only if an enthusiastic maintainer stepped up, or maybe it should not exist. Either way I cannot see a home for it here unless something were hugely to change. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How to update this page?
Well this list which is "current up to October 2010" is now badly out-of-date. There's about 240 wind farms in this list, but the equivalent list as of January 2015 would probably be at least 500, and the number is still growing. Is there any prospect of anyone trying to update this list, and also maintain it? I notice many of the "website" links in the righthand column are now dead links. The List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom is easy to maintain since offshore windfarms are large and few in number, but I don't know how to update or maintain this list without a lot of work. One option might be to cut it down to just the larger windfarms. Pasicles (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed: by capacity, not country! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Capacity discrepancy
This page (at the bottom of the presented table) states that the capacity of on-shore wind farms in the UK is 3679.68 megawatts. Another page in Wikipedia (in the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Specific_regions ) gives the value 9,512 megawatts. There is therefore an unacceptable discrepancy between the two Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.124.51 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Table can't be sorted by date
Hello. I'm no longer a regular on wikipedia, so I'm not going to get involved with this myself, but I suggest you remove the month from the date of commissioning column. Currently the table can't be sorted by date because February 2018 appears before October 2016, but after April 2020. 94.133.155.83 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ good spot, ta. The joy of all things (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Going forward
This article is huge, hard to view and harder to edit when it takes so long to resolve. I have proposals, see what you think, keep criticism constructive and don't steal my Mars Bars!
 * I think we should spin these off/fork/split into the four relevant countries. With the new dash for windfarms and renewables, this can only get larger. Suggest the UK list be kept to those which have the greatest generating capacity, or which have more than say 16 turbines?
 * We have three columns detailing ownership, operator and developer. I suggest only keeping Operator, as that is usually EDF, Eon, npower etc - IE ones who have actual linkable articles. Quite often the developer is not a linkable company, and the finer details of those who developed the wind farm can be kept in the ones that actually have articles.
 * I also suggest removing the websites column and replacing with citations. Many of the permanent dead links are because the developer/operator/owner website has been superseded/bought out/gone bankrupt etc. A news article stating it opened in 2004, is better, IMHO.

Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that these proposals from are very reasonable and I applaud the work that you have already done on the list. It is clearly a maintenance nightmare and I do worry about its future, whilst agreeing that anything we can do to streamline its content and upkeep can only be a good thing. I only popped in to look at it because I was wondering exactly how many turbines are on the moorland site (or sites, as it turned out!) above North Charlton in Northumberland as we have ongoing family arguments about the total! Given that the machines have been there quite a while I was astonished that we have no listing for them. So purely from the point of view of a Clueless Dropper-In, of course I would welcome an approach to updating it, if we have the enthusiasm too.
 * I definitely won't steal your Mars Bars, indeed I think you deserve extra for all that you have done. Amusingly, again with my Local Concern/Selfishness hat on, I notice that a 16-turbine limit, if strictly enforced, would still not have helped me – the 28 machines up there (27 on the 1:50,000 and 28 on the 1:25,000 and IRL, go figure) are, it turns out, really an 18 at Middlemoor and a (newer?) 10 at Wandylaw, though they are pretty near touching. I wonder if we are likely to get other examples of this where it might be worth considering bending the rule to allow for a consolidated-looking site ... if only just to shut up whingers like me? Seriously, of course I am not trying to say you MUST address my issue here but rather that I have maybe accidentally stumbled on something which could be a slightly broader problem. Or not.
 * Whatever is decided, it is still good progress! If Wandylaw were indeed to end up ignored it might be annoying for a few pub quiz questions but no-one would die. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , ; as the most recent contributors, any thoughts on the above? I propose splitting the article as per Spin out due to the readable prose size being 635 bytes. Spin out recommends anything over 100 bytes should be spun out into different articles. The guideline does say "The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." However, each country has a sortable table, which I assume (conceitedly) that each will grow with wind power being one of the renewables that the UK Government is proposing. Thanks all and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. Correction: the recommendation in "spin out" refers to 100 kilobytes, not 100 bytes. In terms of prose size, this article is tiny, and doesn't need to be split up.
 * 2. I agree that the article needs to be cut down so that it is possible to maintain it. How you cut it down depends on the thoughts of whoever is planning to maintain it. However my suggestion would be to introduce a minimum size for inclusion, so that only notable installations are included.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and that'll teach me to read through things twice over in future! Aaargh. That's not embarrassing whatsoever. The joy of all things (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)