Talk:PlusEnergy

Style Clean-Up
Hi - I'd like to do style clean-up on this article to make it more encyclopaedic by complying with WP:MOS, WP:STYLE --gilgongo (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I've done a first pass to strip out (most) of the jargon and the more obvious self-promotion. Also done a bit of re-structuring. The article still lacks a ton of citations though, so that's the next thing. --gilgongo (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger would be an overkill. PlusEnergy is mostly associated with Rolf Disch, while Energy-Plus is more common term, also widely used by The American National Institute of Building Sciences. Both entries should stay. (46.251.117.205 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC))

Redirect from Rolf Disch
I'd suggest a redirect from the page Rolf Disch to PlusEnergy instead of having the entire PEnergy article pasted in it. If there aren't any objections I'll go ahead and delete the copy/paste part on the Disch article. As with all things Disch, there still seems to be an obvious lack of NPOV and an overall advertising language as gilgongo has remarked before. I wonder if the length of the article Plusenergy is justified as it does not have any external sources. It is clearly a breach with (WP:PEA),(WP:AWW),(WP:RHT),(WP:SELFPUB),(WP:NOTADVERTISING). Removing all such language seems important, as well as the unrequired mulitple references to projects by Disch's own office. After all there's the page Energy-plus-house which is far more general and not an attempt to advertise a brand concept by Rolf Disch. Frankly, after stumbling upon the first Disch page yesterday I've found myself in this web of these laudatory self-referential articles and I am not happy about it. The hijacking of wikipedia for advertising purposes is clearly annoying to any reader. Best --Kurt.Klienmann (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge
It seems to me like this is just one person's term for the much broader concept of Energy-plus-house, should we consider merging this article into a section on that one? Or is this specific term for the idea notable on its own? - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but the way I understand it, the two are slightly different terms for the same concept, with a slightly different definition to match. Given that they cover such similar topics and neither article explains the differences, I'm for merging. Googol30 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)