Talk:Thorntonbank Wind Farm

Nice Advert And Opinion Piece
But none of the so called "facts" are cited properly and looks to me written by the company itself. Time for a bit of a rewrite methinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.16.114 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Reliable sources are needed. The primary sources, C-power and RWE, even disagree on the number of turbines in Phases 2 and 3, although the total number is the same. TGCP (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thorntonbank Wind Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730111220/http://www.repower.de/press/press-releases/detail-press/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=8109&cHash=071ef77c45bd3f13dc55372ca3c95111 to http://www.repower.de/press/press-releases/detail-press/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=8109&cHash=071ef77c45bd3f13dc55372ca3c95111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thornton Bank
The article is incorrectly named. It should be Thornton Bank. It is clear that the creator was a Dutch speaker and made the common mistake of joining the two words. I propose renaming the article. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it looks to me that it is known as Thorntonbank. From the company: . And also this one (I can't read the language, but it is referred to exclusively as "Thorntonbank") peterl (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Fake Picture?


This edit by User:Omnissiahs hierophant seems to have been a good-faith edit that added what is almost certainly a fake picture. The earth's curvature is not that extreme. I'm not sure if what it's actually depicting is some kind of tidal swell, or if it's simply a complete forgery. I came across this page because Neil deGrass Tyson apparently shared the image on Facebook, which prompted a discussion as to whether it was real or not. A reverse Google Image Search led here, and so before I remove it entirely I'd like to see if anybody more knowledgable about this windfarm has any more rational explanation. Wclark (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Followup: Some helpful analysis from the folks on Reddit showed how the photograph could indeed be plausibly real, though it depends on some assumptions that a pretty powerful telephoto lens was used, introducing some significant distortion into the perspective.  It's probably still misleading to use it as evidence of the Earth's curvature, but it does not seem to be fake. Wclark (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But you can not just delete stuff because it does not fit into your worldview. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not a flat-eather.  I'm saying that the picture looked doctored, because the curvature was far too extreme.  It turns out the distortion is more likely due to a high-powered telephoto lens causing the windmills to look much closer together than they actually are.  It's a bad example of showing the curvature of the earth, because of that.  Wclark (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. But does it have to be a photograph taken using a normal camera without very large zoom? Without a special zoom they would barely be visible. Its not like this article is technical about photographs. I found it on the flat earth article and thought it also belonged here, because its simply a really nice photo, with the wind mills lower part being hidden like that. Do you still want to delete the picture? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no I was only originally suggesting that it be deleted because it appeared doctored at first look (so much so that somebody asked about it on the r/Physics subreddit, which was where I originally saw it) but after some research that uncovered just how far offshore those windmills are, and the apparently high level of zoom that distorted the perspective so much, folks there were able to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations that made it seem more plausible.
 * It seems far more likely it's just an unusual -- but authentic -- photo. I'm still not sure it's the best example of showing the curvature of the Earth (it makes it seem far too extreme) but at most that would warrant some kind of explanation in the caption, not outright removal.  And since the article is about the windfarm and not the curvature of the planet, this use here probably doesn't even warrant such a disclaimer in the caption.
 * If anybody does end up caring, they'll hopefully just see this thread on the talk page and can chime in here, at some future point.
 * My concern was more that it was a fake picture that exaggerated the curvature, and was meant to "troll" people. That doesn't seem to be the case.  Wclark (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, the description with calculations belong in the Flat Earth-article or maybe the Spherical Earth-article, I think. As long as the picture is not doctored, or fake, it is just a nice beautiful picture of the Thorntonbank wind mill farm, and can remain here in this article, without much more explanation. In 99.9% of the cases people accept that the earth is a ball, and that it is a ball needs no explanation in an article about a wind mill farm :) OFF TOPIC: The earth is a ball, not a sphere, as it is filled with rocks and metals - it is not just a surface, which is implied by calling the earth a sphere.. but whatever.. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)