Talk:Wind power in Italy

Not relevant and distracting info
editor has removed the following statement: “...having been overtaken by France and Canada (10,293 megawatts and 11,205 megawatts of installed capacity, end 2015).”, see diff. What is not relevant and distracting about that ? In 2013 Italy was seventh in rank; information of who and how much has overtaken Italy is relevant and interesting. And if you are Italian, it could also be useful to Italian readers to evaluate how Italy is performing. Hiding the dust under the carpet is not wise. --Robertiki (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not hiding anything. I removed a sentence that in my opinion is not relevant. The fact that Italy is ranked 9th is. What does it mean to say that it was "overtaken" by France and Canada? Is it a race? And without any mention of when. Probably in the bigger picture Italy was "overtaken" many other times by other countries and overtook others still? Is it really important anyway? I don't think so. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a race. Otherwise, what is a ranking list ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, the following statements, are not relevant ?

On 15 May 1991, Italy became the fourth worldwide economic power, overcoming France, called the "secondo sorpasso" with a GDP of US$1.268 trillion, compared to France's GDP of US$1.209 trillion and Britain's of US$1.087 trillion. Despite this, however, Italy's alleged, according to the Economist's, 1987 GDP growth of a phenomenal 18%,

--Robertiki (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are rankings doesn't make it a race. Deployment of renewable energy is highly dependent on government decisions, economic situation, geographical characteristics etc. Rankings are just an overview of the world situation, for perspective. In this case, I don't think that reporting every overtake with details on other countries' total capacity in the lead section adds anything to the article; I think it is actually distracting. Maybe this kind of detail is better suited for a History section. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a understanding quirk: what is, in your own words, a "race" and a "ranking list" ? I have never seen a ranking list without competition. Anyway, I may take your suggestion for a history section. --Robertiki (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)