Talk:Wind power in New Zealand

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wind power generation in New Zealand (2007) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wind power in New Zealand. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

I added a mention of New Zealand's outstanding wind resources. I also edited the references to use {{

The article appears to have advanced beyond stub class, so I called it start class, and removed the stub templates. I can't imagine anyone would argue with that ... but I've been wrong before. --Teratornis (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we include the wind turbine in the Antarctic? It is an NZ initiative but I unsure if is on NZ territory.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this initiative? It's definitely in the Ross Dependency (the turbines will be on Ross Island), so I think we probably should cover it here. Maybe we should also have a Wind power in Antarctica page. There seems to be plenty of material (see e.g comments 4-5 here.) -- Avenue (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that a section in this article is sufficient at this stage. I don't think it warrants its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te Uku has now been completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiwifish (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list on this page is at variance with the list at

I agree it would be better to only have one list. The List of power stations in New Zealand has the other types of generation (geothermal, fossil, etc), and it would be inconsistent to have just the wind list on a separate page. Which means either making separate list pages for each type of generation, or continuing with the all in one approach.--Pakaraki (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps amalgamating the list at List of power stations in New Zealand for now, and split out separate lists if that becomes too unwieldy? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach.--Pakaraki (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the statement in the banner for "merge" as recorded in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wind_power_generation_in_New_Zealand_(2007) the section has been expunged by user Ita140188 in November 2017. This section is the only one giving actual operating results (for 2007) of actual wind farms in New Zealand. Possibly, in upholding orthodoxy, the editor had neither read the discussion, nor using common sense and its related links. If the section is to be expunged, ought not the associated image files (or graphs) go as well? Or should the "merge" decision be reinstated? NickyMcLean (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OR and non encyclopedic. The discussion was 3 merge against 3 delete. Consensus was not clear at all. Also the discussion was from 2012 and the problems were not resolved after 5 years. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for not activating a link for your user name: I'm unfamiliar with the procedure. Like this? ping - that took me four tries to do something as I considered various de-referencing interpretations. Likewise, I didn't notice the removal edit because my user name was not linked to the article into which the section had been merged, and then later removed - or possibly, I didn't notice any notice, as I'm not regularly signing in. Anyway, someone acted on the discussion by performing the "merge" and so it remained for a while. Presumably, not many people are bothered one way or the other for this article, and accepting the merged information seemed good enough to them instead of rallying around the OR flagpole and rejecting the otherwise unobtainable information. The source of the information was clearly stated: the question was whether it was interesting or useful enough to be worth keeping anyway, under the flagpole of using common sense. And as mentioned in the discussion, there are other W. pages with graphs that I produced (while at work) that are not from published reports and so constitute OR and so should be removed by those adhering firmly to orthodoxy. Though one report has been published using one such graph that might thereby be reprieved in a backwards sort of way. I've been considering updating the graphs to include data for subsequent years (now that a decade (!) has passed), and indeed for additional power stations, but that would be OR also and so I'd be wasting my time? NickyMcLean (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]