| Revision as of 19:33, 30 July 2007 editKickstart70 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,338 edits Continued POV and uncited statements← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:50, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,036 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (108 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{oldafdfull|date=31 July 2007|page=Trans-Mediterranean_Renewable_Energy_Cooperation}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Energy|class=B}} | |||
| {{Connected contributor|Benderson2|declared=yes|editedhere=yes}} | |||
| It's like someone posted a press release onto the page. ] 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{copied | from= Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation |to= Desertec |diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Desertec&action=historysubmit&diff=347936067&oldid=347871404}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Energy|importance=mid}} <!-- Formerly assessed as Start-class --> | |||
| {{Environment}} <!-- Formerly assessed as B-class --> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == External links == | |||
| The text is a translation of the German version which is listed as "Good article". The Misplaced Pages text also has been used to crate the website of TREC (not the other way round). If you have a problem with a passage in the article please discuss it here, but just deleting most of the text is no constructive work - that's vandalism. ] 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| == Benderson2 and Mikeanegus == | |||
| “Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.” | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I followed the guideline above, which is in the ] in ], when I removed duplicate links to websites which are ] from the external links section. | |||
| If editors such as ] <small>()</small> and ] <small>( )</small> disagree, it would be less ] if they seek ] (e.g. ] or ]) rather than repeatedly add duplicate links which, according to the guideline, should be removed. — ] ] 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The reason why this page keeps getting reverted is twofold. | |||
| :I had a look at the history of the article: It changed from a disputed article with poor references (due to Benderson2) to a stub with references as longs as the article itself (due to Athaenara). There is a lot of work to do, perhaps I'll find some time in the coming weeks. Tomorrow, I'll have a closer look at the guidelines you mentioned. Good night ] 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Primarily, it reads like a press release and that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. Details are good, but they need to concentrate on facts, not supposition or 'future plans'. | |||
| :: My post in this section is ''specifically about external links.'' | |||
| Secondly, Misplaced Pages works on the foundation of ]. Since you are both directly involved in the subject of the article, you are extremely unlikely to be able to maintain that NPOV. | |||
| ::As to your remarks on other aspects: | |||
| ::* It is inaccurate to term the present version a ]. | |||
| ::* The references look longer than they are because some include quotes. | |||
| ::Keep in mind that this is ''an ] article about an organization.'' It is ] for, or an extension of, that organization. — ] ] 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Athaenara, please have a look at ]: "'''What should be linked:''' Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So would you please restore the external links to TREC, TREC-UK and the organisations involved in founding the TREC initiative? ] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest at this point you both step away from the article and work on other ways to promote it. This is not the place for this sort of thing. | |||
| ⚫ | --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> |
||
| :The point is that they ''are'' linked (<small>1, 4, 5, 14)</small>. — ] ] 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do you delete most of the article before you set your "unencyclopedic box"? Do you fear that other readers could read the article and think that it is worth writing about it -- like at the German version of the article that is rated as "good article"?!? This behaviour is really unencyclopedic vandalism. | |||
| ::But not as "External links" as the guidelines specify. I'll correct this clear violation of the guidelines. ] 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Primarily, the article talks about an organisation and about the results of two studies by a famous research institute. It talks about the potential of the usage of proven technologies. Did you ever read it before deleting it? If you think that the article is to long ("to many details"), that might be a reason to shorten it, but not to delete the whole article. | |||
| :::“Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.” <small>''(])''</small>. Gugax, have you read the ]? — ] ] 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) <small>'''and''' 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Secondly, you can complain if I write something with POV, but you can't forbit me to write something NPOV about TREC just because I am involed in it. If you find a passage in the article that is not NPOV then it is your job to make it NPOV, not to delete the whole article. By the way, Mikeanegus seems to know something about the topic but I'm sure that he's not directly involved in TREC. | |||
| : |
::::As I guessed from the beginning of your campaign against the article about TREC '''you obviously have a personal problem''' (yes, Athaenara, you've got a COI) with the TREC initiative. If you aren't able to understand the rules about external links (or if you don't want to understand them), just ask an admin. And Gugax, you could at least search at Google or in the studies of DLR for references before deleting whole paragraphs. ] 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I put it up for Afd ''as per policy,'' not from personal motivations. Insinuations and accusations to the contrary are un]. No other editor has done more than I to improve this article which is, one must remember, an encyclopedia entry about an organization, not a soapbox for it or a fulfillment of the terms of your employment as the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor. — ] ] 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to know how press releases by TREC and press articles about TREC look like, please have a look at: | |||
| :::'''Comment.''' When those associated with the subject of an article start lecturing editors who are trying to carry out Misplaced Pages policies it invites negative attention to their behavior. No organization has a right to have an article about themselves in Misplaced Pages, or to dictate the terms under which they will be covered. There is still a case open at the ] about this article. From tone of the recent webmaster comments, that case has good reason to continue and be investigated further. The rule that reference links should not be duplicated in the External Links area has broad support in Misplaced Pages. Persistent re-addition of unneeded external links is what spammers do. ] 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ] 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is important to note that I was NOT the one who cut it down. I've been reverting to changes that other users deemed necessary. As well, read the rules and understand them. Much of the content serves to promote the subject, not give facts about it. And that's clearly not allowed. | |||
| == Proposal to remove all the 'citation needed' statements from the article == | |||
| ::So, I suggest this...have a close look at it, cut out the chaff, and I'll look at it again. If it doesn't fit the guidelines, I will bring it to the admins to make their own choices. I do not want in any way to get into an edit war with you. I just don't want Misplaced Pages to turn into a media showcase for people's employment or pet projects. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::One example of what I am talking about: "best solar power technology"...according to who? Where is the cite for that? A wikipedia article can't make claims like that and still be considered NPOV. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to get rid of all the remaining statements in the article that are not supported by references. This is to help close out the entry over at the ]. The webmaster of the TREC site, ], has been active in contributing to this article. Misplaced Pages is usually suspicious of anything that sounds like advertising or promotion, and Benderson2's activities led to the COI posting. Since he hasn't been active lately, and ] has reduced the promotional aspects of the article, I think we are close to a resolution. | |||
| :::Your asking for a cite? Read the text! It is talking about the results of the studies and . The text doesn't claim that CSP is the best solar power technology. It claims that it is "The best solar power technology '''for providing secure capacity'''" ''because'': "Excess heat from additional collectors can be stored in tanks of molten salt and then be used to power the steam turbines during the night, or when there is a peak in demand. In order to ensure uninterrupted service during overcast periods or bad weather, the turbines can also be powered by oil, natural gas or biomass fuels." | |||
| :::That is not POV, that's a proven and logical fact. If you know it better - tell me a better solar power technology '''for providing secure capacity'''. If that's the best "POV"-passage you found, please bring it to the admins (lol). By the way: To shorten the article I deleted the "aims" passage. ] 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The remaining problem is the unreferenced statements. I propose that those be removed. If references are found later, of course, they can be restored. Please comment. I also added a note about this over at ]. ] 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you think a project the German state pays several hundret thousand Euros for a "pet project"? Official supporters of the concept are e.g. Greenpeace International, the German Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War and social responsibility (IPPNW), the German Physical Society (DPG) and the German advisory council on global change (WBGU). You can download the complete list of the supporters worldwide at http://www.trecers.net/downloads/TRECsupporters.pdf (PDF, 40 kb). | |||
| :::A list with news about TREC (in the Guardian Newspaper, BBC Radio 4, The Scotsman, Jordan Times, United Press International and the Solarserver) you can find here http://www.trecers.net/news.html | |||
| :::Do you already think that TREC is not important enough to write an article about it? Or do you just have a problem with parts of the article you think they are POV? Then you should replace the unencyclopedic box with a neutrality box and we'll have a look at the text. Kind regards ] 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I note again that I '''did not add the tag or make ANY edits to the article'''. I would appreciate you stopping accusing me of such, and stop assuming I am your enemy. Look at the article history to see who did what. | |||
| ::::There still are uncited claims that are stated as fact and those art disputable. For example, the whole section under ''The Situation'' accepts Peak Oil as fact, without noting any of the criticisms of the concept (see ]). Before you react strongly claiming that I don't believe in Peak Oil, I don't actually have an opinion on the matter, but in all fairness, your opinion on the matter should not come into the editing of this article. NPOV applies everywhere in the article, not just where it meshes with popular opinion. I would love to see more people come in and share the efforts in editing this article because, quite simply, it needs a lot of NPOV work. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree that they should simply be taken out. After being there for a long time, they were tagged six or more weeks ago. If there were independent ] for them, it is reasonable to presume that they would have been added by now. — ] ] 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry for accusing you wrongly, but the unencyclopedic box matched exactly to your comments. The article is just a translation of the german version which has been rated as ok and a vote led to the "good article" status (wich could not be reached if strong POV-passages were in it). Most of the text (not the situation passage you mentioned) describes the results of the studies and the studies have conclusions -- not uncited Points of View. But if you (or anybody else) think you could improve the neutrality of the article by editing some phrases; just do it. But just deleting most of the article like the IP did is, in my opinion, the wrong way to get a better article. Do you agree? ] 22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sahara Wind Inc == | |||
| :::::Hello Kickstart70, still there? ] 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry...have an infant daughter and a newborn system administration business. The reason why the box matches my comment is because I restored it after it was removed. I didn't add it. In any case, my criticisms are valid even if I don't have time or inclination to do the edits I speak of (and check my history if you'd like to see how few edits I'm doing these days). FWIW, if I was the person who originally was not happy with the status of the article I would not have removed as much as was removed. To address two of your points...even if this came from the German article and was translated to English and the original was marked good, that doesn't invalidate the criticisms. German WP is a separate project from English WP and their rules and guidelines are different. As well, for points like I made about calling things 'best' without offering a citation clearly showing this is the opinion of an external expert, that clearly does violate the NPOV guidelines here. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The following paragraph was added in five edits by ]: | |||
| The German rules about POV are the same like at the English Misplaced Pages and as I've written: The text doesn't claim that CSP is the best solar power technology. It claims that it is "The best solar power technology '''for providing secure capacity'''" ''because'': "Excess heat from additional collectors can be stored in tanks of molten salt and then be used to power the steam turbines during the night, or when there is a peak in demand. In order to ensure uninterrupted service during overcast periods or bad weather, the turbines can also be powered by oil, natural gas or biomass fuels." That is not POV, that's a proven and logical fact and part of the study: Photovoltaik is declared as "fluctuating energy source" while CSP can provide secure power. If thats the only point you can mention, I'll delete the Neutrality-Box in the next couple of days. ] 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| From the Sahara Wind Energy Development Project (www.saharawind.com) | |||
| by Khalid Benhamou Managing Director of Sahara Wind Inc. and co-founder of TREC. | |||
| Compared to Germany's 1900 hours of wind power production per year, a rather conservative average production figure in the Atlantic coastal Saharan region from Morocco to Senegal would be in the range of 3400 Full Load Hours due to the exceptional quality of the Trade Winds. To transfer the power from the region of Tarfaya, the northern part of this area, to the center of Germany for example, the length of a HVDC line would be 3500km (incl. 28km sea cable). For this case, the total costs of wind generated electricity from the Sahara desert delivered all the way to Germany are calculated to be 4-5 Eurocent/kWh. Thereof 0.5 Eurocent/kWh are due to the losses of 10% if done with a HVDC line of about 5 GW capacity. The local potential for capacity building and industrial synergies is also very appealing using newer energy technologies www.saharawind.com/dedicatedpapers.php.* | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| This paragraph is interesting, but none of the Khalid Benhamou papers listed (the link* was removed in the ) confirm what is said in the paragraph. | |||
| This from the top of the ] policy page should help clarify the objective situation: | |||
| == Continued POV and uncited statements == | |||
| <small>{{nutshell|Misplaced Pages is ] a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting ]; all material must be ]|Facts must be backed by citations to ] that contain these facts|Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses}}</small> | |||
| The mission here is to write a good ] article about TREC, ''not'' merely echo its own efforts on its website or the websites of its associates. — ] ] 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Some examples: | |||
| * it's certain that by the middle of the 21st century, humanity will have used up a majority of the fossil fuel resources (uncited, according to who?) | |||
| * although such a reduction is essential to contain the threat of Global Warming (uncited, according to who?) | |||
| * The best solar power technology for providing secure power output (uncited, according to who?) | |||
| == Merge proposal == | |||
| The page still reads like a press release. The primary editor thereby having apparent difficulty keeping to ] principles. Clearly this page has the potential to be 'good', but some emotional disassociation needs to happen. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I propose to merge ] into this article as these articles are about the same thing. ] (]) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm the person who creared the Desertec article. Are you sure they are the same thing? I thought one was an organizatipon, while the other was a specific power plant proposal from that organization. If they are different, then please do not merge them. Both articles are pretty large in their own right anyway. ] (]) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: I believe Grundle2600 is correct on this. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::The ] article contains an entire paragraph about non-Desertec stuff, which duplicates information contained in the present article. (Note the three bullet points in ], which are duplicated exactly). It might be more logical to have a paragraph about Desertec in the present article, and make ] be a redirect to it. So I favor doing the merge. ] (]) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Support merge. In re duplication, all but one (the Robin McKie article) of the six references were copied directly from the TREC article. — ] ] 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Done ] (]) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Benefits for North Africa? == | |||
| I know older versions of the article pointing out the benefits for North Africa and the Middle East. Why did you deleted those parts? ] (]) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:50, 8 October 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation was copied or moved into Desertec with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
External links
“Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.”
I followed the guideline above, which is in the references and citation section in WP:EL, when I removed duplicate links to websites which are inline citations from the external links section.
If editors such as 90.186.190.128 (diff) and Gugax451 (diff diff diff) disagree, it would be less disruptive if they seek dispute resolution (e.g. WP:3O or RFC) rather than repeatedly add duplicate links which, according to the guideline, should be removed. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at the history of the article: It changed from a disputed article with poor references (due to Benderson2) to a stub with references as longs as the article itself (due to Athaenara). There is a lot of work to do, perhaps I'll find some time in the coming weeks. Tomorrow, I'll have a closer look at the guidelines you mentioned. Good night Gugax451 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- My post in this section is specifically about external links.
- As to your remarks on other aspects:
- It is inaccurate to term the present version a stub.
- The references look longer than they are because some include quotes.
- Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article about an organization. It is not a soapbox for, or an extension of, that organization. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Athaenara, please have a look at Misplaced Pages:External_links#What_to_link: "What should be linked: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So would you please restore the external links to TREC, TREC-UK and the organisations involved in founding the TREC initiative? Gugax451 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that they are linked (1, 4, 5, 14). — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- But not as "External links" as the guidelines specify. I'll correct this clear violation of the guidelines. Gugax451 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- “Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.” (WP:LINKSPAM). Gugax, have you read the suggestions for COI compliance? — Athaenara ✉ 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) and 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I guessed from the beginning of your campaign against the article about TREC you obviously have a personal problem (yes, Athaenara, you've got a COI) with the TREC initiative. If you aren't able to understand the rules about external links (or if you don't want to understand them), just ask an admin. And Gugax, you could at least search at Google or in the studies of DLR for references before deleting whole paragraphs. Benderson2 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I put it up for Afd as per policy, not from personal motivations. Insinuations and accusations to the contrary are uncivil. No other editor has done more than I to improve this article which is, one must remember, an encyclopedia entry about an organization, not a soapbox for it or a fulfillment of the terms of your employment as the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor. — Athaenara ✉ 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. When those associated with the subject of an article start lecturing editors who are trying to carry out Misplaced Pages policies it invites negative attention to their behavior. No organization has a right to have an article about themselves in Misplaced Pages, or to dictate the terms under which they will be covered. There is still a case open at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about this article. From tone of the recent webmaster comments, that case has good reason to continue and be investigated further. The rule that reference links should not be duplicated in the External Links area has broad support in Misplaced Pages. Persistent re-addition of unneeded external links is what spammers do. EdJohnston 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to remove all the 'citation needed' statements from the article
I'd like to get rid of all the remaining statements in the article that are not supported by references. This is to help close out the entry over at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The webmaster of the TREC site, User:Benderson2, has been active in contributing to this article. Misplaced Pages is usually suspicious of anything that sounds like advertising or promotion, and Benderson2's activities led to the COI posting. Since he hasn't been active lately, and User:Athaenara has reduced the promotional aspects of the article, I think we are close to a resolution.
The remaining problem is the unreferenced statements. I propose that those be removed. If references are found later, of course, they can be restored. Please comment. I also added a note about this over at WP:COIN. EdJohnston 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that they should simply be taken out. After being there for a long time, they were tagged six or more weeks ago. If there were independent reliable sources for them, it is reasonable to presume that they would have been added by now. — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sahara Wind Inc
The following paragraph was added in five edits by 196.217.36.69:
From the Sahara Wind Energy Development Project (www.saharawind.com) by Khalid Benhamou Managing Director of Sahara Wind Inc. and co-founder of TREC. Compared to Germany's 1900 hours of wind power production per year, a rather conservative average production figure in the Atlantic coastal Saharan region from Morocco to Senegal would be in the range of 3400 Full Load Hours due to the exceptional quality of the Trade Winds. To transfer the power from the region of Tarfaya, the northern part of this area, to the center of Germany for example, the length of a HVDC line would be 3500km (incl. 28km sea cable). For this case, the total costs of wind generated electricity from the Sahara desert delivered all the way to Germany are calculated to be 4-5 Eurocent/kWh. Thereof 0.5 Eurocent/kWh are due to the losses of 10% if done with a HVDC line of about 5 GW capacity. The local potential for capacity building and industrial synergies is also very appealing using newer energy technologies www.saharawind.com/dedicatedpapers.php.*
This paragraph is interesting, but none of the Khalid Benhamou papers listed here (the link* was removed in the 5th edit) confirm what is said in the paragraph.
This from the top of the No original research policy page should help clarify the objective situation:
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
The mission here is to write a good encyclopedia article about TREC, not merely echo its own efforts on its website or the websites of its associates. — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
I propose to merge Desertec into this article as these articles are about the same thing. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the person who creared the Desertec article. Are you sure they are the same thing? I thought one was an organizatipon, while the other was a specific power plant proposal from that organization. If they are different, then please do not merge them. Both articles are pretty large in their own right anyway. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Grundle2600 is correct on this. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Desertec article contains an entire paragraph about non-Desertec stuff, which duplicates information contained in the present article. (Note the three bullet points in Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#German_Aerospace Center .28DLR.29_studies, which are duplicated exactly). It might be more logical to have a paragraph about Desertec in the present article, and make Desertec be a redirect to it. So I favor doing the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support merge. In re duplication, all but one (the Robin McKie article) of the six references were copied directly from the TREC article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Desertec article contains an entire paragraph about non-Desertec stuff, which duplicates information contained in the present article. (Note the three bullet points in Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#German_Aerospace Center .28DLR.29_studies, which are duplicated exactly). It might be more logical to have a paragraph about Desertec in the present article, and make Desertec be a redirect to it. So I favor doing the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Grundle2600 is correct on this. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Benefits for North Africa?
I know older versions of the article pointing out the benefits for North Africa and the Middle East. Why did you deleted those parts? 85.176.126.243 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Categories: