Jump to content

Talk:Azeri–Chirag–Gunashli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was expecting lots of info on the subject! It doesn’t even say how much each phase cost and how much is expected to be made from them! A very poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.164.254 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had prepared additions to the article soon to be edited and will be adding more information in the future when there are updates. Tuscumbia (talk)15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/acg/
    Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is: not merged. The fire of December 2015 generated a lot of coverage for Gunashli oilfield, after the merge was proposed, so a 4-way merger is no longer appropriate. I think this doesn't preclude separate alternative proposals to merge either Azeri oilfield or Chirag oilfield, but I doubt those mergers will gain consensus either. Deryck C. 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Azeri oilfield, Chirag oilfield and Gunashli oilfield to avoid overlapping and to create more comprehensive overview of this development. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and speedy close - per ITN appearance and that impact. Also it is notable in its own right anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as said in user talk page) - Information too complicated to merge. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I already explained at my talk page, this is not about notability. These three oil fields (Azeri oilfield, Chirag oilfield and Gunashli oilfield) are developed as a single development project (Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli). The only exception id the swallow-water part of the Gunashli field, which is developed and operated separately. Notwithstanding this, there is a question, how to make distinction which information should be included in separate fields articles and which information should be included in the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli article. At the moment, there is no comprehensive information in the separate fields' articles as some information is included in the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli article. Duplicating information on the other hand creates a risk of POVFORK. I am fully agree to accept that these articles would be not merged, but for this it should be clear how to split information between these articles. Beagel (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty clear that our Opposes brings up both the notability and the fact that there are other factors such as new information that makes this merge unlikely. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have no problem with separate articles if it is clear how to divide information between separate fields articles and the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli article. Do you have any suggestion regarding this? Beagel (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Stages of development" section should be rewritten and reformatted into prose. It looks awkward with a table (more at WP:WHENTABLE). --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you read comments above, you can see that nobody is questioning notability. The main issue is a distinction between separate fields' articles and the Azeri–Chirag–Gunashli article. Any idea how to deal with it? Beagel (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Azeri–Chirag–Gunashli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azeri–Chirag–Gunashli. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azeri–Chirag–Gunashli&oldid=1199256678"