Talk:Energy Institute

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyvio

Please will someone revdel the diffs that were rd'd last go round? it's still a copyvio. everything between here Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes

Moved from User talk:Lis1913

– – Thjarkur (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR.

I'd like to declare my conflict of interest - I am one of the Librarians at the Energy Institute. Apologies - but I have only been trying to edit Wikipedia for one day and am finding the instructions difficult to follow - including the one about how to declare my conflict.

Add a section on History of the institute:

History

The Institute of Petroleum

In 1913 the Institution of Petroleum Technologists was established by Sir Boverton Redwood, Bart and Mr Arthur Eastlake, ^[1] A library was immediately set up so that knowledge could be shared between members^[2] In 1938 professionals allied to the petroleum industry, but not petroleum technologists, were also permitted to join and the name changed to The Institute of Petroleum. ^[3]

The Institute of Energy (IOE)

1927 - The Institution of Fuel Economy Engineers IFEE (created 1925) and The Institution of Fuel Technology IFT (creaded 1927) merged to form The Institute of Fuel (IoF) – concerned with the selection and utilization of energy and all fuel resources. 1979 - The Institute of Fuel changed its name to The Institute of Energy (IoE)^[4] – because “our concern must now also include nuclear energy, renewable energy resources such as wave, wind and tidal power, solar and geothermal energy, the economics of energy conversion processes and of course, energy policy. The central role that energy plays in the economy is, at last, appreciated by politicians, administrators and even by ‘the man in the street’. ^[5]

Energy Institute

July 2003 - The Institute of Petroleum and the Institute of Energy merged to become the Energy Institute ^[6]

Lis1913 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Journal of the Institution of Petroleum technologists, volume 1 1914-15, p3
^ Journal of the Institution of Petroleum technologists, volume 1 1914-15,p5
^ Sell, George. The history of the Institute of Petroleum 1913-1963. Institute of Petroleum, 1964
^ Hayman, Roy. The Institute of Fuel: the first 50 years. Institute of Fuel,1977
^ Prof Ian Fells, IoE President, Energy World, April 1979 p2
^ Petroleum Review, July 2003, p42

Reply 23-DEC-2019

Unable to implement

Your edit request could not be implemented because the provided references are not formatted correctly.^[a] The citation style predominantly used by the Energy Institute article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of plain refs.^[b] Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style predominantly used in the article – in this case, CS1. In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style

Plain ref tag formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.,</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>Uemura, Shū. "The Sun's Heat". Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.</ref>
Which displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,^[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.^[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.^[3]

References

1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.
2. Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
3. Uemura, Shū. "The Sun's Heat". Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.

In the example above there are three references provided with the claim statements, but these references have been formatted using only plain ref tags, and not in Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Energy Institute article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2019|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=2}}</ref>
Which displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,^[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.^[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.^[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.

^ Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.

^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which also shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. — all information which is also included in the plain ref tags — but placed in a different, more organized format. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards, Spintendo 08:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The fault for this formatting error may have originated with the fact that some of the references used in the article are plain ref tags. However, the majority use CS1. While the resulting addition in the request of plain ref tags would not be the fault of the requesting COI editor, it nevertheless remains their responsibility to supply the references formatted in the style used predominantly (the larger majority of) by the article.
^ The use of plain refs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.^[1]

References

^ "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

May I suggest we avoid multiplying difficulties? tht we aim to bring in the new content first, and catch up with reference-formatting concerns when we've done that?

It's doubtful, I recognise, whether WP:BITE applies to this particular point; but the (alas as-yet unwritten) WP:UNBURY surely does? requiring tht newbies adding content in good faith shouldn't be buried in policy and procedure? shouldn't be made to die of exposure and altitude sickness attempting a tropospheric learning-curve?

On content rather than process, though - Lis1913, there is already a History section in the article . . can U indicate whether / what U want to delete and/or replace?

- SquisherDa (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that - I have read the instructions for formatting references about 4 times and I still can't work out how to format my references the way you want me to. If someone could change one of them to be correct, hopefully I could work out how to sort out the rest of them. Also - is this the correct way for asking for help? I will see if I can work out how to indicate what the history section should look like. Thanks again. Lis1913 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC) OK, I've looked - the history section should just be the whole of my last submission for the history section. I hope that makes senseLis1913 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lis1913, I have just noticed this on the talk page. I have added lead paragraphs and some history in an attempt to not have the article removed for lack of notability. Content here has to come in with its sources at the same time for verifiability. (There were issues with Wikipedia reliability in earlier years before this stricter reference requirement was developed.)

History here for organizations is different from what one might put on an organization's website. Rather than quoting what the organization says about itself, what do independent sources say about it. Some context would help. Why were there even British petroleum technologists? Were there oil wells in Britain? How was Boberton Redwood involved? (He is the author of the 2011 Encyclopedia Brittanica article on Petroleum.) The IP standards are important worldwide. How did that get started? What was going on to make the groups merge, not just their press release statements?

SquisherDa, we don't expect people who ask for edits to be made to be able to format references. They just need to supply the bibliographic information and the editor who adds it does the formatting. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, StarryGrandma! - if U're sure? (Spintendo seems awfully sure otherwise? - "Unable" to implement Lis1913's request as it "could not" be implemented "because" the references aren't formatted "correctly"?)

If U are sure, I think we should go right ahead - act on Lis1913's request. The delay and complication are doing nobody any favors - and in combination are seeming to me almost brutal, effectively WP:uncivil, to a good-faith new contributor in an awkward (COI) position.

I wondered whether COI edit-requests are perhaps supposed to be actioned *only* by admins, but the answer to that is no. What doesn't help is that "Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources"; but the really awkward stipulation is supplementary:" Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor"! (So presumably if the paid editor did a thorough Googlejob and cited all the sources anyone can find, s/ he would have thus disqualified her/his own edit request?!?? . . uh, shome mshtake shurely?) Anyway, some sort of search seems demanded; right now I have my hands full so can't make further progress immediately.

- SquisherDa (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SquisherDa, No, don't add this. I added content and references to the text while trying to keep the article from being deleted. I didn't see this talk page discussion till later. The material I've added is enough. We don't want quotes from press releases to describe why mergers take place. I'm hoping to find some sources that describe the mergers. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information request

Lis1913, the Institution of Engineering and Technology has history pages on its website that provide quite a bit of the kind of information we are looking for here. Encyclopedia articles should cover the full history of an organization with very little emphasis on present organizational detail (the official website links are there for that). The Institute of Petroleum in particular was founded as a result of very new technology and was internationally influential. If you could steer us to sources or provide material that would be helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Journal of the Institution of Petroleum technologists, volume 1 1914-15, p3

[2] Journal of the Institution of Petroleum technologists, volume 1 1914-15,p5

[3] Sell, George. The history of the Institute of Petroleum 1913-1963. Institute of Petroleum, 1964

[4] Hayman, Roy. The Institute of Fuel: the first 50 years. Institute of Fuel,1977

[5] Prof Ian Fells, IoE President, Energy World, April 1979 p2

[6] Petroleum Review, July 2003, p42

[noteFoot01a] Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.

[noteFoot02a] Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.

[noteFoot03a] Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.

[7] The fault for this formatting error may have originated with the fact that some of the references used in the article are plain ref tags. However, the majority use CS1. While the resulting addition in the request of plain ref tags would not be the fault of the requesting COI editor, it nevertheless remains their responsibility to supply the references formatted in the style used predominantly (the larger majority of) by the article.

[9] The use of plain refs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.^[1]

[8] "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]