Talk:List of concentrating solar thermal power companies

Please no external links

We need to keep this list free from external links, and focused on the most notable companies, or else it is liable to go up for deletion as happened with the PV list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of photovoltaics companies Johnfos (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the links again. The current list makes no sense, because some big players are missing. Not all companies make so much noise as Ausra. Luz II is the most notable company, because they have filed for the largest plant by the Californian Energy Commission. Furthermore, most of the people of that company where involved in the build of the SEGS plants.

So, if the lists stays like this, it is just an advertisement of your favorite Ausra. And I have to delete the entire list.Lkruijsw (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the other companies, the list makes no sense, because major players are missing (such as Luz II). If it becomes too many, than it is logical to remove entire list. Currently it is informative, for someone that wants that needs information.Lkruijsw (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a collection of links, see WP:NOTLINK. Notable companies should have their own WP article, and then could be blue linked in this list. So please start an article on Luz II etc, and then we can include them here. Johnfos (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos has asked for a 3rd opinion on this. Johnfos correctly points out that Wikipedia is not a collection of links, therefore we should not have a list of external links here. What I suggest is to redlink the entries that are currently external links, i.e. Lloyd Energy Storage, so that articles can be created on those companies, should they be notable per WP:CORP. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many redlinks

Is Rioglass notable for some reason? It is the latest company to be added to this ever-expanding list. If a company is notable it should have its own article, even if only a stub. I plan to remove redlinks as non-notable and not worthy of inclusion in this list... Johnfos (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Rioglass because I know they want to become a mayor provider of mirrors for parabolic throughs. For a real article I don't have enough informations. But to my mind even redlinks are worthy information to show this company is active in the CSP-development. And the list is expanding as the CSP-industry is fortunately expanding at the moment. But you're right, more bluelinks would be much better, but to my mind nearly all redlinks are notable and I work in the CSP-industry(Lars9e (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lars, is there any chance that you could pick out the most notable of the redlinks and write a short stub on them? I'd be happy to help. Johnfos (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks which need articles:

-- Johnfos (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of concentrating solar thermal power companies. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]