Talk:Npower (United Kingdom)/Archives/2013

Removed prod

Removed {{prod}} tag as bad faith/poorly-researched nomination. Company is of considerable size and notability, and is one of the largest energy suppliers in the UK, as evidenced by links to business data. Yes, the article is still in need of vast improvement, but it's not proddable. ~ Matticus78 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging proposed

In favour. Rnestle 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

See also [npower UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npower_(UK)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.93.82 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following due to lack of context. Perhaps a section on the topic could be added Pontificake 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NPower Attempt to silence the press:

http://www.epuk.org/News/472/npower-injunction-on-epuk-member

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/362902.html

I suggest that a controversy section might be needed. Specifically the billing of prepay customers and the above conflict over the power plant (I'm guessing it's the same issue). I've covered this issue on my blog although it would in itself only count as a tertiary source for most points it does have a large number of links to resources all in one place. link --Lord Matt 08:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Npower logo.jpg

Image:Npower logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How to start a 'criticism' section?!

Hello all,

I've just had a quick look at this article and I'm surprised there's no 'criticism' section ... or any criticism at all! Npower are hated by a lot of people for very good reason! They came bottom of a customer satisfaction survey ran by uSwitch, they tried to pollute a load of lakes in Oxford, they were the last of the big six to drop their fuel prices sparking more criticism. I can reliably source all these points. I was just wondering why no one else had done so?! If no-one objects / points out why I shouldn't then I'll add a section next week! Peace Out! --LookingYourBest (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware there is no reason not to have a criticism section. However, it does need to be factual so accusing npower of 'polluting' lakes would need to be substantiated by reputable sources. Although uswitch claims that npower is the last major supplier to drop its prices they are incorrect. npower was the last to announce the price cut, but I understand that several suppliers are actually cutting prices on 31st March alongside npower. Furthermore any information about price changes is soon out of date and not therefore especially relevant to Wikipedia. Pontificake (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like criticism sections. They can end up either contradicting the rest of the article or becoming a magnet for malcontents with an axe to grind. Of course, I agree that we need to include coverage of the negative aspects. I think it is better to include the negative coverage in the rest of the article so that it is balanced throughout. I would be amazed if any UK domestic energy company could avoid having a significant amount of criticism and we must be careful not to make it a hatchet job, overcover trivial issues (e.g. where to put a specific pylon) or cover issues which are problems with the whole industry as if they were specific to this company. Here are some specific thoughts:

• Maybe we could do with an "environment" section. That would be a home for coverage of good and bad things the company does to the environment. It would include the pollution issue. They also have several renewable power projects on the go, so those would be covered there as well. Here are some sources for the Oxford pollution issue: [1], [2], [3](an opinion piece but from a reliable source), [4](partisan but proof that the controversy exists), [5](not sure if this is partisan).
• They got fined £1.8M for doorstep misselling in December 2008. That is a very serious fine and should definitely be included. It made the news: [6], [7], [8]

--DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for both your highly valued inputs. The reason I started this discussion here is because, and I'll be honest, I totally hate Npower. What I didn't want to do was go smashing into this article like an angry vandal though. I understand that everything must be properly sourced and fair and that's how I'd like to approach this task. I also realise that Npower do a lot of good in certain communities and sponsor lots of worthy teams and causes. Perhaps we could create a list of things that *could* be added to the article and debate why, or why not, they should be included? --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to let wp:undue guide us as to how much criticism it is right to include. I think that the Oxford lake and the misselling fine are both OK as we have good RS coverage of both. The Oxford lake issue has some national coverage and detailed coverage in the Oxford Mail. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you plan to create a "criticism" or "controversy" section, you will find ample material in last Saturday's "Times" - that is, the issue dated 2009-06-13. Maproom (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)