Talk:Public schemes for energy efficient refurbishment
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Current Issues
[edit]This article is meant as a rough basis for future improvement by more knowledgeable parties, which is why it is long and goes in much detail. It is expected to be shared soon with the parties in question, when it will be improved and relieved from insignificant detail. As for the "orphan" issue, the subject of the article is a rather new and specific concept; no other article has yet used the exact title of the article. This is to be resolved by searching related articles that include close synonyms of the article's title. Lucieaudibert (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure this article should exist. It is the one and only "Public plans for ..." articles that we have. Its too speculative. We should be concerned with what exists and not what is planned. We aren't here to document what government's plan to do. Lots of the content can go out of date with a change in government. Isn't this just an arbitrary list of some hand picked energy policies? We already have five "Energy policy in ..." articles and a couple of "Energy efficiency in ..." articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably at the wrong title. "schemes" would be a better word than "plans". I'm not entirely sure how the article justifies its existence at the moment. There are also very large sections which can be substantially reduced because they repeat existing articles. I would expect any other government or state backed refurbishment scheme would attract enough attention to justify its own Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've renamed the article Public schemes for energy efficient refurbishment. This sort of phrase gets more mileage in Google searches. "Plans" does indeed sound vague and speculative. Sionk (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably at the wrong title. "schemes" would be a better word than "plans". I'm not entirely sure how the article justifies its existence at the moment. There are also very large sections which can be substantially reduced because they repeat existing articles. I would expect any other government or state backed refurbishment scheme would attract enough attention to justify its own Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Duplication
[edit]I've added the "duplication" clean-up template. Several VERY excessive sections need to be cut down to a succinct overview and the remaining sourced detail merged (to PACE financing and The Green Deal). The template pooints out that there may be sections that could be split off to create their own bespoke article. This is something that can also be seriously considered, though there would need to be good evidence that the schemes had attracted wider attention from independent sources (rather than only government websites/reports). Sionk (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Public schemes for energy efficient refurbishment. 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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150621235546/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/businessand-ecology/energyefficiency/9202836/The-Green-Deal-feels-the-heat.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/businessand-ecology/energyefficiency/9202836/The-Green-Deal-feels-the-heat.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)