Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

External links

“Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.”

I followed the guideline above, which is in the references and citation section in WP:EL, when I removed duplicate links to websites which are inline citations from the external links section.

If editors such as 90.186.190.128 (diff) and Gugax451 (diff diff diff) disagree, it would be less disruptive if they seek dispute resolution (e.g. WP:3O or RFC) rather than repeatedly add duplicate links which, according to the guideline, should be removed. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the history of the article: It changed from a disputed article with poor references (due to Benderson2) to a stub with references as longs as the article itself (due to Athaenara). There is a lot of work to do, perhaps I'll find some time in the coming weeks. Tomorrow, I'll have a closer look at the guidelines you mentioned. Good night Gugax451 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My post in this section is specifically about external links.

As to your remarks on other aspects:

• It is inaccurate to term the present version a stub.
• The references look longer than they are because some include quotes.

Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article about an organization. It is not a soapbox for, or an extension of, that organization. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Athaenara, please have a look at Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link: "What should be linked: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So would you please restore the external links to TREC, TREC-UK and the organisations involved in founding the TREC initiative? Gugax451 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that they are linked (1, 4, 5, 14). — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But not as "External links" as the guidelines specify. I'll correct this clear violation of the guidelines. Gugax451 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

“Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.” (WP:LINKSPAM). Gugax, have you read the suggestions for COI compliance? — Athaenara ✉ 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) and 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I guessed from the beginning of your campaign against the article about TREC you obviously have a personal problem (yes, Athaenara, you've got a COI) with the TREC initiative. If you aren't able to understand the rules about external links (or if you don't want to understand them), just ask an admin. And Gugax, you could at least search at Google or in the studies of DLR for references before deleting whole paragraphs. Benderson2 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put it up for Afd as per policy, not from personal motivations. Insinuations and accusations to the contrary are uncivil. No other editor has done more than I to improve this article which is, one must remember, an encyclopedia entry about an organization, not a soapbox for it or a fulfillment of the terms of your employment as the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor. — Athaenara ✉ 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. When those associated with the subject of an article start lecturing editors who are trying to carry out Wikipedia policies it invites negative attention to their behavior. No organization has a right to have an article about themselves in Wikipedia, or to dictate the terms under which they will be covered. There is still a case open at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about this article. From tone of the recent webmaster comments, that case has good reason to continue and be investigated further. The rule that reference links should not be duplicated in the External Links area has broad support in Wikipedia. Persistent re-addition of unneeded external links is what spammers do. EdJohnston 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all the 'citation needed' statements from the article

I'd like to get rid of all the remaining statements in the article that are not supported by references. This is to help close out the entry over at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The webmaster of the TREC site, User:Benderson2, has been active in contributing to this article. Wikipedia is usually suspicious of anything that sounds like advertising or promotion, and Benderson2's activities led to the COI posting. Since he hasn't been active lately, and User:Athaenara has reduced the promotional aspects of the article, I think we are close to a resolution.

The remaining problem is the unreferenced statements. I propose that those be removed. If references are found later, of course, they can be restored. Please comment. I also added a note about this over at WP:COIN. EdJohnston 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they should simply be taken out. After being there for a long time, they were tagged six or more weeks ago. If there were independent reliable sources for them, it is reasonable to presume that they would have been added by now. — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sahara Wind Inc

The following paragraph was added in five edits by 196.217.36.69:

From the Sahara Wind Energy Development Project (www.saharawind.com) by Khalid Benhamou Managing Director of Sahara Wind Inc. and co-founder of TREC. Compared to Germany's 1900 hours of wind power production per year, a rather conservative average production figure in the Atlantic coastal Saharan region from Morocco to Senegal would be in the range of 3400 Full Load Hours due to the exceptional quality of the Trade Winds. To transfer the power from the region of Tarfaya, the northern part of this area, to the center of Germany for example, the length of a HVDC line would be 3500km (incl. 28km sea cable). For this case, the total costs of wind generated electricity from the Sahara desert delivered all the way to Germany are calculated to be 4-5 Eurocent/kWh. Thereof 0.5 Eurocent/kWh are due to the losses of 10% if done with a HVDC line of about 5 GW capacity. The local potential for capacity building and industrial synergies is also very appealing using newer energy technologies www.saharawind.com/dedicatedpapers.php.*

This paragraph is interesting, but none of the Khalid Benhamou papers listed here (the link* was removed in the 5th edit) confirm what is said in the paragraph.

This from the top of the No original research policy page should help clarify the objective situation:

The mission here is to write a good encyclopedia article about TREC, not merely echo its own efforts on its website or the websites of its associates. — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Desertec into this article as these articles are about the same thing. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who creared the Desertec article. Are you sure they are the same thing? I thought one was an organizatipon, while the other was a specific power plant proposal from that organization. If they are different, then please do not merge them. Both articles are pretty large in their own right anyway. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Grundle2600 is correct on this. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Desertec article contains an entire paragraph about non-Desertec stuff, which duplicates information contained in the present article. (Note the three bullet points in Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#German_Aerospace Center .28DLR.29_studies, which are duplicated exactly). It might be more logical to have a paragraph about Desertec in the present article, and make Desertec be a redirect to it. So I favor doing the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. In re duplication, all but one (the Robin McKie article) of the six references were copied directly from the TREC article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done 85.176.126.243 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Benefits for North Africa?

I know older versions of the article pointing out the benefits for North Africa and the Middle East. Why did you deleted those parts? 85.176.126.243 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)