Talk:Integrated Resource Plan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Integrated Resource Plan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Removal of opening paragraph

@Pabsoluterince I'd like you to please give your reasoning with removing the opening paragraph. I sourced from the refs, but I didn't copy wholesale. Why was this removed? Thanks Maqdisi (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maqdisi: I am currently writing a reply on your talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing

Okay, thank you for that. It seems I have trouble with one other thing, which is stating goals or statistics: "affordable power, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased water use, varied electrical generation sources". This could be in a bullet point form, but it can't be summarised without infringing, as this is the stated goals of the plan. The same goes for "procured a total of 6 422 MW, with 3 876 MW operational and available to the grid. Independent Power Producers have commissioned 1 005 MW" Maqdisi (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Maqdisi. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@Maqdisi: I will do this at some point. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maqdisi: The article is looking good now, well done. If you still need any help, just ask. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources.

This page could use some. A quick google search found these.

Feel free to remove any that you don't like and such. Or simply ignore if not helpful! Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that this article be split into two articles, |Integrated Resource Plan (South Africa) and Integrated Resource Plan (energy planning), as they are used around the world for energy planning. See section in Energy planning. Phosphoreux (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current situation is inconvenient: a generic term leads to an article on one particular instance. I support the change with an exception of the names. The Integrated resource plan (un-capitalized) IMO shall describe the generic term Integrated resource plan (disambiguation) shall point to both articles, as "integrated resource plan" is just a term for planning of capacity in advance in the non-deregulated markets. There is not much to split, the generic-term-article needs to be written practically from scratch. --Викидим (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phosphoreux: You mentioned that you would be able to do the split yourself; do you have any plan for content that would be WP:UNDUE to add at Energy Planning#Integrated resource planning? If not, one could also make a disambiguation article between this page and the section in Energy planning. Felix QW (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have a consensus here, so I have started an Integrated resource planning article (there is nothing generic here to be split h, IMHO). Once it reaches a point of a full-blown stub, we can discuss rearrangement of the names. Викидим (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим: Thank you very much for your efforts! I'd say just go for it, redirect Integrated resource plan to Integrated resource planning and add a hatnote. The capitalised title can stay here, and also get a hatnote. Felix QW (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Викидим (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]