Talk:Geothermal power in the United Kingdom

message: I propose to move this article to Geothermal power in the United Kingdom to be in line with country specific series. Beagel (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. 'Geothermal power in the United Kingdom' would be more accurate here, as '..in Britain' would exclude Northern Ireland, which I don't think is intended. Terraxos (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Procedural close – Please debate individual cases. — JFG talk 06:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *  There's not just "more" than geothermal electricity (a.k.a. power), direct usage of geothermal energy for heating is by far the older technique but still is at least as widespread, if not the globally dominating usage, including a split in the U.S. (see Geothermal energy, Geothermal energy in the United States (sic!) and this 2015 report). Furthermore, all articles I saw, certainly including Geothermal power in Canada, China, Iceland, or in the United Kingdom, to name a few, aren't restricted to geothermal electricity, but go on to describe direct heating and combined projects. Articles even explicitly refer to "Geothermal energy" and/or cite sources that say "geothermal energy" rather than "geothermal electricity". The word power is a bit ambiguous, so is sometimes interchangeably used with energy, an ambiguity that is certainly not worth preserving. Finally, there's not a single really comprehensive, good article that would come close to allowing a WP:CONSPLIT, let alone a WP:SIZESPLIT. And if you're really concerned about page histories, then splitting articles is disruptive, not expanding their scope. And regarding the precious work of the authors, splitting a small article into even smaller stubs is what might be considered disruptive, not keeping the article intact. --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree that the US split should be merged/resolved. Sorry, but general statistical evaluation don't justify changing name of a article with only info about power plants. Where only content is about heating, I agree for the name move (but only because heating usually has spare info so not to merit a split). About "geothermal electricity" is not usual english language (more as german or italian translation), you should use "geothermal power" where electricity is the end product. What are your meanings of "power" ? From a english stand point there are no doubts: Power station#By heat source, see third type. --Robertiki (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ehm, yes. Geothermal electricity is no proper English. Not that I'm proposing to rename any of these to "electricity", but just saying. Let's wait for others to weigh in. --PanchoS (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  Geothermal energy in the United States should be moved to Geothermal power in the United States. --Robertiki (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text: * Not the only one with a wrong title, but thanks for reconsidering. :) --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  As said, I prefer a case per case talk. --Robertiki (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just created, as an example, Geothermal energy in Italy with a link to Geothermal power in Italy. A editor has only to describe the geothermal resources of a country to create an acceptable stub where the original geothermal power article was a complete and article only about elecriticiy production. No split, but a new article, new topic. As said, every case is different. --Robertiki (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 August 2016