Talk:Integrated Resource Plan#Splitting proposal

@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)

:{{re|Maqdisi}} I am currently writing a reply on your talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

:{{ping|Maqdisi}} I will do this at some point. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|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)

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

1. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/energy-efficiency/big-holes-emerge-in-sas-integrated-resource-plan-for-electricity/
2. https://ndcpartnership.org/case-study/south-africa%E2%80%99s-integrated-resource-plan
3. https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/integrated-resource-plan-2019-where-here
4. https://theconversation.com/south-africas-new-energy-plan-has-sparked-strong-emotions-heres-why-69383
5. https://theconversation.com/south-africas-future-energy-mix-wind-solar-and-coal-but-no-nuclear-111106
6. https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-a-new-energy-plan-but-will-it-break-the-bank-69302
7. https://www.climate-laws.org/geographies/south-africa/policies/integrated-resource-plan

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)

I propose that this article be split into two articles, Integrated Resource Plan 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)

• 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)
• :{{ping|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)

: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)

::{{ping|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)

:::{{done}} Викидим (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)