Wikipedia page

For years it’s been HAWP on Wikipedia despite several attempts at changing the description.
Airborne wind energy hardly makes an appearance on Wikipedia.
Big shame, big missed opportunity… and wrong.
I’ve taken another shot at editing the HAWP page…

Do you agree - Wikipedia Airborne Wind Energy Systems classification needs a major overhaul?

1 Like

Had a look at your edits:

I don’t think we should change the definition of HAWP.
I’m unsure, but I think the term and acronym are used to relate to very high wind turbines as well.
It’s very similar to HAWT which can stand for horizontal axis wind turbine. Let’s just use the term Airborne wind energy and give that a useful definition. It’s established. “HIGH altitude” doesn’t have a clear definition.
There’s also this article:

For myself I’m just going to collect the information, structure and publish it, before trying to mirror that on wikipedia, where appropriate. Easier to start with a blank slate, which I have full control over.

1 Like

Yes but Wikipedia is the default go to authority on matters as yet unkown to a researcher…

I’m sure that people have previously tried to add a page Airborne Wind Energy… which was subsumed by overzealous editing by those in favour of this unused HAWP pish.

Not that I’m an huge fan (yes my designs are huge fans… ho ho ho) … of the acronym AWES … as we discussed in the acronyms part of this forum.

Absolutely agree.
Anecdote: I’ve named the twitter account something with HAWP because that’s the name that wikipedia used.

The best thing to do is to write a stub article and expand on it over time and remove the redirect to HAWP from That redirect was put there in 2009. You can amply argue your case now that it can be removed, as there are now many organizations in the field.

@JoeFaust has been active on Wikipedia too.


OMG… Was it just that everyone in AWES is shit at understanding the process of wikipedia editing?
I find most page markup text a nightmare, this is a structure change, I had no idea how to do it, seems like nobody else did either.
How many engineers does it take? How many other topics worldwide suffer this?

WOW well done.
OK who’s going to populate it?
Roland had complained about it before… and he’s editor in chief … authority figurehead… got nice hair etc…


You can do a lot with copy and paste from the HAWP page. And arguing the case for the removal of the redirect in the talk page, if it gets challenged. I think you can follow the changes to the page if you are registered too?

1 Like

Really wish I knew what you mean … but it sounds fab… please someone else…
can anyone see I’m trying to pass the buck here?

You can just go in and copy and paste stuff from the high-altitude wind power page.

You have an account on Wikipedia, so you can make a “watchlist”:

But now I see moving the page might be better:

That sounds like the kind of thing which would really annoy the original HAWP page editor

The most prolific editor seems to be @JoeFaust, who is in favor. The other guy hasn’t been active on the page since 2012.

Also, this same suggestion from 2014 wasn’t challenged:

1 Like

Hows about if the group of us on here…
Just bash at it and update Wikipedia AWES for a wee while?
It’s long overdue.

Click like on this post if you’re up for editing… or just do it…

1 Like

I’m in favor of starting with a blank slate, putting up something really useful and then merging or deleting the original article.

    • Edit HAWP article
    • Start new AWE article
    • something else

0 voters

If you can and want to do that, sure. If you find the need to do a lot of copying from the other article, then the wikipedia move page says not to do it. You will end up maybe with a lot of duplicate content, so the HAWP article can then be restructered to be only about HAWP.

1 Like

The proper thing would probably be to edit the HAWP article and making a new one would just be easier.

Roland has been busy…

And also mentions

"The French wikipedia page for “Airborne Wind Energy” … is magnificent. "

1 Like

I made a lot for it some years ago, and recently for a better classification, that under my old youtube name “Volcine”. So thanks.


When it comes to Wikipedia, the proper way of doing things is really the only way of doing things. Because the target page already exists, someone needs to do this:

So submit the request to:

The blind leading the blind…
The proverbial 3 blind men, obsessed with their Wikipedia entry describing an elephant…