Talk:Solar energy/Archive 4

message: We have gotten some vandalism over the caption "The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year (89,000 TW)." Anyone prefer a less technical caption? Such as "Available solar and wind power vs total global consumption of all types of energy." Or perhaps, "The amount of solar power available at the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand in a year." 199.125.109.38 01:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the precion is a bit excessive for a caption, and zettajoules are not very visitor friendly, so i altered the caption.  --SmokeyJoe 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's curious that you say that you altered the caption when the image doesn't even appear in the article, due to the fact that someone has removed it. You will first have to revert the edits by User:Mrshaba before you can edit the caption. I don't see any difference between using 3850 and 4, both require an understanding of scientific notation. 4 is probably not a good idea since 3850 appears elsewhere in the article. Please refer to this version for this discussion.  199.125.109.38 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean about my edit, it there plain to see.  Looking back at the lead section, I see that it is awful.  The words "power" and "energy" are misused and confusing.  Opening the article by asserting that Solar power is also known as solar energy is intellectually flawed.  I see that the caption in question is no better, asserting than an energy is quanitified as a power.  I had not been aware that substantial version flipping had been occuring.  The images are the least of the problems.  There's room for them all.  The text needs a thorough beating.  --SmokeyJoe 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well before you start flogging the lead section, please make a proposal above so that everyone can see it. Other than that, feel free to have at it. Any changes to the lead just get reverted until a consensus is reached. 199.125.109.38 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal based editing is unwiki.  It is slow, wearying, and unfriendly to visitors.  I suggest that better results come from following the advice at Wikipedia:Consensus.  --SmokeyJoe 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you SmokeyJoe for coming in on this. I've been going crazy waiting for some additional sense. Mrshaba 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: As part of the name change I've been looking at the links on this page:
I've worked my way down to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Many of the redirects start off as solar energy. I've changed those to solar energy. A good chunk of the linked pages are linked because of the energy template so no change is required. Where the article talks about using solar power for electricity I've changed the link from solar energy to solar power. Where the article talks concentrating technologies that are described as solar power I've changed the redirect from solar power to solar power. I'm going to stop with the redirects for now. The process is time consuming but less difficult than formatting references and the pages are interesting as well. As expected, the use of the term solar energy is more common on the pages. The use of term solar power has been consistently associated with electricity and concentrating technologies.
It is clear to me the definition of solar power should be refined to cover PV and concentrating technologies.  This qualitative difference between solar energy and solar power as technologies makes a good boundary. The Tesla and Barbeque pages are good examples of references to solar technologies that should probably be classified as solar power. A revised definition of solar power looks something like:
Solar power describes photovoltaic technologies that convert sunlight into electricity and concentrating technologies that convert sunlight into thermal, mechanical and electrical energy.
This seems to me like a good working definition that can be followed in the article. Thoughts? Mrshaba 22:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: The move has happened, it is now Solar energy, and the page is unprotected.
Mrshaba,
In the end, it is more productive to raise specific issues when you revert on them.
Stating “Light comes into the atmosphere as direct light and about 20% of the direct light becomes diffused light. Concentrating technologies cannot use diffused light.”
You reverted to:
Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the Earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing approximately 20% of the incoming light and altering its spectrum
This is an ugly sentence.  “Insolation reaching the earth” is redundant because insolation is defined as solar radiation reaching the earth.  “Quality of insolation” is undefined and I don’t believe appropriate.  Quality is a value-laden term, and quality of insolation is not obviously meaningful.  In the end, I don’t see what help it is to introduce the word “insolation”, and I suggest that we abandon it.
You re-introduced “heat” to the second sentence.  I believe this is incorrect as solar energy doesn’t arrive as heat.  Solar energy is almost entirely electromagnetic radiation.  Heat can only travel with material.  The total energy arriving as thermal energy in particles is very small, I believe.  Thus, solar energy, while converted to heat, is not, as solar energy, heat.
You reintroduced the statement “insolation is absorbed by the oceans”.  This is bad English/terminology.  Insolation is a noun that describes a process, and you cannot state that “this process is absorbed”.  It doesn’t make sense.  Insolation is a weird word that is not helpful in conveying the ideas meant to be conveyed.
--SmokeyJoe 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can agree that the issues are of language and expression, not that you don’t understand something.  I believe that I have a reasonable ability to understand all of this too.  I don’t want to frustrate you or anyone else, but you cannot expect non-specialist to leave the page to you.  The reason that non-specialists tinker with the page is that things about it grate awkwardly.  I’ll think of other suggestions, but if you revert without compromise, it is as if you are telling me that my effort is completely without merit.  If you actually do think I am completely wrong, please tell me why.  --SmokeyJoe 09:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: Now I have seen the article relocated, I think that's good. Better than my proposal to split it in two... Re the 'insolation' question. I have read the WP entry on insolation, and SmokeyJoe's comments, and agree that the use of the term needs to be refined, and limited. It should be refined, because SmokeyJoe is right about it being a noun that describes a process. It should be limited because it is not an easily understood word for a lay reader who knows nothing about energy. I acknowledge the link to the WP article on that topic, which is why I am not advocating completely removing it. But can I suggest the following:
Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the Earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing diffuse approximately 20% of the incoming light, and altering its spectrum. After passing through the Earth's atmosphere approximately half the insolation is in the visible electromagnetic spectrum with the other half mostly in the infrared spectrum, and a small part of ultraviolet radiation. Upon reaching the surface, insolation sunlight is absorbed by the oceans, earth and plants.
I might anticipate a comment from SmokeyJoe and say that I think that the use of insolation in the second sentence is probably correct because it is a valid use of noun that describes the rate of something. Yes, I admit that last sunlight is not the most precise technical word, but I think it may be the best word in this particular location. To use insolation here would not be correct: i suppose solar energy would be another alternative?!
I will implement this change in a couple of days if no-one strongly objects.hamiltonstone 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that insolation is a common word.  I have never encountered it in common usage.  It strikes me as awkward and technical.  On consulting dictionaries, I see that it is a very old word, and that it is not as precisely defined as you seem to suppose, or as defined at Insolation.  But that’s OK.  My objection is that the word occurs excessively, awkwardly, and that it is not a term in common usage.  --SmokeyJoe 09:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still insolation to the outer atmosphere. It doesn't "become insolation".  And yes it is a very obscure term that should be used only rarely.
199.125.109.136 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I did look it up in a dictionary. It is still incoming solar radiation no matter where you are, Mars, Earth, the ISS. 199.125.109.87 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insolation 

message: Hi Mrshaba, I believe that this conversation belongs here.
Hey... I wasn't trying to be too precise or clever but no worries. Do you like the pictures in the lead? That's what I'd like to know. Mrshaba 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tries something: "Solar energy is energy from the sun. This energy heats and lights the earth’s surface,  drives the climate and supports virtually all life on Earth."  Let's see what you and others think.  Unfortunately, it is easier to criticise something than to fix it.  --SmokeyJoe 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put heat and light back in and the weather. I will probably end up breaking up the sentence today. Mrshaba 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat and "all life on earth" 

message: The two solar technologies are PV and thermal (not PV and concentrating). The term concentrating does not refer only to thermal, as there are also concentrating PV systems with fresnel lenses. I was trying to clarify the intro when I ran into an edit conflict. Also, I'd be careful about interchanging the terms sunlight (photons) and solar radiation.
--NameThatWorks 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Concentrating PV is still a PV technology but I see what you mean so I changed concentrating solar technologies to concentrating solar thermal technologies. Going forward I'm sure the terms sunlight, solar radiation, solar energy, light, and insolation will require continued reconciliation.Mrshaba 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see this new editor completely rewrite the introduction and see what they come up with. 199.125.109.124 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. This is the second time I've tried to rewrite the intro, and the second time someone has created a conflict before I finished. --NameThatWorks 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrshaba, quit it! See how you get blamed even when it wasn't you? However, to avoid an edit conflict, cut and paste your edit all at once from a notepad, click edit on any section, not the top of the article, change the URL at the top in the address window from section=x to section=0, drop in your text, hit preview just to check and then save page. There are also tags that can be added to indicate that you are editing a page, but I prefer not using them. 199.125.109.124 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't seem to see an 'edit' to click to access only the introduction, other than the one at the top of the page. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NameThatWorks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I revised the intro to make it flow more logically (in my opinion) and to clarify some points. However, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, so feel free to put it back or massage it further. --NameThatWorks 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts Need Clarification 

message: It turns out that redirects only marginally slow down the Wikipedia servers. Making edits majorly slow them down, so only if a link is going to be accessed more than 10,000 times is it worthwhile fixing. If you are editing a page for any other reason, by all means fix the redirect from solar power to solar energy or solar energy|solar power, as appropriate, but don't just go editing the 600 pages that link to solar power, it isn't cost effective on the servers. See WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. The links that needed to be fixed, such as double redirects and self redirects have already been fixed. 199.125.109.87 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to fix redirects 

message: Scott Sklar wrote a short piece explaining the difference here:  Mrshaba 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar energy vs Solar power 

message: This article is now 64K, twice as long as it should be. Some major trimming is in order to get it down to an appropriate size. The lead has grown to six paragraphs, two need to be removed. Here is the TOC:
    * 1 Energy from the Sun
  way too many sections and subsections->    * 2 Types of technologies
          o 2.1 Architecture and urban planning
          o 2.2 Solar lighting
          o 2.3 Solar thermal
                + 2.3.1 Water heating
                + 2.3.2 Heating, cooling and ventilation
                + 2.3.3 Process heat
                + 2.3.4 Cooking
                + 2.3.5 Desalination and disinfection
          o 2.4 Solar electricity
                + 2.4.1 Photovoltaics
                + 2.4.2 Concentrating solar
                + 2.4.3 Updraft Tower
          o 2.5 Solar vehicles
          o 2.6 Solar chemical
          o 2.7 Solar mechanical
    * 3 Energy storage
  remove->    * 4 Solar power by country
  simplify->    * 5 Development, deployment and economics
  remove->    * 6 Solar energy associations
  remove->    * 7 Solar energy research institutes
    * 8 See also
    * 9 References
    * 10 External links
199.125.109.41 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just what I had been thinking.  There is too much stuff here that properly belongs (or already is) elsewhere.  Examples include Photovoltaics and Energy storage.  I'd also like to remove the abbreviation PV for photovolatic.  It is not a common use abbreviation, and if the term is used so often that the name needs abbreviating, then it is used too much.  --SmokeyJoe 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the sun shines only in the day and only in the summer in the polar regions the article needs to have at least one sentence devoted to storage somewhere, but not in the lead of course. 199.125.109.56 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs trimming 

message: I added a small bit on the challenge of intermittency and it impacts on the economics of dispatching solar power, and a link to source that discusses solar power in a larger context. Each of the sections that that deal with a form of solar power could be cut considerably--no need for that much detail here.   Energyadonis 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that gets trimmed and is not already in one of the subarticles can easily be moved there. 199.125.109.87 07:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermittency 

message: Obvious work remains on a few sections but the page seems to be GA worthy. Much appreciation to NTW for his professional skills. Mrshaba 03:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: This section, for me, is one of the most important parts of this page. I've held off editing this section for a long time but have slowly started building on it. I'm trying to develop this section historically but there are gaps in the availability of information so I've run into difficulty. There are also conflicts between sources which I'm trying to resolve but have had limited success. My plan is to bring up Japanese development from 1994 onwards and segue way into parallel German development from 1999 until the present. One overall problem I'm seeing is that $$$ amount are widely quoted that disagree with each other. I think part of the problem is inflation had made numbers quoted during different time spans irrelevant to each other. This needs to be resolved. I'm working on it. Mrshaba 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PV 

message: A couple of points
*Expand Solar mechanical
*I think you can trim the "see also" section. Theres way too many wikilinks.
*when you link sections to "main articles" you only need to link one or two of the most relevant. All of them are not necessary.
I think this article needs a little more touchup. Other than that, I think its ready for GA status. Good friend100 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read [] for tips on "See also" sections. I cut the the section down. Good friend100 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review from Goodfriend100 

message: I trimmed the See Also section a lot. Many of the links there are not needed. I think this article looks great! I think it has great information, nicely organized, and with sufficient refs. I suggest that you...
*Continue to update the article.
*expand short topics.
I suggest you keep working and nominate this for FA status. Good friend100 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations. This is mainly down to your consistent effort Mrshaba and you should be proud. We may have differed over minor issues but the general trend of the article has been to steady improvement. Itsmejudith  —Preceding comment was added at 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Judith. I plan to continue improving the article and others. Mrshaba 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Gradually, I would like to pull apart the references into a notes list and a references list. In terms of books on solar building design, Susan Roaf is a good UK-based author. Do you have anything by her? Itsmejudith 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be nicer if the photo was taken from a higher vantage point so that it showed the reflector better. Does anyone have a helicopter? 199.125.109.47 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for further improvement 

message: You will have seen Mrshaba and I adding the main references to the list. I can't find the Whittaker and Likens reference in the UK academic library system, which is odd if it is Springer-Verlag? can anyone find it in the US academic libraries? thanks. Itsmejudith 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Found it at: http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0387070834 But the authors are slighly different. Long term, a library trip would be required to verify the data we pulled from this book. Mrshaba 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for finishing the books. I wonder whether we need all the detail on heat storage materials when it could be added to the substantive article on that issue (it is relevant to other kinds of energy than solar). "Deliver heat at 64deg" is, I'd say, just an assurance that the material can be used in domestic circumstances; it reads like it came from an advertising blurb. Having said that, it's a good idea to go looking for better sources throughout. I won't have much time to do that, though. Itsmejudith 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to keep the info for several reasons I mentioned in the storage conversation below. If it sounds like an advertisement that should be fixed. I'll take the lead on improving the sources shortly. I purchased 13 years worth of the Solar Energy journal yesterday that will be delivered in a few weeks. With these back issues and my current subscription to Solar Energy I'll be able to amp up the references. Can I get a whoop! whoop! Mrshaba 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: I noticed the HVAC page has a major terms section. I don't want to put a major terms section on this page but I think the solar energy topic could use a major terms page. Is this an appropriate page topic used on WP? Mrshaba 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major terms 

message: The caption on the opening illustration needs strengthening. First, all photos are views. Second, it should be connected to the topic. Something like this might work better: "As seen from Earth, Venus, a planet of similar size, is dwarfed by the sun. The upper atmospheres of both planets receive XX of radiant energy daily."
--NameThatWorks 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you add the rest of the suggested caption, or something similar that relates to the sun's energy, the photo and caption remain better suited to an article on astronomy or the solar system. --NameThatWorks 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. #1 I think using the picture without Venus removes the issue. #2 What should the caption be? I like "Heat and light from the sun fuel life on Earth. Simple, quick... I originally liked the idea of pointing out the magnitude of energy received from the sun but I think the captions should stay away from numbers that involve scientific notation as much as possible. This page will be read by a general audience so the captions should try to stay general. Mrshaba 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: I would like to go back to the previous version of the lead but I'm not going to push it. The previous version was a hybrid of many contributors. There were parts of it that unsettled the purist in me but I left them alone for compromise sake. The lead has been quoted in at least one newpaper and it helped get the page to GA status. I'm not saying the lead should be untouchable. I'm saying the regular editors should leave it alone for now and return to it during the coming run up to FA. I imagine that will be a few months from now. We can give the lead a concerted collective effort then. For right now the former version of the lead was the most stable version we've had for months and this stability helped progress on the rest of the page. Mrshaba 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead changes 

message: I think a graph that looked like this will be good.
::I think it will look good when put in the best and most relevant section. Other than that, people will get confused about a graph on oil prices. Good friend100 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like a PV price history graph that looked similar to the oil price history graph. Mrshaba 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to figure out what graphing program to use but I have been digging into PV's price history. Does anyone know of a good graphing program that converts a table of info into a graph like the one on the right? Mrshaba (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PV price graph 

message: This article has continued to get bigger and is now at 74 kb, instead of the recommended maximum of 32 kb. Some serious trimming is needed to get it back down to proper size. 199.125.109.43 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think should go? The sections are all fairly short and frequently refer to main articles for more detail. Many articles are this length, including FAs. Itsmejudith 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well basically the purpose of edits is to improve the article, not just add information. At this point I would be happy to see about half of the content pushed out to other articles. For example, the TOC is way too complex. When you have five subsections of a subsection, that tells me that all of them should be removed, and the subsection become its own article with its own five subsections. 199.125.109.134 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree in relation to the subsections. These are the result of painstaking efforts to structure the article. I will try to do some pruning but I don't expect to be able to shave off more than about 10% without losing useful material. Itsmejudith 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a distraction. It is much more important to continue working on the content for now. No offense Judith but I think the few words that were shaved from the second paragraph are ill advised. This balanced phrasing came from NTW. It has been added/removed/added and now removed again. Was it removed as part of a pruning process? I don't know but it seems the sentence is now out of balance again. I won't change it back but I wish we could put a lock on the lead because jeez it's been a hassle. At this point I still have more content I'm waiting to fold into the Lighting, Cooking, HVAC and Vehicle sections. The architecture section needs better cohesion. The vehicle section needs more diversity. The second half of the PV section needs significant work. We've still got pictures to find and choose from. Most of the references need to be carefully worked again in the Harvard style. I think an optimization of references can save the page 5 percent all by itself but most of the areas of improvement will generally fatten up the page. I'm guessing between what is added, trimmed or optimized the page should come in at 75-85 kb. This length would put the page at about the same size as the Michael Jordan page by word count although considerably longer by page count thanks to all the wonderful pictures. The wind power page is a peer of this one and it sits at 104 kb. Where does it say that a topic of this breath needs to be covered in 32 kb? The sections seem to be well balanced and Goodfriend did advise lenthening short sections. Lumos3 pointed out that many visitors to the page will be children. Keeping this in mind we should have many striking images that will entice these younger readers into at least reading the captions. Now that I think of it, both Lumos3 and NameThatWorks have pointed out our picture captions need to better apply to the pictures. So there's another clear area for improvement. The page is clearly still being built. We'll cross the pruning bridge when we come to it. Mrshaba 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with those edits being reverted. I do like to rewrite in more condensed style, as I think it is usually clearer, but you're probably right that it can wait for now. Let's look at some FA lengths. Itsmejudith 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally agree with writing in a condensed style. I looked at some FAs. Islam-92, Michael Jordan-74, El Greco-88, Eagle Scout-38, Helium-46, Windows XP-54 (surprisingly), Renewable Energy in Scotland-73, Minnesota-90, Plymouth Colony-103. Seems like 75-85 kb would be fine considering the history, diversity, and technical nature of this subject. Mrshaba 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Avsb and a warm welcome to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is "Maybe". It depends if the site has information that is not available anywhere else, and also on the reliability of the information on that site. Since we are trying to take this article to Featured Article status, we are really looking for sources of the highest possible quality, such as refereed scientific papers, books written by acknowledged experts, or government reports. Can you say something about the standing of the website you wish to add? Or just give us the URL to check out. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe pruning needed 

message: I tried to condense this material but the short-cuts taken disrespect the topic and misinform the reader. My idea with this section was to remind the reader that we can build and arrange things in a ways that utilize sunlight and climate rather than allowing the sun to work against us. This is a base principle of solar energy in general but Vitruvius pointed out the beginning principles more eloquently 2000 years ago than I ever could. I think the quote is a wonderful introduction to the technologies. Perlin wins again. Mrshaba 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Architecture 

message: When I read through the page I highlight in my mind where it needs to be fixed. Normally I announce my broad intentions of fixing the page here and then follow through. For the most part I just talk to myself on this page but I don't really care because this topic drives me all by itself. That being said I appreciate positive feedback and constructive criticism. One thing I was just thinking was that a subpage could be listed and highlighted with areas of concern. The highlights could include a ref with a link to the specific concern. The concerns would be too long, uncited, POV etc. The specific tags could still be placed on the main page but a person like me who wants to see the areas of concern on a whole page could quickly see them highlighted all at once on a subpage... Just an idea.
It could definitely be abused but it could also be controlled. One editor should not be allowed to have more than 3 concerns at a time for example... As I say... just a thought. Mrshaba 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to improve this page is to recognize that Wikipedia is edited by over a million editors, and has over 2 million English articles alone. Focusing on one article is counterproductive. Focus only on other articles for at least six months. When you return you will have a better knowledge of how to improve this article. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ignore the above, Mrshaba. The usual way to handle what you suggest above is a to-do list on the talk page. This article used to have one but then all the original to-dos were finished. The lead-up to FA is a good time to have such a list. Anon, your help would be much appreciated. Let's leave the editing spats to controversial articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Anon is not helping. The rudely tinted to do list is a reminder of Anons' contribution style. It's astonishing to me how patient wikipedia is with editors like this. This has been going on for months. I have constantly had to backtrack over and defend well written material because of this guy. The article is well organized and filled with quality sourced material.... nothing to write the Nobel committee about but it's good. I've tried to post to the admin boards but they are not responding. This guy needs to go away. Mrshaba (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting rated GA by someone who just got back from a block and was reversed on their very next review because the article clearly did not meet GA standards and going for FA status is a whole different ball game. If you review the FA requirements, you will see that the prose needs to be engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. 199.125.109.62 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the style points. Disrespecting the GA qual is BS and I think you are completely full of it. Forward review of the page should work in a step-wise fashion from weak sections up. At this point the to do lists should point out specific weaknesses by section because we have sections which need obvious work, sections inbetween, and other sections that are relatively complete. The prose on the page as a whole is well done... magazine quality definitely.... engaging and even brilliant at times... We're clearly getting there. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff with our to do list and work up rather than over... I'm impressed by the recent work of Judith and Sillybilly and I happily recognize the quality of their contributions and the defense/explanation on this talk page. I have felt very alone editing this page for a long time because there's been a whole lot of watching and complaining about what I've written/edited. This is my impression only. On the opposite side, I'm very happy to watch and appreciate doing rather than doing and suffering complaint. To those that add I commend you. 66.122.77.148 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question on Improvement Methods 

message: I want the Solar lighting section to align on the left side of the page. On small screens this occurs naturally but on large screens it does not. What coding should I use to force the Solar lighting section to fall below the Urban Heat Island picture using any screen size? It's a layout question... Mrshaba 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout question 

message: I know it is a traditionally important factor in passive solar building design, but can we move it further down to the energy storage section where thermal mass is mentioned? Any views welcome, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of Trombe wall material 

message: The issue of caption rework has been mentioned by Lumos3 and NameThatWorks. I did a partial overhaul of the captions today. 90% of the material I changed was forwarded to me by NameThatWorks so he deserves the credit for these changes. So far so good. Mrshaba (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, shucks. Twere'nt nuthin'. --NameThatWorks (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions