Talk:World energy consumption/Archive 1

message: From what time an energy consumption is measured in watts instead of watt hours or joules? And how to convert "watts" in this article to regural units?
:"Megawatt" appeared in a November 28, 1847, article in Science. Wikipedia has a good article on Watts. A Watt is a Joule per second so to convert from watts to joules you multiply by the number of seconds in the time period. Consumption implies a rate so there will be a time period.  A year has approximately π *107 seconds. :)  User:Mierlo 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy consumption in Watts???

message: I don't like the "ability to generate work" definition of energy on this page. This is a purely scientific construct and requires the scientific understanding of the word "work". To reflect the social science emphasis of this page, I prefer "ability to cause change". --LightYear 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Have added a clarifying sentence to describe why energy ownership by the state is significant for regulation. Sound right? --LightYear 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulation

message: Have moved the old text on energy use in consumer products to the energy coversion efficiency page and linked to it here with some relevant context. --LightYear 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduction

message: I tried to save the old text about vast energy use dictating evolution of society by putting it in the context of consumption. Additionally, I've reintroduced the unreferenced fact about the biggest consumers in the world to add to the statistical information in this section. --LightYear 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consumption

message: I think that the Key World Energy Statistics - 2006 Edition, published by the International Energy Agency, consists some interesting information concerning energy consumption, which is worth to use in this article. I also added this publication to the list of external links. Beagel 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a great lead and the publication was used to produce the Energy consumption per capita versus the GNP per capita figure. User:Mierlo 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key World Energy Statistics - 2006 Edition

message: It's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold and a couple of the issues relating to the original reviewer's comments still exist. Please re-read his commentary and the comments left by others, and use it as constructive criticism to improve upon the article.
Consider the scope of the article in terms of worldviews, as noted by Gralo. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for some more help on that issue. Do try again when you have everything sorted. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination failure

message: The article has been dramatically improved and the previous suggestions have been implemented. Last week it was selected as a good article by the energy portal. The text is comprehensive, the prose is elegant, the references are extensive, important facts are referenced twice, the enlightening graphics are especially produced for Wikipedia and the difficult layout problem has been solved. Today I optimistically renewed the good article nomination.  The Skeptical Optimist 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed GA nomination 

message: Failed fac for ArticleHistory archive: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: World Energy Outlook consists some forecasts of energy consumption up to 2030. Unfortunately this is not available via Internet and I don't have the printed book.Beagel 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is an option. However, probably a reference to some reliable baseline scenario could be added also into this article. Beagel 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Energy Outlook

message: Hi Mierlo, this was just a proposal. My solution intended to put the figures in the belonging chapters. IMHO some white space between the chapters is much less incomfortable, than often scrolling up and down the article to compare the information given in the text with those backed by the figures. Also Your solution of programming the page of this article can be very unnerving for those who are updating the article later on --87.185.29.79 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. You may at least put in the interwiki to the German site de:Weltenergieverbrauch. But only if you really like to ;) --87.185.29.79 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Frank. First, You are doing a great job collecting the information for this article. But I am afraid You didn't understand what I am talking about. My point is concerning the usability of the article for the reader and other authors. You may be thrilled by these extraordinary challenges programming the article. But as I said above, for the reader it can be very anoying to scroll up and down the article to compare text and corresponding figures and for other authors to update information in the cryptically programmed sectors of the article. In the end You and maybe a few other challengers may stay the only ones to have interest in updating the article. Just keep that in mind. So long and good luck in the good article tournament --87.185.2.36 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It is not necessary to put the interwiki in the See also list. Beagel has put it already in the normaly used column on the left hand side under the headline in other languages, as you can see  here. --87.185.2.36 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow the other languages feature is really cool, I didn't know about that, thanks for pointing it out. Your point about the usability is well made. I do understand your concern and like you I strive to make things transparent for the reader and the editor. In the end I make the call slightly different; Editing is still easy afterall if an editor clicks on any of the sub-headers she does not even see that she is in a column. If one ignores just the first few commands editing the entire article also does not require any understanding of the columns. For reading I am convinced that an orderly column is better than white spaces in the middle of the article and the text bouncing in between the edge of the screen and the side of the graphics. That said, I wish I knew how to limit the size of the image column to the the width of the image. User:Mierlo 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rev by Mierlo, 1st Feb 2007 

message: :If you're confident of the facts, go with it and cite the sources. Also add to Coal to keep the articles in step, or raise the issue on the coal talk page if you'd prefer. Gralo 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coal

message: This is difficult. I am afraid that there is no easy solution for the layout, several people have tried already.  With the exception of World primary energy all the graphics were specially produced for this article. It took a lot of effort to make them and it would be nice if they can be readable. After all, we are trying to communicate a lot of facts and this is best done with pictures. The current layout does not look very elegant as it creates large white space at several screen resolutions. The two column layout has its problems but it allows larger readable graphics and it keeps the text together.User:Mierlo 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a 'feature' of Internet Explorer. I've repositioned the offending image and it seems OK now... Gralo 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: I really liked Gralo's edit of the nuclear power section. It reads much better now. User:Mierlo 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that there are 2500 ZJ of Uranium left and a source was cited.   However, when I went to the source there was no mention of this 2500 ZJ.  Where does this figure come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.37.82.134 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear Power

message: Stuff that should really be fixed for GA or FA status:
*Get the units right:
**1000 W = 1 kW, lowercase ‘k’.
**Put   or another non-breaking character between the number and the unit. (This is optional, really boring and rarely noticed, but, hey, this is about getting the article right.)
**When referring to money, make clear what currency you use. ‘$’ alone is not enough.
**When writing ranges of values like ‘300 to 370 TW’, do not omit the unit at either number: ‘300 TW to 370 TW’.
***Also, use the en dash (the first character in the special characters list below the edit form), not the hyphen: ‘USD 3–5 trillion’. There should not be a linebreak between the numbers and the magnitude.
**Say once, at the beginning, which units and which notation is used: ‘This article uses SI units and prefixes and measures power in watts (W) and energy in joules (J).’ or something like that.  - Done Frank van Mierlo 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your review, these are good comments. User:Mierlo 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: In addition to , here is what this page currently looks like at 800*600 resolution. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mierlo has started fixing this. Many thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the screenshot; I'm still not sure why it has to be two columns. This creates problems with pacing the copy with the images. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's ugly. But yeah, the two column thing needs to go. pschemp | talk 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove two column formatting and put images just inside of relevant text. Beagel 08:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on layout 

message: Right now we have two quite similar images named World energy consumption in TW (=1012 Watt), 1980-2004 and World energy consumption in TW, 1965-2005. Although the secondary sources of these images are different, they present same data. The main difference is that BP's data covers longer period than EIA's data. It's usually not accepted that same data are presented by different images of similar type. It's not specified in the text why this article is exceptional. Therefore I propose to keep only image World energy consumption in TW, 1965-2005 as it covers longer period, and remove the image World energy consumption in TW (=1012 Watt), 1980-2004.Beagel 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not delete any of these images, but I have a feeling it could be something what would be raised up during next review process. Maybe the difference of figures and reasons should be explained in more detail in the article? Beagel 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World energy consumption images