Template talk:WikiProject Energy

message: Proposal: Take a look at reliable figures for energy production and use whatever technology is most used.  For the next 20 years or so that is going to be oil. Using an image because you think it is coming next or you like it is way out POV. 199.125.109.36 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil is not the only nor the most important resource in the world. You refusal to include other images is POV vandalism. Jbntj 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it was the only or the most important energy resource in the world. I said it was the most used energy resource at the present time.  I do not see any new proposals so I am reverting to Oil well.jpg 199.125.109.84 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is to eliminate coal power plants which, along with OIL, are the primary contributors to global warming. Jbntj 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: === Comments ===
Howdy, I have come here based upon a request from WP:RFC/SCI.  I have no vested interest in either side and will attempt to provide an objective opinion from the outside.  A couple of observations:
* I would encourage all parties involved to stop labeling the proposed changes here (and on Portal_talk:Energy) as vandalism.  WP:VANDAL clearly states that vandalism is something which attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  Since all the images being proposed revolve around energy production, the use of any (or all) of them would not compromise the integrity of wikipedia.
* I personally don't see how or why the potential contribution to global warming should have any influence over a "illustration" for a wikiproject, nor do I see why the "most used" energy resource would need to be used, nor do I see why multiple images couldn't be combined into one image.  The image is simply an illustration that anyone should be able to recognize as being related to energy — the possibilities for such an image are vast (and include all proposed images).
* Speaking of the image discussions, so far they appear to have focused on energy production images.  Perhaps a compromise could be found by moving the image to something completely different - perhaps related to well recognized methods of distribution, usage, or storage?  As but one example, the battery/electricity image at the top of Portal:Energy article is relatively generic and easily recognizable.  Or another couple: a drawing or picture of an explosion, or even the sun.  Or go retro and have an image of a water wheel?  The possibilities are endless. 
I hope these items help to stimulate the discussion in a positive direction.  With best regards, Mrand T-C 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  There appears to be only one person who insists on trashing the template.  I actually looked for a water wheel, but wikipedia does not have very many images, and I was unable to find one.  The collage is not very workable because it is hard to "grok".  The sun or an explosion are not very identifiable as referring to energy.  The biggest problem with the battery/plug image is that electricity only accounts for about 25% of energy.  It seems clear that the person who keeps making the change only wants to see a nuclear power plant as the image because they appear to want to promote the use of nuclear power, as if putting an image on a talk page is going to have one iota of influence (other than to upset people).  Their idea of adding four more images simply trashes the template.  Bear in mind that the template gets huge when that is done.  You are correct, their edits while disruptive, do not compromise wikipedia. 199.125.109.20 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really crazy. I propose to revert to back the version with only one image and not change the template before solving this dispute. If accepted solution not found, the only way will be to restore deleted templates with different images and let use in every case this template, which has closest image to the article subject. The current template with five images doesn't promote the WP Energy, but seems more like anti-promotion.Beagel 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that they are a student at Ohio State in Columbus (since they have stopped creating throw away user names they are easier to track down) taking a course on Nuclear Energy and their prof has been telling them that nuclear is the wave of the future and they are trying to tell the world that.  Well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's an encyclopedia.  While I doubt that nuclear power will ever get above it's present 6-7% of energy use, no one can know for sure, and the 350,000 who were severely tramatized when they were relocated after Chernobyl are not likely to want it to increase. Hey I went to one of the schools that developed nuclear power, and I didn't know anything was wrong with it  until much later. 199.125.109.108 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the 6 billion people who will die in ~300 years when global warming melts the polar ice caps and causes massive hurricanes, based on graphical data showing .5 degree celsius increase every 25 years.  68.75.18.59 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would estimate that total death toll from Coal power in China is around around the 2 million mark if you include lung cancer and lung problem deaths.  So yeah, we're on our way. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are people that stupid? All evidence thus far says they/we are. Five years after your comment, the world's governments via the UNFCCC process have continued to fail every year to "take action" sufficient to stabilize the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels likely to be safe; see the book Fools Rule: Inside the Failed Politics of Climate Change for an analysis of the factors driving this political deadlock. The vast majority of the world's individuals continue to be largely indifferent toward the issue, by maintaining carbon footprints which are primarily functions of their income - i.e., the more money a person has to spend, the more greenhouse gases they tend to generate directly or indirectly by consuming goods and services. (Indeed, many Wikipedians boast on their user pages of their carbon-spewing travel habits.) The fossil fuel lobby has shown itself highly effective at blocking any political action which could interfere with its business model, which is to extract and sell all the Earth's recoverable fossil fuels. A lot can happen in 300 years, of course, but that is (or may be) approximately the time scale to melt the ice sheets, not the time scale to commit to global warming sufficient to melt them. The latter may be far less; humans may have already added enough durable greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to produce an ice-free planet, after fast and slow climate feedbacks have taken effect. The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today, Earth was nearly ice-free. The longer "action" is delayed, the more drastic the required action becomes; see the analysis of Anderson and Bows 2011. This in turn makes it harder for people to avoid being "stupid" in the sense of your rhetorical question, as we look forward in time. However, this relates only peripherally to the choice of an incidental image for this template. --Teratornis (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Howdy, I have come here based upon a request from WP:RFC/SCI.  I have no vested interest in either side and will attempt to provide an objective opinion from the outside.  A couple of observations:
* I would encourage all parties involved to stop labeling the proposed changes here (and on Portal_talk:Energy) as vandalism.  WP:VANDAL clearly states that vandalism is something which attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  Since all the images being proposed revolve around energy production, the use of any (or all) of them would not compromise the integrity of wikipedia.
* I personally don't see how or why the potential contribution to global warming should have any influence over a "illustration" for a wikiproject, nor do I see why the "most used" energy resource would need to be used, nor do I see why multiple images couldn't be combined into one image.  The image is simply an illustration that anyone should be able to recognize as being related to energy — the possibilities for such an image are vast (and include all proposed images).
* Speaking of the image discussions, so far they appear to have focused on energy production images.  Perhaps a compromise could be found by moving the image to something completely different - perhaps related to well recognized methods of distribution, usage, or storage?  As but one example, the battery/electricity image at the top of Portal:Energy article is relatively generic and easily recognizable.  Or another couple: a drawing or picture of an explosion, or even the sun.  Or go retro and have an image of a water wheel?  The possibilities are endless. 
I hope these items help to stimulate the discussion in a positive direction.  With best regards, Mrand T-C 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  There appears to be only one person who insists on trashing the template.  I actually looked for a water wheel, but wikipedia does not have very many images, and I was unable to find one.  The collage is not very workable because it is hard to "grok".  The sun or an explosion are not very identifiable as referring to energy.  The biggest problem with the battery/plug image is that electricity only accounts for about 25% of energy.  It seems clear that the person who keeps making the change only wants to see a nuclear power plant as the image because they appear to want to promote the use of nuclear power, as if putting an image on a talk page is going to have one iota of influence (other than to upset people).  Their idea of adding four more images simply trashes the template.  Bear in mind that the template gets huge when that is done.  You are correct, their edits while disruptive, do not compromise wikipedia. 199.125.109.20 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really crazy. I propose to revert to back the version with only one image and not change the template before solving this dispute. If accepted solution not found, the only way will be to restore deleted templates with different images and let use in every case this template, which has closest image to the article subject. The current template with five images doesn't promote the WP Energy, but seems more like anti-promotion.Beagel 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that they are a student at Ohio State in Columbus (since they have stopped creating throw away user names they are easier to track down) taking a course on Nuclear Energy and their prof has been telling them that nuclear is the wave of the future and they are trying to tell the world that.  Well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's an encyclopedia.  While I doubt that nuclear power will ever get above it's present 6-7% of energy use, no one can know for sure, and the 350,000 who were severely tramatized when they were relocated after Chernobyl are not likely to want it to increase. Hey I went to one of the schools that developed nuclear power, and I didn't know anything was wrong with it  until much later. 199.125.109.108 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the 6 billion people who will die in ~300 years when global warming melts the polar ice caps and causes massive hurricanes, based on graphical data showing .5 degree celsius increase every 25 years.  68.75.18.59 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would estimate that total death toll from Coal power in China is around around the 2 million mark if you include lung cancer and lung problem deaths.  So yeah, we're on our way. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are people that stupid? All evidence thus far says they/we are. Five years after your comment, the world's governments via the UNFCCC process have continued to fail every year to "take action" sufficient to stabilize the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels likely to be safe; see the book Fools Rule: Inside the Failed Politics of Climate Change for an analysis of the factors driving this political deadlock. The vast majority of the world's individuals continue to be largely indifferent toward the issue, by maintaining carbon footprints which are primarily functions of their income - i.e., the more money a person has to spend, the more greenhouse gases they tend to generate directly or indirectly by consuming goods and services. (Indeed, many Wikipedians boast on their user pages of their carbon-spewing travel habits.) The fossil fuel lobby has shown itself highly effective at blocking any political action which could interfere with its business model, which is to extract and sell all the Earth's recoverable fossil fuels. A lot can happen in 300 years, of course, but that is (or may be) approximately the time scale to melt the ice sheets, not the time scale to commit to global warming sufficient to melt them. The latter may be far less; humans may have already added enough durable greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to produce an ice-free planet, after fast and slow climate feedbacks have taken effect. The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today, Earth was nearly ice-free. The longer "action" is delayed, the more drastic the required action becomes; see the analysis of Anderson and Bows 2011. This in turn makes it harder for people to avoid being "stupid" in the sense of your rhetorical question, as we look forward in time. However, this relates only peripherally to the choice of an incidental image for this template. --Teratornis (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I asked to semi-protect this template until consensus is found which image to use. Please leave your comment after each image, or propose any additional image. The current proposals are:
* :Image:Oil well.jpg
:*Support - Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strong support It is easy to recognize and represents the largest source of energy at present. 199.125.109.83 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support - Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose nuclear power is extremely offensive to many people. 199.125.109.83 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not support - template will have a small image and it's very hard to understand what this graphic is for, and you it's related to the WP Energy. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not support - Too much small details, which is not good for a small images. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not support - really not represent energy as such. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not support - too specific to represent whole energy sector. Could be used in case we agree to use several templates with different images. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal was already floated, two other templates created, and both deleted through the wp:TFD process.  What you may not realize is that this template has two broken links on it (here) and (Help with this template) yet is used on over a thousand talk pages, so those are the things we need to be working on, not the image.  What the image used is is no big deal as long as it does not overly offend anyone and it is easy to recognize - see discussion above for using an old water wheel for example. Just leave it the oil well for now. 199.125.109.83 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the above images are appropriate for the template in question other than the first one, Oil well.jpg - the rest were all copied from a proposal to use them as the image at the top right of the energy portal, not on a talk page.  They are appropriate there but not here. 199.125.109.83 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This is a two part edit. 
1. Move "Template:Energy/usage" 
to "Template:WikiProject Energy/usage"
2. Edit  to change "Template:Energy" 
to "Template:WikiProject Energy" (3 places).
: Done. I actually moved the page to Template:WikiProject Energy/doc for conformity. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 199.125.109.36 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit requested 

message: The most recent edit to Template:WikiProject Energy had the side effect of changing the old code that generated these categories:
 
}} }} }}  ...
to new inherited template code that uses the project name "Energy" (uppercase "E") in place of the old "energy" in these category names. However, this has the effect of generating red links on new talk pages that use , pointing to categories such as:
*:Category:Low-importance Energy articles
The existing categories are for the moment well-populated, e.g. :Category:Low-importance energy articles, but presumably over time the pages that are in the old categories as a result of transcluding  will be migrating automatically to the new redlinked categories. (One can manually force this for a given page by purging it, as I discovered by purging Talk:Wind power in the United States.) What category names do we want to have as the real categories? Shall we move the old category pages to the new ones? --Teratornis (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to use a different assessment category, i.e. a lowercase 'e'. Use the parameter "|ASSESSMENT_CAT = energy articles". That will fix this issue. —Borgardetalk 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed fix this issue, and, at the same time, cause the class categories to use the wrong case. I suggest sticking with the upper case E and create the necessary categories—there are links to do this in the message box. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LOWERCASE might suggest the class categories should use a lowercase e, if category names follow the same naming conventions as article titles. --Teratornis (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with some categories in recent revision to the template 

message: Now that wind power is cheaper than any other new generation, and 41,000 MW was installed last year, I propose changing the image of the oil well to one of a wind turbine, preferably one that shows solar panels as well. Last year 29,000 MW of photovoltaics was installed. Photovoltaics is growing by about 70%/year and wind by about 21%/year, so solar will likely catch up with wind soon. Wind and solar are the only sources that can replace fossil fuels. :File:Schneebergerhof 01.jpg for example.
 
Any opinions? Delphi234 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which energy form is cheapest might depend on geographic context and might often vary in time. I think a generic image would best do the job of being easy to recognise, neutral, and serving the project long-term. I liked the proposals little above on this page, like :File:Sunspot TRACE.jpeg. --ELEKHHT 14:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which energy form is "cheapest" also depends on whether the external costs of every source of energy are accurately priced. At the moment, fossil fuels enjoy a substantial implicit subsidy (in addition to any explicit subsidies), as there is no charge to the consumer for dumping their combustion products into the atmosphere. The resulting costs from an individual's contributions to man-made global warming fall primarily on billions of other individuals, scattered around the planet, and mainly in the future, as it takes decades or centuries for a unit of durable greenhouse gas to realize its global warming potential. --Teratornis (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: *Comment. I think this proposal makes sense. I hope there will be enough participants to form the RE TF and that image will definitely serve well for this task force. Beagel (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo update