Template talk:Renewable energy by country and territory

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because you put the portals on the template doesn't mean they'll get deleted from the pages. Maybe they should get deleted from the pages, but I don't think we should clutter this up much more. Maybe if they can be placed somewhere less intrusive (that doesn't make like 20 new line breaks) then it could work. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laundry list[edit]

Things to be considered for this template:

-Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of Nuclear[edit]

Okay, firstly, the AfD did accept the template in its current form. If someone were to find this unacceptable, then that's what talk pages are for.

Which also said "If someone feels like it's too large, then go edit it." And that is exactly what has been done, until someone messed it up again. 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going back to the original discussion about creating this - the purpose is to provide a portal that collaborates all the "by country" energy articles. Rename it, add another bar specifying nuclear power, I don't care. The point is to have them all together here.

Nuclear doesn't have official status as a renewable or non-renewable, for any of you who care about this point, and I don't want to see anyone positioning Wikipedia on this point. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually nuclear does have an official status as non-renewable. Check with the DOE at [1]. Quit being silly. 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because there's a list on line of Renewables = item1, item2... and nuclear isn't included, doesn't omit it from the definition. Many people classify it as renewable, others do not, but it's more universally classified as "sustainable". You can not say in an article "Nuclear is non-renewable". -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The worst president of the US in history pushed to get nuclear classified as renewable, but Germany's chancellor Merkel put her foot down and quashed it for the same reason I am, it is just plain silly. Why would anyone want to say nuclear is non-renewable in an article? That would be like saying "a tomato is not a squash". By the way, you have to really stretch it to even call nuclear sustainable, there is more solar energy available to the earth in one year than will ever be obtained from earth's nuclear resources, forever. 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solar comes from the same source as fossil fuels, the sun, which works by nuclear reactions. Nuclear is not sustainable forever - the universe is not sustainable forever, but as long as you're using the term "nuclear power" and not "the once through Uranium cycle" then nuclear is the most sustainable of any energy source.
Germany's chancellor Merkel wasn't the first to call nuclear non-renewable and Bush wasn't the first to call it renewable. You're not negating my point that some call it renewable and some call it non-renewable. Bush may very well be an insane wanabe dictator. That doesn't change the fact that the most powerful leader in the world calls nuclear renewable. There is no universal consensus on the matter. End of story. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether the universe is sustainable forever is not very important. My horizon is the next billion years. Long before then we will have expanded far out into the galaxy and possibly to other galaxies. As we expand we will use both renewable and non-renewable energy sources. It's helpful to remember which is which. 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Break off request[edit] requested that we break this up by source.

  • I vote to not merge into a million articles, because this makes it waaaay easier for the reader to understand and navigate. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't be silly, I am suggesting it be slit into two templates, and a third when it gets too big again. Two is hardly, "a million". And no it is way easier for the reader to understand and navigate when only renewable technologies are included in the renewable template (duh). 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came up with the merge thing from this comment:

It is not workable to create one giant template that includes coal by country, oil by country, solar by country, etc., etc., and downright silly to stuff nuclear into the renewable template, which as it grows will be split into two separate templates anyway, one for only solar and the other for only wind.

But fine, whatever, we won't propose three separate templates then. But then why two? -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every single nuclear by article has a link to the nuclear by country template which now gets improperly redirected to the renewable by country template. I know because I checked them all. Solar and wind are so small now that there is no need to split them, yet, but I might remind you that there are something like 200 countries in the world, and once these articles all get created, well long before that, it will need to be split again, with the renewable template deprecated. There are actually eight renewable technologies, sun, wind, wave, tide, geothermal, biomass, biofuel and hydropower, so if a lot of any of these other by country articles are created they would also create a need for deprecating the template. The reason for two is because nuclear is not a renewable resource, and pretending it is will get you nowhere. By the way there is an article that does say that nuclear is not renewable. 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
200 countries, and about 5 with notable developments into wind power. And nuclear doesn't plan to grow much, there are only so many countries using nuclear power, and you'll have to wait a decade or so before a decent number start entering the list (if this happens at all). Many of the solar and wind by country articles are already pushing the limits of notability as it is. Keep in mind, there may be like 8 "renewable" sources out there, but it makes up like 2.5% of our electricity generation (and then some of transportation and other energy uses). -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what percentage of renewable sources are one of those 8, um 100%. You are not making a very good point. What percentage of wind sources are wind sources? 100% again. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it is not our purpose to guess how fast articles are going to be written, but to accommodate them as they are. It is clear that once there are say 30 of either solar or wind it would be high time to split them into their own template. At that point this template could become a catch-all for the remaining six renewable technologies. But using it to include all the other "country of" articles is just plain silly. 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is WP:NOTABILITY should limit the number of articles in this template. Stop calling things silly. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only call things silly that are silly. I am not calling you or anyone else silly. Love the sinner, hate the sin, remember? The template was already flagged as too big, but that has been taken care of by splitting it back to renewable and nuclear, like it was before. You might want to refer to [2]for a reference on whether nuclear is renewable or not. My apology in advance that it is a kids page, which I know you are not. 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it was not too big, and there has been no problem fixed. Your suggestion still stands only as a proposal and I'm waiting for someone other than the two of us to comment.
And once again you have not proved that nuclear has any official classification. The EIA is a part of the DOE, which is a United States Federal Executive Departments, and considering that the head of the US Executive Department openly calls nuclear a renewable energy source, you've managed to find an internal contradiction. Nothing else. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you should look at the reference again. It shows coal, nuclear, oil, and natural gas, and calls all of them non-renewable. 03:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you're plenty intelligent enough to understand the argument I already laid out. We're done arguing, it's established that some call it renewable and some (possibly more) call it non-renewable. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely more. Like at least a million to one. What did Gore say, it isn't the things that you don't know that get you into trouble, it is the things that you know that just aren't so. The purpose of Wikipedia is to at least provide as accurate a picture of what is so as possible. 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no stomach for your anecdotes (and though irrelevant, I highly disagree with your speculative numbers). Reply back when you're ready to discuss what to do with the template.

My intention to create an energy "by country" template was made clear before you edited any of this. I can show what other kinds of templates are being used, and you'll find the typical size is very well in line with what this would be after all the potential articles are incorporated. For a quick example, Template:Global warming.

I'm trying to drive this back on course, I hope you can still find some way to WP:Assume good faith. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 05:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The global warming template is not typical, and is on the horrendously big side. I really think your only purpose is to promote nuclear power, not anything else. Nuclear power comes from a resource that gets mined. It is not renewable. No one is putting more Uranium into the ground for us. Once it is gone it is gone. The nuclear power article says that the current mines will be depleted in only 20 years. You are beating a dead horse. -- (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Nuclear technology Template:Oklahoma Template:US South Template:USPoliticalDivisions -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't you put it in both templates and then deal with the controversy in the article? A template is only an easy way of finding things - not an incontrovertable statement. Fainites barley 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outside opinion: Where is hydro power here? Biofuels? Fuel cells? Maybe the template should be titled "Alternative energy by country" to avoid this whole nuclear debate (I'm pro-nuclear, just to let you know my bias). Otherwise, nuclear should be included or moved to another template with a link provided. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nuclear does have its own template, nuclear power by country. I just added geothermal, but hydro and biofuel and biomass can also be added. Fuel cells are not an energy source, so they would not be included. Alternative energy is not as definitive as renewable energy. For example, if Iceland uses mainly geothermal, geothermal is not an alternative energy for them, but it is a renewable energy. (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can avoid all of this by just making this an "energy by country" template. If we expanded the wind and nuclear articles so much, then attention should be given to the content about fossil fuels as well. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 07:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the original proposal and it was rejected because that would make it way too big. 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing has been agreed, I'm waiting for more opinions and I will rearrange these into one later. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My humble suggestion is that the template be left as it is. You two are both good editors and I'm sure that there are more important things for you to be doing on WP... Johnfos 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent major expansion of template[edit]

The template is getting out of hand -- way too large now -- List of renewable energy topics by country already covers a lot of this as does the relevant categories and the very full See also sections which most of these articles have. If you wish to expand the Template please discuss first. Johnfos (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To adhere to NPOV it should list the major renewable categories, excluding hydro and biofuel from a renewable energy navigation template is ludicrous.F2x (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see from the extensive discussion above, there has been a lot of Talk about this Template, including a deletion discussion. The compromise position was to keep the Template, but keep it short, given that it duplicates info provided elsewhere. If we don't keep it manageable, then I would like to see the Template deleted... Johnfos (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I don't agree here, but in the interest of a compromise what about just having one extra section (small) to make it NPOV. F2x (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds great. I went with the 'general' renewable section so it covers the miscellaneous ones such as biomass, wave, etc. that way its not limited to the list of topics page or whats on the template. I think that one does the most to contribute to NPOV. F2x (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just had a look at your latest "small" expansion. Sorry, but the Template is still too much. I guess it will need to be nominated for deletion. Johnfos (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we don't have to end our discussion at that. I will make its smaller. F2x (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, that's fine, but there will be some articles, no longer listed in the Template, where the Template will need to be removed from. I think the thing to do is to make sure that List of renewable energy topics by country is in the See also section of these articles... Johnfos (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please replace the "renewable energy" section with "geothermal" - see the note at the bottom: "This template is used for the Wind, Solar or Geothermal power in xxx articles." All of the other articles can be found from the "list of" link at the top. What the template actually is, is a list of "Alternative energy" articles, except that alternative energy is so mainstream today that it is no longer called "alternative", it is simply called "renewable energy". (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh and by the way it is nice to see that Scotland has become an independent country once again. It's about time! Long live Bonnie Prince Charlie! (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new look?[edit]

Just discovered this template and it simply doesn`t include what i expect. Links to RE in country articles are missing as well. I understand demand to keep template in reasonable size, but i think that will be better to redesign template than "randomly" exclude some topics. So here is my new design proposal, country (not source) based ( including "letter subproposal", that may save space, but is less lucid).

-- (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a new look is needed. Present template is fine. Johnfos (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Present template is fine. (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a new "look", but rather a reorganization, such as to list by country each separated renewable source article. This would be similar to other "List of ___ by country" templates. A very short one, appropriate here perhaps, is Template:Internet censorship by country. A long and messy one is Template:Lists_of_TV_programs_by_country. The point of these templates is that they only list countries with relevant pages, and I think in this case, rather than being selective about what is "renewable", we go by country with relevant articles to follow. Otherwise, I think it should be expanded to include all non-fossilfuel energy sources, with links to those listed elsewhere. Alternatively, one simply provides separate templates for each of "Solar power by country", "Wind power by country", etc, and uses this template to then sublink into those. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navbar content[edit]

Currently this navbar does not include the most obvious Category:Renewable energy by country articles, it duplicates Template:Wind power by country and Template:Solar power by country, while omitting hydro. I suggest replacing it with general RE articles per the example below. --ELEKHHT 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK needs moving[edit]

The UK needs to be moved from the European Union section of Europe to the "Other" section. I've not got the permissions to do so yet, otherwise I'd do it myself Thegeographer14 (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]