Template talk:WikiProject Energy

Active discussions
WikiProject Energy (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


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. 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Five images? What a piece of garbage. 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo has been temporarily changed to stop an edit war. It will be replaced with a consensus image: 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed images: Oil well.jpg

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)
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 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

Please discuss first before making changes. Otherwise your changes are just vandalism disruptive. What does coal plants have to do with anything? I do not see any proposal for an image of a coal plant. 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)



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)

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. 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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. 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you projecting that people are stupid enough to not take action long before that? However, I suspect that everyone living today will die long before 300 years just due to normal life expectancy. Now if you don't like the oil well, please propose one replacement image, and do not use it until it has been reviewed. And if you propose a nuclear power plant I will reject it. 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)


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:

  • Support - Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support It is easy to recognize and represents the largest source of energy at present. 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose nuclear power is extremely offensive to many people. 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Not support - Too much small details, which is not good for a small images. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not support - really not represent energy as such. Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

If consensus will be not found, I propose to create several WP Energy templates and use e.g. for articles about oil and gas industry template with an oil well image, for power stations template with a power plant image etc.Beagel 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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. 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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. 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good compromiseEdit

  • Image:Energy Wikiproject.jpg
    • Support--Jorfer 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Conditional support--I'm not sure if the collage is the best thing for so small image, but if it helps to avoid future mess with the template, I will agree. Lets see, what anom users say.Beagel 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong opposition You did not have to wait for me to say that and whoever blatantly jumped in and used it had no business doing so. I am asking that it be reverted immediately. A collage is very difficult to recognize. Pick one image, not four, and not one that combines four. 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. There are too many forms of energy to put any one as the main representative. Peak oil will soon bump petroleum out of its current spot regardless. --Skyemoor 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In 5 to 10 years, possibly, if that is what you mean by soon. Feel free to come back and propose a change after that happens. In the mean time I will continue to look for a generic image of an 18th century watermill. A collage, stuffed into 75 pixels, is, well, not recommended. Even a full page collage is hard to read. 22:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please revert last edit.

    • Oppose I hate to take this stance because we would all like to have something other than an oil pump I think, but we're not the only WikiProject on talk pages, and I think leaving it as one single image is respectful to bandwidths and useful talk pages. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 04:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The polling for this ended about four months ago. Glad to see that you support the decision that was reached at that time. (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a big picture of the sun? ;) TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, there are some pretty cool pictures of energy in nature (in the featured picture file) that I think should be considered. They are visually appealing and have the advantage of showing the actual energy rather than its means of production, meaning you don't have to worry about if it's representative of how most energy in the world is produced. I've inserted some examples.
  • TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    I put the pictures into a gallery tag, so they don't spill into discussions below. Normally we aren't supposed to edit other people's talk page comments, but that was the only way. I hope you don't mind. Revert if you do mind. --Teratornis (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Minor edit requestedEdit

    {{editprotected}} This is a two part edit.

    1. Move "Template:Energy/usage" to "Template:WikiProject Energy/usage"

    2. Edit {{WikiProject Energy}} 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)
    Thanks. 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

    Problem with some categories in recent revision to the templateEdit

    The most recent edit to Template:WikiProject Energy had the side effect of changing the old code that generated these categories:

    }} }} }} {{#switch:{{{importance|}}}
     |Top|top=[[Category:Top-importance energy articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
     |High|high=[[Category:High-importance energy articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
     |Mid|mid=[[Category:Mid-importance energy articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
     |Low|low=[[Category:Low-importance energy articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
     |#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance energy articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
     }} ...

    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 {{WikiProject Energy}}, pointing to categories such as:

    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 {{WikiProject Energy}} 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)

    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)
    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)
    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)

    Photo updateEdit

    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)

    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)
    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)
    • I am opposed to changing the image to the one above. Although fossil fuels don't represent energy as a whole, they are still the primary fuel. I don't see why the "cheapest" source of energy should be depicted in the tag anyway. I do think the sunspot image is more suited to be the banner image because it is the primary source of all our energy and better represents the project.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oil has dropped out to not even being used (other than on islands) for electricity. Even Saudi Arabia has decided to switch to solar instead of wasting oil on making electricity. While it is dominant for transportation, that too is rapidly changing. Delphi234 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose at the moment. I am not happy with the current image being limited to the fossil fuels (to oil, to be exact) but the proposed new image has also its limitations. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As some of the feedback seem to support that a generic image might be better than one of a particular energy form used by humans, I am formally proposing the Alt image above, previously suggested by TastyCakes in 2008. For those proposing an image of renewable sources, suggestions for a better icon are also welcome at Portal talk:Renewable energy. --ELEKHHT 08:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Delphi has certainly made some good points in the discussion above. But I think the addition of a RE image should be part of a possible "Renewable Energy Task force" addition to the standard Project Energy template, where applicable. Elekhh has canvassed support for such a Task Force on several occasions, at Portal talk:Renewable energy, and maybe it is time for this issue to be revisited. Johnfos (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Oppose the alt image. It is very unclear what it is supposed to be. Not many people look at the sun through a telescope. Everyone can see a wind turbine or a solar panel. No problem with using the first image for a RE TF. In a few decades the only energy sources we use will be wind and solar for 90% of our energy. Delphi234 (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Return to "WikiProject Energy" page.