Portal talk:Renewable energy

Portal

I don't understand. This portal is said not to exist. Still it has a page. I don't quite get it... Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you talking about. Where does it say this portal does not exist and which link does redirect? In any case it still needs a lot of work. --Elekhh (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy templates

The template images for renewable energy (renewable energy, renewable energy sources, ...) are quite bad at the moment. They all merely show a windturbine which is just one of many renewable energy production methods. I thus propose to use the renewable energy icon for all the templates, and delete the excess renewable energy templates. See Template_talk:Renewable_energy_sources. KVDP (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This portal was created as redirect to Portal:Energy. As an independent portal it was then created by banned user who just copied some information from the Portal:Energy. After that the portal was maintained occasionally; however there is no permanent keeper of this portal and most of the information still duplicates [Portal:Energy]]. Therefore I propose to merge this portal back to [Portal:Energy]]. When there will be permanent maintainers of this portal and non-duplicated information, the recreation could be considered. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. We have enough good quality articles related to renewable energy to support a portal such as this. But the real issue is whether someone is prepared to put in the effort to structure and set up the portal properly. I would be interested in playing a supporting role if there is some enthusiasm for pushing ahead with this. Johnfos (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. While not my core work at Wiki, I've been contributing to this portal recently and I would continue to support it in the future. Regardless of its apparently ambiguous beginnings, it obviously has future and some day maybe the reverse merger might be proposed. While the two portals are allways going to be overlaping, I believe there is sufficient interest for the topic to retain it as a specialised portal. As an indication of interest, I note that the German Wiki also runs a Portal on Renewable resources. --Elekhh (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support: Only if it is clear that it would be inactive in the future, compared to Portal:Energy. And only if its clear that it will still largely duplicate Portal:Energy. If thats not the case, and if sufficient editors do take the task in hand, then I'd say keep; Renewable Energy is a main subtopic of Energy. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Gorgeous expansion ;) Good work. Have removed the merge tag. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support. I think there are a number of us who are generally in favour of a portal such as this, but we don't have a lot of time to put into it right now. I would encourage Elekhh to take what we have into a sandbox in his user space and work on it there. When we get more interest and content we can bring the portal back to mainspace. Johnfos (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the interest is there, with over 800 users diplaying interest in Renewable Energy, and the lack of maintenance is result of a lack of awarness about this portal which so far hasn't been linked to many pages. I think a decent portal can be put up in short time and it would be more efficient to do it right away than through merger and de-merger. How about delaying the decision about a merger until early September and see how it evolves until then? In that case I would invest more time in the next weeks. Also comments about what exactly each of you would expect from the portal would be helpful. --Elekhh (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We clearly need more biographies on the portal, and already have a list of relevant people at Renewable energy commercialization#people. And we have several relevant energy FAs and GAs, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy#Recognized content. The key thing is to get good quality material and avoid too much duplication with the energy portal. Johnfos (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support but not permanently if it is distinctly reconstructed and maintained. This portal doesn't do a good job at its purpose; to help users navigate through all the related content and serve as the subject's main page. The 'Explore topics & categories' tab and sections under 'Associated Wikimedia' remain largely uncreated and the portal is intermittently updated. The Energy Portal serves this purpose better right now. I don't oppose the existence of this portal but it is important that it is maintained and noticeably distinct from the Energy portal. Recently, I've seen a lot of users working renewable energy and think the interest is there as well. I mostly work water infrastructure and can help in that area. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If all that interest is there, and nobody opposes the existence of this portal, why not make it to a proper portal right now?--Elekhh (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! These additional articles should be good for the biographies section as they have a photo and suitable text: Hermann Scheer, Al Gore, Hans-Josef Fell, Jan Hamrin, and Chris Goodall. -- Johnfos (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As is, I support the merge. One user had suggested pulling it into a sandbox to gauge more interest and work on it. --NortyNort (Holla) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that proposal is that a portal is formed of a large number of subpages, and all would need to be moved, plus some templates changed, thus more work. Furthermore, I believe is less likely to "gauge more interest" if is in an userspace than here. I believe all major issues can be addressed right away, and I just started to expand the articles and biographies pool. If you give me a bit of time, and maybe some help, this can quickly become a decent portal. --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Elekhh is expanding the portal now and I think we should go with that, and keep this as a separate portal with quality articles that do not duplicate energy portal content. Johnfos (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as per Johnfos explanation.-Mariordo (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal expansion

The portal has expanded quite a bit now. We have nine selected articles, eight selected pictures, ten biographies and seven quotes. Feel free to contribute and offer feedback. Johnfos (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the renewable-related GAs and FAs (see Portal:Renewable energy/Explore#Recognised content) now have a presence on the portal, but we need some additional items for the news section, and there are some other things which you may like to get involved with at Portal:Renewable energy/Todo. Johnfos (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work, the portal is expanding nicely. Going through the renewable energy articles, I noted that there is a tendency to overload the "See also" section with related links. I hope this Portal can take away a bit of that pressure. Maybe the Template:Renewable energy sources can be also taken down from at least some of the articles. -Elekhh (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means give some of the See also sections a light trim, but I would like to keep all the Renewable energy sources templates in place if that is ok. Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Portal has now a broad coverage. If anything, for a better balance of topics I think more content on small scale renewable energy systems (photovoltaics on house roofs, solar cooker, etc) would be beneficial. There is also a bit of windpower bias with both the title logo and intro image showing wind power. Maybe an image showing several renewable energy forms for the intro would be better like this or this. For the logo idealy we should ask a Wikipedian with skills to design a better logo. Potentially we could use a set of P_icon symbols for representing a diversity of energy sources, something like below.

--Elekhh (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we need more on small scale renewable energy systems. And I am quite open to a better logo being used. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! I added a link to Tidal power under hydroelectricity under the explore section. I did it at first w/o noticing there was a little sub section on it already. I wasn't sure if I should leave it because after all, isn't tidal power a form of hydroelectricity?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As said, renewable energy is (was?) not my core activity, I just followed this nav template which is consistent with the separation in categories, so it reflects the current structure. --Elekhh (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Significant expansion. Beagel (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the pressure you put on us :) --Elekhh (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how proposed AfDs, mergers and moves get things going. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Johnfos for the heads up. I'm just checking in here. Very busy in real life at the mo, so it remains to be seen how much that helps or hinders my contributions here - it will depend on how I manage my displacement behaviour ;-) Ernestfax^Talk 10:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should head it up for a featured portal. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it may be wise to wait a while until we make some more adjustments to the content and presentation of the portal. Johnfos (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure is a good aim, something worth working for. --Elekhh (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am also joining the group of you all in redesigning the portal. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New title bar

Thanks Elekhh... I like the new title bar, and have fiddled with it a bit.

I feel the text immediately below is just not needed; too wordy and too much clutter. So I have removed "Welcome to Wikipedia's renewable energy portal, your gateway to the subject of renewable energy and its influence on the world around us" and replaced it with "Introduction". Johnfos (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Smaller font looks OK on my monitor as well. I agree the sub-section title text was too long, I just found it more welcoming, but "Introduction" is also fine. The main aim was to reinstate the other two (Explore and Task) sections. --Elekhh (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If you think the word "Introduction" is a bit dry, we could use "Welcome" if you would like... Johnfos (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction would be better because I think that a welcome sign is already above as well as it's about ren. energy not a welcoming text. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review

Thought that it may be useful to get a peer review of the portal, as a way of getting further suggestions for improvement, and as a possible steppingstone to featured status. Comments welcome. Johnfos (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm Extra. I have started the peer review process now, see Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Renewable energy/archive1... Johnfos (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been now there for over three months, without any external feedback. Maybe is better to close this, and indeed nominate at WP:FPOC to receive some detailed feedback. --Elekhh (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could let this sit for a while longer and devote our limited energies to moving ahead with the Renewable energy task force instead... Johnfos (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Participation

So far we've been able to raise the portal's popularity from less than 1,000 views per month to over 2,500. It would be good to reach at least 5,000. Ideas to further increase the page views would be welcome. I'm starting a list of possible actions below:

1. Create a better designed portal box logo. The current one is good, but not stunning. We could ask for help at the Graphic Lab
2. Create banner for notifying authors of selected pictures, like this.
3. Get the portal listed on related portals. Currently only Portal:Energy and Portal:Technology link here.
4. Change the DYK section to non-random, up to date system, as per peer review proposal.
5. Modify Template:User Renewable Energy to link to this portal.

--Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pleasing to see these suggestions coming forward. I particularly like suggestions 2, 3, and 5. What do others think? Johnfos (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the ideas 1,2,3 and 5. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I implemented (5), and for (3) left a message at the Sustainable development portal. Regarding (2) below is a draft, let me know what you think. --Elekhh (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A picture that you uploaded entitled [[:File:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] has became a Selected Picture on the Portal Renewable energy. Thank you for your contribution to promote images of renewable energy.

Looks good. Johnfos (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Created the page and added instruction at Portal:Renewable energy/Selected picture. I suggest to allow 30 days to pass for an image unchallenged on the portal before the uploader is notified. Not many would have though a Wiki account. Should we also create a banner on Commons? --Elekhh (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hope will have time to do it one day. Started notifying creators of SP 1, 5, 6, 8. --Elekhh (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You already got a few extra hits due to this: As the creator of a SP I received the template and was immediately curios what that was about. It was a nice birthday present to get the SP notification. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

From the above proposals (2) and (5) have been implemented, while there was no response from other portals in relation to (3) and there has been no support here for (4). Nevertheless the number of views increased to a solid 4,000 per month in average in the first four months of 2011. I think now a nomination for Featured status is what could further help increase participation. --Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Content balance

I think this portal lacks for hydroelectricity and is over focused on solar and wind energy. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Have added Three Gorges Dam at Portal:Renewable energy/Selected article/17 and so we have three SAs relating to hydro now. Suggest that we also include more pictures and news items on hydro. Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And there is rarely any selection for tidal and geothermal energy. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but not at all cost (i.e. no poor quality images or articles for the sake of balance). Below a table to provide an overview. --Elekhh (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated table and moved to bottom of the section and . --Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for table. Don't you think solar is over crowded in sp? And we need to have urgently selections for tidal energy. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 05:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Tide mill as SA, it has a nice lead image and impressive history. Regarding SP, I don't mind replacing 15 since 20 is a better example of solar use in apartment buildings. A potential SP for tidal is File:TidalStream Tidal Farm Pic.JPG, and for wave is File:Pelamis at EMEC.jpg. --Elekhh (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Have added Tide mill at Portal:Renewable energy/Selected article/18. Pictures look good too. Johnfos (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the SA. Replaced and added images at SP. Updated table (suggest keeping it updated at the bottom of this section). --Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Type of RE	S Articles	S Picture	Total
Biofuel/ Biomass	2	2	4
Geothermal	3	1	4
Hydro	3	1	4
Solar	4	9	13
Tidal / Wave	1	2	3
Wind	2	3	5
Other / Combined	3	3	6
Total	18	21

Feedback

Very nice looking portal you got here. Spent more time reading and following the links here than at most other portals I browse. -- œ^™ 09:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words! The portal has been a group effort and we hope you will drop in from time to time to catch up on the latest news, etc. Johnfos (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Task force?

I think forming a Renewable energy task force within WikiProject Energy could be useful to be able to easily assess the coverage of topics within our scope, and also link the article talk pages to the portal. This would be an easy way to get some of the key benefits of wikiprojects without actually having to set up a whole project. There are many examples, Climate change task force is just one of these. Any thoughts, support? --Elekhh (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a good idea. Hopefully we can get a core group of 4 or 5 enthusiastic people initially and then recruit more editors as we go along. One of our initial projects could be to bring Renewable energy up to WP:GA. Johnfos (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Johnfos --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Although I don't think that I am able to dedicate enough time to this field to become a member of this task force, I support the idea as a such. I see also potential to bring this portal up to WP:FPO. Beagel (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beagel. TGCP (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I too support the idea of such a task force. However I don't have the time to become a member and really support the broad efforts of such a task force; so in my mind, you should count this more as a "cheap talk" opinion rather than as the support of a committed worker to help get the work done. N2e (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per nominator and Johnfos. Rehman 02:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support the idea as well but don't know how much time I could dedicate to the overall task force. I am curious how we can alter existing and future project tags relating to renewable energy projects to the portal. I believe I have seen a project/portal tag in the past. May be a job for a bot?--NortyNort (Holla) 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I will not be involved in the task force, but was asked to come here and comment and think this is a good idea. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. We certainly have a lot of support for the idea of a RETF, but looking at things realistically we have few people who are really willing to get actively involved. So should we proceed or not? If we don't proceed then we would still be able to focus our limited energies on the RE portal, and hopefully bringing it up to FP. If we are still thinking about proceeding with the RETF then maybe it would be good to discuss some specific tasks that we could focus on. Johnfos (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not a lot of enthusiasm here right now. For my part, I've decided to stick with the RE portal and give the RE task force a miss. Johnfos (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see it is rather lack of time than lack of enthusiasm. In terms of collaboration on articles I agree that the Portal is a good enough forum already, and maybe the Portal:Renewable energy/Todo subpage could be used more. On the other hand a taskforce would bring a number of benefits which do not depend on the level of activity of its members: such as having a Popular pages listing for RE articles, and having links to the portal from all the talk pages of RE articles. I would therefore still suggest implementing the taskforce, given that nine users showed support, and is likely that others would join once is set up. --Elekhh (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, everyone has gone very quiet on this issue. Let's wait a while, say three months, and then revisit the issue to see if we can then get a group of editors together, who are prepared to put some work into a RE Task Force. Johnfos (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Saw this [1]. How does a Renewable Energy and Green Vehicle Task Force sound? Johnfos (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad, I see limited relationship. If electricity is produced by coal is not renewable, if is by geo-, hydro-, wind or other RE power than ok. As of now, about five countries have more than 50% electricity from RE. So for the rest of 190+ countries electric vehicles are not predominantly based on renewable energy. -Elekhh (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is actually quite a bit of overlap between RE and green vehicles, especially when biofuels are considered. Johnfos (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Green vehicle task force. Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut ?

Many portals have a shortcut based on the P: format, do we need one? Could be P:RE . Would make it easier to get here directly. --Elekhh (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea... Johnfos (talk)

OK, done. --Elekhh (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)