Template talk:Infobox wind farm

Semi-completed

(Moved from WT:Energy)

Well first, a big sorry to Ernestfax, as it is too complex for my soft noodles ;) Perhaps we could do the necessary changes later. Coming to the topic, {{Infobox wind farm}} is ready, except for the }} thats popping up everywhere; no idea how to remove it. Please let me know what you think. A filled infobox can be found here. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem Rehman. Seems a bit odd to me to have rated speed in there: it would make sense on an infobox for an individual turbine, but seems strange on a windfarm. May be useful to have observed average wind speed at the site, at 80 metres above ground level, if that's available - it may be so rarely available that it's not worth it. I'd have thought capacity factor was more useful than GWh per year. But presumably, if we've got one, we can calculate the other anyway, and state both in the infobox. What about physical area of the wind farm in km²? Ernestfax^Talk 07:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Capacity Factor; good call, I must've missed that. The rated wind speed is that of the turbine model used in the farm, so I though it would be a good addition. Don't you think? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty and comprehensive, although I prefer compact rather than pretty. Infobox is the concentration of info in the article, and should be immediately visible; this template is so big that even a FullHD screen does not show most info, even with one map and some lines hidden. Good: This infobox provokes additional information in the article; land use is an important aspect not shown in most articles. Speed could also be speed range; cut-in to cut-out 5-25m/s. I find rotor diameter or area more important than tower height, but model name usually indicates rotor. I support both efforts to tailormake wind infobox as well as consolidating into common energy infobox, using skeleton templates as per Beagel above.TGCP (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that the infobox is big, I don't think it is too big to comfortably place into an article. Because, this template is pretty much a modified clone of {{Infobox Dam}}, which is much bigger than this and, which is currently used in large number of articles. Just like the practice in dam articles, the "maps" won't be displayed always, just when necessary. I have added "rotor diameter" to the template. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that I will nominate this template and also Template:Infobox nuclear power station for merging into the Template:Infobox power station. It don't think it would be helpful if every kind of power station will have its own infobox with a different layout. The only exception is hydroelectric stations with the power generation information included in the Template:Infobox dam just to avoid placing several infoboxes into the single article. Beagel (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats alright. Although (no offence), I will openly say that I will oppose to such a merger, purely for the reason that we have numerous tiny infoboxes for every tiny topic in Wikipedia. And I don't think we should be worrying about separate/unified templates for such large topics. Nuclear, wind farms, and possible some others types of plants are growing across the world. To keep such info rich and attractive here in Wikipedia, we need to adapt new styles to make things more comprehensive and accessible. But then again, I will respect community consensus; if the merger is a go, we merge. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of difference between individual type infoboxes and merging. What matters is that boxes are easy to use for both reader and editor, and skeleton templates would be helpful and nescessary when more parameters are included. If merging means opposition to notable parameters, then merging is not the way to go. If more infoboxes mean more confusion, then merging is the way to go.
Chief Joseph Dam is an example of an infobox that seems overly large - I like a lot of detail, but layout could easily be trimmed to be less pretty but more condensed. TGCP (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your points a very much true. Perhaps we could change some formatting to vertically shrink the template? Font size? Row height? Only this is, I am not very familiar with those. Regarding merging, I still think keeping individual infoboxes is a better way to go, purely based on my comment above. But, I will be more than happy to improve {{Infobox power station}} if consensus is reached to merge into that. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have managed to shrink row height and font size. Without the optional maps, the infobox now seems to be of reasonable size. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy with Copenhagen Suborbitals, but I would like to see an example of the revised template, I can try and make one in a few days. I still hold the view that infobox should be condensed rather than appealing. Whether it is a new template or just a new skeleton is almost the same to me. TGCP (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Capacity factor, annual generation, turbine type

A few complexities to keep in mind:

• Annual generation and capacity factor can vary from year to year, although probably not as much for a typical wind farm as for some hydroelectric plants. (Hoover dam's annual output varies by more than a factor of three, depending on whether its upstream watershed is having a dry or wet year.) Even so, these fields should either state the year of actual measurement, or whether they are projected or averaged values.
• Some wind farms have more than one turbine type, for example in large wind farms that are built in phases, or old wind farms that are being repowered with new turbines.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)