Talk:Solar energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSolar energy has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
September 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 2, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
July 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 4, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 18, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Proposal to add information on Global Solar Atlas[edit]

I tried to make some changes and improvements to this article, in part to update the information but also to include a reference to the Global Solar Atlas (, which is relatively new so therefore not yet well known. These edits were rolled back by another editor because they believed them to be spam, which they are not. However, I do have a potential Conflict of Interest in adding the reference because I was involved in creating the Global Solar Atlas. So I won't attempt to re-add these edits. However, I do think they are relevant, and would encourage someone else to view what I was trying to edit and add and see which of this they feel like adding themselves. Much of the idnformation on this article could do with improving, and I'd be happy to get involved, but I'm wary now after having content deleted. Thanks. --O-Jay (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your potential conflict of interest. Doing so is key to following Wikipedia's COI guideline; have you read that yet? It's a bit convoluted and confusing, but we work with what we've got.
Technically, your edits were reverted or undone, not "rolled back". (The distinction is meaningful.) I believe the editor who reverted them was entirely correct in doing so. They looked like spam to me, too, and in one instance you added an external link inline, which is always verboten (and always looks like spam). I appreciate that you added the link in good faith, but given your apparent COI it's better to just propose it here on the talk page and let others decide. My take on that question is that it's much too early; googling "Global Solar Atlas" returns a mere handful of results, none of them apparently on the site of a disinterested third party that could help us determine whether it's a reasonably objective and reliable resource worthy of recommending to Wikipedia readers. Given the resources available to the Atlas's owners, I expect that could change fairly rapidly if it's a priority, but I'm speculating now. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, it's not yet well indexed because it's so new. So perhaps somebody comes back to this in a couple of months. The intention is for the resource to be equivalent in terms of standing to the IRENA Global Atlas and the Global Wind Atlas. And I take the point on the original edits, although I don't like the way the person that reverted them dealt with it.I did re-read the COI material - hence this talk suggestion - I just didn't remember that this applied to topics you have an association with (I thought it only applied to individuals or organizations). Thanks! --O-Jay (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, check back in a couple of months. I wouldn't worry about way the other editor handled it. I've read the history and checked your contributions and talk page, and they acted well within community norms. Now, one could argue that these norms are a problem, but consider: there is a relatively tiny core of active Wikipedians, volunteers all, patrolling an unimaginably vast number of articles. Vandalism and other unwholesome edits, including spam, constitute a huge ongoing problem. If each of us took the time to give personalized treatment to every well-meaning, bumbling newbie, the encyclopedia would soon fall apart. So there is an element of "sink or swim". Anyway, don't worry; I've been here over a decade and I still don't know what I'm doing half the time. RivertorchFIREWATER 01:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Global Solar Atlas was launched on Tuesday, 17 January, 2017. See this press release. As a result of this I believe it would now be appropriate to make reference to it on this page. --O-Jay (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't source things to press releases as a general rule. We should wait for independent press coverage. - MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Search and you will find the coverage you are looking for. But I'm not going to continue pushing this - just trying to improve the rather old information listed here seeing as I know a thing or two about this topic, but I leave in your hands. --O-Jay (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE 2: Could someone review this request, seeing as it has been over six months since I posted it? I feel somewhat frustrated here because the Global Solar Atlas is now a well-used and respected resource, and yet it does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. And yes plenty of much older, and less useful mapping websites are still listed. I would usually update this myself seeing as I probably know more about this topic than most other editors, but as I've already noted I have a CoI that prevents me from doing so. If someone else could add a reference to the GSA, then I'd be happy to update the other information to bring it up to scratch. Thanks. O-Jay (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

O-Jay: If you'd be kind enough to provide several links—here on the talk page—to reliable sources that are independent of the GSA and the World Bank and discuss it in some detail, that should be helpful. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

/=== Generalise natural and artificial use? ===

Should this page describe solar energy generally (as used both by technology and nature). The opening statement refers only to technological uses. Doesn't "solar energy" also drive plants, weather. Fmadd (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this page is focused on the sustainability part of solar energy, which is why it's so focused on the technological parts. They're trying to show how solar energy can be used as a sustainable resource. Hlc9898 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hlc9898 The graph shows that some days are sunny and some not so much, do you think that is noteworthy for inclusion in the article? If it is not helpful to the encyclopedia then it's very likely to be reverted on sight, which would be a waste of your time and the editor who reverted you. And welcome to Wikipedia! Dougmcdonell (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition in the article: daily curve[edit]

Suggestion for addition in the article:

photoelectric production daily curve
Source: RTE La Réunion [1]
Source: RTE Guyane [2]

This graph might not be the best because it focuses on two small regions in the world, instead of the entire country, which might be a better source since it's bigger. However, if I were to add it in the article, I would put it under the electricity production title. Hlc9898 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hlc9898 Nice graph, it shows that some days are sunny and some not so much, do you think that is noteworthy for inclusion in the article? If it is not helpful to the encyclopedia then it's very likely to be reverted on sight, which would be a waste of your time and the editor who reverted you. And welcome to Wikipedia! Dougmcdonell (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


More on ISO standards[edit]

Maybe more information about the ISO standard about solar energy can be said since there are a few paragraphs about everything else on this page, but only 2 sentences about the standards. Hlc9898 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017[edit] (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018[edit]

Renewable energy sources are things such as bio fuels and bio diesels, these do produce carbon dioxide when combusted into energy, however; the plants that are used to create these fuels use carbon dioxide to do aerobic cellular respiration to create glucose for growth. I wan to change the pages so it shows that bio fuels etc, are renewable energy sources and wind, solar, etc are alternative energies which create no greenhouse gases to create electricity. You really need to re-educate yourself on what alternative and renewable energy sources are. Pepe reeeee (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems you want the renewable energy page. This article is about solar (the title might be a clue :). Vsmith (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)