Talk:Solar energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Solar 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.


Generic term when taking about stars other than Sol?[edit]

Since Solar energy comes from Sol, is there a more generic term for this kind of energy that would apply to any star? This came up on another website during a discussion of Tabby's Star, and it seemed like a reasonable question. Maybe it would be as simple as stellar energy? -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

University of New South Wales engineers set solar energy world record[edit]

Where we should put this ? University of New South Wales engineers set solar energy world record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.156.83 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016[edit]

The line "Most of the world's population live in areas with insolation levels of 150-300 watts/m², or 3.5-7.0 kWh/m² per day." requires a source as source 6 does not have the same figures. Suomen Socrates (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: For the time being, I have tagged the sentence "Citation needed". This doesn't solve the problem, I realize, but edit requests are usually "change x to y" affairs and you didn't suggest a source to add. I guess you didn't have any luck finding one? RivertorchFIREWATER 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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 (http://globalsolaratlas.info), 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)