Category talk:Energy

Energy or power?
Most of the subcategories, such as category:Energy by country, category:Alternative energy, category:Nuclear power, category:Energy economics, category:Energy companies, category:Energy use comparisons are actually about power, not energy, at least if we use the correct physical term. But for all practical intents and purposes, the terms "energy" and "power" are interchangeable in these categories. Does anyone have an idea for how we could name a category that combines all of the above subcategories? All I can think of at the moment is some clumsy name like "power and energy use and generation". Any better ideas? &mdash; Sebastian 09:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That this is indeed a problem can be seen by the fact that articles such as Brake specific fuel consumption are in Category:Power, while Category:Energy use comparisons and Category:Fuels are in Category:Energy. This distinction is not practical and does not meet the goal of any category, namely to help readers find related articles quickly. &mdash; Sebastian 09:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Category:Power and Energy or Category:Power and Energy Use would suffice. A little shorter than your "clumsy" suggestion, and omitting generation assumes all uses of energy, whether it be consumption, generation or manipulation/conversion. lucideer 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestions! I prefer Category:Power and energy use, because I like the elegant generality of the word "use", which hadn't occurred to me earlier. (BTW, thanks to those who corrected my forgotten cat colonization here earlier!) &mdash; Sebastian 06:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, here's a list of all current subcats, and in which group they fall. I called these two groups "use" (which corresponds to the category proposed here) and "phys", which means that this is really about the term "energy", as defined in physics. (Made table sortable)

I was amazed how neatly most categories can be grouped into these two categories. Therefore, I now think that we can delete category:energy in physics and remerge its subcats and articles into this category, once the energy/power articles are in their own category. How does that sound? &mdash; Sebastian 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Second (and third...) guesses
 (Headline inserted to avoid scrolling) 

Actually, just when I was about to do the move, I became aware of the article Energy (society). That seems to me like it should be the main article for this category. WP:NCCAT recommends using that as the name for the category. I'm not too happy with the word "society", which sounds pretty vague. But it is shorter than the name Lucideer proposed. So, which one is better? &mdash; Sebastian 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you that society is a little off-sounding for this purpose. Wikipedia's naming conventions are there for a reason and should definitely be carefully considered in all cases, but provided consensus is reached I think more intuitive name would be of more benefit to users.


 * Good! Maybe the article name "Energy (society)" could also be changed to match the new category name - I'll leave that up to WP:ENERGY, especially if you guys want to declare that a core article of your project. &mdash; Sebastian 08:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On another note, I'm not entirely sure all of the categories fit quite that neatly. Shouldn't Category:Energy conversion be under phys, as it can be described as being a field of thermodynamics. - lucideer 06:28, 7 December 2008


 * Hmm, let's look at that category's subcats and articles. As for the previous table, please feel free to change any of the entries if your assessment is different. I didn't include the articles, but it seems to me that out of the 91, there are no more than a couple. &mdash; Sebastian 08:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm indeed. I'm beginning to second guess. Is there really such a well defined difference between energy and power (as encyclopedic topics, I'm well aware of the differences between the physical properties). The categories perturbing me are those related to Heat engines and Energy conversion systems. Obviously heat engines are predominantly used in society to generate power but they're physical workings (and the articles' contents') are concerned with the chemical processes converting one form of energy to another. I'm probably being overly scrupulous... - lucideer 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean! Everything is connected somehow; and the more you think about it, the more connections you find, and the whole thing becomes a Gordian knot. I feel it falls into place when you think about it this way: Physics is there to help people. The concept of energy/power is one of the success stories of physics in that it had a huge impact on society. It is natural that such concepts get assimilated, and you don't have to think about physics every time you enjoy the power of your motorcycle - any more than you think about the plastics your keyboard is made of when you edit Wikipedia. If an article is important for society, it should be in the appropriate "use" category. If it's really important for physics per se, then it should of course also go into the "phys" cat. But few of the articles we're talking about really are important for physics. As long as they describe concrete tangible things, such as a heat engines, energy conversion systems or piston engines, they only need to be in the "use" cat. By contrast, the underlying concepts, such as energy conversion, fit better in the "phys" cat. &mdash; Sebastian 19:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One agreement, one disagreement:
 * Use = targeted at general society?
 * Phys = targeted at physicists, chemists, etc.?
 * I agree that this is a good method for defining things.
 * My disagreement would be the following: Energy conversion is a topic I would consider aimed at physicists (Thermodynamicists) obviously as you say, but looking at the actual content of the articles on heat/piston engines, etc., most focus on these "underlying concepts" of entropy, the thermodynamic laws and chemical equations related to combustion and such within the heat/piston engines. So going purely on what I see is the articles' content I would put such topics under phys.
 * Naturally all my nitpicking here makes things massively complicated, as it would be a mammoth task to examine the content of each article in detail to decide which category it belongs to. So I apologise. But I'm just saying what I see.
 * One possible proposal would be instead of awaiting consensus, to simply categorise them blindly enmasse now, and write on a permanent prominent project page a concise agreed upon definition on what belongs where. That way people can correct any miscategorisation easily over time, having a well defined reference. Kind of an extended WP:BRD for handling the maintenance of these warring categories.
 * Anyway, just a suggestion. Feel free to disagree, I'll support any well considered movement on this. o lucid eer  00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. - When these categories are created, should each come under a single WikiProject (use under Energy, phys under Physics), instead of being under both (as this is currently). - o lucid eer  00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry - this is quite a big topic, and there is no rush, so it is worth spending some time now thinking about how to do it well.
 * Target group division: It seems like you are proposing to distinguish categories between those targeted to general readers and those targeted to specialists. I think that both "use" and "phys" categories have both levels of readers. There are highly specialized editors and (presumably) readers for "use", and there are general readers of the "phys" topics - like the person who added the sentence "Power is often confused with strength" to Power (physics). I think we should write for both. &mdash; Sebastian 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right of course. I think the more this gets discussed, the more issues come up so continuing debate for as long as possible to iron out potential kinks would be wise. I'm not proposing ending discussion however; creating these categories, and recategorising at least the uncontroversial articles will probably attract more interest to the debate anyway.
 * Time should definitely be taken to agree on definite category titles before that is done, but other than that I think going ahead and starting will only attract attention and enhance discussion.
 * I'm not really sure about the titles now that I see them side by side, but I created a sample of what could potentially be put on each category page here (see scope section). Thoughts? - o lucid eer  01:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Made table sortable and merged with above one for easier reference)


 * Energy conversion: I must admit, I didn't check the individual articles. Sure, what you say makes sense, so how about keeping Category:Energy conversion in both the "use" and the "phys" cat?
 * categorise enmasse: Sure, we can do that, once we're sure that "Category:Power and Energy Use" is fine with everyone. So far, it's only you and me here, and I wanted to give it a bit of time so others can chime in. (There has been one good other proposal, but the editor deleted it himself.) I just want to avoid having to go through it again in a week if someone comes up with a better name. &mdash; Sebastian 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Projects for categories: Yes, I would think so, but that's up to the WikiProjects to decide. &mdash; Sebastian 01:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Double categorisation. Grand so. Sounds good to me.
 * I'm actually heading off for two weeks, this will be my last edit, but as you said there's no harm taking time reaching a consensus. Give people as long as to chime in. - o lucid eer  01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)