Talk:Solar power in China

Differences in sources on installed capacity data
I've just revised data for 2012 onwards, using Chinese government source data (see refs with the table). Now there is a weird slump in installations for 2011-2012. The original sources listed are problematic: the IEA report 'snapshot of global PV' only makes a statement about Chinese installations in 2013, the 'National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in China 2011' give just a single value for 2011, which is really big jump of 2500 MW. Another IEA report has timeline for installations 1995-2010, which says was essentially zero PV until 2006, climbing to 500 in 2010. These numbers, too, seem educated guesses (at 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 500 MW). I'm not sure what to do now. The data currently present in the table for 1999-2011 seems doubtful, and not backed up by any of the sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorritg (talk • contribs) 11:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Solar power in China
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Solar power in China's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CleanTechnica": From Photovoltaics:  From Growth of photovoltaics:  

Reference named "epia-2014": From Solar power in the United Kingdom:  From Photovoltaics:  From Solar power in Italy:  From Solar power by country:  From Solar power in France: </li> <li>From Renewable energy:

</li> <li>From Solar energy in Finland:

</li> <li>From Solar power in Ukraine: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading statement
This is said to be misleading (first paragraph):


 * China became the world's largest producer of photovoltaic power ... By the end of 2016, total PV capacity had increased to over 77.4 GW.

--Mortense (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing misleading about the statement. The sentence is perfectly clear. If someone does not know what the word capacity means in the context of solar power, this is what wikilinks are for. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong and China
A user reverted my edits again and again. I've deleted the photo in question, because Hong Kong is not China. I've shown him a more appropriate article for that photo, but he wouldn't listen.

The article is Energy in Hong Kong. 129.127.32.138 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You didn't want to discuss this in the talk page, which is the correct place for the discussion. You can make your point, but since I disagree, I revert. Then we discuss. see WP:BRD. Then you are supposed to try to convince me with a logical argument and get the input of other editors until there is consensus, not edit war and forcing a change to something that has been stable. That's WP policy for how this is to be handled. For interested editors, there is a related discussion at Talk:Photovoltaic system MartinezMD (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That discussion is also by me. I started the discussion here and there after you told me to.129.127.32.138 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I will revert here, see WP:BRD. This is an image of a solar installation. It is labelled as being in Hong Kong, which is still a part of China, regardless of the politics of leadership involved. You can disagree with the inclusion and make your argument here. Then you can see what other editors have to say to get consensus on the issue. MartinezMD (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I think the current image is not good, independently of the political sides. This is mainly because: 1) Mainland China's renewable energy policy as discussed in this article generally do not apply in HK; 2) Solar power statistics as reported in this article generally do not include HK; 3) there are many more representative photos of solar installations in China, as the great majority of solar power installed in China is in very large solar plants outside of city centers. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You can revert if you like, Martinez. And I will revert it again. Two editors disagree with you. And yes, as I have stated before, there is A SEPARATE PAGE for Hong Kong. 129.127.32.138 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am here to make an encyclopedia, not get into an edit war. If consensus is that it should not be in the article, I don't have a problem with it. You would benefit from learning more WP policy. MartinezMD (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Like I said, two people disagree with you. Therefore, it will be reverted. End of.129.127.32.138 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. You already reverted. 2. Consensus is not a vote. Read WP:Consensus MartinezMD (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

100 GW
"In 2017 China was the first country to pass 100 GW of cumulative installed PV capacity"

It appears Australia had 9,930 GW in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.188.49 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's 9,930 GWh (gigawatt-hour). It refers to generation during a year, not installed capacity. Australia had about 7 GW of solar in 2017 (see Solar power in Australia). --Ita140188 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Graphs are temporarily unavailable due to technical issues.
I noticed all the other comparative Wikipedia articles have visual maps of solar power potential in a country. However "solar power in China", seems to be the only article without a working picture. Instead it has a broken image and a caption that says, "Graphs are temporarily unavailable due to technical issues". I was really hoping to see a solar potential map of China, and dissapointed to not be able to find one in Wikipedia. Can someone please add one in? Like how hard can it be to find and add it, considering this is a major country and so a public domain World Bank Group map, shouldn't be difficult to find. SolarDGrayson (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I might as well just do it myself. Just want to update on my thread that I removed the malfunctioning graph as see no point in retaining it. (It was just a pointless eye-sore and shouldn't be re-added in until someone actually fixes it.) I currently replaced it with a public domain pic of China's solar potential mapping instead. SolarDGrayson (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Ita140188, I noticed you undid my edit earlier. I disagree with it because all other articles have solar mapping as their First picture in their leads. No reason why China shouldn't follow that, and have the same layout as the rest. And I am using a visually different picture. SolarDGrayson (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally when you visit the solar power in Spain article. You notice the related pages in the bottom has a shortcut to solar power in China article. But the shortcut is displaying a faulty icon because the article's first image is of a faulty graph. And that is why it's particularly important that the first image needs to be at least functional. Why must the article be given a faulty image shortcut, when you can correct that?SolarDGrayson (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And lastly I looked at the history log, and the malfunctioning chart hasn't been fixed since 2 years ago. It's not like it's going to be fixed anytime soon when 2 years has passed and nothing changed. Out of all the similar articles in Wikipedia, somehow only China is being singled out to not have a functional first image and that is wrong. Unless you want the article to continue to be flawed for another two years, I suggest either fixing the chart or removing it. And not just keeping it on without decent resolution. SolarDGrayson (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to open a discussion, it would be better to wait some time for people to read it before changing things. Graphs are temporarily unavailable only since April this year due to a security issue, see Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_205. They will not display even in the history because the visualization code itself has been disabled. They are planned to be reactivated within few months (the transition to a new version of the graph extension is underway). If we delete the code now, this will be likely lost forever. As for the solar potential, I don't think that map is a good image for the lead, as it doesn't tell much about what is the state of actual deployment in China (it may even be misleading). Also, it is already present in the correct section "Solar resources" in context. What about adding another lead image and keeping the graph as is after the image? Unfortunately there are not many options of nice solar pictures from China given the absence of Chinese contributors to Wikipedia, an option would be a view from space of one of the largest plants, for example the one in the picture. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with adding a functional first image. And I believe my solar potential map is a decent first image for the article. It's public domain and I noticed every single article about solar power in a certain country, also has a solar power potential mapping as their first lead picture. And why I suggest to copy that Style for this article and see no reason why China needs to be different from all the other similar articles. SolarDGrayson (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Having solar resource maps in article leads for solar in country articles is by no means the standard. There are plenty of articles which have different images in the lead. (Solar power in Germany, Solar power in India, Solar power in South Africa etc.) Most of the times that image was chosen because no other image is present in the article at all, not because it's a good image for the lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you choose the best you can do. Why does solar power in Italy or solar power in Spain have solar power potential mapping as their first lead picture? It's better than no picture. Only China is made far worse and have no picture in its icon. And I believe such a picture of solar power potential mapping, is incredibly important and relevant as it demonstrates the ultimate potential for a country. Regardless unless you have a better picture, I think this is nitpicking and it's more than good enough. I find it to be very informative for a lead and it's much better than nothing or a malfunctioning graph. SolarDGrayson (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did propose another picture, can you comment on it? Ita140188 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that picture is right for the Lead picture. Honestly every birdseye view of (strictly solar only) farm looks like that, regardless of country, and it doesn't really give a lot of unique detailed information of the overall topic. Plus China has hydro-solar power plants too. Not all their solar power plants look like your picture. It is really only appropriate for an article that is specifically about it. But for the article; "solar power in China", I believe that a map showing the consistent potential solar power generation areas within that entire country, is more than appropriate and befitting.SolarDGrayson (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @SolarDGrayson. Where we have a viable choice, the first picture should be functioning. A map of solar potential is likely more useful than a photo. This can always be re-assessed when graphs function again. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks JArthur1984. It seems like the other guy simply left the conversation and doesn't appear to want to come back, when no response was given for 5 days. But I responded to him within a few short minutes so it wasn't like I made him wait much. Regardless I am not going to continue to wait for him to respond in Talk, and wasn't suggesting to delete the chart anymore. Just to add a functional Lead picture and agree that an appropriate solar potential map is far more useful to readers than some birdseye photo. I don't see how anyone could have serious problems with an unique public domain informative picture and so am adding it in. SolarDGrayson (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what should I have replied. I already gave my opinion on this. Ita140188 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, other editors are not obligated to keep replying once they have explained their view. It's often good to leave off after a while, as Talk pages can become unnecessarily contentious once editors are just re-stating the same positions.
 * But on the substance, thank you for the edit, as I like having the map over the currently non functional graph. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)