Template talk:Renewable energy sources/Archive 1

Adding POV tag
I've added a POV tag to the template, for the reasons discussed above. -- Johnfos 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't help. This is a private edit war and putting pov on the template just confuses everyone who sees it. 199.125.109.108 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundant
Isn't this redundant to Template:Sustainability and Energy Development? (SEWilco 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))


 * No. This serves a different purpose, and is highly useful. 199.125.109.20 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Renewable energy defined
Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains: "Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.) Each of these sources, including geothermal energy, has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.

If we look at the "2004 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Supply" data from IEA, we see that Geothermal energy is included in the renewable energy breakdown. (see Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, p. 3.)

-- Johnfos 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power
The International Energy Agency does not classify nuclear power as renewable. It is misleading to list Nuclear power in this template. -- Johnfos 05:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Third Party Opinion - Initiated


 * Unsources controversial material may be removed at any time, so I think you're in the right. However, the IEA is not the only authority on energy, and, as such, another individual might have a source for nuclear energy being considered a renewable energy.  As such, perhaps an open dialogue with co-editor Ghetsmith would be helpful in achieving a resolution through consensus.  As it appears, I could find no such dialogue either on the template talke page, your talk page or this other editors talk page; perhaps a discussion would be able to settle things better than a mere edit summary tit-for-tat.  Hope this helps...Good day :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Honestly, I thought the consensus was that there is no consensus. If you go to the Renewable energy article, it's fairly contested.  Furthermore, if I go to the Japanese renewable energy article, they add at the end "Nuclear energy is sometimes included," which pretty well sums it up I think.  But you really need to be more specific, is nuclear a:
 * Fossil fuel - NO
 * Renewable energy source - depends on who you ask
 * Alternative energy - Fussion - maybe, fission - no

This is kind of like asking "is Missouri a southern state." Some people say it is, some people say it isn't. I think it's probably going to stay but with some disclaimer note saying that it's contested. But I'm not 100% neutral myself anyway. I hope someone else comments. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an unsigned message from Ghetsmith which I received on my Talk page:


 * DO NOT REMOVE NUCLEAR POWER FROM THE LIST AGAIN!

---

It's clear that Ghetsmith is pushing a particular POV, and the threatening tone of this message precludes further discussion with this user... -- Johnfos 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should include Nuclear Energy in the list, probably with some sort of disclaimer as you said. Though I am not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, I have heard that breeder reactors are renewable in some ways. For one thing, they do not leave a lot of radioactive waste, which is one of the main concerns about nuclear plants. --Tea and crumpets 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power Explained
If you are interested in a fuller explination of why nuclear power is renewable, there are several good books at the local bookstore regarding this topic. Nuclear Energy Now is a good source, ISBN 978-0-470-05136-8, p.1-200. Or if you are at a University, you can ask your Electrical Engineering professors. Some universities offer graduate level courses on nuclear power. Ghetsmith 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first place I look for reliable information about energy is the prestigious International Energy Agency. As explained immediately above, the IEA do not classify nuclear power as renewable.  And nuclear power does not meet the IEA definition for a renewable energy technology.


 * The view that nuclear power is renewable is a minority view which receives some attention in the Renewable energy article, as per NPOV. But to include it in this template is to give the view undue weight, which is wrong, as per WP:WEIGHT. So I am removing Nuclear power from the Template. -- Johnfos 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know thousands of people have been arrested to stop nuclear power. Ask any of them if nuclear power is renewable.  They will all tell you no.  Just think about all eight of the renewables on the template.  Waves keep wafting the shore whether you use their energy or not.  Sunlight keeps on shining. Tides come and go twice a day.  Biomass/biofuel requires some processing but trees and plants grow all by themselves.  Geothermal just bubbles up out of the ground all by itself. Wind blows whether you stick a turbine up in it or not. Hydropower, rivers flow down to the sea whether you put in a dam or not.  Did I miss any?  No, that's all eight.  All of them are natural processes that replace themselves continually, hence the name renewable.  There is just no comparison whatsoever to nuclear, which requires extensive digging for ore, handling/processing/containment of nuclear waste virtually forever, none of which are required for any of the renewables. By the way when you are giving a book reference a one or two page reference is preferred, not 200 pages. 199.125.109.84 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If solar was used to power the entire United States, it would require an area about the size of a typical sized state, say New York or maybe North Carolina (not mentioning the land used in the production of the cells and mining of required materials). That requires the entire destruction of the ecosystem that the PV (or other technology) is on.  Nuclear plants use about 4 km2 of land per plant, of which 90% is just there to function as a safety buffer.  It has trees.  Even including this majority of land that nuclear power preserves, the total required area to provide all of our energy needs by nuclear power would be a few times bigger than New York City.  Uranium mines have similar effects as any other kinds of minds, and I assure you, they're no North Carolina.  So yes, solar and whatnot do use the natural processes of the Earth, and stand a good chance of screwing them up too. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting solar on rooftops does not "destroy" any ecosystem, and easily supplies all of our electricity needs. Uranium mines have a lot worse radiation than coal mines. Not that coal mines have any benefit mind you. Personally I prefer "whatnot" however I could not find an article describing it. 199.125.109.104 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Move request
I think it would be better to change this to just a list of energy sources. It wouldn't add that many items to it, and there's no reason to make a template of renewable sources over making one for fossil fuels. It would just be better for everyone if we made it representitive of all power production. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Anphibian, I think you should make your new template separate to this one, and then we would have a choice of which template to use in any particular article... Johnfos 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since all the articles on energy sources discuss their environmental impact (or if they don't, they should, and will soon, since the environment is a topic of much concern at present), there really is no reason to have a template for renewable resources only. Each energy source has its advantages and disadvantages, so it is better for people to see for themselves which ones are best than to have a list of what others think is best thrown at them. -Tea and crumpets 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The renewable energy sources template is not a list of what others think best, it is a list of renewable energy sources, and very useful as a navaid. I have no problem with someone creating a different template, but I certainly won't use it on any renewable energy article. I see creating another template as just another ploy to hype a particular energy source. Go ahead, and create a template though, if you wish, all it will do is not get used on any of the renewable sources and direct attention away from the non-renewable sources. In other words if you are doing it to hype your favorite energy source, it's going to backfire. 199.125.109.104 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Quit your stupid edit war
Nuclear is sustainable, not renewable. And energy development has nothing to do with renewable energy, they are two totally different subjects. 199.125.109.108 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding nuclear power or changing the name of the template are vandalism. Please stop. 199.125.109.20 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that sustainable vs. renewable is an interesting debate. If renewable energy refers to something that will never run out (such as water power), and you want to claim that nuclear power, although it can presumably last for a long, long, long time, will eventually run out (because it uses up material that will eventually run out), then wouldn't solar power similarly be merely a sustainable energy source, as the sun will, eventually run out of hydrogen? (I overlooked that this was mentioned in the edit summary, but now that I see it there, I think it should be discussed here, rather than remain ignored where it is now.)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes but it is only a debate. The consensus is that renewable energy sources are ones that you get a fresh supply every day, and that create no waste products.  The aspect that makes them renewable is that you get a fresh supply every day, not that you never run out. Hence the word renewable, as opposed to perhaps inexhaustable.  It is a convenient distinction which fits only a handful of sources, and nuclear is not one of them. 199.125.109.33 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh?! Renewables create no waste products?  Well then strike biomass and biodiesel from the list.  You're making stuff up.  Stop it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was controversial at the time to add them. As you indicate, the consensus is that they are renewable. But just don't tell that to the folks who have cut down all their forests and they are gone forever. 199.125.109.81 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, they're renewable, that means that they can be renewed. Doesn't mean it's going to go renew itself.-Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If that was the definition then coal would be renewable - you can always make more. 199.125.109.20 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you can't make more coal at a net energy gain. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of this template
This is a really small template. Is there a reason it has been kept so small? If not, I plan on expanding it a bit. There are a few reasons for doing so. 1) Centralizes more article links for easier access. 2) Makes the template more prominent - currently it is hidden between the masses of text and images on articles, making it difficult to locate. 3) Lends it more significance and makes it look more substantial and credible. 4) It looks better when it's a reasonable size than when it is too small, as it is now. Now, if there is a reason it's been kept small, I won't expand it. Please let me know of the status. Thanks! Vamooom (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I think space is at a premium at the start of articles and that this navigation box is about the right size.  Certainly, it is larger than some other energy-related nav boxes (eg., Template:Peak oil, Template:Anti-nuclear movement).  I think if nav boxes get too big they tend not to be used.  And the templates at the end of articles, such as Template:Renewable energy by country, can also be added if more links are required. And the List of renewable energy topics by country is also listed in many "See also" sections.  All in all, no expansion of this template is warranted. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm also taking off Blue energy for now. I have been familiar with it for 30 years now, but although the potential is projected to be 1600 TWh per year, "The construction of the prototype is expected to be completed by the end of 2008. The osmotic power plant will produce between 2-4 kW of energy." That's laboratory scale. Wait until something bigger is in the works. 199.125.109.136 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute
I have no idea what the source of the desire is to disparage biomass, but in the form of dung and wood it forms the backbone of renewable energy in the world. It is separate from Biofuel because it is a solid, while Biofuel is a liquid, and each has a very different source and application. "Biofuels" was renamed "Biofuel" some time ago, and the template has just now been updated to reflect that change. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Objections to Removal Of Biomass/Biofuel
Please voice your objections to removal of biomass/biofuel here. It is important to ensure that these items are actually "renewable". I am starting the discussion now because this page is subject to large scale edit wars. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains: "Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.) Each of these sources, including biomass and biofuels, has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.

We should follow the IEA approach which classifies biomass and biofuels as renewable. Johnfos (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then maybe we should cite IEA on the template. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnfos (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not done. This is absolutely absurd. The article on renewable energy is loaded with references. Navblocks never need references. Never, never never. He said "maybe". The answer is no. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests
1) purge biomass/biofuel because they are too similar to coal/petroleum

2) change hydropower to hydroelectricity since the template links to hydropower, or vice versa

TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How is biomass similar to coal? One is derived from agriculture while the other is mined. They seem quite different.
 * Regarding Hydropower, I agree it makes more sense to link to the term written.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is that I want to say: "renewable energy is good", however, I can't say that until we purge biomass/biofuel. Global warming template still has renewable energy commercialization as a mitigation technique, however, this is factually inaccurate for biomass/biofuel. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia editing should be a neutral activity. Topics are neither good nor bad. Biofuel is renewable in the sense that fresh crops may be grown year after year. It doesn't mean that there are no environmental costs. Indeed every form of energy has costs, and some may exceed their benefits. The point of this template is simply to list renewable energy sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the hydropower article, you will see that it makes no sense to link it, as it is mostly historical, and a summary of all types of water power such as wave power etc. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template: Sustainable energy
I found an old template, Template: Renewable energy, that seems to be more comprehensive and better put together than this one. I'm going to clean it up, and then place that template into all the renewable energy articles. That should be uncontroversial? LK (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wise to wait for some discussion about this... Johnfos (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Space is at a premium at the start of an article and to have a large navbar such as this is an unnecessary distraction, especially in long articles such as Renewable energy and Renewable energy commercialization which are already full of links in the text. In many cases it seems that the lead section of the article is being squeezed out to make way for opening images and this large Navbar, which is surely not what we want. It is the lead section of the article, and the links there, that should receive priority with a lead image and perhaps a small navbar such as Template:Renewable energy sources.  Navigation templates containing a large number of links should appear at the end of the article, which is usual practice. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in both those articles you mentioned, and in most of the articles where the navbar currently exists, it mainly occupies the unused space to the right of the TOC. The navbar is smaller than many of the others I've seen, and I think its helpful to link to all the renewable energy pages all in one place. However, feel free to trim and make smaller if you like. LK (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blech. Bigger is not better. Most of us don't have massive widescreen high resolution monitors, and our visual design should take that into account.--Yannick (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored. Making it green was also just a little too cute. Ok it was a lot too cute. And it is just plain original research to list all of the applications of renewable energy along with the sources - the electric car, for example, runs just fine on electricity from a coal plant. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Biomass
I noticed that there is already some protest against the "biomass" link in the template. How about we change the term to "plant material" ? The term "Biomass" is a bit linked to the direct burning of plant material (ie wood, ...), atleast in Europe. This, aldough this is incorrect, it also refers to the production of biodiesel, hydrogen, ... (the latter ie using microbial fuel cells ). If we were to change it to "plant material" this would no longer be so. A alternative is to simply update the biomass article to add the extra meanings. KVDP (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the "biomass" link in the template. It is one of the accepted forms of renewable energy, as defined by the IEA:


 * Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. (p. 9)


 * I'm not in favour of the term "plant material", which is not generally listed as a form of renewable energy. Johnfos (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar energy
I would recommend changing this back to Solar power. Solar energy is too general a link. When we are talking about renewable energy we are talking about ways we can power, say a tractor, or a home, not all the ways the sun powers the earth, which is what the solar energy article covers. 199.125.109.31 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.239.53 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template image
The current image (of the wind turbines) is not suited to the template. See User_talk:Ssolbergj --> Ssolbergj post: I recently took notice of your. This icon however seems to be used in the renewable energy template, as the main image; see ; since it doesn't belong here, I was wondering perhaps a new image could be made for this template ? Perhaps it's best to have an image showing a leaf being blown over a water mass. The leaf would signify plant matter (also = energy, ie using microbial fuel cells), some stripes behind the leaf can signify wind power, the water mass (with some small waves) can signify the water power. The image isn't totally complete (there's eg also geothermal energy, ...) but atleast it will be much better than the current image, which only represents wind power.

Besides the idea of a leaf being blown over the water, an other approach is to simply list the natural elements in a cartwheel; similar to http://www.sonic.net/~lilith/EnviraFuels/biokids/bk-renew.html and http://blog.thebodyshop.com.au/2008/02/mrw-blows-our-mind.html

Please have a new image made and change the image link KVDP (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree: The role of a template image is to represent the subject, not to show all aspects of it. For example, the image for all heterocyclic compound stubs is the structure of pyridine, which is an aromatic heterocycle with Nitrogen as the heteroatom. Sucrose is a much more common heterocycle, and it's non-aromatic and has Oxygen as the heteroatom.  Still, it's not a problem for Pyridine to stand for all heterocycles: it's an example of the class.  In the same way, wind turbines are an instantly recognizable representative of renewable energy sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. However, having looked at all renewable energy production methods, I find that a wind turbine isn't such a good renewable energy method, despite that it's a popular one. For example, microbial fuel cells (especially plant-microbial fuel cells, and some other methods can generate allot more power at a lower cost. I thus think that either we pick another "example", or we go for a cure-all solution; the renewble energies in a cartwheel (see above) --KVDP (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of an icon is not to represent a judgement on which renewable energy production method is the best, or to include all methods. It's supposed to be easily recognizable as a representation of the topic, even when shown at a small size.  Whether or not wind power is a "good" method (whether in your opinion or as a verifiable fact) is therefore not so relevant here.  I also strongly oppose any icon which shows a collage of different images.  Pick one image that the largest possible number of people can recognize at a distance, and represent its simplest essence.  --Slashme (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you prefer a single image, perhaps we can use the "lightning icon" (for an alternative version see http://nihongo.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-8122317-electricity-icon-set.php, however rather than having it white or yellow, we color it green.

KVDP (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished up on image: File:Renewable_energy_icon.svg


 * I agree with Slashme. There really is no need to change image. Johnfos (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the present image but open to other options. However I dislike the new proposal. After all one could also argue that electricity is not representing all forms of energy. Most importantly it has to be a simple, clear, nice and easy to understand image. An alternative would be to have a pool of icons (wind, solar, etc) and the one displayed to be a randomly chosen one. --Elekhh (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the idea of multiple images. The image is to a great extent intended to promote recognition of the article.  You see the image and you know you're on a "renewable energy" page.  I don't think the arrowhead lightning bolt is so tightly tied to electricity that it can't stand for other forms: it's actually less specific than (for example) a wind turbine or a solar panel.  It also has a nice iconic value, so I would support it. --Slashme (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New Category
I believe there is an important category of renewable energy missing from this template. We need a section for animal motive power. Hamsters, slaves, and other animals have been used for centuries as a power source for society. This is clearly a renewable power source since we can just create more organisms when they eventually die. How has this clearly essential form of renewable energy been over looked? This is ridiculous! Rukaribe (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This template lists the accepted forms of renewable energy, as defined by the International Energy Agency:


 * "Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources". (p. 9)
 * -- Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting / IEA classification
As a rule, there is no maintenance tags in the templates. Also, the notice about IEA classification should be a hidden note for editors, not shown publicly. As there seems to be a dispute if to use the IEA classification or any other system, I propose to restore the last stable version (IEA terminology) and change it only after discussing at the talk page (if there is a consensus to change it). Beagel (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Geothermal
Where's geothermal? I would expect it to be on this list. I agree with all the others, and the omission of nuclear, which clearly requires a depletable resource, uranium. And I'm studing a PhD in Commodities, specializing in Energy WillSmith (London) (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I note geothermal is included in the related Template:Sustainable energy WillSmith (London) (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we seem to have lost Geothermal, so I've added it back in. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Carbon neutral fuel
I think carbon neutral fuel should be included here because of the profound implications for greenhouse gas mitigation from transportation uses. Sure, it's not defined by the IEA as a source, but that's meaningless because many biofuels have an agricultural carbon footprint larger than petroleum on balance because of the fossil fuels necessary for their agriculture and fertilization, and the fact that they leave their fields which would normally be forest or scrub barren except during the growing season. This is a remarkably small navbox and it seems that there are some substantial WP:OWNership issues in play. &mdash; Cup co  20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But carbon neutral fuel is not defined as renewable only. The article states "renewable or nuclear energy", so is more like a related "see also" link. -- ELEKHHT 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also carbon neutral is just synthetic fuel and is simply a form of energy storage/distribution, just like hydrogen, and is not an energy source. All of the energy used to create it comes from some other source. Delphi234 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely untrue. You've already admitted at Talk:Renewable energy that synthetic fuels are almost entirely from fossil sources, but no carbon neutral fuels are. When the energy comes from renewables, it is still a source even as from storage, just as gasoline is an energy source derived from crude oil, or electricity is an energy source no matter what it is produced from. You haven't been able to produce a single reliable source in agreement with your false opinions here. JS Uralia (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is like calling hydrogen an energy source, which it is not - just like the above it is an energy storage and distribution mechanism - all of the energy is produced by some other source, which could be renewable or non-renewable. Delphi234 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All wind is produced by solar. All electricity is produced by some other source. All gasoline is produced from petroleum, which originally came from solar, too. So where do you draw the line? I've got an idea, how about instead of imposing a unique personal ontological regime, we instead summarize what reliable sources say? JS Uralia (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Template size
This template is way too wide for what is intended - a list of eight links. Any reason for not going back to the old style? The new one is nothing but a huge block of white space. Delphi234 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I returned it to using sidebar adding plist with a narrow style closely resembling what you recently edited this to. Uzume (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was looking for that the first time. Delphi234 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, problem. I believe Chris Cunningham has a point however in wanting to make the sidebar a standard size for visual stackability, etc. That said, too much of a good thing is not always good either. Uzume (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For such a limited amount of content it's barely worth having a sidebar at all, especially one which overlaps so heavily with sustainable energy. The latter is particularly important in that because the two are used together so frequently they need to stack properly. It turns out that simply removing the image (which adds little serious value to he template) solves the problem of excessive whitespace and makes the template roughly as compact as before, if a little wider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)