Template talk:Renewable energy sources/Archive 1

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Renewable energy sources/Archive 1

Adding POV tag

I've added the POV tags to the template, for the reasons discussed above. - Johnfos 02:49, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful. This is a personal editing war and putting pov on templates just baffles everyone who sees it. 199.125.109.108 05:59, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Renewable energy sources/Archive 1

Redundant

Is not this excessive for Template: Sustainability and Energy Development? (SEWilco 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

No. It serves different purposes, and is very useful. 199.125.109.20 19:49, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

src: cdn.theatlantic.com

Renewable energy defined

The flow of renewable energy involves natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tidal and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

"Renewable energy comes from a constantly recharged natural process, in various forms, it comes directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth, including the definition of electricity and heat generated from the sun, wind, oceans, water, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. "(see Renewable Energy... into the mainstream 9.)

Each of these sources, including geothermal energy, has unique characteristics that affect how and where they are used.

If we look at the IEA's 2004 "Fuel Shares of World of Total Main Energy Supply" data, we see that geothermal energy is included in the breakdown of renewable energy. (See Renewable energy in global energy supply: IEA Fact Sheet , p. 3.)

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

src: scienceofsingularity.files.wordpress.com

Nuclear Power

The International Energy Agency does not classify nuclear power as renewable energy. [1] It is very misleading to register Nuclear powers in this template. - Johnfos 05:48, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinions - Initiated

The controversial material's contents can be deleted at any time, so I think you're on the right. However, the IEA is not the only authority in the energy field, and, as such, others may have nuclear energy sources considered as renewable energy. Thus, perhaps an open dialogue with Ghetsmith's co-editor will help in achieving resolution through consensus. As you can see, I can not find such a dialogue either on the talke template page, your talk page or other editor's talk page; maybe a discussion will be able to solve things better than just a summary summary for patience. Hope this helps... Good day :) DRosenbach ^{( Talk | Contribs ) 12:21, July 8, 2007 (UTC)}

• Comments - To be honest, I think the consensus is that there is no consensus. If you go to Renewable Energy articles, it's pretty contested. Furthermore, if I go to a Japanese renewable energy article, they add at the end "Nuclear energy is sometimes incorporated," which quite nicely sums it up in my opinion. But you really should be more specific, it is nuclear:

• Fossil fuels - NOT
• Renewable energy sources - depending on who you ask
• Alternative energy - Fussion - maybe, fission - nothing

It's like asking "is southern Missouri state." Some people say it, some people say no. I think it will probably be fixed but with some note the disclaimer says that it is contested. But I myself am not 100% neutral either. I hope someone else comments. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 22:17, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

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

DO NOT REMOVE THE NUCLEAR STRENGTH FROM THE REGISTER AGAIN!

---

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

I think you should include Nuclear Energy in the list, perhaps with some sort of disclaimer as you say. Although I have no knowledge of this, I have heard that the breeder reactor can be updated in several ways. For one thing, they do not leave much radioactive waste, which is one of the main concerns about nuclear power. --Tea and crumpets 17:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Nuclear Power Explained

If you are interested in a fuller explanation of why nuclear power can be updated, there are some good books in local bookstores on this topic. Nuclear Energy Now is a good resource, ISBN 978-0-470-05136-8, p.1-200. Or if you're at the University, you can ask your professor of Electrical Engineering. Some universities offer postgraduate courses on nuclear power. Ghetsmith 03:44, August 7, 2007 (UTC)

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

The view that nuclear power can be updated is a minority view that gets noticed in the Renewable Energy article, as per NPOV. But to include it in this template is to give an improper view, which is wrong, according WP: WEIGHT. So I removed the 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 them if nuclear power is renewable. They'll all tell you no. Think about eight renewable energies on templates. Waves keep waving to the beach whether you use energy or not. The sun continued to shine. Tides comes and goes twice a day. Biomass/biofuel requires processing but trees and plants grow on their own. Geothermal just bulging out of the ground by itself. The wind blows whether you put the turbine into it or not. Water power, the river flows into the ocean whether you enter a dam or not. Do I miss something? No, that's all eight. Everything is a natural process that replaces them constantly, hence the name can be renewed. There is no comparison at all with nuclear, which requires extensive excavation of ore, handling/processing/containment of nuclear waste forever, nothing is needed for any of the renewable energy. By the way when you give reference book reference one or two pages is preferred, not 200 pages. 199.125.109.84 01:49, August 9, 2007 (UTC)

If the sun is used to move the whole of the United States, it will require an area of ​​the size of a regular-sized state, say New York or perhaps North Carolina (not mentioning the land used in the production of those cells). and mining of required materials). That requires the entire ecosystem damage that PV (or other technology) is on. The nuclear plant uses about 4 km ² of the land per plant, of which 90% exists only to function as a safety buffer. It has a tree. Even including the majority of the land guarded by nuclear power, the total area needed to provide all our energy needs with nuclear power will be several times larger than New York City. The uranium mine has an effect similar to other types of minds, and I assure you they are not North Carolina. So yes, the sun and others use the Earth's natural processes, and have a good chance to mess them up as well. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing solar power on the roof does not "damage" any ecosystem, and easily supplies all of our electrical needs. The uranium mine has much worse radiation than a coal mine. Not that coal mines have any benefit to you. Personally I prefer "I do not know what else" but I can not find the article that explains it. 199.125.109.104 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Move request

I think it would be better to turn this into just a list of energy sources. It will not add much stuff to it, and there's no reason to create a renewable source template instead of creating one for fossil fuels. It would be better for everyone if we make it represent all electricity production. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anphibian, I think you should create your new template separately with this one, and then we will have the template option used in that particular article... Johnfos 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since all articles on energy sources discuss their environmental impact (or if they do not, they should, and will soon, because the environment is a very worrying topic right now), there is no reason to have a framework for renewable resources only. Every energy source has advantages and disadvantages, so it's better for people to see for themselves which one is best than having a list of what people think is best thrown at them. -Tea and crumpets 21:33, October 18, 2007 (UTC)

The renewable energy source template is not a list of what others think is best, it is a list of renewable energy sources, and very useful as navaid. I have no problem with someone creating a different template, but I definitely will not use it on renewable energy articles. I am looking at creating another template as just another way to hype certain energy sources. Go ahead and create templates though, if you want, everything that will be done is not familiar to one of the renewable sources and the direct attention of non-renewable sources. In other words, if you do it to boost your favorite energy source, it will backfire. 199.125.109.104 05:10, October 20, 2007 (UTC)

src: media1.fdncms.com

Out of your stupid edit wars

Nuclear is sustainable, non-renewable. And energy development has nothing to do with renewable energy, they are two completely different subjects. 199.125.109.108 04:45, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

Adding a nuclear power or renaming a template is vandalism. Please stop it. 199.125.109.20 09:00, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

I think that sustainable vs renewable is an interesting debate. If renewable energy refers to something that will never run out (like hydropower), and you want to claim that nuclear power, although it may last long, long, long, will eventually run out (because it consumes material that will eventually run out), then would not solar power also be a sustainable source of energy, as the sun would, eventually run out of hydrogen? (I forgot that this is mentioned in the edit summary, but now that I've seen it there, I think it should be discussed here, rather than being ignored where it is now.) DRosenbach < soup> ( Talk | Contribs ) 12:58, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes but that's just debate. The consensus is that renewable energy sources are people who get fresh supplies every day, and do not create waste products. The aspect that makes them renewable is that you get a fresh supply every day, not that you never run out. Therefore the word renewable, compared may be endless. This is an easy distinction that is only suitable for a handful of sources, and nuclear is not one of them. 199.125.109.33 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh ?! Renewable does not create waste products? All right, attack biomass and biodiesel from the list. You make it up. Stop it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was controversial when adding it. As you pointed out, the consensus is that they can be updated. But do not tell it to the people who have cut down all their forests and they are gone forever. 199.125.109.81 20:48, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, they update can , it means that they can be renewed. Not that it will update itself. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 07:20, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

If that is the definition then the coal will be updated - you can always make more. 199.125.109.20 19:50, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

No, you can not generate more coal by obtaining clean energy. -Theanphibian ^{(talk o contribs)} 18:56, January 20, 2008 (UTC)

src: blogs.sap.com

Expansion of this template

This is a very small template. Is there any reason why it's made so small? If not, I plan to expand it a bit. There are several reasons to do so. 1) Center more article links for easier access. 2) Make the template more prominent - it's currently hidden between the mass of text and images in the article, making it hard to find. 3) Lend more importance and make it look more substantial and credible. 4) Looks better when the size makes sense than when the size is too small, as it is now. Now, if there is a reason it remains small, I will not expand it. Please let me know about its status. Thank you! Vamooom (talk) 17:23, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I think the space is premium at the beginning of the article and that this navigation box is about the right size. Of course, it's bigger than some of the nav boxes associated with other energies (eg., Template: Peak oil, Template: Anti-nuclear movement). I think if the nav boxes become too big they tend not to be used. And the template at the end of the article, such as Template: Renewable energy by country, can also be added if more links are needed. And List of renewable energy topics by country are also listed in many sections "See also". All in all, no expansion of this template is justified. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also take Blue energy for now. I have been used to it for 30 years now, but although the potential is projected to be 1600 TWh per year, "The prototype development is expected to be completed by the end of 2008. The osmotic power plant will produce between 2-4 kW of energy." Wait until something big is working. 199.125.109.136 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Content dispute

I do not know what the source of his desire to underestimate the biomass, in the form of dirt and wood that form the backbone of renewable energy in the world. It is separate from Biofuel because it is 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 been updated to reflect that change. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:07, February 20, 2009 (UTC)

Mind to Eliminate Biomass/Biofuel

Please state your objection to eliminating biomass/biofuel here. It is important to ensure that these items are truly "renewable". I started the discussion now because this page is subject to large scale edit wars. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The flow of renewable energy involves natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tidal and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

"Renewable energy comes from a constantly recharged natural process, in various forms, it comes directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth, including the definition of electricity and heat generated from the sun, wind, oceans, water, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuel and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. "(see Renewable Energy... into the mainstream 9.)

Each of these sources, including biomass and biofuels, has unique characteristics that affect how and where they are used.

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

Then maybe we should quote the IEA on the template. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 21:08, March 5, 2009 (UTC)

Done. Johnfos (talk) 21:36, March 5, 2009 (UTC)

Not done yet. This is completely absurd. Articles on renewable energy are loaded with references. Navblock does not need a reference. Never, never. He said "maybe". The answer is no. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Request

1) clean the biomass/biofuel because it is too similar to coal/oil

2) convert hydroelectric power because it is connected with hydropower, or vice versa

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

How is biomass similar to coal? One comes from agriculture while the others are mined. They look very different.

Regarding Hydropower, I agree it makes more sense to link to a written term. Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 00:04, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is I want to say: "Renewable energy is good", but I can not say that until we clean up the biomass/biofuel. The global warming template still has the commercialization of renewable energy as a mitigation technique, but this is factually inaccurate for biomass/biofuels. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia editing should be a neutral activity. Topics are not good or bad. Biofuels can be renewed in the sense that fresh plants can grow from year to year. That does not mean that there are no environmental costs. Indeed every form of energy has a cost, and some can exceed its benefits. The essence of this template is only for the list of renewable energy sources. Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 19:34, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

If you look at hydroelectric articles, you'll see that it does not make sense to connect them, because most of history, and summaries of all types of water forces like wave power etc. 199.125.109.56 (Speech) 18:53, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template: Continuous energy

I found the old template, Template: Renewable energy, which seems more comprehensive and better put together than this one. I'll clean it up, and then put that template into all the renewable energy articles. It should not be controversial? LK (talk) 07:53, July 18, 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 premium at the beginning of the article and having a large navbar like this is an unnecessary diversion, especially in long articles like Renewable Energy and the commercialization of Renewable energy that is already full of links in the text. In many cases, it seems that the main part of the article is being blackmailed to open this big picture and Navbar, which is certainly not what we want. This is the main part of the article, and the links there, which should get priority with the main image and maybe a small navbar like Template: Renewable energy sources. A navigation template containing a large number of links will appear at the end of the article, which is a common practice. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, July 18, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in both the articles you mentioned, and in most of the articles on which the navbar currently exists, it mainly occupies the unused space to the right of the TOC. The Navbar is smaller than anything else I've seen, and I think it's useful to connect to all the pages of renewable energy in one place. However, do not hesitate to trim and make it smaller if you like. LK (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Blech. Bigger is not better. Most of us do not have a very large widescreen high-resolution monitor, and our visual design should take that into account.-- Yannick (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Making it green is also a bit too sweet. Ok it's too sweet. And it's just original research to list all renewable energy applications along with sources - electric cars, for example, run well on electricity from coal plants. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Biomass

I noticed that there have been several protests against the "biomass" link in the template. How about changing the term to "plant material"? The term "Biomass" is somewhat related to direct burning of plant material (ie wood,...), minimal in Europe. This, although this is not true, it also refers to the production of biodiesel, hydrogen,... (the latter is the use of microbial fuel cells). If we turn it into a "plant material" it will no longer be so. The alternative is to simply update the biomass article to add additional meaning. KVDP (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Renewable energy comes from a constantly refilled natural process. In its various forms, it comes directly from the sun, or from the heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition are electricity and heat generated from sun, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources. (p. 9)

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

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Solar energy

I would recommend turning this back into solar power. Solar energy is a very general link. When we talk about renewable energy we are talking about ways we can come to power, say tractors, or homes, not all the ways the sun moves the earth, which is what the solar energy articles cover. 199.125.109.31 (talk) 20:07, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

---

---

- No previous signed comments are added by 41.241.239.53 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template image

The current image (from the wind turbine) does not match the template. View User_talk: Ssolbergj # Renewable energy image - & gt; Ssolbergj post: I recently noticed your wind turbine icon. But this icon seems to be used in renewable energy templates, as the main image; see [2]; because it is not here, I was wondering maybe a new image could be made for this template? Perhaps it is best to have an image showing the leaves being blown over the water mass. Leaves will indicate plant material (also = energy, that is using microbial fuel cells), some lines on the back of the leaf can indicate wind strength, water mass (with some small waves) can indicate the strength of water. Images are not entirely complete (eg there is also geothermal energy,...) but the minimum will be much better than the current picture, which represents only wind power.

In addition to the idea of ​​leaves being blown up on water, another approach is to include only the natural elements in the wagon; 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 create a new image and change the KVDP image link (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: The role of the template image is to represent the subject, not to show all its aspects. For example, the image for all pieces of a heterocyclic compound is a pyridine structure, which is an aromatic heterocycle with Nitrogen as a heteroatom. Sucrose is a much more common heterocyclic, and it is non-aromatic and has oxygen as a heteroatom. However, it is not a problem for Pyridine to stand for all heterocycles: this is an example of a class. In the same way, the wind turbine is a directly recognizable representation of renewable energy sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:09, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you say. However, having looked at all the methods of producing renewable energy, I found that wind turbines are not a good renewable energy method, although it is a popular one. For example, microbial fuel cells (especially microbial fuel cells, and some other methods can produce more power at lower costs So I think that either we choose another "example", or we go for an all-healing solution; renewable energy in cartwheel (see above) --KVDP (talk) 16:13, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

The point of an icon is not to represent the judgment on which renewable energy production methods are best, or to include all methods. It should be easily recognizable as a representation of the topic, even when displayed in small sizes. Whether the power of the wind or not is a "good" method (either according to you or as verifiable fact) is therefore not very relevant here. I am also strongly opposed to any icon that shows the collage of different images. Choose one image that most people can recognize from a distance, and represent its simplest essence. --Slashme (talk) 15:08, May 31st, 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer a picture, maybe we can use the "lightning icon" (for an alternative version see http://nihongo.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-8122317-electricity-icon-set.php, but instead of having it white or yellow, we are green in color.

KVDP (talk) 07:21, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Finished on image: File: Renewable_energy_icon.svg

I agree with Slashme. Really no need to change the image. Johnfos (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the current image but it is open for other options. But I do not like new proposals. After everyone can also argue that electricity does not represent all forms of energy. Most importantly it should be a simple image, clear, nice and easy to understand. Another alternative is to have a collection of icons (wind, sun, etc.) and those shown to be randomly selected. --Elekhh (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very much against the idea of ​​many pictures. This image is for the most part intended to promote article recognition. You see the picture and you know you are on the "renewable energy" page. I do not think that the arrow lightning bolt is so tied up with electricity that it can not stand for another form: it's actually less specific than (for example) wind turbines or solar panels. It also has a good iconic value, so I'll support it. --Shashme (talk) 14:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

New Category

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

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

"Renewable energy comes from a constantly recharged natural process, in various forms, it comes directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth, including the definition of 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/Classification of the IEA

As a rule, there are no maintenance tags inside the template. Additionally, notices about the IEA classification should be a hidden record for editors, not publicly displayed. Because there appears to be a dispute when using the IEA classification or another system, I propose to return the last stable version (IEA terminology) and change it only after discussing on the talk page (if there is consensus to change it). Beagel (talk) 08:24, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Geothermal

Where is the geothermal? I hope it's on this list. I agree with everything else, and nuclear elimination, which obviously requires a depleted resource, uranium. And I studied PhD at Commodities, specializing in Energy WillSmith (London) (talk) 16:21, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

I am also noting geothermal is included in the Related Template: WillSmith Sustainable Energy (London) (talk) 18:07, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we've lost Geothermal, so I've added it back. thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Carbon neutral fuel

I think neutral carbon fuel should be included here because of the profound implications for greenhouse gas mitigation from the use of transportation. Certainly, it is not defined by the IEA as a source, but that does not mean because many biofuels have a larger agricultural carbon footprint than petroleum in equilibrium because of the fossil fuels needed for agriculture and their fertilization, and the fact that they leave their fields that would normally into forests or shrubs except during the growing season. This is a very small navbox and there seems to be some WP issues: OWNership in play. - Cup co 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But neutral carbon fuel is not defined as only renewable. The article states "renewable or nuclear energy", so it's more like a related "see also" link. - ELEKHH ^T 23:24, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Also neutral carbon is only synthetic fuel and is only a form of energy storage/distribution, such as hydrogen, and not an energy source. All the energy used to make it comes from other sources. Delphi234 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is simply not true. You already acknowledge in Talk: Renewable Energy # Synthetic fuels that are synthetic fuels are almost entirely derived from fossil sources, but there is no neutral carbon fuel. When energy comes from renewable energy, it is still a source even from storage, just as gasoline is a source of energy derived from crude oil, or electricity is a source of energy regardless of what it produces. You have not been able to generate a single trusted source according to your false opinion here. JS Uralia (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's like calling hydrogen as an energy source, which is not - just as above it is the energy storage and distribution mechanism - all the energy is generated by some other, renewable or non-renewable source. Delphi234 (talk) 16:47, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

All winds are produced by the sun. All electricity is generated by several other sources. All gasoline is produced from petroleum, which originally came from the sun as well. So where do you draw the line? I have an idea, how instead of imposing a unique personal ontological regime, we are summarizing what is said by a reliable source? JS Uralia (talk) 22:16, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Template size

This template is too wide for what it is meant - a list of eight links. Any reason not to go back to the old style? The new one is just a big block of white space. Delphi234 (talk) 17:19, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

I returned it using {{sidebar}} adding a plist in a very narrow style very similar to the one you just edited. Uzume (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking for the first time. Delphi234 (talk) 16:49, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

No, problem. I believe Chris Cunningham has a point but in wanting to create a standard sized sidebar for visual stackability, etc. That said, too many good things are not always good. Uzume (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For a limited amount of content it's almost not feasible to have a sidebar at all, especially overlapping with {{sustainable energy}}. The latter is very important because both are shared so often need to be stacked correctly. It turns out that just removing the image (which adds a serious value to the template) solves the problem of excessive free space and makes the template as rough as before, if slightly wider. Chris Cunningham (user: thumperward) (talk) 22:02, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia