User talk:Gralo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 UK energy policy 2 Energy portal 3 Energy World and Homeworld 81 4 Why the Energy Portal icon? 5 Portal template hacked 6 Passive house images 7 Invitation to join WikiProject Environment 8 Energy Superpower page 9 Oil phase-out in Sweden

[edit] UK energy policy

thanks for the new info for this article. i think we need a source though for the sentence that says: "Some critics of nuclear power have suggested that one reason behind the review is to provide justification for the building of new nuclear power plants." let me know your thoughts. cheers Anlace 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

My apologies in advance for my unilateral selection of the 'selected articles' to start the 1st (October 2006) version of the Energy Portal. I've tried to select carefully, but hope that the portal generates enough interest for a consensus to form in future.

great work Gralo on the energy portal! ill try to weigh in from time to time, but right now im rather busy with water and biodiversity articles. Anlace 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy World and Homeworld 81

Great work on Energy World. If you have the info, an article on Homeworld 81 would be excellent if would write it, because it marked a significant gear shift for MK. --Concrete Cowboy 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - but unfortunately I've nothing on Home World, nor Future World, which is another that could do with coverage... Gralo 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Worth asking. (By the way, you probably haven't realised yet but is conventional to reply to someone on their talk page - that way they get a "new message" prompt. ) --Concrete Cowboy 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Energy Portal icon?

Hello, Gralo:

I note that you have very recently added a cute little Energy Portal icon (namely, a jigsaw piece with a keyhole in it) to the Fossil fuel power plant and Syngas articles. I also note from your Contributions page that you have added that icon to dozens of articles.

Perhaps, you can help me understand what that adds to the knowledge or content of those articles. It is cute, it is eye-catching and it does no harm ... but how does it enhance those articles? Could you not have simply placed a Wiki link to Portal:Energy in the See also sections of those articles?

Please educate me. - mbeychok 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi mbeychok. Re your question about the portal-icons, as it's both an interesting question and one that others might wonder about too, I've answered at some length...

It's suggested that appropriate articles are linked to their corresponding portal using these icons at 'step 4' of Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. In fact, this page suggests using the icon {{portalpar}}, however on the portalpar talk page this is now depricated in favor of {{portal}}.

As to the positioning, I had a look at what others were doing before starting, and found that there was a wide variation. I've just taken a quick random look again through some of the links to some of the featured portals, and found:

• Some pages have the icons at the top: June 2005 in Australia and New Zealand, Ritualist movement, Church of Ireland, List of cricket topics, Scouting in Tennessee, Category:Restaurants_in_Scotland, Category:2006 Commonwealth Games, Category:Invasions
• These have only a link in the infobox (some a text link, some using icons): Great Fire of London, Order of the Arrow, Evolution, Modern evolutionary synthesis, Greater London Authority
• These are using text links at the head of the article: Greater London Authority, Downing Street, Googly
• The Biology and trains portals are keen on including them on their WikipProject boxes on talk pages: Talk:Augusto Pinochet, Talk:Adolf Hitler, Talk:Containerization, Talk:Pullman Strike
• And others are including them in the 'see also' section (some as icons, some as text links), particularly those linked to the 'tropical cyclone' portal: Thomas Aquinas, Lincos (language), Brian Lara, Anticyclone, Hurricane Alicia, Hurricane Hunters

Since the idea behind portals is to 'showcase' the best of the subject matter and provide an easy way of finding other related content, (and links to the key portals are right at the top of the Wikipedia main page, though in text-only format) it seemed to me that locating the links in a reasonable prominent location was appropriate. So long, that is, as they aren't detracting from the content on the page. That's why, if there is an infobox or prominent photograph on a page, I've located the portal-icon below in a less conspicuous position – such as on Energy development and Hydroelectricity. However it's clear from the sample above that there are varied views on this.

I guess when portals become more common, this will become a bigger issue, since I don't think it would be a good idea to have a whole stack of portal links at the head of articles that fall within the scope of several portals. I've tried to anticipate this by not adding links to any energy-related biographies, nor on any 'national' energy pages (except on 'category' pages), since it seems to me that the biography portal and the future national portals ought to take precedence on these articles.

Gralo 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and you've done a good job of explaining the various options for locating links or icons leading to your portal. But you really haven't answered my primary question, namely what does the portal link add to the articles or how does the link enhance the content of the articles? Another way of putting it, what is the primary purpose of the link? - mbeychok 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I first came across Wikipedia searching for a small fact on the Holy Roman Empire. Instead of taking a few minutes, I spent several hours online. That was not because of the quality of the article (though even in 2003 it provided my answer), but because the page had links to other interesting articles. Since then the introduction of categories has made it easier to find information, and portals are now adding to this.

So, for me, a page in Wikipedia has 2 elements; the article containing the facts on the topic, and the user interface that links it to other appropriate pages. The article should provide high quality information. The interface should help the user find other things of interest. To answer your question directly, adding a portal-icon is an improvement because it enhances the user interface. It does this by adding a clearly labeled link to a portal, from where a user can navigate through the entire topic area. Gralo 13:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. At least I understand your perspective now. As for me, the Wiki links in the "See also" section of an article serves the same purpose as your portal ... and perhaps even better because those links are specifically chosen by the editors who wrote the article. In the more than 70 articles that I have written, I always try to include a comprehensive "See also" section. But to each his own! Regards, - mbeychok 16:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal template hacked

Someone has hacked to portal template intro section used by Portal:Energy - it now displays a corporate offering/solicitation of some sort. I do not know how to fix this (the problem is not in the article text, but I did isolate it to the intro section). Can you find someone to fix this (it may affect other articles). Please let me know how this was fixed. Thanks, Leonard G. 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passive house images

hi. i have left a comment on Category_talk:Passivhaus_images. i would like you to read at it. thanks, —Cacuija (my talk) 07:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So the it should be named Category_talk:Passivhaus. Having a category with "images" in it doesn't make sense. But in my opinion as there is only one article, it doesn't make sense to have a category for that article and those images that are all included in that article. Maybe with more articles you would do it. Also. you can move the images to commons and put a commons box in the article. that will suffice the category thing that you are trying to do. thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Environment

Hi there, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page --Alex 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Superpower page

My thanks on the energy categorization Gralo. Seeing as I'm only a IR Major and you're into energy more than I am, would you be interested in continuing to edit my Energy Superpower page? My editing skills are modest at best, so I'd really appreciate it. By the way, what do you think of the article? I haven't received as much as a word of feedback on a term I increasingly hear being used in international relations circles. Again, feel free to edit in sources or additions where you feel they are needed. Drakeguy 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly an emerging concept so deserves attention and I think you've made a great start. If you can add a link to it from some other carefully selected energy pages then you should get a few more comments and contributions. You could also consider adding a few short mentions about how the countries are starting to use their power - in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute for example... Gralo 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil phase-out in Sweden

Please check out the discussion on this article. I have requested it be seen to in Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a very interesting topic and I nomninated to be a featured but it has mostly been apposed, please see that too in the talk page. FrummerThanThou 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally I share your interest in the topic; it would be good to see it as a Featured Article one day. I've posted a couple of comments on the Peer Review page. Gralo 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)