User talk:Gralo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For old discussions see the archive

Contents

[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:
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] New energy power pages

Gralo, there has been a recent block on the energy superpower page by Administrator Perceval. Perceval and I are currently in bitter disagreement about much of the merits of the page, but in an attempt to salvage as much of your work as possible, as well as others on the page, I have compensated for the sudden editing-off of the status of "emerging energy superpower", and "potential energy superpower" (and the corresponding countries) by creating a new page, Great Energy Power, that describes those states that fall just under the category of "energy superpowers". I need your help in getting it up and running, and also we apparently need to be adding more "expert" commentary, so if you should find some, please put it as a source on the page where appropriate. Also, I would be most grateful if you could help me out in creating a category for the states that export moderate quantities of energy each year but have little influence on global energy prices/supply. I want to call them "energy powers" or "regional energy powers". Tell me what you think of those names, and which you find preferable. I'm leaning towards "regional energy power".

I need a few more experts backing these pages after their creation, and I currently don't trust Perceval to not squash my singular effort so far. Oh, and if you have the time, we're going to need to categorize these pages in the international power template. I think you'll agree with the merits of having this information out there. After all, there are many states that fall beneath the category of "energy superpower", and I want to correlate them to a degree with previously used Int. Relations jargon like "great power" or "regional power". I don't think "middle power" would correlate with anything well in energy, and it would only serve to divide up our work excessively. I've appreciated your many contributions on the energy superpower page. Regards, Drakeguy 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drakeguy. I've taken a look through the comments on the energy superpower page and the elements that were transferred to the temporary page. I've also edited the 'energy superpower' definition, including external links to contemporary usage of the term. This is a 'cutting edge' area, so I can understand that there might be some concerns about original research. If you are able to find some additional commentary, with references, to support the text in the 'emerging energy superpowers' section, I would think that much of this could be added back into the article relatively soon, if supported by further opinion.
For smaller energy powers, I would suggest the term 'regional energy power'; there are references on the Web to the use of this term in relation to Romania and Kazakhstan, for example.
In relation to the potential superpowers, these seem to me just to be those states with significant energy reserves - in which case it would probably be better to start on article on World energy resources by country, in which you could refer to the potential of the country to reach 'power' status one day. This would also tie in well with article World energy resources and consumption
By putting the above together, I think you can avoid the need for the separate 'Great Energy Power' article.
Incidentally, I've just doen a Web search on Canada as an energing superpower, and found the following, for example: [1] [2] [3] . From my quick scan through these it does seem that there is some doubt about whether Canada can actually make it to superpower status. I'd also doubt the position of the UK as a potential energy superpower - though it does have have large coal reserves.
Hope this gives you a few useful pointers...
Gralo 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about labeling Canada a "Potential Energy Superpower"? We can get rid of the contentious "emerging" part of the definition entirely, and transfer much of that definition to the "potential energy superpower" definition. I think it would solve many of our problems, plus we could still include Canada as a great energy power too. This would kill two birds with one stone, allowing us to show which powers may be capable of making the jump and where they are currently. And as for the UK, well, I wasn't responsible for that entry. I was just trying to get the page up and running with energy reserve & production figures for everything first before I really started clamping down. Perceval apparently thought many of the less merited contributions were mine-which is not true, and I told him as much. I'll go talk to him to see if he likes your idea and mine too. Drakeguy 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Drakeguy. I appreciate that you are trying hard to get the information 'out there', which is a very worthwhile aim - my comments relate to the 'temporarily removed' section of the article in general, not anyone's specific contributions; your comments about the UK are noted! I should perhaps have prefaced my earlier comments by saying that I don't think it is necessary to obliterate the contents of the 'temporarily removed' section from Wikipedia, but that perhaps, in the light of further research, some of it might be better included in other articles, while there might be a good case for reinstating other portions where they were. What seems to be needed is further research to be able to make and justify the decision.
With that in mind, and in view of your suggestion above, I've been looking at Canada a little more closely and it is a very interesting case. I see that it is the largest oil supplier to the USA [4]. I also see that these exports are around 63% of Canadian oil production, however this only represented around 10% US crude oil requirements [5]. I also note, from the same source, that Canada imports 55% of its oil requirements from elsewhere. Overall, therefore, it seems that Canada only has net exports of 8% of its production. It seems that Canada also sells its oil at prices determined by the world market [6].
In contrast Russia seems to have no significant oil imports and exports around 54% of its production [7], generates 12% of the global oil production, has a 12% share in the global oil export markets [8], and is able and willing to influence world prices [9].
Canada's claim to be a potential energy superpower seems to rely on exploiting oil sands, however as the WP note, the profit margins are not vast - and as extracting the oil is itself an energy intensive process, so as world energy prices rise, so does the cost of extraction. In addition, Canada is under pressure to do this without increasing carbon emissions [10] [11]. And how does this fit into the picture?
Putting all this together, it would seem that Canada's current power over energy is limited, even within the region basis, as it is itself so dependant on imports. Is it an emerging regional energy power? To answer that, it would be necessary to see what the trends are. Is a potential energy superpower? In theory any country with large fossil fuel reserves has the potential to be an energy superpower. In the case of Canada where its reserves are in oil sands, the obstacles - financial and environmental - to achieving this are large, despite the political vision / spin.
Of course if natural gas and uranium are taken into account, perhaps the picture changes? Further research needed.
To add Canada as a potential energy superpower, I think that you need to include this kind of commentary. Since the Canadian government are claiming this status, it does deserve coverage on WP.
Gralo 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got a partial entry on the energy superpower page for Potential energy superpowers. I need you to put those nicely sourced objections to Canada becoming an energy superpower on the page itself. Otherwise you'd be wasting your time doing such nice & thorough research on my behalf. I really think though that we ought to include the figures on uranium and natural gas on the page too. Otherwise it makes the page seem completely one-dimensional and lacking an overall picture of energy. Drakeguy 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the figures on Canadian energy production, go to the temporary page and pull the sources and put them on the main page. Let me see, Canada ranks according to this #1 in hydro electricity production, #1 in uranium production, #3 in natural gas production, and #7 in oil production according to that page. I think you might want to consider the fact that Canada's prime minister is not just backing up his claim entirely on oil sands, as by other measurements, Canada already is an energy superpower (particularly in Uranium production!). Drakeguy 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy superpower claims section?

it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to take a look at WHICH state's and their leaders have laid claim to being or becoming energy superpowers. We really ought to include expert opinion on the reasons they believe they will become Energy superpowers versus experts against, or just find expert opinion in general on the claims. Seems to me that otherwise, if someone were to read about the claims of a world leader's country being an energy superpower, that this site would not be able to discuss that topic (or be used as a reference), which is clearly something this page ought to be able to discuss (and verify the arguments for and against) that leader's comments. I think a new section might be a good idea here, in order to address these concerns. Drakeguy 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've expressed the concept very well. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Russia there is ample evidence of their status by the way that they have exercised their power. For other countries I think such claims should be included if they are made by a significant figure or group (political leader, government, etc), with views for and against the proposition to maintain a neutral point of view. And, in addition, the facts should be analysed so it is possible to understand what it means in practice - i.e. what leverage do they have over other states in the region / the world markets in terms of market share, etc., or what is the potential in the future. Any well executed work along these lines gets my support. Good luck! Gralo 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] PGN Files

I have a technical question. How did you make the PGN chart for World Energy? Is there some way to do that directly from Excell? At the moment I copy the chart from Excell and paste it into Adobe Photoshop which is a bit cumbersome. Frank van Mierlo 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I use a freeware screen-capture utility called Gadwin ScreenPrint (http://www.gadwin.com/). Set it to capture a 'rectangular area' and to save in png format. You should find it much easier :-) Gralo 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cl ch / energy

I replied on my talk page User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Energy_portal_.26_future_selected_articles William M. Connolley 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - which said:

GW is our best article. The ones that are more directly relevant to energy are not so good, though some are quite passable - and those are the ones I tend to be less interested in. The ones about future energy use should be most relevant - the SRES scenarios, for example. But that one is a bit thin. We had an "exciting" edit war about peak oil which would potentially be interesting but sadly that didn't lead to improvements in the article, the war being a bit premature William M. Connolley 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I'm thinking that it would be good to have Global Warming to coincide with Live Earth in July. Peak oil deserves to be there too at some point. Gralo 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Energy superpower page

Gralo, I've added some new sections to the the energy superpower page. I need you to check them out, tell me what you think, and if possible, improve them. I think you'll find that they are right up your alley. But more importantly, since I know how much you like to research, could you please add some of your sources to the "Disputed Energy Superpowers" section? That'd be much appreciated, Drakeguy 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drakeguy; I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but will come back to it... Gralo 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable. Just let me know when you look it over then. Drakeguy 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU News

Hey, I appreciate your quick news updates, one request tho. Please add either the wikinews link or the source where you obtained the info within the ending "More..." link. There must be a source for news, either wikinews or any external news source. Thanks Joe I 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I too have an interest in Energy issues and have noticed your name coming up. So I thought I would just like to say Hi!

My recent pages are BP Solar and Solar power in Spain if that is of any interest.

I gather you are a very experienced editor so I expect I will be wanting to ask questions of you sometimes, if that's OK. For example, I was thinking of doing an article on the Solar Tres project in Spain, but if I type in Solar Tres it I am redirected to the Solar One page. Is this easy to fix? I'm also interested in making the Wind Prospect look a bit less like an advertisement. Also, I would welcome some info on the "Energy Portal".

Anyway, as I say, just thought it would be good to make contact. regards, Johnfos 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos, welcome, and good to hear from you!
Energy is a major topic area and there are plenty of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage that need filling - so I am sure that you can make a valuable contribution.
Your 'Solar Tres problem' is easy to fix. As you say, when you type it in you get redirected to Solar One. Just underneath the page title it says '(Redirected from Solar Tres)', and if you click on this Solar Tres link it will take you to the page. Since there is presumably only one Solar Tres (and therefore you don't need to consider disambiguation), just go ahead and edit the page, replacing the redirect with your content.
If you're reasonably confident in your editing, go ahead with your improvements to Wind Prospect too. If not, you could always suggest your improvements on the talk page. If undecided, this page may help you decide.
As for the Energy Portal, it's there partly to showcase Wikipedia's energy-related content, and partly to help people navigate, discover or learn about the the topic areas. It's close to becoming a Featured portal, with the main thing holding it back being that the 'selected' article, biography and photo need to be changed more regularly, perhaps automatically.
A good way to start to contribute to the portal would be to join the debate on future 'selected' content (see, for example, nominations for selected article). Identifying enough articles is the first step to more regular updating, so feel free to make suggestions. Also, if you come across an energy related news story of international (or at least regional) interest, go ahead and add it to the energy news column (click on 'edit' to read the guidelines).
Hope this helps, and that you enjoy contributing.
Gralo 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/User_talk%7EGralo_c4bf.html"