The contents of the Worldwide energy supply page were merged into World energy supply and consumption on 8 June 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Worldwide energy supply redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I used data published by institutions such as the International Energy Agency - they did the original research, I didn't. Rwbest ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As the sourcing/original research issues are still not solved, I have again restored the maintenance templates. The Banner talk 08:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination in October 2016: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest ( talk) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite frantic efforts of the original author to remove any templates, the article still reads like original Research. Main reason for that is lack of sourcing and in adequate sources (what I call Do-It-Yourself-sources, where you have to start searching the document for the right info). Or just plain unsuitable sources like resilience. The Banner talk 09:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
And again a statement is backed up by a "search it yourself"-type of source. (The first attempt of sourcing did not back up the info at all). Good sourcing requires exact info on where to find the source of the statement. Page numbers are essential when using multi page reports. The Banner talk 10:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ehm, no. A source should be backed up by a source that gives the desired information. And that means giving the information straight away, not that you have to start searching and researching to get that info on the table. Do-it-yourself-sources are just not good enough. The Banner talk 10:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The source must exist, be published and support the material clearly and directly. Readers can check that, but it may take some time, depending on their ability to search, read and understand a technical source. Verifiability does not require that ALL readers (can) do that. Rwbest ( talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I have filed a case here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Worldwide energy supply. The Banner talk 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend the sources does not back up what there is stated. In fact, you have to compare or look up things yourself, making it6 WP:OR. "Sources" like that are not suitable, as the sources must back up the claims. The Banner talk 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ref. 7 gives a list of articles, not the specific one that is used as the source.
Ref. 11 doesn't work. Koos van den beukel ( talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to rework the sources so that it gives a real references to the facts? Now it is a classic: search-it-yourself source. And in fact useless. The Banner talk 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The info added to Worldwide_energy_supply#IEA_scenarios gives far more security than the sources do. In fact, the text does not correctly represent the sources. The Banner talk 11:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is an error not to focus in "low carbon electricity" and to only mention "renewables" in estimates of electric production in the " /info/en/?search=World_energy_supply_and_consumption". For instance, in the table: "final consumption in most using countries and per person", or in the table "Countries consuming most (85%) in Europe.", the only mention of "% renewables" in electricity makes a much better result for Germany than France, though an German emits two times more CO2 than a French. I suggest to replace "of which renewables" by "of which low carbon": This is a better estimate vs the important problem of CO2 emissions. 2A04:CEC0:1110:7FB5:46A:FB05:B47A:B5D5 ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The contents of the Worldwide energy supply page were merged into World energy supply and consumption on 8 June 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Worldwide energy supply redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I used data published by institutions such as the International Energy Agency - they did the original research, I didn't. Rwbest ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As the sourcing/original research issues are still not solved, I have again restored the maintenance templates. The Banner talk 08:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination in October 2016: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest ( talk) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite frantic efforts of the original author to remove any templates, the article still reads like original Research. Main reason for that is lack of sourcing and in adequate sources (what I call Do-It-Yourself-sources, where you have to start searching the document for the right info). Or just plain unsuitable sources like resilience. The Banner talk 09:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
And again a statement is backed up by a "search it yourself"-type of source. (The first attempt of sourcing did not back up the info at all). Good sourcing requires exact info on where to find the source of the statement. Page numbers are essential when using multi page reports. The Banner talk 10:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ehm, no. A source should be backed up by a source that gives the desired information. And that means giving the information straight away, not that you have to start searching and researching to get that info on the table. Do-it-yourself-sources are just not good enough. The Banner talk 10:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The source must exist, be published and support the material clearly and directly. Readers can check that, but it may take some time, depending on their ability to search, read and understand a technical source. Verifiability does not require that ALL readers (can) do that. Rwbest ( talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I have filed a case here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Worldwide energy supply. The Banner talk 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend the sources does not back up what there is stated. In fact, you have to compare or look up things yourself, making it6 WP:OR. "Sources" like that are not suitable, as the sources must back up the claims. The Banner talk 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ref. 7 gives a list of articles, not the specific one that is used as the source.
Ref. 11 doesn't work. Koos van den beukel ( talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to rework the sources so that it gives a real references to the facts? Now it is a classic: search-it-yourself source. And in fact useless. The Banner talk 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The info added to Worldwide_energy_supply#IEA_scenarios gives far more security than the sources do. In fact, the text does not correctly represent the sources. The Banner talk 11:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is an error not to focus in "low carbon electricity" and to only mention "renewables" in estimates of electric production in the " /info/en/?search=World_energy_supply_and_consumption". For instance, in the table: "final consumption in most using countries and per person", or in the table "Countries consuming most (85%) in Europe.", the only mention of "% renewables" in electricity makes a much better result for Germany than France, though an German emits two times more CO2 than a French. I suggest to replace "of which renewables" by "of which low carbon": This is a better estimate vs the important problem of CO2 emissions. 2A04:CEC0:1110:7FB5:46A:FB05:B47A:B5D5 ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)