Template talk:Electricity grid modernization

Template name/topic

The name of this template ("Grid modernization") seems problematic in a couple of ways.

1. It does not specify what grid is involved. The articles appear to deal with electrical grid. Are there any other grids involved?

   [interjected] It is difficult to understand your confusion. The term is fully defined in Grid (electricity) which was linked from the header. You have made the description explicit in an edit to that link in the header bar so it now reads "Electrical Grid Modernization". Since you made that edit prior to this complaint, it suggests you already knew what kind of grid was being described. Regardless, I will assume your edit has corrected whatever weakness you percieved. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

2. "Modernization" is a term that becomes dated easily. When the "smart grid" is old hat and is replaced by whatever succeeds it, will this template then be updated to reflect that transition? Is this a standard term that refers to the current proposals (which, like the Pont Neuf or Art Nouveau, will become an anachronism).

   [interjected] Which of these technologies will become dated, and how soon? Besides, if we have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then why would the material ever become dated? Regarding these technologies- some won't be implemented for a decade. During that time some new ones will be added, some dropped. So what- we have articles like SuperSmart Grid that clearly states it is an article about a future project that may change. That doesn't disqualify it from getting WP coverage. So even at its fundamental level, your objection is without weight. Again, I don't understand your confusion. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

   • The term may also lack neutrality - some cultures favor what is new, some oppose such.

   [interjected] Is the suggestion here that using the term "modernization" is POV or politically incorrect? Please suggest an alternative to clarify the problem you are addressing. - [J JMesserly] 06:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the underlying concept of this template make sense? (Most navigation templates I have seen are about topics rather than actions.) e.g. would a general electrical energy distribution grid template be more useful?

Much of the material here seems to have little to do with the electrical grid and changes to such. (Related issues, categories). Better to keep the template focused on one topic, especially for a narrow topic like this one. Integrate it with other templates to provide context. Zodon (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please help me out here. Which specific articles seem to you not to have to do with an electrical grid?

By the way, it is common practice to place nav boxes inside of see also's, as well at the ends of articles. As far as I know, there are no policies or guidelines stating that it must be at the end of an article. However, in the case of Smart meter, the references section is not voluminous so it is not an issue. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The numbered items above relate to the name of the template. Not to the heading displayed, but the article name itself (Wikipedia:Naming conventions). i.e. template:Grid modernization (also used in the name= field of the navbox template), which I have not changed.

• Looking at the template itself I can figure out what it is about, but somebody just seeing the name (e.g. in a category listing, in the results of a search, etc.) would have no clue what it was about unless there happened to be some other context information provided. So no, this problem has not been addressed.

Suggestions to clarify the name, something like template:Electricity distribution grid modernization would address the first issue.

• The term modernization might be POV (there was something about names and neutrality in the documentation I was reading earlier, but I can't find it at the moment.) If that is the jargon used in the field (i.e. verifiable), then it may be best to go with it, but there might be something better available.

My question about the focus of the template was also related, if a slightly more general focus was acceptable, then might name it: template:Electric energy distribution or template:Electricity distribution grid (Of course that would also entail a change of content.) But I don't know this area particularly, so don't have suggestions of verifiable names that maintain the narrower focus.

As far as the unrelated articles - most of the items in the sections on "related issues" and "categories" appear to be only peripherally related. It is also not obvious how closely related some of the items under intermitency: sources are. (i.e. if I am looking at an article on ocean energy, how closely is that related to demand response, for example, am I likely to want to jump between those two articles, are there sources on those two pages that link the subjects together closely.) (See Wikipedia:Navigation templates).

While I can understand the desire to give context (e.g. related issues, categories), it isn't clear that a navigation template about a specialized subtopic is the way to do that. In particular, if each area template provides context, and there are several of them on a page, the context gets repetitive at least, and possibly overwhelming. (The context might better be provided by a separate context template that covers the field, or by a portal.)

It seems like this template could lose some of the less closely related material, and if one added in other material about electricity distribution (not just the smart grid stuff, but electricity meter, AMR, etc.) one might have about the right amount of material for a navigation template. (But I haven't looked in detail what it would include, how big it would likely get, etc.)

Most of the articles I have seen put navigation templates at the end, as suggested in Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Hope that clarifies my concerns. Zodon (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ocean energy" is listed under the group "intermittency", after the subhead Sources. There very much is a relationship between intermittent power sources and modern grids, and is, in point of fact very tightly linked to the need for demand response as a way of cutting demand for putting peaking plants online when power drops off. I understand you are making good faith suggestions here, but we need to examine this from a position of knowlege of the subject, and not assume that a map should be reflect only what they think they know about a subject. That's the whole purpose of a map- to reveal paths to apparently distant lands you did not realize were there, or that had a connection.

Your objections are noted but I do not intend to revise the scope of this nav template. There appears to be a misunderstanding about the purpose of nav templates in general, and the depth of the interconnections between these particular topics. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template purpose

Knowledge of the subject is not a substitute for WP:RS. The map analogy seems reasonable as part of an article, if an article, using reliable sources links various concepts - fine. But many of the articles here do not make such links to other articles here. If the articles in question establish a connection between intermittency and demand response, then even if the ocean energy article establishes a connection to intermittency (which it doesn't appear to do), to link ocean energy and demand response directly would appear to be WP:OR. Perhaps this template should be turned into an article or a section in an article, where such a map could be provided with explanation and citations? Or appropriate material should be added to the articles in question to establish the grouping for this template.

[interjected] You are welcome to improve the relevant articles by inserting notices of citations needed for the items you think especially need documentation, or you feel represent original research. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited wikipedia documentation that supports my concerns with the scope of this template (Wikipedia:Navigation templates). I recognize that as an essay it is not policy, etc., but it does provide a common framework. What documentation supports the purpose and depth of interconnections that you propose? Zodon (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming

After I changed the template name to Electricity grid modernization on 28 December, question was raised about the change in another thread. #Not the Electricity history template I am putting most of the response to that question in this thread to try to help keep that thread from getting too many issues in it.

I brought up the topic of the template name in November, and on 26 November 2008 proposed a name similar to the one moved to. Since then there have been no objections raised to that proposed change. The only response was that you were disinclined to change the scope of the article, (i.e., expanding it to cover electricity distribution - the other names suggested.) Since no objection was raised to including electricity in the title, I do not see that including it in the name constitutes a change in scope. I don't see that adding the word electricity to the name has any bearing on the question of including or excluding history, which is being discussed in the other thread. So I had no reason to believe that the name change was controversial.

I did make what I think was a slight change from the proposed name - shortening it by removing the word distribution - shorter names are generally preferable, and my reading of the article grid (electricity) suggested that omitting the word would not lead to too much ambiguity. If you think the inclusion of distribution is important, I have no objection to it. It appears from your comments in the other thread that you may have objections to the name change, but it isn't clear what the problem is. Please clarify. Zodon (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly show us where you state that you were proposing a move/rename. Renaming the caption was mentioned and if "electrical" seems necessary to you in the context of the electrical articles that use this template, well then fine. The issue is that modernization can also seem ambiguous to some users- at least to you. Perpetuating the ambiguous term is no solution. Please be so kind in the future to observe proper WP procedure and use the {{move}} template in the future. Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The specific proposal was made earlier in this thread. "Suggestions to clarify the name, something like template:Electricity distribution grid modernization would address the first issue." One of the main points that started this thread was problems with the name of this template (as stated in first post, and following.) Since there appeared to be some confusion about what is the name of the template, I also pointed out that I was talking about the article name itself, not the title displayed on the template.

As pointed out before, the template may be encountered in other contexts than in an article on electricity. (In search results, in a category listing, etc.) So the name should stand on its own as much as possible, without requiring context.

Since the move that I made was simply disambiguation and there was no objection to it stated here, I had no reason to believe it would be controversial. So no apparent reason to use the move tag.

The potential ambiguity of use of modernization was also one of my points above. I don't understand your objection to "perpetuating the ambiguous term." I proposed removing it (template:Electricity distribution grid), but your response ("I do not intend to revise the scope of this nav template") lead me to believe that you were not in favor of such a change. Sorry if I misunderstood. If you now favor the removal of modernization, that is fine by me. If there is some other term that you think clearer and that fits within the naming conventions, please propose it. I took the approach of dealing with one of the problems, for which there was no apparent problem, deferring other problems. Zodon (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the Electricity history template

Grid modernization template initially began as a template just on smart grid, but clearly other present day modernizaiton iniatives did not fit into it. The history of electricity and how it has been modernized in the past is out of the scope of the template, so the rural electrification project does not fit in. There might be a need for groups, but something like the TREC or Smartgrids groups might be fits. If there is no dissent, I shall delete REA and add TREC. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above, modern/modernization is a term relative to whatever time period an event takes place. The template does not specify a particular time period (e.g. electric grid modernization circa 2000), so presumably all time periods are fair game. Likewise, no geographic focus is specified for the template, so it need not just apply to the U.S., Europe, industrialized nations, etc. (Rural electrification appears to be happening now in places like China, India, etc.) So anything that was grid modernization, or is grid modernization someplace in the world seems appropriate.

The economics of power distribution to rural vs. urban markets differ - for instance, the expense of automated meters may be more readily recouped in rural areas (few meters, long distances to travel between reading sites) vs urban (lots of meters densely packed) There may also be more room for local generation in rural settings (more space for wind/solar power, sources of biomass, etc.) So it isn't clear that rural electrification is unrelated to current grid modernization schemes.

At this point there isn't enough historical material to make it clear that the template needs splitting. With any complex system the history helps give perspective on why the system is as it is, and how proposed changes might play out. So I favor keeping the REA and rural electrification at this point. TREC seems an appropriate addition. Zodon (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The template documentation even says "... articles relating to any electricity network infrastructure upgrade." Zodon (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer to use this template with an expansive and diffused meaning, this is fine with me. Unless you have some objection, I will create a new template with the original intent and make corrections to the description you pointed to. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

From what you say, and the entry you added, my understanding is that you feel that the guidelines for this template should be: "any improvement to any electrical system from any time period and relative to any technology or practices at any location worldwide." If I have that correct, then I shall change the doc accordingly. If you have some more focused definition, please write one and include it in the \doc. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In a previous talk thread I suggested ways in which the name/topic of this template was unclear, and ways of improving them. You apparently rejected the idea of clarifying/changing the scope of the template. "Your objections are noted but I do not intend to revise the scope of this nav template." While I still think there are things that could be clarified about the scope and focus, I let it stand as is.

Based on the name and scope information that is here, I added material that appears to relate. To which you raise objection, based on intent that was not stated in the template name or documentation as far as I can tell.

Now, rather than either continuing with the scope of this template as it is stated, or trying to refine it, you want to create yet another template?

• Why is another navigation template needed to cover this area?
• It seems like a list, or section of an article, might be more appropriate to the purpose ("Map of distant lands") you outlined in the previous discussion topic.

Please consider Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Articles and templates are not the property of any editor to follow some undocumented intent.

As to the topic of this template, I was observing what the topic of this template appears to be at this time, based on the templates name, title and documentation. I see no particular reason to change the documentation in the way that you indicate, as it already seems to say that.

As to the desirability of another template, or refinements to this one, perhaps other opinions would be helpful? Maybe we should post a request at wikiproject:energy to see if we can get more ideas. Zodon (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have a historical template, covering multiple cultures then fine. Please take it as no offence, or interpret it as an ownership issue- I simply have no interest in contributing to that sort of theme. I think it is a worthy subject and I encourage you to pursue it. You made a contribution to the template reflecting a particular meaning for the template and rejected withdrawing it giving your rationale. I wrote a guiding statement for the template that reflected my understanding of your comments. You decline to agree that it reflects your POV or correct the meaning to something that is acceptable to you. I cannot find common ground with you unless you state your position. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no response, I have removed the historical material and corrected the guidance for the template. The focus of this template is on current modernization of the grid. The history of the development of electrical grids is interesting, stretching back to the 1700's with the first transmission using wet hemp. Grid modernization has gone on since then. Such a "History of the development of Electricity Grids" would certainly be valuable on WP, but the material is far too broad for inclusion in this template that focuses on current efforts for modernizing the grid. -J JMesserly (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, the additions I made were consistent with the guidelines as they existed. (I didn't feel the guidelines needed updating.)

Rural electrification is not just historical material, it is current as well.

It isn't readily apparent that there is so much material on history of grid modernization that it warrants a separate template at this time. How many articles do you see as obvious for inclusion in such a template? Zodon (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For two weeks, there was no response to the proposal that these be two separate templates, or the request for you to state your position so that common ground could be found. Apparently, you believe there is insignificant material for WP treatment of the history of electricity. Since work extends back to the 1700's as I noted, this is a somewhat controversial position to take and I doubt you will find concensus. As it stands, you have renamed the template and reverted an edit to reflect your POV without seeking concensus on what you apparently did not believe was a controversial subject. It is a controversial subject and the status quo is that this is not a historical template but focused on current modern advancements in electrical grids. If you feel that rural electrification is a subject that is at the forefront of modern grid innovations, then please cite some sources that back up your remarkable claim. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The status quo is not necessarily that it is not a historical template. That is still under discussion.

One approach to developing something like this is to see how it evolves, and wait to split until something gets so big that it clearly requires splitting. I often find this approach works well.

Since you asked for a statement of my point of view: in the matter of inclusion or exclusion of historical material, it would be to leave the template as covering "modernization," (until we can find a better term) and see what happens. If the template gets large enough that it warrants a split, split it then, along what lines appear to be reasonable at that time. (It might happen that they are different lines than what one might split a-priori.)

As I understand it, you indicated that there are too many articles on various historical modernization efforts for them to be included in the template, and therefore they should be excluded. I did not assert that that was not the case, I said that what you claim wasn't obviously the case, and asked for further information from you to clarify/back up your claim. Zodon (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no objection to the proposed name change in over a month, and it has no apparent bearing on the history question, it did not seem likely to be controversial. (In order to try to keep the discussion organized I put the rest of my response on this above in the thread on names.) Zodon (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see clear reason to exclude historical material, the edit I reverted was removal of current modernization efforts (Rural electrification), not historical material. Its inclusion and relevance was explained above, no response indicated different opinions about it. If you object to the inclusion of Rural electrification, please indicate why. Zodon (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks with no response to questions does not constitute a discussion. You state it was your understanding that you had proposed a move/rename. Kindly direct me to the passage where you made such a proposal. It is surprizing to hear from someone who is generous with citations of WP policy to not apparently understand the procedure for gaining consensus on moves prior to making them. Procedure is to announce such rename proposals with a {{move}} template, rather than immediately take unilateral action. There was no such one month notice for the proposed move.

Nonetheless, I welcome your renewed interest in this template and would like to reach some mutually satisfactory agreement so that confusion is not produced by the radically different meanings you and I see for this template. Since your view is that the semantics of the term "modernization" permits inclusion of material that does not involve current innovations in grid technology, then perpetuation of the term in the move is simply perpetuating the semantic ambiguity. I have provided guidance in the doc to remove that ambiguity. On the basis of the current documentation, the rural electrification links you included would be excluded because the articles to not appear to have any relation to "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure". This resolution would not require further renames, and would make it clear why inclusion of articles discussing 5kV lines in rural areas or gridless use of renewables are out of place in a template that navigates between articles discussing transcontinental synchronous grids or control and sensing systems to stabilize grids fed by substantial generation from alternative energy sources. Note that this is not a first world template. Innovations in countries such as India and China figure prominently. In fact- the most ambitious advanced projects happen to now being undertaken in Africa, India, and China- not in the first world. How does the doc clarification sound to resolve the ambiguity? -J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, I had no reason to think the move would be controversial, both on general conceptual grounds (electricity grid seemed to be taken for granted) and because there was no objection here. So no reason to use the move template. (see Help:Moving a page#Wikipedia-specific help) Also consider "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." (Wikipedia:Requested moves) I can not see that the move had any bearing on the ongoing discussion here, so your apparent objection was quite surprising, and I still don't understand what the problem is.

As no clear substitute for modernization had been brought up here or in the documentation, I didn't see a better name. (If one emerges, it can be moved again.)

The changes to the documentation do not make this clear. Current modernization was probably clearer than modern innovations for upgrading (at least current excluded history - which seems to be one of your goals, though you still haven't backed up your claims about why that is desirable). Much of the material on the template so far is at best only tangentially related to transcontinental synchronous grids. Zodon (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Why do you think anything has to be related to transcontinental synchronous grids to be included in this template? That's not in the doc or the definition. Let's focus on the definition for the template's content as it is written and refine it if it is unclear. This template currently has 40 links that are related modern innovations for upg. You propose to widen the definition to include material that has little to do with modern innovations. The burden of proof is on you why the widening of scope is desirable. Really, if you want a template having to do with history, or penetration of electricity into less densely populated or impoverished regions, then by all means go ahead. Why should this template be burdened with such a broad and diffused meaning? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that was what you said was your objection to including rural electrification "inclusion of articles discussing 5kV lines in rural areas or gridless use of renewables are out of place in a template that navigates between articles discussing transcontinental synchronous grids or control and sensing systems to stabilize grids fed by substantial generation from alternative energy sources."

[interjected] Kindly look back at what I wrote and observe that I wrote nothing of the kind about synchronous grids. Regardless- you appear to now understand this. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No I don't understand. Are you asserting that this template should cover just transcontinental grids and control systems or not? (If changed your mind that is fine, but helps to know where things stand.) Zodon (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning members of a set does not constitute definition of a set. Do you understand? Let's focus on the definition of the set (outlined in blue below). Okay?-J JMesserly (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So it appeared that you were proposing narrowing the scope of the template to include those requirements. In which case several of the items here should also go. :::If it was not your intention to so narrow the scope, then as noted above, rural electrification does relate to modern innovations for upgrading - it is going on currently, efforts are using current technology/innovations (control systems, stringing fiber with the wiring, etc.), efforts use and extend electric grids. (Nothing in the template documentation lists a lower bound for the voltage on the "grid" in question, or the size of grid. If you look at the lead of the article on Grid (electrical) it specifically says that grid does not imply size, anything from transcontinental to local utility distribution grid is included.) Zodon (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Going on currently" is irrelevant. The article's brief mention of some modern technology does not make it notable enough for inclusion. Really, there is not much to get complicated about. You either do or don't agree with the definition proposed. If you don't agree with the definition for the template, please propose an alternative. The current definition reads:

The template is suitable for transcluding at the bottoms of articles relating to modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure...

-J JMesserly (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of rural electrification from template

Rural electrification has little or nothing to do with "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure", and so should be deleted unless arguments are presented to show that the article meets the eligibility requirements for the template. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the items on the template are not clearly "modern innovations for upgrading upgrading electricity network infrastructure," certainly not on the transcontinental grid level as implied above. (everything from smart meter and nonintrusive load monitoring to ocean, solar and wind power to Distributed generation to peak oil and energy crisis).

e.g., Why is distributed generation related and rural electrification (distributed generation and demand) not? Zodon (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh but they are all related to modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure. Please go ahead and challenge each, stating your reasons, and if you are correct then we shall delete them. As it stands, the only current innovations that the Rural electrification article deals with are gridless applications such as biomass burning or solar panels to power batteries. As such, it should be deleted. If you cannot show on what basis it should it be included, then the item should be deleted. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While rural electrification does mention gridless electrical use, it also covers modern systems using a distribution grid, such as including fiber optic signaling along with wires. If modern innovations for upgrading electricity network include doing away with grids entirely, that would also be relevant. Zodon (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please show how those minor mentions qualify the article as notable enough for inclusion using the current definition statment for this template? If not, rural electrification should be eliminated from the template.

The template is suitable for transcluding at the bottoms of articles relating to modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure...

-J JMesserly (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we disagree on the appropriateness of that article, might be worth taking a break from that and considering a bunch of the other even less appropriate articles on the template. Clarifying those issues might help clarify this one. (For instance if all those items that mention electrical grids even less than rural electrification does are removed it might help clarify why it is inappropriate.)

(And perhaps somebody else will come along and help with additional opinions per request for 3rd opinion.) Zodon (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was removed without prejudice. You declined to defend the item, so it was removed. If you can make an argument for how it fits the definition of the template, or you wish to modify the definition, those are possible courses to take. Since you have declined either course, the article has no support for continued existence on the template. _J JMesserly (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not "declined to defend it." I pointed out several times why it belongs. To reiterate, it relates to "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure."

• It is about upgrading electrical network infrastructure (specifically expanding it).
• It is currently ongoing
• Uses modern technology, policies, etc.

[interjected] Diffusion argument. Yes, It mentions these in isolation to the others. Please show how modern technology is being used to upgrade the grid in that article. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I understand it, your objection to including the article is that it only has "minor mentions" of material relating to this templates topic. If that is not a fair summary of the objection raised so far, please clarify.

The problem with that criterion for inclusion is that is not concrete or verifiable. It is also not documented. So far nothing in the definition indicates how much mention/coverage there must be (simply that there must be relation).

Since the problem appears to be amount of mention of the topic, it appeared that one way forward would be to refine that idea of how much mention an article must make. Since many of the articles currently on the template make no mention at all of electrical network infrastructure, or make similar levels of mention to the item on rural electrification it appears that reviewing the other items could be profitable. To just remove this item and leave the others would be inconsistent which adds to the confusion.

• Removing unrelated material will help improve the template
• Reviewing the others might help clarify what is different about this one.
• It might clarify why this article does belong. Zodon (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see diffusion argument observation above. Could you clarify how these elements in combination meet the criteria for the template? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rural electrification is a process that uses "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure." Zodon (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, an assertion. Please show how? We use complex laser measurement devices to lay asphalt. But it's still laying asphalt it and it isn't modernizing transportation infrastructure. Really, what that article currently discusses is completely tangential to the massive efforts in India, China, Europe, the US, Africa and South America's efforts to modernize their grids. You have not yet made the case that it even meets the definition of the criteria of the template. You have simply asserted it does. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course asphalting a road is modernizing transportation infrastructure (having lived adjacent to gravel roads that were asphalted - a lot less dust, fewer windshield dings from gravel, and if compare to a dirt road (which seasonally becomes a mud road), (see File:Red Ball Express - Truck in the mud.jpg)). (And fiberoptic cable, mentioned as part of rural electrification, is a lot more modern than asphalt roads.)

The article does talk about the massive efforts in China - China Township Electrification Program and China Village Electrification Program, 3.5 million households in 10,000 townships seems pretty massive.

You asked how the pieces went together to relate to the definition, so I showed how they go together, now you want them taken apart again, for that see above, my posts of 18 January 2009, 12 January 2009, 11 December 2008. Zodon (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have not shown how they fit the definition. No question the rural electrification in china is an upgrade. No question that the article mentions in an unrelated context fiberoptic cable. But read what it says. The optic fiber "might" be included for telephony and broadband- so yes, this is a modern innovation, but it enhances not the electricity network, but the communications network. So the fiber optic passage has nothing to do with the content of this template. The article mentions china, but there is nothing about reliance on modern innovations. Definition doesn't apply there either. India? They discuss biomass and solar, but note- these are gridless solutions, so it also does not talk about the content of this template. Sorry, the article mentions bits and pieces of the definition, but only superficially. You really don't have an argument to stand on about how it even fits the definition of content for this template.-J JMesserly -J JMesserly (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Smart metering/AMR/electrical control and monitoring systems require communications. (i.e. fiberoptic cable provides communications needed to enhance electrical network).

So why is distributed generation relevant when using it is not? Do they really use disconnected solar panels or biomass burners at each house (i.e. gridless)? Zodon (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me where the rural electrification article says they are adding fiber optic to do smart metering. You have not connected the dots. Really, it's quite a stretch you are making, isn't it.

Distributed generation is attached to a grid, and in fact is integral to grid operations. A biomass burner in a rural area is attractive precisely because it is gridless- lines to not have to be run (which are oftentimes quickly stolen for their metal anyway). Do you understand? -J JMesserly (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unrelated items

Many of the items on the template say almost nothing about electricity distribution and should be removed (per discussion above about rural electrification). For instance: Ocean energy, Micro hydro (makes only passing reference - but no more so than rural electrification), (the generation methods in general belong on the generation template, not on distribution). Distributed generation - same objection applies as to Rural electrification

And a bunch that don't seem to mention grids/electrical networks/distribution at all: Negawatt Soft energy path Carbon capture and storage Renewable energy policy Most of the items in Related Issues. Zodon (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I suggested you challenge any you felt were incorrect earlier, but you declined. Let's hear the rationale and discuss the items. Let's go step by step. Which is the first you would like to challenge, and what are the specific reasons it does not fit the template definition?-J JMesserly (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear, the intent of the initial post in this thread was to challenge them (i.e., stated that they should be removed).

At this point can focus on the articles specifically mentioned, except for Distributed generation. They should be removed from the template for the reasons given above and that they are not about "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure."

Also all the items under "Sources" are more appropriate in the electricity generation template and some have their own navigation templates as well. Zodon (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. But all you have made is an assertion, not an argument. Present your reasoned position of why each specifically do not belong on this template, and I will be happy to address your objections, or if I agree, we'll nuke the item. Pick one, and let's get on with it.-J JMesserly (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to challenge items one at a time. We can handle them in whatever groups are convenient for discussion. If you feel more comfortable responding to one at a time, that's fine. (Since similar objection applies to all of them, offer others latitude in how to group them to respond.)

I have provided reasons why they should be removed. Don't know what you mean about assertions vs. arguments. Perhaps you could make it clearer by providing an example, for instance concisely indicate what is your argument that Rural electrification should be removed. Zodon (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have not. You have merely asserted that they are more appropriate for another template without stating why. In formal terms, you are asking the reader to accept a bare assertion fallacy. Please identify a specific item, and let's hear your argument(s). -J JMesserly (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of why was provided - and have added bold to items above to help locate. Negawatt Soft energy path Carbon capture and storage Renewable energy policy Are not apparently about "Electricity grid modernization" and at the time of my posting did not seem to mention energy distribution, electrical grids, electrical networks or "modern innovations for upgrading electricity network infrastructure." Zodon (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's go case by case. Take your pick. Start with whichever you want. Which article do you wish to remove, and which of these observations do you believe applies to it? -J JMesserly (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One clarification - if someone objects to removing these items they may do so one at a time, but if nobody indicates objection to removal of an item within a reasonable time, then it is assumed the edit is okay.

J JMesserly - unclear what you are waiting for. I am not in a position to know which items (if any) you object to removing, so I can't say which ones to respond to.

While I appreciate the irony of the assertion that assertions are not acceptable in discussion, just saying that something is an assertion has no bearing on its truth or validity and doesn't seem to advance the discussion. The details of such matters seems off topic here, if there are questions of form, please cite wikipedia documentation. Zodon (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Be informed that with the exception of Rural electrification, I object in advance to removal of any of the items currently on the template until we have reached concensus. I don't think it is acceptable to make an unsupported assertion about a mass of content that a contributor objects to, and expect others to individually defend each one. It is you that wish to make the change, so let's hear your specific rationale. Take your pick. If you can show that you are correct on one, then I am perfectly happy to accept a generalization and apply the same rule to others. But really, I am not at all sure that you understand this subject matter. If you could please focus on one of the items and make your case, then the discussion can focus on the concrete. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think there is inappropriate form involved (i.e. "don't think it is acceptable ..." what is the basis for that in terms of accepted practice here? (e.g. please cite the documentation so that we have some common basis to work from).

The question is fairly simple here, at base - do these articles talk about electrical distribution or not? (And in specific modernization of such infrastructure). I couldn't find where Negawatt Soft energy path Carbon capture and storage or Renewable energy policy did so. If you need me to pick a starting point - start with the first item. Zodon (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?

Let's avoid an edit war. Zodon, for a month you have declined to show how Rural electrification meets the criteria for this template. Perhaps you feel that Rural electrification is a project that need further from governmental authorities. It is hard to believe that you care about the subject since your only edit to the article was to add the grid modernization template to it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I would agree that rural areas require more attention. However, from a factual standpoint the article has little to do with the definition of the content of this template. If you wish to make an argument for why it fits the definition for the template, then please submit it. If you wish to start another template that more closely fits whatever you think would be a useful template, then please do. But simply replacing the link to the article with no explanation is unacceptable. It is a form of vandalism and I'd hate to have to request arbitration on this matter. -J JMesserly (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The mater has been under discussion for a month. The last postings on the topic before you attempted to remove it on the 16th, were on the 13th and 14th. Since recent posts did not indicate agreement for removal it was not a fair summary of events to indicate that a month has passed, etc.. I did explain the reversion of the edit - discussion was still ongoing. Zodon (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made several efforts to work toward consensus beyond explaining why I object to the deletion and participating in the discussion here. I posted a request for input from editors at wikiproject energy, posted request for a 3rd opinion, and adding expert input needed tag - to try to attract input from other editors, as J Jmesserly has done at portal talk energy. Zodon (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will agree that there is no consensus on the inclusion of Rural electrification on the template. I welcome your recent efforts to explain your rationale. Please respond to the observation that you are using a diffusion argument and that really the article only deals with some elements, but only in isolation from the others. It is simply an irrelevant article to the definition for the template. Really, I am open to convincing, but you simply haven't made a credible argument. It seems to me that we need some closure on this issue. If we can't reach consensus on your proposed addition to the template, then it shouldn't be added. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

After studying the template and its structure, I've concluded that Rural electrification should be linked and that "Related issues" would be the most logical area for it. — Athaenara ✉ 09:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: if that was not the only remaining dispute, please feel free to further inform me here (not on my user talk page). Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 09:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide your rationale? Rural electrification at best appears to be tangential to the template definition in blue above. There are other templates on electricity with a more general theme. Why this one? -J JMesserly (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is a related issue is obvious, and reiterating rationales from previous discussions would be unproductive. Perhaps your post to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy#Requesting a fresh set of eyes on Grid Modernization navbox will yield additional responses. There are other {{dispute-resolution}} processes as well, such as RfC. — Athaenara ✉ 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Clearly, Rural electrification is not about a proposal and so your improvement is welcome. It is not clear how it is a related "issue", and how its relatedness is anything but tangential. Progress is being made on identifying the argument in support of inclusion. This thread is a bit daunting, but if you are curious, the progress is being made in the area of my last edit in the section #Removal of rural electrification from template- pointing out that the "synthesis" was nothing more than another unsupported assertion. Beyond these trivial logic errors, I rather believe that due to the complexity of the technology and the issues that what is needed is another editor intimately aware of energy issues who may be able to see what dots connect and which are rather peripheral to the massive efforts across the globe to modernize electrical grids in response to the issues of energy independence and climate change. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)