Talk:Solar Roadways/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There is no consensus

There was no consensus for the deletion of well referenced material about costs.

Here are the three deletionists editors who support deletion of section:

• Sbmeirow
• Dream Focus
• Green_Cardamom

Here are two editors who seem to support inclusion? (need to clarify):

• User:Ohnoitsjamie

More nuanced view (previously unsure):

• User:Nyttend

Here are two editors that support inclusion:

• User:Mkdw
• Wholesomegood
• User:GornDD

Wholesomegood (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of what? User:Mkdw didn't support the text you just added. I removed it, it's ridiculously long and overweighted (see WP:WEIGHT). Also there is an additional "deletionist" you forgot there is at least 4 in that group. -- GreenC 06:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone (can't remember who; it was at my talk page) asked me to come here because my presence among "support inclusion?" didn't seem to be borne out by the text. Not having seen the material you're talking about, I don't know where to put myself. I believe we should include something about costs: media estimates if they're the only ones to talk about costs, and if the company's said "no this is wrong", we ought to present both the media's projected costs and the company's projected costs. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about one guy mentioning a ridiculous number he came up with based on the estimate cost of a prototype version in 2010, which has nothing to do with the current version or its mass production cost. Most of the media coverage does not mention this particular number at all. We have other sources talking about the cost, but not mentioning the $56 trillion scare number. So, do you support inclusion of the $56 trillion number, or would it be undue weight, and unnecessary? The part that I removed again is [1]. Dream Focus 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

7 reliable sources continue to be deleted and only one sentence is kept. This is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, because it does not "represent all significant viewpoints".

Wikipedia:Verifiability - WP:SOURCE:

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Technically one of the two sources for that remaining sentence, http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml is not from a third party source and should be deleted. All http://solarroadways.com should be deleted if we are going to focus on wikipedia policy.

Wholesomegood (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dream. would you accept the inclusion of the rest of the sentence, if the washington post "scare number" was removed? Wholesomegood (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are perfectly allowed on Wikipedia. Also you have been misrepresenting what the sources say, I'm correcting the article while we still work out what will be included. The Washington Post is only quoting the Vox article which it characterizes as "hypothetical", the Post itself makes no claims. The Economist is a signed blog, and doesn't provide a source for his estimate. And it's only a couple sources, not "the media". -- GreenC 07:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this thread is based on a false perception of fact. In saying this I'm assuming (since it isn't explicitly stated) that we're still talking about 2010 staements about R&D goals. The false perception of fact is that those 2010 statements constitute a discussion about "costs". They don't. Rather, the 2010 statements were statements of 2010 R&D goals. From that rosy eyed dream, someone took that 2010 R&D goal and multiplied by the amount of pavement to produce some interesting raw speculation about what might happen later, but only if the R&D program managed to succesfully deploy a product that costs "X". That's not a discussion about costs that's a discussion of a corporate dream goal. In addition, its the kind of thing corps tell investors to boost the corp's stock value, entice venture capital, and so on. We don't indiscriminately collect information; we don't report on future history; and we don't do stock investor WP:PROMO. If they brought a product to market, then we have something related to costs that is tangible.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy cited WP:MULTI and has suggested that I close this thread and keep ALL comments at DRN. Is that okay with everyone? Wholesomegood (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets

Wholesomegood is a blocked sockpuppet who was the one arguing nonstop about this. He also edited as Igottheconch, who was once used to add back in the cost section that others removed. The sockpuppets primary account, Okip, was blocked indefinitely, as well as other aliases, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Okip.

Wholesomegood is a blocked sockpuppet

• Yes Here is the disputed section, this section cites reliable, respected sources, including CNN, the Washington Post, and The Economist in response to Solar Roadways grandiose claims:
  "it has been estimated if all the roads in America were converted to solar roadways the country would generate three times as much energy as it currently uses."
  WP:NPOV states:
  "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."
  To my knowledge, I am the only person here who has provided new sources in an attempt to come to a comprise. No one here has provided a source which criticize these figures, they are deleting this section solely based on their own unsourced opinion with no reliable source provided. Respected journalists citations are being deleted by anonymous editors who will not or cannot to find sources for their own unsubstantiated POV. Wholesomegood (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(A)The WashPo reference is a blog post from (apparently) a freelancer, so it doesn't really count as being journalism with WashPo excercising editorial control

(B)The CNN reference - from 2011 - boils down this cursory treatment "How much would the solar highway cost? Brusaw calculates an estimated cost -- in great detail -- on his website. Short answer: each mile would cost $4.4 million." which includes a link to the Solar Roadways home page. Since the homepage has changed we can't see the "great detail". We don't really know what they were talking about, or what conditions or speculations were part of the equation. Fast-forward to today to follow the link in the CNN article and that info isn't on the website. Instead, you find a denial that their R&D is so far along that they have a good idea about cost. "I heard that you said it's going to cost $60 trillion dollars to outfit the U.S. road with Solar Roadways. Is that true? [ANSWER] No, it's absolutely not true. Years ago, when we were working on our very first prototype, we estimated that if we could make our 12' x 12' panels for under $10K, then we could break even with asphalt. That was mere speculation and had no relevance to the cost of even our first prototype, let alone our second."(bold added)

(C) Assuming for the sake of argument that we agree the cursory mention of money in the 2011 CNN story means so hallowed an institution thought it was reliable and important and fully vetted the cost statement (a dubious assumption), we should take note that in this 2014 CNN story they said nothing, apparently having changed their minds. But of course, that assumes they really thought about it in the first place and there's no evidence of careful assessment in 2011, just a report that someone said something that the same person is refuting today. So its no surprise that 2014's CNN story omitted costs because, after all, there is no product on the market yet.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, almost always when an editor wants to delete a reputable referenced source, they argue that the source is "just a blog" and that even though the Washington Post decided it was newsworthy, the anonymous editor has decided, independent of any source except their own unverified opinion, that it isn't newsworthy. Under WP:NPOV, which I quote above, Wikipedia is ideally supposed to work like this:

Editor Wholesomegood posts a source from a reputable organization, in this case the Washington Post

Editor NewsAndEventsGuy finds "other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." (quote from WP:NPOV)

Instead, editors here are playing the "just a blog" game. See WP:BLOGS. We could go through this reporter's credentials, but that is a waste of time, because the Washington Post decided he was newsworthy. A couple of anonymous editors here claim this posting on Washington Post is not reliable. Who has more weight?

I could go through the other points brought up here, and I started to in an earlier edit, but it all comes back to WP:NPOV and the "just a blog" game. How does The Economist article not belong here too? Wholesomegood (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Make personal attacks on me all you like, they're still "just blogs" with no evidence that the editorial boards at those publications adopted and are now responsible for their content.... and I spent time in the legalese in their terms and conditions trying to figure that out, too. So... how would you like to spit on me next? Or would you rather re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Assume good faith and discuss content, not editors? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RE:"they're still "just blogs" with no evidence that the editorial boards at those publications adopted and are now responsible for their content"

What policy are you stating? Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG doesn't appear to cover this. Thanks! Wholesomegood (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Other discussion

• Per WP:CAN#Appropriate_notification I have notified "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" - editors who have made comments to the Solar Roadways talk page, and editors involved in the recent AFD. Wholesomegood (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted all those notices, since that was obvious canvassing. Since everyone else disagreed with him in the discussion he tried to bring more people in hoping they'd agree with him. Dream Focus 07:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close RfC? Given this RfC was driven by a single user, who is now blocked as a sock. Is this RfC even needed anymore? Can we work this out on our own without the formal need for an RfC? -- GreenC 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's ok by me, due to their being 100% opposition except for the blocked sock. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholesomegood is a blocked sockpuppet

Equities.com argues that the $60.5 trillion hypothetical doesn’t hold much value

I added some new material to the cost section, including Equities.com, which puts holes in the estimates, but NewsAndEventsGuy deleted a huge portion of the article, (so their was a edit conflict):

As of June 2014, the specific cost and power output of the panels have not been released by Solar Roadways, thus the lifetime costs have not been determined by independent sources. Solar Roadways will release prototype costs in July 2014, then release production cost analysis later. In 2010, Solar Roadways reported that it was aiming for each road 12 feet by 12 feet panel to cost around $10,000 and each mile would cost $4.4 million. At 2010 retail electricity prices the road would pay for itself in about 20 years. Media outlets have hypothetically estimated what it would cost to cover all of the United States which could provide enough electricity for the entire world. The Washington Post cited the online magazine Vox which estimated there are roughly 29,000 square miles (800 billion square feet) of United States road surface to cover. Which means the United States will need roughly 5.6 billion panels to cover that area with a "hypothetical" price tag of $56 trillion. Joseph Schumpeter, a blogger for The Economist, speculates that the installation costs of building such roadways and parking lots are expected to be 50 to 300 percent more expensive than regular roads. Schumpeter says, "According to one estimate, the cost to cover all of America's interstate highways would be $1 trillion." Alternatively, Sierra Rayne in The American Thinker estimated that in 2009, the United States had a total public road length of 4,050,717 miles. Which means an estimated solar road infrastructure cost of $18 trillion, or about 125% of the United States' current annual gross domestic product. In response, the FAQ section of Solar Roadways states: "I heard that you said it's going to cost $60 trillion dollars to outfit the U.S. road with Solar Roadways. Is that true?...No, it's absolutely not true. We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our prototype. That will come next month [July, 2014] as we get our final report ready for our Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration. And even if we had those numbers available now they would have no relevance to the cost of our actual product...right now, not even we have that information, so if you read an article where a journalist claims to have any data on costs, you can be assured that they have not done their homework and are quoting another unreliable source or they are making up numbers." Solar Roadways estimates there are 31,250.86 square miles of roads, parking lots, driveways, playgrounds, bike paths, sidewalks, etc. in the lower 48 states, and if they were all hypothetically covered by Solar Roadways it "could produce just about enough electricity to supply the entire world." Equities.com argues that the $60.5 trillion hypothetical doesn’t hold much value for two reasons: If solar roadways was used throughout the United States, it would create economies of scale that would dramatically reduce the costs of implementation. even the most optimistic backers of Solar Roadways probably don't expect any real progress towards paving the United States at any point in the next decade or so. This leaves enough time for technological changes at many different stages that could also significantly reduce costs. In an article in The Boston Globe MIT's Tonio Buonassisi stated the price of solar panels has dropped 77 percent over the last seven years and that "invites entrepreneurs to take a fresh look at integrating solar into functional products [such as] roads.

Wholesomegood (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"NewsAndEventsGuy deleted a huge portion of the article" That's true; first we're in the D part of BRD so much of this was an edit war repost; Besides that my deletions were incremental and reasons for each documented in the edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note the Equities.com source that supports your POV criticizing the cost estimates. Unlike the dozens of deletions, my additions to this article follow WP:NPOV policy.

I would ask that you keep your comments here, and not post unsolicited advice and threaten me repeatedly on my talk page. I posted a similar response in kind on your talk page after the second time. From now on, lets please keep the discussion here. Wholesomegood (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Content discussion should stay here I agree. Any reference to editor POV or behavior should go to user talk or dispute resolution or a noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will continue to respond on your talk page in kind in the future. Wholesomegood (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the cost to cover the entire USA be included?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Cost" section contain what it costs to cover the entire United States roads?

Please answer: Yes or No in the "Survey" section below. GreenC 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Rationale forthcoming. -- GreenC 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the cost information is outdated and has been superseded by new information from the company. Even though some of these sources are arguably reliable (and that is a debate), it's misleading to include outdated information which was never interpreted correctly by the press anyway. Plus Solar Roadways said they will be releasing new info in a few weeks. I agree with User:Mkdw that cost is a legitimate criticism for the criticism section but I think that should be minor, like one point in a list or at most a single sentence. Given new cost information forthcoming it would be reasonable to wait. -- GreenC 13:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• No but I am in support of having it mentioned in the critical reception section as it has been discussed by several sources (Huffington Post which cites Singularity Hub and the Washington Post which cites Vox, The Economist that states it in percentages; as well as many other sources that cite cost without a figure such as the Boston Globe) as one forthcoming problem to the project. As a criticism, it is not subject to the same requirements in terms of crystal ball or scientific accuracy. The information will be updated in any regard as the project comes closer and closer to having a product ready for trials. Mkdw^talk 20:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• If based on 2010 R&D development goal, NO Its a rather cursory question so hard to give a B&W answer. At this talk page and at DRN much hay was made out of some 2010 R&D research goals that were misinterpreted as "cost", as though a product actually existed even though it was still in R&D. If it is based on something else, then someone will have to explain what that something else is at the top of this RFC to provide context for any newcomers who haven't read the history. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• No It should not be mentioned anywhere in the article. The price of creating a prototype for an older model four years ago, is not relevant to what it would cost their current version after mass production has been achieved. So the information is misleading, slanderous, and undue weight. Wired Magazine, Popular Science, and other legitimate sources for scientific information do not quote these crazy numbers. Washington Post states that some have doubts, and quotes what Vox said, but does not offer any support to that number themselves. And different sources give totally different numbers, so we'd just be listing a dozen different random guesses. Dream Focus 22:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• No - This article is ONLY about the "solar roadway" company and its panels. All types of estimates relating to total cost estimates and total length of highways, streets, roads in the USA or any country doesn't belong in this article, seriously! Once there's an official price of the panels and cost to install the panels, then it's fine to include the cost per panel and cost estimates per mile, but never how much it would cost to cover all the road in the USA because it's pure speculation and imagination that it could ever happen! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional Material...sections to be deleted?

If this article is about a company, then it should be about the company. I think, for example, that the "cost" section isn't about the company. It's about trying to sell something, and so should be deleted. The critical reception section similarly could be deleted, since it's not about the company. Same thing for the prototype section. Instead, this article could use a "products" section, which would describe what they sell, or will sell...Hires an editor (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are attacking the headings and advocating the content of those sections be repackaged as related to products, or if you are challenging the content of those sections, please clarify?

Having asked that I will answer my own question....I haven't carefully studied the contents of those sections, mainly having been here to help with process over the "costs" debacle.... but from a slight skim seems to me the general content of those various section headings is all relevant to a products section regarding "what they sell, or will sell" and I'd add are deep into the R&D to aspire to sell. It's also significant that they're approaching some sort of record for crowd sourcing funding related to developing these products, and that should be included also.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess some of both. Headings need deleting for sure, as I state above. Some of the content in those sections needs to go, also. A new section called "Products" should go in, with what they sell. While I don't think this article should necessarily imitate other articles, I think that the headings/topics of other company articles is not the same as what we have on this page. I guess the "costs" section is a target, since that seems speculative. Most other company related articles don't have a "costs" section the way this one does. "Prototype" should probably be a part of a "Products" section. The critical reception section is about the product, rather than the company - so it's debatable as to whether it belongs in the article, or if it belongs in a "Products" section. Hires an editor (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I certainly agree with the principles stated, and generally agree with your application to this article. But I don't plan to implement it as I have bigger fish to fry now. Any takers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The company's name is Solar Roadways, and their product are solar roadways. They only have one product, this what the company is all about. All coverage is about both the company and their product. Look at Apple Inc. or other company articles, and you'll see they have a lot of information about their products. Dream Focus 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reboot

I'm not sure what Dream and I are arguing about, so let's see if we can start over. It seems we were editing, and reverting, and discussing, and making edit summaries all at the same time and if I got confused about the play by play I apologize. So let's take stock of where we are.

I like the bulleted list of awards in this version of the article. DreamFocus, is that presentation of this info ok with you? If not, could you please post a link from the version history that shows which one you think is better? Or alternatively, if I got in the way before you were done, go ahead and fiddle with the article and I'll wait a few days or until you are ready to say "this is what I was shooting for" and then we will have side by side prferences to discuss. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• What are you trying to link to? [2] This shows the bullet list items I added. Is that what you are referring to? No one is complaining about that. The problem was you trying to eliminate that section entirely BEFORE I added in those items, and you arguing the awards were just "puffery" and "trivia". If you agree to leave them alone and stop arguing about it, that part of the discussion can end. Dream Focus 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were arguing about the quote from CNET and "nominations" in the section heading. If we leave both of those out, then we're done, and excellent job on the bulleted list in this (most recent as of this moment) version of the article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

awards and nominations

Concerning this edit. [3] If you search Wikipedia for "awards and nominations" [4] you'll find 14,286 results. I see ample articles that list a section titled that. They didn't win all those awards, sometimes they were just nominated for them. Dream Focus 23:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The GoogleTest alone does not tell us what heading we have to have. Instead

A Pick a rootin' tootin' "nomination"

B Find out if they got that "award"

B1 if so add it to the bullet list

B2 If not,try to persuade me that being nominated for that thingamajigger is more than superficial trivia.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you bothered to check any of the thousands of other articles out there, you would see that getting nominated for a notable award, is something worthy of being mentioned in the article, even if you don't win it. Dream Focus 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY is not applicable in this context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to you on my talk page, any award that gets independent coverage in reliable sources is notable by Wikipedia standards. Major news sources wouldn't mention an award someone won, if it wasn't significant. Dream Focus 23:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Please identify the wikipedia standard on which you rely for the proposition that each award is "notable"

(B) Please identify the "award" or the "nomination" listed in the CNET quote that is not already in our bulleted list.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(B)As I have already stated, you removed that section entirely BEFORE I added that bullet list for those items. I reverted you. I then made four edits where I added four bullet list items. Thus that area is now no longer needed, so as I have clearly stated, I have no objection towards it being removed now that the information is there in a different format. The discussion is whether or not the section should be called List of Awards and Nominations, as other articles have, or simply List of Awards. Dream Focus 00:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "reboot" section below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In that edit I took out the CNET thing and deleted "nominations" from the heading because -

In our bulleted list, we have entries for each item in the CNET quote. So including both the bulleted list (which is more specific) is redundant with the cursory CNET sentence. So the CNET part is redundant and should go away for redundancy.

Second, the CNET thing says SR was "nominated" for something or other, but the CNET thing gives this such cursory treatment that we can't tell which CNET was calling an 'award' and which as a 'nomination' or (more likely) that was just bad editing and CNET didn't really know which from what. EXAMPLE "NAEG (that's me) likes to eat the following treats and desserts - ice cream, jello, and pudding." Question, which is the "treat" and which is the "dessert"? The whole 'nominations' thing based on this one superficial summary is puffery.

Third, the vague "nominations" bit in the CNET thing kinda makes our article look padded through double dipping. On the one hand there's a list of things that might be "nominations", but then the same things appear to be counted a second time in the bulleted list as "awards".

By removing the CNET thing, we have not omitted any "award", we're just editing without adding puffery thru vague superficial padding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, written before you posted the above)

• Note that one editor removed the referenced awards [5] with the edit summary ("awards and nominations" is puffery; Are these things HARD to be nominated for? source doesn't say. list of Rootin tootin awards has teeth)". I then restored that [6] with the edit summary (Yes, these are notable awards. Click the links if you don't know what they are. Individual listings would be nice, I'll look for that now). I then made four edits after that, adding each item to a bullet list after searching online and finding a reference for it. So the original part was no longer necessary if all the information is there on the list now, so no complaints about it being removed. I mention this since the editor has brought it to my talk page User_talk:Dream_Focus#Notable_vs_Weight instead of just posting it here. Dream Focus 23:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please delete this paragraph and my green comment with it, assuming your goal is to write a great article. The chronicle of the tit-for-tat is the antithesis of WP:FOC, which is what we do to quickly write effective text through consensus.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I am clarifying what you are complaining about and mistakenly calling an "edit war" on my talk page. Also when you say "CNN" above, you mean "CNET". Dream Focus 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, I edited my remark so it is clear for third parties who come by later. As for the rest, since my opinion may have changed you don't have my permission to "clarify what [I] am complaining about". Since you are importing and acribing current thinking to me from a past remark elsewhere without my persmission, please respect my request to delete all this (under the bullet, not the whole thread) including my green comments. Of course, if you want the process to be impossible, and in that way keep the text from ever be restored, by all means toss a bowl of drama chilli at the wall. But in my opinion it would be more effective to FOC and if part of that repeats what got said at your user talk, so what? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would I need your permission to comment on something related to this discussion you just posted on my talk page? This "past" remark, was just before you posted here and relevant. Dream Focus 23:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

At the top of this post, in the first section, I've tried to WP:Focus on content by asking two questions. If you prefer to answer them here, please copy and paste them here first. If you want to answer them in the first section, that works too. Just thought I'd cross link them at the bottom of the thread at the time I posted them to facilitate content oriented discussion.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if nominations were not included, but I'm not going to cut those types of thing either, unless the list gets out of control. Nominations is kind of like hooking up with women, you either win the prize or you don't, and if you don't then it really doesn't matter. If you are going to include nominations, then put them in a 2nd list instead of grouping with award winners. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia practice is to list the nominations. The Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers#Awards are for science like the Academy Awards are for films. Being a finalist for the World Technology Award seems notable as well. That's the only two nominations listed currently. These all get coverage in various independent reliable sources mentioning they were nominated for them. If they feel it significant enough to mention in their coverage of this company, shouldn't we do so as well? Dream Focus 03:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No big deal to me, but please split into two lists, such as Winner and Nomiated, or better titles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Claims

Comment - While DreamFocus and GreenC are busy doing what they can to promote this company and it's vaporware product by removing anything they deem critical or negative about the company and/or it vaporware product, I found an interesting YouTube video, counterpointing each of the company's claims and demonstrating how unrealistic this concept. It's 28 minutes long and some of it can be tedious, but it's very enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4 GornDD (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, a random guy on YouTube figured something out that Wired magazine and the others covering them did not, nor the scientists at the American Department of Transportation that gave two research grants to them, or General Electrics that gave them their GE Ecoimagination Community Award, or the people behind the World Technology Award they won, or the scientists looking them over for the other awards they've won. This would not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Its so great that even while all of those well respected professional scientists missed something, this random guy on YouTube was able to find all the mistakes they missed. Dream Focus 00:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the obvious stuff like their videos showing them recycling colored glass into clear glass, which is impossible? GornDD (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They stated "We were able to use recycled glass as ten percent of the aggregate in our base layer for our prototype parking lot". They never said the transparent part was from it, or even that every bit of glass they found to recycle was usable. Images of someone collecting glass to recycle, doesn't mean every single piece they picked up that day is used. I watched part of that video about them whining about traction, not believing it was possible, but the American government did testing on it, so it obviously is. http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml states "What kinds of things have you tested for during your contract with the Federal Highway Administration? The biggest concern for testing was the structural integrity of our panels. We had to make sure that our panels had enough traction, strength, and toughness to support heavy trucks on our nation's highways. We had our glass traction tested, load tested, and impact resistance tested at university civil engineering labs around the country. It passed all tests with flying colors." As I said, one unknown guy on YouTube, it not more reliable than the government appointed scientists who tested this out already. Dream Focus 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A person can easily find lists of downsides in discussions on many blog websites during the past few weeks. The statements in the video are just a fraction of the concerns listed by numerous people on the internet. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not listen to blogs sites, forum posts, what some guy said in a comment section, or whatnot. A WP:reliable source has to say it for it be to considered. Dream Focus 12:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Typically investors in a stock IPO are given a prospectus which contains a list of "risks" which are usually good faith reasons why investing in that stock has downsides and dangers. It may even be a law that this is required. I wonder if crowd-funding has a similar prospectus where the company lists its risks to investors. It seems common sense this would exist to avoid an investor later saying they were mislead and didn't understand the risks. That would be a good source. I think all these criticisms on the Internet are not well informed, suddenly everyone is a solar roads and materials science expert. They are all probably climate experts too :) -- GreenC 14:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The guy in this video, Phil Mason, is not some "random" guy on the internet. He is a research scientist with a PhD, who has co-authored 34 scientific papers. You can easily find many other reputable scientists and engineers that have pointed out the absurdity of this idea. Another scientist, Roy W. Spencer, makes many of the same points:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/solar-roadways-project-a-really-bad-idea/

The investment site equities.com also makes these criticisms:

http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/why-the-solar-roadways-project-on-indiegogo-is-actually-really-silly

Anyone with some scientific understanding will recognize the fact that this idea is completely impractical. This article should at minimum point out the many flaws with this concept. It would be better if someone completely rewrote it, using references from the actual scientists and engineers who have looked at it. The product has no merit.

EricKent (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The YouTube name "Thunderf00t" isn't proof of being any specific person. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And even if it were, speculation about a product that is not on the market is little more than bullshitting over beer and pretzels, no matter how many PhD's one has. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone can publish as many scientific papers as they want. Its not really much of an accomplishment. Check out Google scholar search sometimes to see. And millions of people have PhDs. Doesn't mean we use them as reliable sources. Dream Focus 01:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note that Equite article comes with a disclaimer, "Ideas expressed herein are the opinions of the writer". They don't have any experts review and confirm his personal rant. The internet has no shortage of space, so they just let them post whatever they want in their blog section they call "editor's desk". Dream Focus 01:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

In light of multiple attempts to add un-sourced (probably made up) allegations of criminal activity to this article I think the page should get some low level page protection. Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it's so bad yet for semi-protection but maybe a {{pp-pc1}} for a couple months while this story moves through the Internet discussion forums. -- GreenC 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing. If the same person keeps vandalizing the page through different IP addresses, might have to ask for semi-protection, blocking all IP addresses and new users from editing it. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Dream Focus 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Major issues with the concept" section

Ok, So i have added a section to the project called "Major issues with the concept", it can be viewed in the page history. So what makes you think that these youtuber's calculations are not reliable references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalpilat0077 (talk • contribs)

Before we bother arguing whether the youtube vids are RS, I also reverted because this is all speculation about a product that (I think) is still on the drawing board. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at up WP:RS to learn what a reliable source is. That isn't it. Dream Focus 09:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing you have to keep in mind is that i never speculated about the project, i only pointed out that this project is controversial and presented the arguments that these youtubers make. for example, i said: "Several youtubers like EEVBlog and Thunderf00t have claimed that this project is a bad idea" rather than saying "This project is a bad idea" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalpilat0077 (talk • contribs) Also, one thing that i should have done is named the section "Critisism" rather than "Major issues with the concept", i admit that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalpilat0077 (talk • contribs)

Completely biased points of view. No criticism allowed.

The problem

I know there are separate sub-sections here handling much of these topics but it appears the two main editors here are deliberately trying to make sure that these topics get lost in these walls of text.

I started by re-adding some of the criticism bullet points, with legitimate sources cited only for them to get removed each time.

A project where people have donated so much should be open for criticism. I'm not talking about ranting about a single point, I'm talking about knowing anything about basic physics and having a simple understanding of maths. You do not need a pHd in engineering to look up specifications for certain components being used in this project and realize that it's not going to be anywhere near as efficient or cost effective as the inventors make it sound, even in large scale production.

Sure they still have to do a lot of work on it, but then they should have made it very clear in their Indiegogo campaign.

This wiki page should be a non-biased overview of the project, as it stands now it looks like it's being used a marketing tool.

The solution?

It has been suggested that this main page be dedicated only to information about Solar Roadways Inc., the company. That is fine with me, as long as the wiki title is change to something like "Solar Roadways Inc." or "Solar Roadways (Company)". Then there should be a separate wiki page created called "Solar Roadways Project" (or similar) where all the information can be collated regarding all the positive and negative aspects. A reference to this page then should be added to the main company page.

The generic "Smart Highways" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway) page seems only to serve as a diversion tactic to remove any criticism from this specific Indiegogo-funded project.

Criticism cannot be held back on the internet no matter how awesome you think something is. The edit wars will just continue and in the end make it worse for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drzoidberg33 (talk • contribs)

The very first thing the article says is "Solar Roadways Incorporated is a startup company", so it's 100% obvious the article is about the company and not the generic topic. The generic topic is covered in Smart highway article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my point where I mention that that article is in no way relevant to this specific crowd-funded Solar Roadways project. I will then create a new page called "Solar Roadways Project" and reference this article. Thank you for dodging the topic. Drzoidberg33 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good chance that would be submitted to "Articles for deletion" and result in a "merge" consensus unless you can come up with new arguments not already hashed to death in May. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It totally astounds me how so many people cannot see past what this wiki page is, and that is purely a marketing tool for Solar Roadways Inc. I think people have just gone "Green Crazy" and will sign up for anything with the word "solar" in it. When I get time I will submit the Solar Roadways (Project) page with a more non-biased tone. If it gets removed I will come up with another plan. People deserve to get information both sides of the coin here, there are plenty of articles (even one cited already) that show skepticism towards the claims from the company yet none of that is reflected anywhere on the wiki page. Drzoidberg33 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the thread I linked there were a few voices, myself among them, advocating creating an article for Solar pavement. It would obviously be cross linked from this article as well as Smart highways. That would be a reasonable place to discuss design challenges that companies need to overcome. Stuff specifically saying Solar Roadways project is (whatever) are all speculative naysaying about this company's efforts. That's gossip and rumor, since there is no product from this company on the market. But it would be interesting to have a paragraph or two at Solar pavement talking about challenges for making panels that, for example, are happy on a variety of road bases overlying different soil types, in different environmental conditions, that need to be impact and scratch resistant, and so on. Can you find sources that talk about those design challenges without spinning them as a reason this company's product design efforts are dumb? If you can, you've got some great RSs for a solar pavement article. Jabbing a finger in the eye of Solar Roadway's R&D based on speculation.... yawn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to jab anyone in the eye, what we want is a balance overview of the Solar Roadways crowd funded project, the one that people gave $2m towards, the one that has already made prototypes and the one that has made claims (using LEDs, heating elements, etc). If this wiki page is really only about the company then lets get rid of all the content that is not related to the core company information. The prototype and cost sections should not be included on this page as they refer to the product which the company provides, one which is not the companies only product. Drzoidberg33 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's not enough information for a standalone article. The product hasn't been released yet it's still in R&D. Almost all of the secondary information on the web is speculation and largely derogatory punditry. -- GreenC 23:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Drzoidber33, in that I believe that the cost section should be removed, arguments that pointed me to other articles about companies are unconvincing: articles about other companies mention their products, or even products in development, but not "cost" as its own thing. Separately, while it can be difficult to discuss a company that hasn't made anything yet, by what it says it's going to make, it's notable enough because of the product it hasn't yet made...so, by that rationale, we can simply say that it says it's going to make something, and leave it at that. Hires an editor (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the "costs" section essentially said there is no news, so I deleted it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Drzoidberg33 shows a single purpose account, adding in information and making the exact same arguments as other single purpose accounts and IP addresses. Same person? Dream Focus 02:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a request with an article on LEDs, not sure what you guys think of it but i tried to make it as balanced as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalpilat0077 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably, and I noticed that also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the same person, I can see by the edit histories though that there have been numerous others with similar concerns. 196.210.126.235 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

Add a section for LEDs with this text -

A major part of the Solar Roadways project are LEDs. The creators of this projects are attempting to fit a series of LEDs to each panel in order to create programmable lanes on the roads, Warning signs and parking lot configurations instead of using paint. They claim that this is better since the roads would not have to be repainted blacklisted url deleted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC) They also said that these panels could be used on solar recreation courts and give the ability to change sports configurations on them
The creators of this project also claimed that with LEDs "It will look like FREAKING Tron out there"
Alot of people claimed that the LEDs wont be vissible during the day. The solar roadways creators have released an official response about that and said that bilboards and streetlights use LEDs and can vissible during the day. Other people like thunderf00t have continued the argument stating that billboards use alot of power and that the solar panels would not be able to power them. He also stated that street lights use covers so that they are not in direct sunlight.
These are only speculations however it is important to note that the creators of solar roadways have never shown the LEDs turned on during the day, all their videos are during the evening or night. It is possible that the current prototype's LEDs can not be seen during the day but the creators might be trying to make them vissible in the final product

Rafalpilat0077 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the generic idea of LEDs could be developed without conflating the general idea with this company's R&D on the general idea, and without playing WP:CRYSTALBALL. The place to develope a neutral discussion of the idea from an engineering perspective is at Solar road stud or Smart highway#Road markings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the engineering issues/benefits should also be discussed on the Solar Roadways article rather than just the Smart highways since there is alot of enginering issues that need to be solved to make the project possible to implement. Also, as far as i know, Solar roadways is the only company that considers using LEDs in highways, other companies are considering using glow in the dark lanes that would recharge in the day and light up in the night.Right now, the article is also very biased since it does not show any issues about the Solar Roadways project, but as we know, there are alot of issues. Some argue that these issues are easier or harder to solve depending who you ask, and i think that thats why we should present both of the sides of the argument — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalpilat0077 (talk • contribs)

All we know is that Solar Roadways is engaged in R&D on these products. The rest is speculation and rumor, which we don't cover. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, most of what i wrote is facts, we should however remove this part:

Alot of people claimed that the LEDs wont be vissible during the day. The solar roadways creators have released an official response about that and said that bilboards and streetlights use LEDs and can vissible during the day. Other people like thunderf00t have continued the argument stating that billboards use alot of power and that the solar panels would not be able to power them. He also stated that street lights use covers so that they are not in direct sunlight.

These are only speculations however

Leaving the article like this:

A major part of the Solar Roadways project are LEDs. The creators of this projects are attempting to fit a series of LEDs to each panel in order to create programmable lanes on the roads, Warning signs and parking lot configurations instead of using paint. They claim that this is better since the roads would not have to be repainted blacklisted url deleted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They also said that these panels could be used on solar recreation courts and give the ability to change sports configurations on them

The creators of this project also claimed that with LEDs "It will look like FREAKING Tron out there"

It is important to note that the creators of solar roadways have never shown the LEDs turned on during the day, all their videos are during the evening or night. It is possible that the current prototype's LEDs can not be seen during the day but the creators might be trying to make them vissible in the final product

Rafalpilat0077 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who says it is "major" or that "it is important to note"? Sounds like your opinion
• You still have a defective RS pointing at a blacklisted website
• There's a redundancy about paint
• After you fix all that, its still not going to pass the anti-rumor / anti-speculation / WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL tests which makes this getting to be rather WP:tenditious
• The final sentence asserts a negative (never ever ever not once ever) without an RS to back that up, and advancing your own (assassin) speculation

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Ill clear up some things:

• The LED lights are a major part of the project since they are vital for most of the features of the roads: Programable lanescape designs, Parking lot configurations, lighting up in from of cars. Without the LEDs the roads are no longer smart since they basically cant do anything other than generate electricity.
• I guess you could argue that "It is important to note" is my opinion, so i should probably remove that.
• Which of the RS is pointing to a blacklisted website? And can you give me the link to a list with all the blacklisted websites.
• Why will it not pass the test?
• Yes, i should probably remove the last point

Here is a changed version of the article:

"

A major part of the Solar Roadways project are LEDs. The creators of this projects are attempting to fit a series of LEDs to each panel in order to create programmable lanes on the roads, Warning signs and parking lot configurations. They claim that this is better since the roads would not have to be repainted blacklisted url deleted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They also said that these panels could be used on solar recreation courts and give the ability to change sports configurations on them

The creators of this project also claimed that with LEDs "It will look like FREAKING Tron out there"

The creators of solar roadways have never shown the LEDs turned on during the day, which has lead to alot of rumors and speculations that these LEDs might not be vissible during the day.

"Rafalpilat0077 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I decline to retrace ground on the minor points, since earlier objection still stands that this R&D speculation violates WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Some of this R&D speculation might also be objectionable under WP:PROMO. So the more technical problems of sourcing and formatting and wordchoice etc become moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All refs for all threads accumulate here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I see a lot of back and forth, but no reached consensus to implement this change. I would suggest however, since this is nearing a stalemate, that you request assistance from the WP:DRN. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue, in general, was already taken to DRN and it didn't end well. An RFC is a better choice, but we already had one of those also (see above). -- GreenC 17:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations for Prototype section

The Prototype section doesn't have a single citation. Would it be appropriate to link to the solar roadways website and alter the language to make it clear that the information comes from the company and hasn't been independently verified? Huzzak (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the entire section should be deleted until the prototype details garner enough attention to be reported in reliable secondary resources. Leaving the section without a such an WP:RS or just linking to the corp's website violates WP:PROMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some Google searches to see if I could find a source for the section but all I could find were blog articles that had copied the section verbatim without citation. I read the pages you linked and I agree that the section should be deleted. As it stands it is unsourced and reads like promotional material. Huzzak (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the section should be removed (and as of this writing, it has been) until the company has a reliable, demonstrated product that has been reported on by the mainstream press. Hires an editor (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is whether their prototype has been sufficiently covered by secondary WP:RS in a way that has WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

The solar roadway project has numerous flaws associated with it's design tat should be mentioned to ensure equal representation of information. At the end of the history section this or something similar should be added:

As a result of the media exposure Solar Freakin' Roadways received from their record-breaking fundraising effort, they became the focus of dozens of YouTube videos, which raised serious questions about the viability, practicality, expense, traction, durability and safety of roads or highways made of glass solar panels. Video contributors ranging from students to electrical engineers also raised serious concerns about the Brusaws' claims of illumination and power generation/transmission of energy created by these prototype units.

References to this doubt include https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1697675711&feature=iv&src_vid=Mzzz5DdzyWY&v=H901KdXgHs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds

where calculations have been performed to show this doubt.

Lobologo (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. These are almost certainly not WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)