Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Solar Roadways. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Solar Roadways at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Idaho may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Driving on glass?

Seriously? This is what people are worried about? Do people realize that we use glass in space? That we have bullet-proof glass? The real problem with driving on glass is friction. You couldn't pay me enough to drive 65 on a sheet of glass in winter slush or rain; that's just insane, makin' mush of my brain. How will it drain away the water? Normal road surface has a jagged, porous surface to help with that. How can they provide traction while also being energy efficient? What tests have been done, and who has verified that it's safe in inclement weather? Compression strength. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.90.124 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they have tests to make sure it's safe to drive on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.22.10 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah next we'll be driving on oil.. asphalt: " a sticky, black and highly viscous liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum". -- GreenC 14:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are driving on Asphalt concrete: "a composite material commonly used to surface roads, parking lots, and airports. It consists of mineral aggregate bound together with asphalt, laid in layers, and compacted.", you are describing asphalt. 94.113.161.84 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, rocks + oil. Glass is pure rock (sand). In this case rocks + embedded electronics. -- GreenC 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nanites

Wondering if any research has been done with nanites. Would allow for a self-healing road surface, and you could even do embedded glowing lines. 184.166.6.102 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Emergency Usage

Currently, the article reads as follows

In the event of an environmental disaster or military emergency, solar roadways would provide power when it is needed most. As solar power is renewable, it obviously requires no external connection to an artificial power source.

It also obviously requires an external connection to the power grid. The grid itself may be down, assuming the external connection is not. Or am I just taking crazy pills? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.89.138 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue with article title

Is this Misplaced Pages article about the concept of a solar roadway, or about the company "Solar Roadways"? Either the content or the title need to be updated once that decision is made. Chadlupkes (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page. I'm not directly associated with the company, but I am part of a team of people working to support them. We'll do our best to build a quality page about the concept and history of the company. Chadlupkes (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you've done that, it is just an extended free advert for that one company (WP:N). It would be hard to justify keeping it as such, were it nominated for deletion. "Part of a team of people working to support them"? I should check WP:COI too. --Nigelj (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible changes

This (in my opinion) needs to be rewritten as an article on the various smart highway proposals - such as:

• Platoon (automobile)
• Virginia Smart Road
• Vehicle infrastructure integration
• and Solar Roadways Inc

I don't think we need a separate article on the products of this particular company until they have a product on sale. Does that make sense? filceolaire (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense, and seems like a very good proposal. Do you want to make a start? Do you need a hand? --Nigelj (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj Lets see if it survives deletion first. You should comment there if you think this is worth saving. filceolaire (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is one to add: http://www.innowattech.co.il/. I'd be willing to help if I can. Duronx (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages Mislabeled?

As far as I can see, there are absolutely no disadvantages listed in this section. Perhaps some counter arguments to this system should be added? Redunct (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To this end, I have expanded the "Cost" section to "Cost and Other Feasibility Concerns" with appropriate sources/references. GornDD (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

its always been about the company

Is there any other company doing this other than Solar Roadways? The article's name is capitalized because its about the company, not the concept. Looking through its history, its always been. Has anyone else gotten awards, government grants, or media coverage for this, other than Scott and Julie Brusaw and their company? Dream Focus 09:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. See below. GornDD (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I renamed the article and added "(company)" to the title to make it obvious that the article is about a business instead of generically about solar road concepts. This makes it obvious. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't normally do that unless there is some reason to disambiguate, see the rules on disambugation. The way it was with capital letters and plural "Roadways" (vs. roadway) was clear. Further solar roadway already links here, and that term is largely an invention of this same company anyway. -- GreenC 14:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Plus its still at AFD, and you shouldn't change a name during that time anyway. Dream Focus 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Change it back, not a big deal. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with User:Sbmeirow. It is a relatively minor edit that enhances clarity that this article is about the private company, not the generic product, which if this company is notable, then the product is as well and deserves its own section. I presume that this article will probably survive deletion and some disambiguation will be necessary. GornDD (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages naming conventions are what we go by here. You don't have any information about solar roadways that isn't connected to this company. Dream Focus 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. We actually have information about solar roadways that is not connected to this company. See below. GornDD (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed. Someone just found some. No one had at the time I posted that. Dream Focus 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't determine if "Solar Roadways" in incorporated or not. If yes, then we should consider naming the article "Solar Roadways Inc." similar to "Apple Inc." article name. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The SBIR website (http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/355952) lists them as "Solar Roadways Incorporated" GornDD (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! After things settle down in the coming weeks, then we need to revisit the article name, such should consider naming the article Solar Roadways Inc. similar to Apple Inc. article name.

• Comment Despite some assertions by certain editors above, Solar Roadways Inc is not the only company working on this technology. The technology is called SolaRoad and was developed by the Dutch firm TNO. (http://inhabitat.com/the-netherlands-to-pave-roads-with-solaroad-solar-panels/) Additionally, students at the Solar Institute at George Washington University installed a solar panel walking path desinged by Onyx Solar, something they call solar pavement. (http://inhabitat.com/students-install-the-worlds-first-solar-pavement-panels-in-virginia/). I think there is certainly enough to warrant a disambiguation between solar roads, solar pavement, SolaRoad, and Solar Roadways Inc GornDD (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, another Dutch company called Ooms Avenhorn Holding AV installed a variant of a "solar road" that doesn't use photovoltaic cells. Ooms installed the system in Avenhorn, a village in northern Holland. (http://www.ecmag.com/section/miscellaneous/dutch-company-drives-new-solar-power) GornDD (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Great, someone found someone else doing this. If someone creates articles for them, then you can create a disamb page called solar roads and link to all of them. Dream Focus 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cost and Other Feasibility Concerns

Restored the cost, it is quoted by Solar Roadways in a reliable source. We don't require absolute proof before we report on something, the way it's worded makes it clear this is what Solar Roadways is saying, not an absolute truth. -- GreenC 14:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the current wording as of this moment is fine by me. I'm ok as long as the article doesn't use any numbers since there haven't been any official prices released on their website. I've seen some price statements in articles and price estimates from numerous people, but I can't find anything official to validate those numbers. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See above. I have expanded and renamed this section to include other concerns GornDD (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about edits about cost of roadways

The edit in question was done at 17:23, 26 May 2014, and has nothing to do with the above bit.

• Opinions about this edit dispute please. Should we list calculations done four years ago based on the previous panel technology, despite the evidence that the latest version is far superior? Dream Focus 17:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously restored the criticism of the cost as it is appropriately sourced and referenced. Furthermore, it is clearly stated as being based on 2010 estimates since the company has not released anything more recent. I have noticed that certain users have a tendency to advocate for this company and delete anything that seems skeptical or critical. As certain users have so eloquently advocated (when the information is favorable to Solar Roadways), it was reported in a notable source and clearly stated as being what the source is saying, not an absolute truth. Your claim that the new version is "far superior" clearly demonstrates your editing bias and advocacy of this product/company. GornDD (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you believe me mentioning the newer version is "far superior" shows bias towards it? But you constantly insulting the company and the many newspapers and magazines mentioned in the AFD that give them coverage, as well as having no edits on Misplaced Pages ever except for this article and the AFD you started to try to delete it, doesn't show any negative bias on your part at all? You are so desperate to find something negative about this company that you want to quote someone's guesswork based on a previous product of theirs from four years ago. That's ridiculous. Who cares if someone in a random internet only newspaper post something like this? No one has any idea what the current version would cost, and there is no possible reason to mention something from four years ago. Dream Focus 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can remove it on unreliable source grounds. And unfortunately this criticism is stupid, logic wise. The thought experiment takes the cost of an early prototype model and projects that to pave the entire USA. As if the costs would not come down dramatically on such a scale, probably 10x or more. They would have to make billions of these things, it would be bigger than the car industry. And such a venture would take decades, generations, by which time the technology would continue to mature and get cheaper. It really isn't a criticism, it's a logical fallacy. Made in some offbeat internet only website. -- GreenC 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past week, I've looked around their website and I couldn't find any prices, cost estimates, power outputs, technical specifications. At this point, I'm extremely unhappy about the entire "solar roadway" speculations that everyone is throwing around on the internet without hard facts! This article should have good facts and less speculations, because that is expected of Misplaced Pages! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that you and User:GreenC have an obvious bias in favor of this company and shout down any skepticism, whereas I have evolved from believing this article should be deleted to acknowledging its (most likely) notability and have begun editing the article to demonstrate a NPOV and therefore SAVE the article. Please, demonstrate where I have "insulted" the company. GornDD (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling them vaporware constantly would be something I consider an insult. They are legitimate researchers, not scam artists. So, one person wants it to remain, two of us specifically said it should be removed, and one more person is unhappy with the speculations people are throwing around, so I take it he wants it removed as well. Consensus is clear. Dream Focus 04:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You and one other person with a bias (GreenC) do not constitute a "consensus" when the discussion has only been there for a few hours. PLEASE DON'T EDIT WAR. FYI: Plenty of "legitimate" companies have been accused of vaporware. It's hardly an insult to call an imaginary future product which two people are seeking funds for "vaporware" GornDD (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with you must be bias? You are adding in a one sided argument for no other reason than to further your point. Dream Focus 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No. But YOU definitely do. I have STATED MULTIPLE TIMES that you and I continuing to debate was useless and asked to let OTHER people contribute so as to reach a consensus, but YOU insist on furthering our disagreement. So, please don't accuse me of "furthering" my point or "adding" an argument when I offered to simply agree to disagree with you and let others debate the matter, but YOU insist on edit warring. and FYI: coverage itself in otherwise reliable sources don't not itself prove notability - a fact which you seem to keep ignoring. I've already provided THAT quote and link. Do you need me to do it again? Or can we just agree to quit this useless argument and let OTHERS decide the issue...? GornDD (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to you quoting WP:ORG out of context and changing its meaning? I already commented on that in the AFD. You changed the wording to say what you wanted it to say. It reads

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

You then misquote that as saying

Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

Totally opposite meaning there. Dream Focus 05:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting WP:ORG where it says things like, "Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." and WP:SOAP, where it says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." The vast majority of the cited coverage amounts to nothing more than product placement in promotional articles with links to a crowd-funding site. This is a local, two-person company, that after 7 years and two federal grants, admits they have not started manufacturing anything and have not moved past the prototype stage of a proposed future product that does not exist yet. Mere coverage in reliable sources seeking crowd-funding do not in itself establish notability. (See WP:ORG above). Thus far there is not a single third-party source with any information on this company's vaporware. Every single article listed has information ONLY sourced by the company itself. Again -JUST promotional article written for the purpose of generating crowd-funding (regardless of them appearing in otherwise reliable sources) does not constitute notability itself. But you seem intent on insisting it does, which is fine - I have already agreed there is probably some notability there. But furthermore, you are even more intent on deleting any edit which appears skeptical or critical of this vaporware. You allow sources that originate from within the company and delete any other regardless of any legitimacy. GornDD (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It reads: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Read the entire thing in context. Anyway, the closing administrator will understand how WP:NOTABILITY works, and certainly won't delete it based on your misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Dream Focus 05:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Then so be it. My primary argument against this product's inclusion in WP has always been that it is vaporware anyway. This product was announced in 2007. In the ensuing 7 years they haven't moved past the prototype stage. 7 years later, there is still no product for sale. They haven't even completed the cost analysis of the prototype yet. I have already suggested that due to the grants there might be some notability for the company's research into the concept of solar roads, but this article is thus far, is nothing more than unsourced claims for a vaporware product originating from the company itself for the purpose of seeking crowd-funding. If you want WP to turn into a marketing vehicle for crowd-funding startup companies, then you are doing a fine job. GornDD (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oculus VR doesn't have a commercial product, and they are crowd funded by Kickstarter. Will you delete that one too? -- GreenC 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know too much about Oculus VR, as I haven't researched it very much. After my experience with this article, I would be hesitant to edit or nominate any article for anything. That being said, a quick perusal of the Oculus entry shows several significant differences from Solar Roadways: First, rather than spending 7-8 years raising money on a speculative product that thus far hasn't seemed to produce anything. Oculus, in less than two years, has gone from startup to a $2 billion deal with Facebook, and unlike photovoltaic solar roads, is expected to become available later this year. Secondly, Oculus is a variant on an existing concept (VR headsets) that is already on the market, unlike Solar Roadways "product", which is an entirely original concept. Third, Oculus' crowd-funding campaign was a historical event, in that it already happened and is a part of the history of the product leading to the Facebook deal. As of the publication of this article (and my subsequent nomination), Solar Roadways' crowd-funding campaign was still ongoing and this article originally came across as a free advert for that campaign. Lastly, the Oculus article cites numerous reliable sources who have reported on independent, third-party reviews of the product, the technology, and specification. Solar Roadways' entry did not. While it was mentioned in several reliable sources, every single one of those sources all cited nothing more than the company's unproven claims. On the other hand, should a company named Applied Plebotinum come along and announce it's amazing product (applied plebotinum), making unverifiable claims, and launching a crowd-funding campaign seeking funds to jumpstart the project, yes. I would nominate that article for deletion regardless of how many websites were referring people to the crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages as you know anyone can edit and is often a public sounding board for negative information, the idea of using it as an "advert" is unlikely and ill-advised. We have to be careful with undo weight in the other direction, too much criticism makes the article look like a hit piece. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed editor's commentary on what Plumer's "thought experiment" did or did not entail as it amounts to nothing more than speculation on the part of the editor. GornDD (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Costs of roadway

I added back the Washington Post reference to the cost of this technology being developed. I also added an Economist article. I feel like real journalists know more about how to write a story then I do and can decide whether something is relevant more than me.

If you feel like these numbers are in error, don't delete the referenced material from two highly esteemed media organizations, find an article that counters this argument - to create a full NPOV. Here is one article I will add into this entry:

Thanks! Wholesomegood (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Wholesomegood (talk)

I rewrote and expanded the cost section:

Solar Roadways will release a prototype installation cost in July 2014. In 2010 the company reported that it was aiming for each road 12 feet by 12 feet panel to cost around $10,000. At 2010 retail electricity prices the road would pay for itself in about 22 years.

Using Solar Roadway's estimated costs, 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, which is a price tag of $56 trillion.

The Economist reports that the installation costs of building such roadways and parking lots are expected to be 50 to 300 percent more expensive than regular roads. To cover all United States roads would cost at least $1 trillion.

It is probably not ideal, but i think it reflects the way the media has covered the costs of this technology. Wholesomegood (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already October 2014, and still no cost study or cost estimates has been released on the Solar Roadway website! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Title restored "mostly because the name change in the middle of an AfD is disruptive... Once the AfD is over, the name can get changed again, ...". В²C ☎ 03:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar roads → Solar Roadways – There was no consensus to rename an article clearly about the company, to something else. Need an administrator to change it back. The name should not have been changed during the AFD. It should've been discussed on the talk page first. This article is about the company, there not one reliable source found mentioning the concept not related to them. Kindly change it back to Solar Roadways. Dream Focus 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this - disambiguation. Why not have one page on solar roads (the concept) and one on Solar Roadways (the company), with both being subject to the normal WP review process (notability guidelines and so forth)...? GornDD (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not one source has been found talking about the concept separate from this company. Dream Focus 21:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly an excellent argument for deletion as a non-notable vaporware product. But in the interests of clarity (and without prejudice as to either subject's notability), I suggest disambiguation. And if there are no reliable sources other than the company promoting its vaporware product, then so be it... GornDD (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS will explain to you what "reliable sources" means on Misplaced Pages. Wired magazine and others listed in the AFD count as reliable sources. WP:NOTABILITY requirements have been met for this company and its creation to have a Misplaced Pages article. A separate article not related to this company, would not be acceptable unless you find reliable sources covering it on its own. Dream Focus 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid rehashing our debate from the AfD page here and taking up more space, I suggest we keep further debate as to notability and so forth on the AfD page. I understand and admire your tenacity and ardor in trying to inextricably link this concept with one company and its vaporware product, but my suggestion still remains disambiguation. GornDD (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It can not be a disambiguation page unless you have enough content to fill an article with evidence it meets the notability requirements. So until someone writes an article for that, its not really an issue here. Dream Focus 22:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see that request went nowhere. So, correct me if I am wrong here, but you say that an article on solar roads (or, presumably a subsection in smart roads as well) wouldn't meet notability requirements (presumably, because the product itself is non-notable?), but a company whose only product is that one single non-notable vaporware product is...? GornDD (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no getting through to you is there? To have an entire article dedicated to something, you simply get coverage in reliable sources. That's it. Whether or not you believe the company is notable or not doesn't make any difference at all. So a separate article on its own would need such coverage. Since you don't have that, you can't have a separate stand alone article. Dream Focus 02:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support and Speedy revert of inappropriate controversial unilateral move. The move of this article from Solar Roadways to Solar Roads and then to Solar roads was controversial, an end-run around RM, and should be immediately reverted. There are no sources for the generic concept of "solar roads". The company named Solar Roadways exists and has sufficient references in RS to meet WP:N requirements (the AfD proposal is going down in flames). Now let's restore the title of this article about the company and work on improving the article itself. --В²C ☎ 23:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've performed the move, mostly because the name change in the middle of an AfD is disruptive. Note that the AfD has just a couple of days left to run; my action here should not be interpreted as any edict on the final name of the article. Once the AfD is over, the name can get changed again, according to normal editorial discretion. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

We need two articles

In my opinion we need an article on Solar Roadways Inc as this start up has managed to get enough coverage to make itself notable. This should discuss the company, it's contracts and officers and have a brief discussion of their products under development, just as we limit discussion of future Apple products on the page for Apple Inc. See WP:Crystal.

While it is true that Solar Roadways Inc is the only company developing roads with solar cells they are not the only company working on high tech roads and we also need a more general page on smart highways. A lot of the more general discussion of Solar Roadways Inc technical innovations on this page could move from here to that page along with discussions of technologies being developed by other companies related to the road/vehicle comms interface for instance (See my comment above). This would be a summary or list article referring to more detailed articles on topics where there has been real products. For details of the Solar Roadways Inc products there would be a lot of "Solar Roadways Inc has said" type statements with ref links to solar roadways website. The solar roadways article would remain a redlink until there are actual products or an actual installation.

At least that is how I see it. filceolaire (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically for this article; section by section

Solar roads.

General introduction to solar roads. Doesn't really belong in an article on Solar Roadways Inc. Move to the general article.

Development.

Keep in the Solar Roadways Inc. article.

Prototype.

All roads have a base and a surface. This stuff really belongs on the Solar Roadways Inc. website. I would think a much shorter summary (smart highways are about adding an electronics layer between the base and the surface) to both articles. They will do a pilot project using the prototype and based on that they will develop a beta prototype and eventually (five years?) a commercial product. We will have an article with a detailed analysis of the commercial product.

Cost.

Cost for something that is a prototype and depends on the future cost of solar cells and the future price of electricity is entirely speculation. It is of enormous interest to their investors but of no interest to us, especially as this section does not actually give the cost.

Feasibility.

Discussion of solar cells should go in the article on Solar Cell, not here. Cleaning, maintenance etc should go in a general Smart Highways article. Whether the Solar Roadways Inc. proposal succeeds comes down to this. If it is commercially viable it will be a success. This depends on the installed cost compared to other road technology and on the future sale price of electricity generated. I believe it will be viable eventually but whether it is five years from now or twenty five and whether Solar Roadways Inc who deliver I don't know and nor does anyone else.

Awards.

Keep in the Solar Roadways Inc article.

That is what I think. Please post you comments against each section above so we can come up with a strategy together. filceolaire (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment See above. I have listed at least two other projects showing this company is not the only one working on solar roads or pavement. GornDD (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. I have started a Smart Highway article. So far it is mostly a collection of links (including the three you linked to) but it is just started. filceolaire (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I also think that solar road and solar roads should redirect to the Solar Roads section of Smart highways article, rather than the same section of the Solar Roadways article about the company, since Solar Roadways Inc is not the only company with a "solar road" concept. If users want more info on that concept, a link within that article can direct them to that company's article (presuming it will survive deletion, which I assume it will). GornDD (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects changed. filceolaire (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Proposal withdrawn --В²C ☎ 23:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In accordance with my comment above I propose we rename this article from Solar Roadway to Solar Roadways Inc and make it about the Solar Roadways company.

• Support as proposer. filceolaire (talk)
• Oppose the article is already named "Solar Roadways" with capitals and plural, it's already disambiguated. We don't add "inc" to company names in the title unless that is what they are most commonly known by (most common usage) and this company is almost never called "Inc" in reliable sources. Any remaining concerns of confusion are easily resolved by the first sentence of the article. BTW this isn't really a proper rename proposal but your free to start whatever conversation. -- GreenC 19:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support The term solar road still redirects to the section in the Solar Roadways article, possibly leading a user to conflate the two. The SBIR (The US Govt) refers to them as "Solar Roadways Incorporated". It's reasonable, due to the possible confusion between the concept and the company, to disambiguate the two. Furthermore, many companies (Apple_Inc., Time Inc., etc...) that have similarly ambiguous names, have the "Inc." included in their WP article title for disambiguation purposes, despite the fact that many RS might refer to them simply as "Apple". GornDD (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason Inc was added behind Apple and Time, is because we have articles named apple and time already. We don't add that to the end of every business on Misplaced Pages. Dream Focus 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you don't support a disambiguation between and separate articles for solar road, solar roads, or solar roadways and the company Solar Roadways Inc. You oppose one, then use that lack of one to oppose something else. Circular argument. You want all "roads" to lead to this one company. As the links I have posted above show, the term "solar road" (including variations "solar roads" and "solar roadways") is not unique to this one single company. GornDD (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no confusion if these other articles don't even exist. So you don't need to change this one to prevent people from going to the wrong article. And you can't make a disambiguation pages unless you have more than one article with a similar name, which you currently do not have. Dream Focus 21:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent logic, except you have been arguing against those very articles on the grounds that no one else in the world is working on those roads (which turned out not to be true) and claiming this company is the only source of "solar roads" in the world (again, not true). So, you're basically arguing against the creation of a separate article then arguing against disambiguation on the grounds that the articles you argued against don't exist. Circular logic. GornDD (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. I was never arguing against articles that don't exist yet, that not making any sense at all. If you have enough valid information to make an article about something else, and it passes WP:NOTABILITY requirements, then make one. Someone has now found other examples of solar roads existing that are solar cells used for road. There was no mention of them previously when this discussion started. Is it enough information to fill an article with though? And this article is, as it has always been, about the company Solar Roadways. Dream Focus 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction re "is, as it has always been". When I created this page in 2009 I called it Solar roadway. It had that name until 12 May 2014 when Chadlupkes moved it to Solar Roadways, saying, "most of the content is about that company." Throughout that time I worked to try to keep the article general and about the concept, but there were always edits that changed it to be more about "Solar Roadways™" and later "Solar Roadways, Inc." --Nigelj (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note that "Solar Roadways" shows nothing but this company in any searches I've seen. You can have another article called "solar road" or "solar roads" if you like. But there is no legitimate reason to change the name of this one, since there is no possible confusion. You could put a hatnote on the top saying this article is for the company Solar Roadways, for other usages see solar roads, if there was ever any actual confusion, and someone made a proper article at solar roads. Dream Focus 22:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. Hat note added as comment above. filceolaire (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Yesterday I posted Talk:Solar_Roadways#We_need_two_articles proposing extensive changes to this article. I have now moved the info in the solar road section to Smart highway so if no one says anything by tomorrow then I guess I'll get started on deleting that section and cutting back the Prototype and Cost and Feasibility sections as my comments above. OK? filceolaire (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The cost section is referenced to the Wired magazine about this company and its products, they talking about it when discussing cost. So it belongs here. The Prototype section is about this company also. Feasibility concerns go here, and out of the three references in that section, two link to the same article about this company. Dream Focus 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am done with this article. I am tired of an edit-war with GreenC and DreamFocus where they continually delete anything that casts doubt on the feasibility of this vaporware product, while doing everything thing they can to make this article favorable to the company. One mention of the $56 trillion cost (which was quoted in numerous sources) and suddenly it's a "hit piece". But an extended free advert for a vaporware product promoting a crowd-funding page is OK? F*** this. I'm done with WP and biased editors determined to promote a private company. Have fun. GornDD (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GornDD please Assume Good Faith. filceolaire (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

All costs are imaginary, because there are NO official price for any of their panels. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The worst statements have already been removed. I'm letting a few things slide since this is a current topic, but I might swing an axe on all speculative statements after official prices and technical specs get released. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GornDD, you joined Misplaced Pages to try to get his article deleted, and are upset you couldn't get your way. You do nothing but insult other editors, argue nonstop, make ridiculous accusations, misquote guidelines, and whine you don't get your way. Misplaced Pages will surely be better off without you. Glad to see you are leaving, if your stubbornness and win at all cost mentality will actually allow it. Dream Focus 06:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dream Focus please Assume Good Faith. filceolaire (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dream Focus I have made particular comments on each section and what do do to fix those problems in the Talk:Solar_Roadways#We_need_two_articles section above. If you disagree with any of those particular criticisms then could you please address them in the Talk:Solar_Roadways#We_need_two_articles section above rather than making general comments here. filceolaire (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You started talking about it in this section, so I responded here. Nothing else needs to be said other than what I just posted. Dream Focus 10:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar roads section moved to Smart highway

I removed the Solar roads section. there is already a summary description of what a solar road is in the lede. An article about the company doesn't seem to need more than that. This is as my proposal two days ago which no one contested. filceolaire (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede doesn't show all the information though. "The idea of Solar Roadways Inc's concept is to replace current petroleum-based asphalt roads, parking lots, and driveways with photovoltaic solar road panels that generate renewable energy that may be used by homes and businesses, and with any excess energy perhaps stored in or alongside the road." That isn't in the lede, them replacing asphalt, and what they plan on paving. Dream Focus 21:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten as your comment. filceolaire (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is justification even for an article subsection on the topic of "solar roads" outside of the context of the Solar Roadways article. Are there any reliable sources that talk about solar roads that are not about Solar Roadways? --В²C ☎ 23:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything they found and mentioned on this talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_Roadways turned out to be about Solar Roadways. But apparently there is some mention of the Dutch and some college students putting solar cells in sidewalks and bicycle paths.Smart_highway#Solar_roads Not a road though. Dream Focus 00:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought the Dutch sources show the Dutch projects are more advanced than the US ones. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dream FocusYes. None of them have yet built a road; all (including Solar Roadways) are at the stage of making prototypes and looking for funding for pilot projects. filceolaire (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi The Dutch project looked more advanced when they made the announcement in 2011 but I didn't find anything written in the last three years so it looks like they haven't installed the pilot project they were talking about. Only time will tell if Solar Roadways will go the same way or if the breakthrough will be made by some other company. filceolaire (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it does seem to have been delayed, but common sense is that the bicycle path will happen before a vehicle road. http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/fietspad-dat-zonne-energie-opwekt-een-stap.34812.lynkx and http://groenecourant.nl/wetenschap/proef-met-ingebouwde-zonnecellen-in-fietspad/ In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Filceolaire, seems good, maybe you should notify all those who commented on the Dutch solar bicycle path etc. comment on the AFD to see if they wish to add. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that was GornDD and he (or she) has been here already. filceolaire (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read all this here is my prediction for the future of solar paving:

• Solar Roadways will come up with a product which will be widely used in car parks. That will be their principal market (the US has a lot of car parks owned by companies that want to appear 'green' and US highway construction is hedged around with too many regulations to easily adopt a new technology). They will be bought by Koch Industries in 2025 as part of their 'grab the green' policy switch.
• 'Green' companies in Europe don't have car parks (they show how green they are by having good public transport links) so the push will come from local government adopting the technology, initially in pedestrianised precincts in suburban centres (looking for something to set them apart from other shopping destinations) then in cycle paths (these don't have to take the weight a highway would, nobody parks on them and they get more sun than city streets).
• It will take twenty years (2035) before there are any real roads with solar cells and thirty years (2045) before the technology is developed to the point where widescale adoption is feasible and forty years (2055) before it is anything like standard.

At least that is my prediction. filceolaire (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say those 3 predictions are spot on. It shouldn't be difficult to find sources saying the same thing for the article either. There's also the issue that car parks can more easily restrict heavy goods vehicles than roads, which should also be discussed in sources. The 2014 Dutch bicycle path looks like being the first non-pedestrian project to actually generate electicrity in use, so that should be placed higher in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 30 May 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

Indiegogo Reference

To be on the safe side, I think a direct reference to the indiegogo funding webpage should NOT be included until AFTER the fund raising has ENDED. See Talk:Kickstarter#Kickstarter_as_a_source_in_articles and WP:NOTADVERTISING. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what is said. Read it again. Someone was discussing a suggested proposal before giving up on that after some brief discussion. Thousands of Misplaced Pages articles link to the crowdsourcing pages. It isn't being used as the only source of information here, or any source of information, other than this is how they got funding recently. There has never been any rule against this. If information is listed in an article it should be referenced. Dream Focus 22:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's probably fair to leave the primary source link to Indiegogo out until the fund raising campaign has ended, to avoid any potential complaint of pro-bias. Misplaced Pages is a secondary-source based encyclopedia anyway and there appear to be many reliable secondary sources available: Computer World, KIRO-TV, Christian Science Monitor (this last source is interesting, I'll add it). -- GreenC 00:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was started also over at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Crowdfunding_References. As I pointed out there, where we mention the government giving them grant money, a reference links to the government site for that. So no reason not to do the same for this source of money. Misplaced Pages does not censor itself because some might complain about some imaginary bias. The George Takei is a great reference to have as well though. Dream Focus 04:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

deletions

just trying to get a handle on all the deletions on this page. Here are the ones with sources:

Wholesomegood (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The section above mentions why they erased the Indigo reference, some feeling it was advertising even though it wasn't, and it just not worth arguing about with them. The second one you mention, has a summary edit clearly stating that wasn't a reliable source so couldn't be used. Dream Focus 17:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks dream, your always incredible. just a lot of deletions. not supporting or opposing any. Wholesomegood (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways: 4 Reasons They Might Not Work

Solar Roadways: 4 Reasons They Might Not Work - interesting article, interesting ideas.

from KCET, Southern and Central California's community television station based in Los Angeles.

Also gizmodo video, deleted on the main article, is a good criticism of this idea. Wholesomegood (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• That video was discussed in a section above. Talk:Solar_Roadways#Claims. As for the local community station, they argue against the cost of heating roads in areas where it snows a lot, not in southern states when it doesn't require as much effort to clear the roads of ice. Roads have been closed for a few days of ice in Louisiana, so heating them a bit would be worth it. Maybe just heat the bridges, that the things that close first. Dream Focus 18:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Cover the entire USA

The press seems fixated on extrapolating the cost to cover the entire USA roadway, quoting some multi-trillion dollar figure that makes the technology looks unfeasible out of the gate. But it's a logical fallacy that is irrelevant and misleading:

1. No one is proposing the technology should be used to replace the entire USA roadway. At this stage they are looking at a few test case parking lots.
2. The cost of the system is still unknown, and even when known it will be radically different depending on scale due to economies of scale. They are extrapolating the cost of an early prototype model.
3. It does not take into account the cost to build roadways to begin with by comparison. What did it cost to build the entire USA roadway? Nor does it take into account many other factors, since this technology has positive economics not just costs.

I think this "entire USA" roadway argument is nothing more than the press trying to look balanced or give the impression of a serious journalism but it's really just rhetoric and logic fallacy without substance, more entertainment than anything. -- GreenC 18:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi green. Thank you for discussing this here - I didn't even know that cool discuss template existed.

I would suggest finding sources for your opinion, and adding these sources to the article.

actually, solar roadways themselves suggest replacing the entire USA roadway, in their freakin' solar roadways video.

Wholesomegood (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Solar markets to replace the entire US

Wholesomegood (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove SPAM, because lack of proof in those sources. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube video aren't considered proof of anything. Costs from all sources other than official website aren't official sources. Link to official price on official website or don't include it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

These youtube videos are official videos created by the Solar Roadways company.

The Solar Roadways company is CONSISTENTLY stating that the technology should be used to replace the entire USA roadway.

That is what this section argues - that no one is stating that the technology should be used to replace the entire USA roadway, yes, the Solar roadways company is claiming this.

You state:

Youtube isn't official proof of anything. You need to restore text to our original text until you can PROVE with a link to official solarroadways.com website.

We have the founder of Solar Roadways Scott Brusaw saying:

There’s 25,000 square miles of road surfaces, parking lots, and driveways in the lower 48 states. If we cover that with solar panels with just a 15% efficiency, we produce 3 times more electricity than this country uses on an annual basis and it’s almost enough to power the entire world. Roads are collecting heat anyways, this thing collects the power and stores it. Your whole road is an electric grid that delivers the power right to your front door along with cable TV, high-speed internet access, your telephone, everything right there...It’s got to have the same traction as asphalt, has to be strong enough to support a fully loaded semi-truck locking up at 80 miles per hour, shatterproof, fireproof, transparent enough to allow the sunlight through, but not to allow the glare back into the driver’s eyes, all these specs.

So what is the problem?

Wholesomegood (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Prove the COST with a link to their official website, otherwise all costs are considered speculative per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Restore our previous text until your can prove the costs! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sbmeirow. I just want to build a very well sourced article, with all sides represented. I may step away, but if not, Lets talk on your talk page. We all want the best article on this subject. It is a great article now. Thanks for your efforts. :) Wholesomegood (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

All costs that can't be proven by links to solarroadways.com website need to be removed and you shouldn't restore them until you can prove it with OFFICIAL PRICES. Prices estimates in ALL articles and vidoes aren't proof of anything, unless it can be verified on their website. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with both of you on sourcing. Wholesomegood, can you provide evidence that Scott Brusaw, uploader of this video, is a company spokesman or otherwise acting in an official capacity for Solar Roadways? If so, please provide the evidence; we should definitely work this into the article, since otherwise a reader would do well to question its reliability. Sbmeirow, there's nothing inherently wrong with using YouTube. If we can verify that a video has been uploaded by a reliable source or that it's a recording of that source uploaded by someone else with permission of the copyright holder, we treat it like any other publication. Please see the "Definition of published" section of WP:RS — if we'd trust a publisher's statements in online or print text, we likewise should trust the same publisher making the same statements in a video. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks nyttend. I am not using youtube on the article page. In this case, I am using it to show that the founder started the speculation about paving the entire US with these panels. It could be included in the article though. Wholesomegood (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Scott Brusaw, uploader of this video, is a company spokesman or otherwise acting in an official capacity for Solar Roadways?

See: http://solarroadways.com/about.shtml

Thanks. I think I will step away from the computer. have a great evening all! Thanks sbmeirow for making this article even better. Studies of wikipedia show that editors with different view points make articles better. :) Good evening. Wholesomegood (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely overlooked the fact that the Brusaws are already mentioned in the article as founders. We ought to include at least one of the YouTube videos at some point. As far as I know, few companies announce themselves this way on YouTube, so they're basically saying something by relying on YouTube as their mouthpiece; it's apparently not quite the same as making the same announcement in a routine press release. Whether we use a press release or YouTube or anything else, we ought to use self-published sources in here for at least a little: when a company's proposing something revolutionary, we ought to cite their own stuff to say "This company has proposed doing X, hoping that it will result in Y results in year Z" — their own publications are the best source for their own suggestions, and I think the YouTube video(s) would be the best of their own stuff. See the WP:SELFPUB policy if you're not familiar with relevant standards; in short, we can use their own stuff as a source about them, as long as it's not unduly self-serving, not unlikely, etc. Regardless of whether their proposals are exceptional claims, nobody's going to reject the idea that they've made these proposals. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Covering the whole US is just a visionary forward looking statement, like SpaceX's goal of colonizing space. Scott Brusaw did not give a practical plan or proposal for achieving this vision, maybe he was thinking a multigeneration 100 year plan. The costs put forward by the press is an unrealistic strawman and not based on anything Scott Brusaw or Solar Roadways said - other than strawmaning his visionary statement. -- GreenC 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cost Section

(1) No official price has been stated on the official website at solarroadways.com, (2) No official power output has been stated on their website, thus NO PROOF that any solar roads or solar road panels can paid off any period of time.

Misplaced Pages needs OFFICIAL PROOF, not speculation, nor cost quotes from articles that can't be verified by the official website. Since no OFFICIAL proof has been provided, then then our text needs to be restored and all speculation and unverifiable text should be removed! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Note: I wrote before seeing the comment from Nyttend.

This is one of those situations in which we need to remember that WP:NPOV applies beyond political/religious/etc disputes: we mustn't present just one perspective as the infallible truth. The costs mentioned up above definitely sound unrealistic, so surely the company disagrees. As a result, we need to say "According to person X, this project would be unrealistic due to its cost, approximately $YYYYYYYY." Don't present the company's response if they haven't made one (anyone can see the implication that the company disagrees), but if they've made a response, say "Against this, the company believes that the cost would be realistic, approximately $ZZZZZZZZ". Nobody's going to disagree that person X said whatever, so it's a lot more neutral than claiming that one source is correct and another isn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The blog post referenced at washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/05/20/forget-roofs-are-solar-roads-the-next-big-thing/ quotes that Vox guy again using the guess estimated in 2010 for the old square panels, not the hexagon ones they spent four years since then developing and improving. It is misleading to mention that nonsense. You have no idea what the modern ones can do. And don't solar cells produce more power now than they did four years ago? Dream Focus 04:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has current calculations.

I have contacted people of note before regarding wikipedia articles. I will contact Solar Roadways. Maybe they have figures? no need, see FAQ section.

Maybe state that the projection is from 2010? I can update the article with this? Is that okay? done :)

If there is an article that says these projections are nonsense, that would be great to include. I wish I still had access to lexis nexus.

Nyttend knows what he is talking about: we should welcome any reliable source. I am not going to play the not a reliable source game either, if it is on google news, great! I hate that game. :/

Wholesomegood (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I added "Total estimated costs for solar roadways to cover all United States roads varies widely and are based on the 2010 Solar Roadways $4.4 million estimate." okay? Wholesomegood (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need "official proof" from their website. Adding independent analyses from other reasonable sources is perfectly reasonable, and is a fundamental part of WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is true though we have editorial oversight on what to include or not when it's just bad information, not everything published is worthy of inclusion. -- GreenC 23:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Source from Solar Roadways about costs

I found this on the solar roadways website:

In 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 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."

I think this is how to build a comprehensive encyclopedic wikipedia article.

People are going to come here after they read these astronomical figures in the media. Deleting these figures from the media doesn't strengthen the article, it weakens it. Now we have the Solar Roadways quote ABOVE the media quotes, which fluctuate wildly and on their face show the media doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Retaining the media figures STRENGTHENS not only the article, but Solar Roadways claims that the media has no idea how much it would cost.

I hope everyone is happy. We could have spent a hell of a lot more productive time sourcing the article then deleting source references.

Are we all okay with this section now? I am sure the grammar needs work, etc. okay guys? :)

Please? Wholesomegood (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it's at last balanced now with two sides but reads like a Misplaced Pages war zone. When they do release figures this will be old news and irrelevant. Though it won't stop critics from making the same strawman arguments. Legitimate engineering critics of Solar Roadways are needed, but this kind of criticism amounts to rhetoric. Amounts to fear of a government-funded green-energy company will get a trillion dollar contract and suck up everyone's tax dollars to address the global warming scam. The media is playing into this divide, creating the divide, and Misplaced Pages is now part of it. -- GreenC 15:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

At http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml it says "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." Because of this statement, I move that everything related to this subject be removed from the "cost" section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but keep the first sentence somewhere in the article: "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 a prototype installation cost in July 2014." Dream Focus 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The source linked by Sbmeirow has eight "false claims" that are debunked. Maybe we can include this link in the External links for anyone interested. -- GreenC 15:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Great idea cardamon! Wonderful. Please be bold! Wholesomegood (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

referring this to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard

I have provided numerous exhaustive sources in this article, which editors here continue to delete. I am referring this to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Wholesomegood (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Estimate of cost by the media

I added the content to the reception section before seeing the talk page. It seems there has been some controversy about whether to include estimates not based upon real world results. I believe by adding them to the reception section it fulfils the two criteria. One being that these are real criticisms being brought up "now" and not in the future, and that they're being cited as opinions from critics and not scientific facts. This is commonly done in sports articles where they talk about favourites to win by the media and not referencing crystal ball. In short, criticisms are suitable for inclusion regardless of their basis (and whether you agree with them) if they're from reputable sources. Other viewpoints can be added to balance out the section but reception notes are acceptable. Information can either be added or replaced when new information becomes available. Mkdw 02:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Solar_Roadways where others have already stated why articles about technology don't list these sorts of things. Please don't add in things against consensus. Dream Focus 03:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added my comments but to be clear, there was no consensus whatsoever to the proposal of having these criticisms listed in the criticism section. The factual accuracy of the numbers being cited are not under the same requirements as if they were in other sections like 'cost' which reports on facts. Please, do not present there to be a "consensus" on a particular proposal has not been discussed. This is not the same proposal as above. Mkdw 03:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter what section the information is in, the reasons against having it are valid in any section. Dream Focus 03:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see consensus in the form of other editors stating that exact sentiment, including verbiage of say "any section" than for you to conclude unilaterally that their intention was to blanket all future proposals as well. Mostly because my proposal directly addresses many of the concerns about accuracy and suitability in terms of a "cost" section. Mkdw 03:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully they'll notice this and each will take the time to explain their statements were about the content not the section it was in. Anyway, best to keep this in one place, at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dream Focus 03:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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 . 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".

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 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)

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:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Okip.

• 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? 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, Misplaced Pages 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? Misplaced Pages: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)

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):

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) 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 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 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)

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)

awards and nominations

Concerning this edit. If you search Misplaced Pages for "awards and nominations" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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? 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)

Criticisms

This article seems ripe for a "Criticisms" section. Its a pretty controversial idea, and there have been considerable amounts of criticism from internet people (i.e. specialist bloggers etc) and the media, as well as a response to these specific criticisms by the company (http://www.solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml). This section will probably expand even more in the future as more information comes out, so what do people think about there being one now? Benboy00 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Blogs are usually not permitted here; see what wikipedia calls 'reliable sources'; (B) since there is no product actually on the market, all anyone can do is shoot the shit staying up late in their dorm, or hangin' on the bar stool. Sure its interesting, sure lots of people will wanna speculate pro or con. Big F D. If you can find some RSs that criticize the management for managerial type stuff, that's different. Hot air about whatever they might (or might not) be working on is rather lame. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Numerous electrical engineers have debunked this idea, yet no mention of this is made in the article. Because this is a commercial enterprise, potential investors need to be aware of the many flaws being pointed out by experts in the field. Censoring such criticism could be construed as aiding in the crime of fraud, which is a potential outcome of this enterprise.Landroo (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are not taking investors, only donations. And they seemed to have already raised their goal for that. You can't go accusing people of fraud without proof to backup that claim. If Wired magazine and others have reviewed the technology, then it must be a legitimate thing. Dream Focus 14:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an "accusation of fraud" to post legitimate, sourced criticism of someone's invention. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 10 October 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. Misplaced Pages: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/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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference wired was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Aaron Saenz, Solar Roadways: Crackpot Idea or Ingenious Concept?, Singularity Hub, (August 8, 2010). Cite error: The named reference "crack" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Tuan C. Nguyen, Forget roofs, are solar roads the next big thing?, Washington Post, (May 20, 2014). Cite error: The named reference "wp" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference econ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Sagle, Idaho, United States Technology (2014-04-19). "Solar Roadways". Indiegogo. Retrieved 2014-06-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. ^ "Solar roads: What do they mean for procurement services?".
7. "A new material for solar panels could make them cheaper, more efficient".
8. solarroadways.com http://www.solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml. Retrieved 1 June 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
9. extremetech.com http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/183130-solar-roadways-passes-1-4-million-in-crowdfunding-just-short-of-the-56-trillion-required-but-not-bad-for-a-crazy-idea. Retrieved 1 June 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
10. Matej Lufčić; Marina Maras; Mario Vukelić. "Energy Saving Design and Materials in Road Transport". Retrieved 23 May 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. "Dutch Company Drives New Solar Power".
12. "Should we cover all our roads with solar panels?".
13. "Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government". United States Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved January 4, 2014.
14. Solar Roadways - FAQ
15. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ); Solar Roadways.
16. Patterson, Thom (19 January 2011). "Solar-powered 'smart' roads could zap snow, ice". CNN.
17. Cite error: The named reference thinker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
18. "FAQ". Solar Roadways.
19. "The Numbers". Solar Roadways.
20. The Potential Cost of Indiegogo's Solar Roadways with Some Historical Context
21. Don Tapscott (June 16, 2014). "The Solar Roadways Campaign: What Does It Mean for the Fight Against Climate Change?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU&feature=youtu.be&t=1m58s
23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4
24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
25. Comment section for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
26. http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI8c2f8r0UU
28. http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4
30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
31. Comment section for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
32. http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI8c2f8r0UU
34. http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU&feature=youtu.be&t=1m58s
36. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU&feature=youtu.be&t=1m58s

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}} 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

NPOV

How is it possible that there is no mention in this article of the serious concerns relating to viability? Yes, there's lots of public support for the project but very little from anyone with an engineering background not financially tied to the project. I want to avoid OR, but even a basic understanding of physics and the laws of thermodynamics makes it clear this project is doomed to failure in its current form and there are many articles explaining this... http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/183130-solar-roadways-passes-1-4-million-in-crowdfunding-just-short-of-the-56-trillion-required-but-not-bad-for-a-crazy-idea , http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/why-the-solar-roadways-project-on-indiegogo-is-actually-really-silly , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/solar-roadways-biggest-indiegogo-scam-ever/ , http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Department-of-Transportation-Official-Discusses-Solar-Roadways

I could go on... 86.181.118.119 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article references reliable sources such as Wired magazine, The Economist, and official government websites. If you have a reliable source that says something negative about them, then add that as well. Previously all people dug up was personal blogs. Dream Focus 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except...you don't like the Economist piece because they were opaque in how they got their numbers. You said so below. So you're citing a piece to imply that the company is notable while inventing reasons to ignore their criticism of that same company. That's cherry picking a source, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• wattsupwiththat is certainly not a reliable source, its a POV pusher showing everything at a slant to portray its point of view that global warming is nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but a website created solely to promote one view on a single issue isn't really a reliable source. The Green Tech Media article seems well balanced, and quoted "Eric Weaver, a research engineer at the Federal Highway Administration's research and technology arm, took the lead on the testing." Something from that can certainly be added in. Dream Focus 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SingularityHUB of "Singularity University" is just fine as a source? The article is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is awful

@Dream Focus:, @Green Cardamom:, I agree with the points the IP made above. Frankly, the sources are terrible and I don't see how this page managed to avoid deletion. Looking at the edit history (in a search for obvious COI, which is often to be found in puffy, marginal notability articles like this) I see two of the same WP editors that rushed in to rescue another horrible, self-promoting article Russian Union of Engineers from deletion. I'm just curious--how did you fail to notice that the RUE article was created by an editor called РСИ? Do you know the Latin alphabet's equivalent? Are you aware of what happened with that article in Russian Misplaced Pages? (The community there didn't like overt self-promotion and banned the same accounts that created the English one). Right after they got banned in Russian they ported here to our WP. Why are you preventing bad, obviously promotional articles from being deleted? Just curious. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You mention an article that ended up keep at an AFD over a year ago for what reason? The IP address above has no edits ever, and you appear shortly after to agree with them. Have you ever edited this page or been here before? Are you the same person is the IP address? Dream Focus 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About time you showed a healthy suspicion of other editors. I spotted the connected contributor that you missed at RUE few weeks ago. I spotted the IP's edit here on the recent changes page, looking for vandalism. That led me to this awful little article. And I remember your AFD because when I saw it a few weeks (while poking around the RUE English site), I was so put off by the lack of competence there that I remember it weeks later. Although I did have to jump back to that article's history to confirm that you're the same people. You failed to answer my questions. Geogene (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm curious how at least two editors (and perhaps others--I only compared for a couple of minutes) found the same two AFD deletion discussions that have nothing in common aside from being promotional. Geogene (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of the WP:ARS and try to improve rather than delete where appropriate. That is probably where I came across these articles. It really doesn't matter to me who created an article, only what the article contains. I have no particular grudge or agenda against other editors. Do you? -- GreenC 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I remember both articles were mentioned at the article rescue squadron. Different editors mentioned them. One did so on the talk page at and so I put on the list in the proper spot , and then someone else had added the other one to the list themselves. Dream Focus 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ooooooh, the Rescue Squad. I know about them. When I put a COI tag on an article about a book that had been written by the book's author, another editor tagged it for deletion. They came by to help it out. And after the closure, they left him a note that if his article ever comes up again, to contact them.If you're wondering, I voted for 'keep'. Nevertheless.... That was Fundamentals of Gas Stack Dispersion, or something like that. Yet another promotional article about an engineering-related subject that was protected. They took down the COI tag on the way out, if I recall. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It was left up there until after the discussion closed as keep, and then the following edit removed it with a proper explanation. "added "connected contributor" template to talk page .. coi template used if article has evident POV issues that need to be fixed)" Dream Focus 01:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I misremembered that part. The editor was correct in changing that. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

EE Times Awards

These are notable? According the EE Times article: At its peak, EE Times employed a total of 30 editors, with a readership of 141,100. Now it's only available online. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A 2010 General Electric Ecoimagination Community Award of $50,000. Notable? A lot of non-notable researchers get grants worth more than that. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• For an award, yes, it is significant enough to mention in the article. If anyone has an article, then you'd mention what awards and grant money they got in it. Dream Focus 01:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that is admitting some circular reasoning. I'm looking for signs of notability for the company itself as well as notability of its prizes/grants, etc. I see in the refs there's an Economist piece that I mentioned earlier, and I think I remember a Forbes piece. That's good, possibly good enough, if it's lasting and permanent notability. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Economist article

Economist is an excellent source. It's already used as one in the article. But the tone of it much different from the tone of the article. For example: The firm calculates that it would be anywhere between 50% and 300% more expensive to use its tiles rather than asphalt to pave a roadway. According to one estimate, the cost to cover all of America’s interstate highways would be $1 trillion. This doesn’t seem a cost-efficient way to harvest solar energy. The article doesn't mention this, that's POV. Instead, it takes the company's word for it. Very one-sided and promotional. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say where that cost estimate is coming from. And this was discussed before. There are no official numbers on what it will cost to produce them, so no way to know what it will cost. Nor is anyone suggesting they cover the entire interstate highway system with them. Stating someone said it'll cost exactly one trillion dollars, from an unmentioned source without any mention of how they came about that number, is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you're saying that The Economist is not a reliable source for this purpose? Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see there was a short-lived RfC above, in which you said that repeating any cost information from any independent RS (as opposed to the company!) would be: misleading, slanderous, and undue weight. I think this is a problem. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism

I have watched this edit war for several weeks and I am troubled that three or four editors continue to WP:OWN the article and delete criticism which are referenced in violation of WP:NPOV. I believe Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Solar Roadways should be created. I have solicited the opinions of editors on whether a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment should be created.

We don't need consensus here to create a RFC - any editor can create a badly need Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment right now.

Thewhitebox (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are virtually always non-neutral: of course we should mention opposition if it exist, but having a whole section devoted to opposition provides unbalanced opposition. Imagine a Britannica or World Book article with a "Criticism" section. Instead, opposition needs to be integrated into other sections. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the word "section". thank you for your comments. Thewhitebox (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is fine if it is reliably sourced. Home-made Youtube videos are not reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie 14:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When I last looked in here, the company Solar Roadways was putting out promotional information about their ideas and their prototype for promotional and fundraising purposes. The proposed criticism section at that time was pontificating about interpretations of advertising remarks that suggested principles, theories and possible applications. Beer and pretzel soapboxing, in other words. Has a prototype been deployed? Have outside reviewers been invited to do the equivalent of a test drive? Have R&D papers been published? Usually when I run into WP:OWN allegations its from someone who has failed to make effective use of WP:DR to advance a well-cited WP:NPOV presentation of the content found in WP:RSs. Is there a reason to think this is a different situation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the same guy as before? This account's first edit is on 30 June 2014. Stop beating a dead horse already. If you can't find a WP:reliable source to reference, then don't bother us. Dream Focus 15:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This company/concept seems to have matured to the point where reliably sourced criticism should exist, especially given the emount of interest/controversy. I'm going to try to find some relevant info soon. Benboy00 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Commercial interests in removing ALL the criticism?

The strongest argument for removing all the criticism of the company and its product is that this page solely is about the company. If so, it makes one wonder why the removers of criticism isn't removing the relatively detailed description and especially the claims about their product and its claimed capabilities:

"which are heated to help remove snow and ice, and also include LEDs to display messages. The hexagonal shape allows for better coverage on curves and hills."

Criticism isn't necessarily true and if the product is strong it should be able to stand the criticism. But since criticism is censored in this case, I suggest we keep an eye up for malicious intents such as raising money for a potential scam projects such as this one. But such debunking isn't allowed either (even if it's widely spread criticism of the company itself). Hence I repeat what I just said about keeping an eye up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎83.250.74.152 (talk • contribs)

That is not why I favored removing all the criticism. You seem to think there is a product, whereas the sources say they are doing R&D on a product. The criticism section was all talking about the not-yet-existing product. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you can find some RS-based criticism about the company, or about their use of crowd-sourcing, then let's talk about those, but make sure the sources really are what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Also, I haven't checked in with this subject for awhile. Presumably, a "product" will eventually be released and things will be written. Criticism about that first model will then be timely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and if enough time goes by without a product, or a failed one, there will be plenty of RS that are critical of the company, since they raised so much money via crowdsourcing. I think folks just need to wait this one out a little bit because it's still in R&D and things will take care of themselves one way or another eventually. Misplaced Pages needs to be following and reporting on the news, not trying to shape or create it with pundit criticism (CRYSTAL). -- GreenC 13:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is costs that Solar Roadways promised to release in July 2014?

July 2014 is over, so where is prototype costs that Solar Roadways promised to release in July? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked them? Surely after only a few days you are presuming good faith they are simply delayed and it doesn't mean they won't ever release the costs. -- GreenC 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And why do we care? We're not their press office, nor are we their marketing department. That's not really the kind of information that an encyclopedia would have. Hires an editor (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What became of this? Geogene (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked their website on October 1st, and didn't find anything. There were claims that Solar Roadways was going to release a study or some type of details in July, but I haven't seen anything. Maybe it exists, but I haven't found it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Unhelpful bits redacted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now January 2015, so has anyone seen any prototype costs estimates as was promised during the fund raising last summer? I looked at their website, but couldn't find anything new, but it's possible that I over looked it too. Has anyone seen any recent product status updates? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Unhelpful bits redacted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class energy articles
• Low-importance energy articles
• Start-Class company articles
• Low-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of technology
• Misplaced Pages requested images of organizations
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Idaho