Talk:Solar Roadways/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia 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
 * [Netherlands highway that glows in the dark]
 * 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)

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.  D r e a m 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.  D r e a m 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia article.  A separate article not related to this company, would not be acceptable unless you find reliable sources covering it on its own.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.

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)

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. -- Green  C  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)

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?  D r e a m 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. -- Green  C  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.   D r e a m 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)


 * Wikipedia naming conventions are what we go by here. You don't have any information about solar roadways that isn't connected to this company.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m Focus  20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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 rewrite
Yesterday I posted Talk:Solar_Roadways 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.   D r e a m 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 Wikipedia 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.  Wikipedia 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.   D r e a m 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 section above. If you disagree with any of those particular criticisms then could you please address them in the Talk:Solar_Roadways 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.   D r e a m Focus  10:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rename
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. -- Green  C  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 Wikipedia.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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)

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.[3]" That isn't in the lede, them replacing asphalt, and what they plan on paving.   D r e a m 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 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 Not a road though.   D r e a m 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)

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 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 Wikipedia 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.    D r e a m 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. Wikipedia 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). -- Green  C  00:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion was started also over at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. 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.  Wikipedia does not censor itself because some might complain about some imaginary bias.  The George Takei is a great reference to have as well though.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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. 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.   D r e a m 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. -- Green  C  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)
 * 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)
 * [Sbmeirow asked me to come here] 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. -- Green  C  02:31, 8 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 [July, 2014] as we get our final report ready for our Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration. And even if we had those numbers available now they would have no relevance to the cost of our actual product...right now, not even we have that information, so if you read an article where a journalist claims to have any data on costs, you can be assured that they have not done their homework and are quoting another unreliable source or they are making up numbers."

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is now part of it. -- Green  C  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."  D r e a m 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. -- Green  C  15:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia 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?   D r e a m 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. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 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. --  Green  C  23:00, 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 talk 02:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard where others have already stated why articles about technology don't list these sorts of things. Please don't add in things against consensus.    D r e a m 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 talk 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.  D r e a m 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 talk 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.   D r e a m Focus  03:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)