![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Soladigm is a pioneer startup in the important Green Tech space. With its breakthrough technologies, Soladigm is poised to create a whole new industry that will allow windows, the main source of energy loss from buildings (which consume up to 40% of ALL energy consumption in the world, much more than transportation!), to dramatically reduce cooling and lighting energy consumption via controlling light, heat, glare and view. The amount of energy saving made possible potentially by Soladigm's technologies can dwarf the energy generated by all the solar cells ever made! This is an important company with critical energy conservation technologies - people would be very interested to be able to search for its information in Wikipedia.
Thanks for the comment. Considering the current energy crisis and global warming, electrochromic switchable window technology offers an important energy conservation solution. Energy conservation should be treated on the same footing as, if not higher than, energy generation (solar cells, etc.). The importance of startups like Soladigm and EControl-Glas, which enables this important technology to be transferred from the labs to the market, should not be under-emphasized. The text has been modified to better address the neutrality and advertisement issues, with a brief mention of the main competing electrochromic companies. Hopefully other contributions and improvements will be added by other users as time goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrochromismexpert ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Soladigm → View, Inc. – Name of company was changed on Nov. 12, 2012 from Soladigm to View. See reference at: Soladigm Emerges as View Dmolanphy ( talk) 22:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
View, Inc.. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Warning Please stop. Content disputes should be settled here on the talk page. See also
WP:DR for suggestions in resolving disputes. If edit warring resumes after the page protection has expired it is likely to be treated as
disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On history section: Nguyen focused on building up a team of experienced technologists and executives for developing its initial technology, which failed completely. I'm proposing you to remove "which failed completely" part. Clearly references doesn't support the texts and contents of sources are not readable. On infoBox it shows wrong info about Number of employees 500-750. We should remove the numbers or cite contents using crunchbase which indicated number of employee is 251 - 500. If you think, crunchbase is reliable then you can add it. Thanks very much. -- MrSalmon ( talk)
am walking closely through this article. much of it awful and there has been litigation happening in the background between the founder and the company, which is ~probably~ the source of all the disruption. hm. i have to go do real world stuff but will come back to this shortly. apparently some of the fuss here is over technology used. the company that emerged as View was using thin-flim deposition technology licensed from from LL per gigaom].. need to look into if there is actual reference to some prior technology... Jytdog ( talk) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Series C - $40M, Series d - $55M, $62 million in a “series E”, $100 million funding, $150M Series F and $200M Series G. Following are the inaccuracies
Yes? What's the problem here? As per your suggestion, please use the Talk page to bring up any issues. Thanks. 119.252.27.81 ( talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If NatureFAC is going to add three paragraphs of material that's already been the subject of discussion, should be discussed here. 158.46.218.139 ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
158.46.218.139: you seem to remove anything that's written, regardless of whether supported by well-documented sources or not. This is impolite and violates Wikipedia's policy. Please reveal your COI. 89.97.174.66 ( talk) 02:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a slow engaging edit war between IP addresses with accusations of COI and content removal of litigation section. I would suggest that anyone with a COI declare it in accordance with WP:COI, especially WP:UPE. In the meantime, the litigation section needs to be discussed here on the talk page. I am removing it because it contains WP:OR. The lawsuit may very well be part of the company history, but the references I find are all to legal firm websites or blogs. The actual lawsuit filing is original research and also not a reliable source for what is written. Wikipedia will require a reliable source to add the information. On the other side, the page currently reads like an advertisement for the company and needs a major cleanup. I would suggest that both IPs discuss to find a consensus on content instead of edit warring. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverted this from IP user as it is attributed to Forbes (contributor, not staff writer). We can likely add information on the projects, but would advise IP users to discuss here first to ensure nothing added is promotional. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly :) I think the "business" section from this old version that i had worked on, was a good thing; ditto the technology section. I would like to see those come back in some form. The technology and business model and product are what the company exists for! Otherwise it is too much about the founding and litigation.
Trying to make buildings more energy efficient is a tough business; it is hard to get people to pay up now for longer term savings. People can learn from this article if we cover the whole business well. (Without being promotional! Just describing it) Jytdog ( talk) 23:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 02:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: Lets discuss this content. eg, Natural Light Discussion in Havard Business Review. 67.227.70.123 ( talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
As of June 2017, the company had 150 commercial installations in process, and had finished more than 350 projects. [1] As of September 2018, the company had over 450 completed installations across 35 million square feet of real estate, with an additional 250 committed projects. View also has over 700 patents filed.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
67.227.70.123 ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we add mgmt team or awards section similar to SAGE Electrochromics? Gortathammer ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the whole article for non-neutral language, and it seems to me that the current published version is now quite factual and neutral. Nick-SFBayArea ( talk) 22:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Soladigm is a pioneer startup in the important Green Tech space. With its breakthrough technologies, Soladigm is poised to create a whole new industry that will allow windows, the main source of energy loss from buildings (which consume up to 40% of ALL energy consumption in the world, much more than transportation!), to dramatically reduce cooling and lighting energy consumption via controlling light, heat, glare and view. The amount of energy saving made possible potentially by Soladigm's technologies can dwarf the energy generated by all the solar cells ever made! This is an important company with critical energy conservation technologies - people would be very interested to be able to search for its information in Wikipedia.
Thanks for the comment. Considering the current energy crisis and global warming, electrochromic switchable window technology offers an important energy conservation solution. Energy conservation should be treated on the same footing as, if not higher than, energy generation (solar cells, etc.). The importance of startups like Soladigm and EControl-Glas, which enables this important technology to be transferred from the labs to the market, should not be under-emphasized. The text has been modified to better address the neutrality and advertisement issues, with a brief mention of the main competing electrochromic companies. Hopefully other contributions and improvements will be added by other users as time goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrochromismexpert ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Soladigm → View, Inc. – Name of company was changed on Nov. 12, 2012 from Soladigm to View. See reference at: Soladigm Emerges as View Dmolanphy ( talk) 22:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
View, Inc.. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Warning Please stop. Content disputes should be settled here on the talk page. See also
WP:DR for suggestions in resolving disputes. If edit warring resumes after the page protection has expired it is likely to be treated as
disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On history section: Nguyen focused on building up a team of experienced technologists and executives for developing its initial technology, which failed completely. I'm proposing you to remove "which failed completely" part. Clearly references doesn't support the texts and contents of sources are not readable. On infoBox it shows wrong info about Number of employees 500-750. We should remove the numbers or cite contents using crunchbase which indicated number of employee is 251 - 500. If you think, crunchbase is reliable then you can add it. Thanks very much. -- MrSalmon ( talk)
am walking closely through this article. much of it awful and there has been litigation happening in the background between the founder and the company, which is ~probably~ the source of all the disruption. hm. i have to go do real world stuff but will come back to this shortly. apparently some of the fuss here is over technology used. the company that emerged as View was using thin-flim deposition technology licensed from from LL per gigaom].. need to look into if there is actual reference to some prior technology... Jytdog ( talk) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Series C - $40M, Series d - $55M, $62 million in a “series E”, $100 million funding, $150M Series F and $200M Series G. Following are the inaccuracies
Yes? What's the problem here? As per your suggestion, please use the Talk page to bring up any issues. Thanks. 119.252.27.81 ( talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If NatureFAC is going to add three paragraphs of material that's already been the subject of discussion, should be discussed here. 158.46.218.139 ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
158.46.218.139: you seem to remove anything that's written, regardless of whether supported by well-documented sources or not. This is impolite and violates Wikipedia's policy. Please reveal your COI. 89.97.174.66 ( talk) 02:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a slow engaging edit war between IP addresses with accusations of COI and content removal of litigation section. I would suggest that anyone with a COI declare it in accordance with WP:COI, especially WP:UPE. In the meantime, the litigation section needs to be discussed here on the talk page. I am removing it because it contains WP:OR. The lawsuit may very well be part of the company history, but the references I find are all to legal firm websites or blogs. The actual lawsuit filing is original research and also not a reliable source for what is written. Wikipedia will require a reliable source to add the information. On the other side, the page currently reads like an advertisement for the company and needs a major cleanup. I would suggest that both IPs discuss to find a consensus on content instead of edit warring. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverted this from IP user as it is attributed to Forbes (contributor, not staff writer). We can likely add information on the projects, but would advise IP users to discuss here first to ensure nothing added is promotional. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly :) I think the "business" section from this old version that i had worked on, was a good thing; ditto the technology section. I would like to see those come back in some form. The technology and business model and product are what the company exists for! Otherwise it is too much about the founding and litigation.
Trying to make buildings more energy efficient is a tough business; it is hard to get people to pay up now for longer term savings. People can learn from this article if we cover the whole business well. (Without being promotional! Just describing it) Jytdog ( talk) 23:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 02:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: Lets discuss this content. eg, Natural Light Discussion in Havard Business Review. 67.227.70.123 ( talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
As of June 2017, the company had 150 commercial installations in process, and had finished more than 350 projects. [1] As of September 2018, the company had over 450 completed installations across 35 million square feet of real estate, with an additional 250 committed projects. View also has over 700 patents filed.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
67.227.70.123 ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we add mgmt team or awards section similar to SAGE Electrochromics? Gortathammer ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the whole article for non-neutral language, and it seems to me that the current published version is now quite factual and neutral. Nick-SFBayArea ( talk) 22:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)