Talk:Self-cleaning glass

Hi, Mikkalai, i removed that as per WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not a place for product branding, i know it is tempting to add direct links to companies, but it always ends up like this, [1] , repetitve naming and product branding, another reason is Wikipedia is not a webdirectory to find the company who makes it, so 2 reasons to remove it. I can give you 1 more reason but i think this should do. Cheers. Mion (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misguided understanding of WP:SPAM. I suggest you to re-read it. The article is about a very specific brand of glass: self-cleaning glass. The companies are named (by their wikilinks to wikipedia articles hence they are already notable) not to "promote" their product, but because this article is about their brand of glass. We have plenty articles about companies and their notable brands. Ext links are added because the article is a poor stub. The first company link is added because it as important content. The second company link is added for WP:V. `'Míkka>t 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding 2 companies and there respective brands and a link to howto buy it (wikipedia is not a buying guide) is in my opinion not ok, usually the name of the inventor is once mentioned, or the company who did the first commercial introduction is named once, now our opinions on this differ, is it an option to ask comment from a third person on Wikipedia:comment ?, Mion (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And i would like to state that i am not accusing you of spamming, just that because of spamming the use of company names and brandnames are reduced, you can have a look at hydrogen vehicle and count the name Ballard. Cheers.Mion (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:V the newspaper link is present. Cheers. Mion (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate newspaper links in wikipedia and avoid them whenever possible. Newspapers are source of news, not of technical information. Besides, it does not mention PPG. `'Míkka>t 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, me to, as they are non-free and now promoted by WP:V as we are short of open acces journals, but i couldn't find a better source, (and i know one worse, linking to amazon books, now about PPG, as Wikipedia is not the yellow pages to find companies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the section Manufacturers can go ? Cheers Mion (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to start from List of defunct United States automobile manufacturers and proceed to the whole enormous Category:Lists of companies, the we shall talk. What I am saying is there is a very common practice in wikipedia to have lists of notable things: people, companies, etc., grouped by various categories. "Wikipedia is not yellow pages" means that these lists must not contain you, your momma, your dog, your plumber, and your favorite pizza hut outlet. `'Míkka>t 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what i mean, it could be well possible that a company has its own article and is notable, but on other articles, like this one, the name of the inventor is once mentioned, or the company who did the first commercial introduction is named once, now it seems that Pilkington was the first with the commercial introduction , so under a section history you can write it in with a date, now for the brands, they are a redirect to this article anyway, and self redirects are removed, but mentioning them is advertising, in my opinion they should go, Cheers Mion (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing them on a list is just a listing of the articles on the subject, or a listing of cat content, a list is not the same as an article. Mion (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Pages is per definition a business directory, i don't see the relation with my dog. Mion (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, Unilever has 1200+ articles with a brandname, should unilever be named 1200 times (including the brandname) in the wikipedia, not to mention the other multinationals ? Mion (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

i suggest the following, as for branding the productnames, i will list up the redirects for speedydelete as productspam, if the admin accepts it, the product branding is also removed from athe article.

As for the section Manufacturers, i remove that as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, (read the top of it) it is strongly advised to follow the policy. which may differ case by case, in this case the rule functions as an inhibitor to company contamination which i support. That is for tomorrow. Cheers Mion (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection to all. Disagreed with your overly liberal interpretation of the term "spam". `'Míkka>t 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats overruled you don't have the right to delete a speedydelete template, you can put hangon to it and explain it to an admin, so, your reverts and further actions are not working, i'll make an note on WP:ANI, and let it go from there, spamming is not open for discussion. Cheers. Mion (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs a picture or clearer explanation or link to explain "contact angle" and "θ>160" "roll-off angle."

The requirements for a self-cleaning hydrophobic surface are a very high static water contact angle θ, the condition often quoted is θ>160°, and a very low roll-off angle, i.e. the minimum inclination angle necessary for a droplet to roll off the surface[1].

Needs a picture or clearer explanation or link to explain "contact angle" and "θ>160" "roll-off angle."

--Ocdnctx (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)