Talk:Applied Materials

message: Etching now leads to a page about wet etching--not really what applied does. It should be redirected to plasma etching
A well-meaning anon visitor left this message directly in the middle of the article.  I moved it here, wher it belongs:
:(--NOTE TO EDITORS - Etching link leads to the etching as a visual arts technique page, not etching as a semiconductor manufacture techniquepage. Disambiguation needed!)
There you have it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
:The aforementioned anon put the same note back.  He is a regular contributor, not a visitor, and regularly reverts edits made to his work.  I converted the note to an inline comment.  Perhaps he will be satisfied with that.  --Blainster 08:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from article

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I removed the intro, because it was copied from http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/applied-materials-launches-breakthrough-pvd/story.aspx?guid=%7B55F5A480-6336-4EE8-BB4F-0816184362D5%7D.  In general, the article still has a POV problem in that it's biased toward the company. Superm401 - Talk 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and copyright 

message: Hi, I work with a communications firm that represents Applied Materials. I have some suggestions for improving and simplifying this article: 
#Update the lead to describe Applied Materials’ current products and services. Here’s my suggested text:
#::Applied Materials, Inc. is an American corporation that supplies equipment, services and software to enable the manufacture of semiconductor, flat panel displays, and solar products. The company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.
#::Applied Materials creates and commercializes equipment used in the production of semiconductor (integrated circuit) chips for electronics; flat panel displays for computers, smartphones and televisions; solar cells; and coatings for flexible electronics, packaging and other applications. (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AMAT:US)
#:These are the edits I made:
#:*Removed the reference to “glass” in the first paragraph and “glass coatings for homes and buildings” in the second paragraph. Applied Materials is no longer involved in glass coatings for homes and buildings. (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AMAT:US)
#:*Removed references to “thin film.” Applied Materials no longer sells solar equipment for thin film panels, though the company is still in the solar business. In the first paragraph, I suggest changing “solar (crystalline and thin film) products” to “solar products.” In the second paragraph, I suggest changing “photovoltaic solar cells and modules using both thin film and crystalline (wafer or bulk) photovoltaic technology” to “solar cells.”  (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AMAT:US)
#:*Removed “WEB” in the opening sentence. WEB refers to roll-to-roll web coating, which is a manufacturing method, not a product in itself, so it’s inaccurate to say that Applied Materials provides equipment, services, and software to enable the manufacture of WEB. Additionally, web coatings are explained in the second paragraph.
#:*In the second paragraph, I clarified the description of web coatings. I suggest changing “web (flexible substrate) coatings for industry” to “coatings for flexible electronics, packaging and other applications,” which is accurate.
#:*For clarity and accessibility, I changed “nanomanufacturing technology” to “equipment.”
::, condensed for conciseness. Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: , I don't think it is normal practice to remove a product just because it was discontinued. There may be reasons to remove the paragraph if there were concerns about promotionalism. But per WP:Notability is not temporary, I'll leave it in there for now, because it has been covered by several independent sources. Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi Mary, and thanks for your suggestions. In the future, it would be helpful if you formatted your citations using Wikipedia's citation templates, that will make my job of implementing the proposed edits easier. Bare URLs are discouraged because they are much more vulnerable to linkrot. Altamel (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much, ! Really appreciate the quick response and detailed feedback. Sheepish to admit I didn't know about the Reflist-talk template before; I'll definitely use that moving forward. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edit requests 

message: As requested by  on my talkpage, I have briefly checked the article's status and removed both maintenance tags. While the article still has its flaws, both problems (COI-editing and dependance on primary sources) have been significantly reduced with recent edits. A few suggestions for further improvements:
*"Organization" lists 5 sub-areas, however the section's intro sentence mentions only 4. Ideally intro sentence and later paragraphs should have the same structure.
*One of the article's main flaws (imo) is the excessively detailed listing of dozens of acquisitions. The article would be improved, if some of the less-notable acquisitions could be trimmed - possibly in favor of a more general, and more reader-friendly, description of the company's evolution.
*Following the previous point, the article suffers from a lot of stubby single-sentence paragraphs, making the article very "listy". Whereever possible, such details should be merged in larger topical paragraphs.
Having said that, especially the COI-tag should only be applied, when there are ongoing "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality". Despite room for improvement, recent changes have sufficiently addressed most of those concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance tags removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Applied Materials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714232834/http://www.pv-tech.org:80/news/_a/applied_tops_vlsis_top_10_pv_manufacturing_equipment_suppliers_for_2008 to http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/applied_tops_vlsis_top_10_pv_manufacturing_equipment_suppliers_for_2008/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Applied Materials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116102738/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=352491 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=352491
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/applied_tops_vlsis_top_10_pv_manufacturing_equipment_suppliers_for_2008/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A few random thoughts on the current article status:
* The article still includes a rather large list of "Applied acquired X" mentions without real context and noteworthy detail. In my opinion the selection of mentioned acquisitions is not restrictive enough. It would be better to name less acquisitions but with more substantial backgound information. Whereever possible lists and list-y sections should be avoided in favor of compact detailed prose.
* Related to the first point, "History" and "Organization" have some overlap. Parts of historical information are "hidden" in sector descriptions, which is not ideal. I am not sure about a good solution to distinguish these 2 sections more clearly, but this could use some thought.
* Compared with other sectors, information in the EES section seems too detailed (admittedly it's difficult to decide which details are noteworthy and which are not). I am also not sure if the current section structure regarding EES is the best solution (but lack any better idea atm). GermanJoe (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current article status