Talk:Building-integrated photovoltaics

message: I had previously added a link to a global directory of installers around the world (http://www.enf.cn/database/installers.html) - since people looking up information on solar roofs / BIPV may be interested in finding local companies to offer such a product to them.  The information was taken down by someone who hadn't actually reviewed the validity of the information but was deleting based on the fact that I posted up several links to ENF.
On the suggestion of one of person that removed the information, I am submitting suggested comments/links here in the hope that other editors will evaluate the relevance and resubmit it to the main page:
* Industry Directory of Solar Roof Installation Companies Around the World 
* Article on UK Feed-in Tariffs for Solar Roofs
Kit Temple 14:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really our role to point readers to suppliers of products. Wikipedia is not a directory. Readers looking for a local supplier of some service should look in a local directory, not an encyclopedia.--Srleffler (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business-side info 

message: I have removed this section as I believe it was almost completely irrelevant to the article in addition to being very US and especially California-specific, and not very well written. The only relevant part was a mention of solar shingles which appears earlier in the article. The section went into too much detail describing solar energy setups that can be found in more relevant articles. Also examples of residential solar programs did not appear to building-integrated. Placing PV modules on existing roofs doesn't qualify as BIPV. I am planning more minor edits to the rest of the article to clarify the idea of BIPV. JKRS ONE 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIPV in houses 

message: Just resumed editing this page after a long break. Mostly minor edits so far. Added a few citations, reworded/added some missing letters. Also removed a picture I didn't feel was a good example, as well as a link that was added under references that seemed like an advertisement. I'm still not really pleased with the article overall. It is still missing several citations. Hopefully soon I will combine the second paragraph with the third section which needs to be retitled. I need to find a source that lists different forms of BIPV. Mentioning which companies manufacture these elements is not necessary. JKRS ONE (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I  noticed multiple neutrality issues in this article and try to correct them. See below.
This article reads as one long sales pitch from a BIPV manufacturer. A tell tale sign is the inclusion of an advantages section but the lack of a list of disadvantages. It needs urgent clean-up for it contains many unsubstantiated claims (and hollow imagery):
*they generally blend in better and are more aesthetically appealing than other solar options. Personal opinion of writer
*The past decade has ushered in a myriad of BIPV demonstration buildings and other structures. Sales talk
*BIPV is proving to be an effective building energy technology In what way?
The entire section Advantages is biassed and full of hollow PR-talk:
*BIPV modules can be colorful and visually arresting. Aren't PV-cells always blue? What's interesting about that? Personal opinion of writer
*Using BIPV creates a strikingly futuristic building. Personal opinion
*Its flexibility is such that it can respond to the architect's imagination and result in a building that is both impressive and environmentally friendly. What?! A material that responds and makes a building instantly impressive?
*It improves the image of a building... how can it improve a newly constructed building? and increases the resale value. Source?
*Photovoltaic modules can be integrated into the building envelope in a so-called "non ventilated facade" Why is this an advantage?
*...and create an ambient inside temperate all-year round. Hollow phrase.
*Using photovoltaics in a building envelope replaces traditional building materials and building processes. Why is this an advantage?
*Using photovoltaics cells [...] can be an exciting design feature. Hollow PR-talk. Personal opinion.
*Modules can protect against the weather, giving shade from the sun as well as protection from wind and rain,. So too do brick,concrete, glass... Advantage?
*When the weather gets cold (or hot), non-ventilated modules act as thermal insulation. What's the advantage over any other insulation material?
In the Forms section is a list of presumably available types of BIPV's but not verifiable due to a lack of sources given.
The Photovoltaic roof tiles and shingles section is in part superfluous -its already mentioned in Forms section- and part advertisement.
Setion: Design Issues
*BIPV is a great new innovation Personal opinion
*When considering using BIPV for a building both environmental and structural factors have to be considered. As does with every aspect of construction.
*These factors must be taken into account[...]" idem
*Some of the major design considerations unique to solar energy systems are [...]" They aren't unique.
*The rest of this section is true for every PV project and isn't relevant to specifically PIBV. This section should be deleted.
SavannahD (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the sections Advantages and Design issues; after removing textual clutter, nothing much of interest remained. I had already mentioned deletion of the Photovoltaic roof tiles and shingles section.
What about the Incentives section? I get the impression that the incentives mentioned are more to do with promoting solar power production, than that they are incentives for using integrated solutions specifically?SavannahD (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality in doubt

message: I made numerous edits to this page with appropriate references based on specific industry knowledge.  All of my changes were rolled back by Jojalozzo.  Why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotonical (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent updates to BIPV 

message: Newcastle Polytechnic may be worth adding here. They had one of the first building-integrated systems in the UK, some time around 1990. Sponsored heavily by BP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Newcastle Polytechnic]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Building-integrated photovoltaics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160213210259/http://doc.xueqiu.com/1457a3acfff1183feb42de44.pdf to http://doc.xueqiu.com/1457a3acfff1183feb42de44.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The original contribution on Patrina Eiffert that explained her role in this products adoption should be restored, with possibly more research to support it, but should not have been rolled back on May 6, 2011, as is currently posted in this article, because its inclusion is now virtually meaningless. Apparently, the editor who is still on Wikipedia did not understand what was written to such an extent that they substantially reduced the entry and its significance to what they could grasp intellectually - which at this juncture makes almost no sense because it was so truncated by him that what it purports now is only conjecture... At some point this earlier contribution should be restored and embellished to possibly include the roles of others and other organizations that were part of the promotion of this technologically significant innovation... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Patrina Eiffert

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Building-integrated photovoltaics. 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/20080203103231/http://www.leonardo-energy.org:80/drupal/node/897 to http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/897
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708111359/http://www.epia.org:80/publications/other-publications.html to http://www.epia.org/publications/other-publications.html
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) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Building-integrated photovoltaics. 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  tag to http://www.eugenestandard.org/index.cfm?inc=news&id=96
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418024952/http://www.cler.org/info/article.php3?id_article=3281 to http://www.cler.org/info/article.php3?id_article=3281
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050338/http://www.snec.org.cn/Read_e.asp?ID=8582 to http://www.snec.org.cn/Read_e.asp?ID=8582
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epia.org/publications/other-publications.html
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) 08:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion