Talk:Ecovative Design

New article for 'mushroom materials'?

I am fascinated by what Evocative Design are doing and the potential for this technology having been alerted to it by a student at London Metropolitan University Architecture School. Would it be appropriate to now create an article for this class of biomaterial, as distinct from the company? I am aware that there is an article for Greensulate but this is about a branded product, not the sider class of material.

I have drafted the starting point for such an article in my sandbox at User:PeterEastern/Mushroom materials. Is this along the right lines? Is the title appropriate? Specifically, is 'mushroom material' a trademark of Ecovative Design or is it available as the generic name for the class of material?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any unique content in Mushroom materials that would not be appropriate in Ecovative Design? If not, then I think Mushroom materials would be premature, as it could only present a subset of the content in Ecovative Design. From an admittedly quick look through the sources I couldn't see any reference to other companies doing the same kind of thing. (It would be good to redirect Mushroom materials to Ecovative Design, though.)

Actually, I think Greensulate should be merged into Ecovative Design, though I'll admit I'm more pro-merge than most Wikipedians.

--Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. I do agree that the alternative is to create a redirect, however, I think this material is important enough and already being used by many people to do diverse things to warrant a separate article. For example, the work being done by Phil Ross (art, chairs etc) and David Benjamin(Hy-Fi) and possibly also at the London Metropolitan University.[1] There are then the people who will be doing who knows what using their 'Grow your own' kits. Other examples of companies and their products having separate articles are Styrofoam / The Dow Chemical Company, and Bakelite / Momentive Specialty Chemicals (who now own the trademarks for Bakelite). What is clear is that Greensulate is not an appropriate subject. My suggestion however would be to merge it into the Mushroom materials. PeterEastern (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have created a redirect to Ecovative Design as suggested for starters and have created a section heading of this title in that article. Any further comments re my suggestion to create new article focusing on these materials? PeterEastern (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Greensulate now redirects to here

I have redirected Greensulate to here per suggestion on Talk:Greensulate. If anyone wants to transfer any parts of the Greensulate article here, the version before the redirect can be viewed here and edited here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecovative Design. 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/20150816001300/http://www.businessweek.com:80/innovate/content/mar2009/id20090323_482784.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2009/id20090323_482784.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

COI editing.

Obviously, a lot of the article was written by people with a connection to the company, and despite a good bit of 3rd party editing since, its 'bones' so to speak go back to that, and much of the later material is essentially sourced back to the company. Having said that, the edits were often forthright, and there isn't that much puffery considering. Is a COI marker needed to warn the reader now or no? Anmccaff (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the COI note which does not appear to be necessary given that the article appears to be a pretty neutral factual description of the company and its activities. For the avoidance of doubt, although I was a significant contributor some time back, I have no connection to the company and have never communicated with anyone at the company. PeterEastern (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)