This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cobalt (CAD program) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi Greg. A quick read of your earlier comments suggest you may slam me for being lazy, stupid or just generaly an annoying ass. Never the less I have again added these two banners again after you removed them once before and from what I can read quite a number of times in the last year or two (I didn't read this entire page though). I would like to point out what I think are are some important points:
-- duncan.lithgow ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
…that the developer refers to as “Organic Workflow”.[4]
As for your feeling that the article reads like an ad, this article has been intently pored over by me, Tony, Chris Cunninham, and Jubilee and don’t see it the same way you and duncan.lithgow do.
And, looking at your contributions history, you made three edits on three different articles in a two-minute time span (from 14:08 to 14:09 via rapid-fire use of that Twinkle), so it is amazing to me that you can offer expert opinions so fast on an article that four editors labored hours and hours on. Bravo Greg L ( talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now User:Ryan_Vesey has started rolling back my tags. So far he has only cited the fact that there are over a million google hits for Cobalt CAD. That does not fall into the category Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, they are just hits. I'm hoping he will respond here so we can discuss the article merits instead of reverting each other changes. As soon as he enters the discussion here I will stop reverting his changes. -- duncan.lithgow ( talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
wjemather: You slapped a tag marked “Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article.” Luc Heiligenstein published a comparative review of Cobalt and is not associated with the subject. I googled reviews, found his name, contacted him, and he responded. Does it surprise you that an author of a review of a CAD program actually knows what he is talking about and uses the program?
I did the same on Kilogram: I contacted the Ph.D. researcher working on the watt balance and exchanged some sixty e-mails with him. The fact that a Wikipedian would contact an expert might come as a shock to you and others since it is so common for Wikipedians to just regurgitate what they read from Popular Mechanics. I’d quote still other authors if I could find them. Unfortunately, there are few published reviews of Cobalt, so you go with what you have.
In the mean time, I suggest you do something more constructive to do with your time than start an AfD with the intention of deleting content.
My intentions could not possibly have been clearer that I didn’t want that to be a forum for just me to display my work because right at the top of the page, it began with this:
“ | “Topical and germane” additions to this gallery are welcome; that is, additions should be of interest to readers interested in Cobalt’s solid-modeling and image-rendering capabilities. Please keep attributions succinct and take care to avoid commercialism. | ” |
It would be just splendid if others did precisely as invited and diluted out my contributions at the gallery. Moreover, I invited Luc to provide me with some solid models he created using Cobalt so readers could see more complex work. In spite of the drop-dead-obvious intentions as evidenced by the invitation on the gallery, you offered up this doozy at your AfD: “This appears to be nothing more than a forum for advertising the authors work and/or capabilities of a particular CAD package.” I find that to be exceedingly offensive and a violation of “ assume good faith” (or a profound case of jump to conclusions instead of actually read what’s there).
I didn’t have you jumping all over my bones when I slaved over Thermodynamic temperature and Kilogram. Apparently because one can’t go buy either. I think you are a tad too sensitive over the fact that Cobalt is a product for sale and therefore leapt to conclusions and assumed all sorts of nefarious motives where none existed. I use the program and believe in it. If you think the article needs to be balanced with an equal amount of verbiage devoted to the program’s shortcomings, why don’t you become an expert on the subject and add to the article rather than make life difficult for those who fully understand it?
It would also be exceedingly good form if you’d bother to start even the most minimal of a discussion thread here on this page and explain what’s on your mind (and afford me an opportunity to explain myself) rather than run about with your tags. Greg L ( talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think there is too much “Gosh-golly-gee” tone in the article, then point it out please. As far as I can tell, the article explains that Cobalt has an easy learning curve (which anyone who knows anything about the program knows is ultra-true) and it explains pure, cited facts regarding its features and how the program works. Greg L ( talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Pro/ENGINEER is a parametric, integrated 3D CAD/CAM/CAE solution created by Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC). It was the first to market with parametric, feature-based, associative solid modeling software on the market. The application runs on Microsoft Windows and Unix platforms, and provides solid modeling, assembly modelling and drafting, finite element analysis, and NC and tooling functionality for mechanical engineers.
SolidWorks is a 3D mechanical CAD ( computer-aided design) program that runs on Microsoft Windows and was developed by Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp., a subsidiary of Dassault Systèmes, S. A. ( Vélizy, France). SolidWorks is currently used by over 3.4 million engineers and designers at more than 100,000 companies worldwide.
As far as the lack of notability in the lead in: Stop. Not all of us need to see shiny objects, pomp and circumstance or flashy salesman in the lead in of the article to know it's notable. There are those of us who are content with solid, tight, technical writing. Move along, please. SteveB67 ( talk) 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
After not getting your way on the “citation” issue, you then do a shot across the bow with the issue of “notability”, which is totally absurd. I don’t buy your playing coy when you write I have made no allegation of lack of notability. I have stated that there is no assertion of notability in the article. Your meaning was clear enough.
As for your allegation that the ANI against you was “bogus,” if you keep up with your editing against consensus or disruptively editing to make a point, you’ll find yourself the subject of yet another one. That’s not a threat, it’s a pledge. It’s time to start paying attention to cause & effect.
Now we will put the “notability” issue to bed:
Consensus has still not been reached on all of the issues I raise because they have simply not been discussed.
I appreciate Tony's acknowledgement that my concerns are/were valid and I hope having them listed for clarity might help focus this discussion. wjemather bigissue 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that every single other editor didn’t agree with you, you then raised a new issue: how there wasn’t anything in the lead to indicate notability. And again, 80% of the editors on this page don’t share your concern there, either.
You further wrote That [the issue of notability] still stands, as does the original concern regarding inadequate citing that you mistakenly think has been resolved, along with all the other issues. That suggests to me that you don’t believe the consensus view prevails on Wikipedia and that if there is a holdout who wants to jump up and down and persist at arguing, everyone else here—who have other things they had hoped to do on Wikipedia to keep it a fun hobby—has to (*sigh*) and keep on debating with you until the heat death of the universe.
So where this leaves us is A) The consensus view is that this article is properly cited and is clearly notable, and B) you still aren’t personally convinced of these things, exhibit a keen interest to keep discussing every bit of what you disagree with, and believe that obligates everyone else to keep discussing things with you and make you all happy as a clam here. Do I have the current state of affairs accurately summed up? If we fail to keep coming here to discuss things with you, does that mean you will seemingly take on an attitude of “all the others are all wrong” and slap {DISCUSS–I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on the article to force people to keep discussing things with you? Or are you beyond that now?
So let me cut to the chase: The consensus view if that this article is notable and properly cited to independent reliable sources. Are you going to accept and abide by the consensus view? Yes or no? Are you going to raise new issues? Yes or no? If the answer to the first question is “no” or you answer “yes” to the second question, please bone up on WP:Consensus; it lays the foundation for all that prevents chaos and edit warring from running rampant on Wikipedia. I would also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
I have about 40 hours devoted to creating this article, which includes the time making those fine animations that very effectively communicate something that would be difficult to convey with words. I am so disappointed that the sum of my labors has failed to impress Wjemather. Your contribution to the article—the 20 seconds it took for you to slap tags on the article to signal that the article doesn’t meet with your approval—has certainly started a great deal of discussion here. Greg L ( talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The consensus here is that the article is clearly notable and sufficiently cited. If you persist to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping your {Discuss-DISPUTE-I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on an article to force debate in defiance of consensus, you will be held accountable. I understand you might not agree with the consensus here that the article is sufficiently cited and is notable; in the military, that’s called “So sad–too bad.” You will have to live with that and move on. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L ( talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well guys, please remember that this is not a FAC or GAN (yet), so the standards are more relaxed, and we should treat this accordingly. It's useful to have input on how the article can be improved, but the terrible bickering of this fashion is clearly not helpful one iota. If someone still does not feel the article sufficiently asserts notability, we should ask an admin whether a {{ db-nn}} would be entertained - I'm pretty sure it will not. If it is accepted that this article's subject is notable, which seems to be the case, then it would be a case of roll your sleeves up and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are two references that show Ashlar Vellum's history with CAD.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. …except there’s this mind-reader called Ohconfucius, who keeps on doing the exact same edits the exact same way I would was planning on doing them. Thanks. Greg L ( talk) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
All: I thought any of you trying to dig up head-to-head reviews comparing CAD packages, might be wondering “why is there such a paucity?” You’re not alone. I thought you’d be interested in Kevin Quigley’s post here at WorldCAD Access, “What Happened to Head to Head Reviews?” The guy uses SolidWorks, Cobalt, and VX, which isn’t listed on Wikipedia’s CAD comparison list. Greg L ( talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed a few links, per WP:SEEALSO, already found in the lead. -- Tom (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlike an article on, say, Sacramento, California, we don’t need to repeat a link in the See also section for distinct and easy-to-recognize things like Sacramento County when it’s already in the body text.
But in this particular case, where the subject matter is more obscure, the terminology arcane, and where there is a nearly annoying level of overlap in Wikipedia’s related articles (both in content and in the article names), I thought it more convenient for the reader to have a comprehensive list of related articles so the reader doesn’t have to study and parse the body text to discern the fine distinctions between the links. Wikipedia’s practice of aliasing links beyond all comprehension until they effectively become Easter Egg hunts tends to increase the value having comprehensive and complete See also sections, in my opinion. Moreover, Wikipedia has more articles than you can shake a stick at where the same paragraph has multiple links, aliased different ways, but which all point to the same target article; you can’t tell my looking at them and because of redirects, you have to click on the S.O.B.s to find out where you are actually taken to. In short; body text links in many cases aren’t as definitive and precise as on might hope; it depends—in part—on the subject matter. So…
It’s a judgement call, but as I wrote in my edit summary when I restored the links, “Repeating links in ‘See also’ sections is permissible and desirable [in this case] because many readers don’t want to wade through the body text to find every related article. You know: convenience for the reader.” Greg L ( talk) 03:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is still a problem. The see also section's purpose is supposed to be to linkt he reader to other subjects which might be of interest to them; it is unlikely that a reader is going to plough the whole way through an article on a CAD program designed for photorealistic rendering without knowing what ray tracing is, especially as it is indeed linked in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries…
“ | …the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. | ” |
It is not easy to describe the wide variety of images Cobalt can create. The gallery is therefore appropriate and the tag removed.
Note too that the gallery was discussed above at #Sources affiliated with the subject and the community consensus was clearly that the gallery was proper and encyclopedic and fully in compliance with our guidelines permitting them for just this sort of thing. Greg L ( talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You started out by slapping a tag on this article that spoke of “galleries of *random* images” when, in fact, the guideline is quite clear and says “However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.” The gallery needs one more item to round it out with all rows filled. Then you remove control of thumbnail sizes and break an animation so it doesn’t even work. After I fix that, you opine that you prefer animations one has to click to make work vs. the self-running kind. Judging from your picture, you couldn’t possibly have decades of page-layout and technical writing experience. Yet here you are, starting out by wanting a gallery removed and and then quibble about an extra watch. Tell you what, go ahead and delete the watch with the LCD since you are apparently expert on CAD. I would be tempted to reciprocate and become an endless source of critique on an article you write except I see that you specialize in floating about, doing to other articles what you’ve done here.
Now, I will be exceedingly blunt here with you. This is not a personal attack. These are the facts as I see them. I agree with precious little with what you write here because it is obvious that you are citing policies (like our gallery and H:HTML guidelines) without understanding what they are really saying. It is also clear you don’t understand CAD. It is also clear you don’t understand page layout. So I am quite done debating you here since you have so much to learn. Please, just finish with the *improvements* you want to do so I can go back and fix the damage (like making animations once again function). I wanted to discuss legitimate concerns with you here but you are just being petty, quibbling over silly things. Greg L ( talk) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Matters of opinion in the article characterizing the type of uses most suitable for Cobalt are cited to reliable secondary sources not affiliated with the company. Those are MCADVision and MCADonline. Matters of fact, such as features lists, are cited to the company. Every effort has been made to find more second-party articles but the nature of CAD makes for slim pickings; that is simply the reality of what we have to work with. Besides, two citations is perfectly satisfactory to buttress the point that “The distinguishing characteristics of Cobalt are its ease of use and the quick learning curve for new users.”
Please also note that this issue of third-party sourcing was fully discussed above at #Sources affiliated with the subject and the clear consensus was that the article was properly cited. In fact, another editor jumped into the fray and later helped dig up more references. Greg L ( talk) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this edit and the accompanying edit summary, which read “rather than relying on hacks to get a desired visual effect, just remove the headers, per WP:GTL#Headings and sections”, bolding text and making it big is not a “hack”; it is approved markup to make subsections more readable. Please don’t worry so much about how a particular visual effect is achieved. But thanks for trying, nevertheless. Accordingly, I went back to the method originally used, which is HTML for the subsection tags, which is 100% satisfactory according to Wikipedia guidelines at H:HTML, which states “however there are some situations in which the HTML alternative is useful” and specifically lists <h1> - <h6> as suitable code. Using the h-style HTML for the subsections (but not the sections) avoids what you refer to as “hack”, and it shows the subsections in the TOC (which is good), and it avoids the [edit] tags all crowded together one after another against the images (which is also good).
The one exception is the Animation tools sub-section. It is long enough that it would be helpful to be separately editable. Accordingly, I used the ==== type wikimarkup for that one. Greg L ( talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. The W3C quite specifically says:
Users should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to H3). Do not use headings to create font effects; use style sheets to change font styles for example.
Having an "attractive page layout" is strictly secondary here. That other people have done so elsewhere on Wikipedia is hardly an argument for perpetuating bad practice. You still haven't explained why paragraphs as little as fifteen words long need their own subsections, though I do see that yet again you've reverted another user who changed the headers back to wikitext. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Quoting you: Greg is specifically using HTML to a) hack around the auto-generation of section headers. Well, I just can not fathom why you would write such a thing. The applicable guideline, H:HTML, specifically allows its use. So your objection is without foundation. What HTML does is A) allow things to appear in the table of contents, and B) gets rid of [edit] tags in the body text. Sometimes these are desirable; just as H:HTML says.
Quoting you: You still haven't explained why paragraphs as little as fifteen words long need their own subsections. Now there’s a point I agree with. Well, because still other editors come in and do
edits like this, and keep making them active editable subsections, complete with inclusion in the table of contents and all those packed-together [edit] tags crowded against the pictures. But I agree 100 percent with you; we don’t need editable subsections. However, to have attractive page layout and to make it easy to parse the page content, we wouldn’t want to fuse all that text into a run-on mess; the individual features need their own bolded
rubrics. So I’m going to just go back to the ;<big>
method I used before. If the Tools section requires editing, it couldn’t possibly be easier to click on the [edit] link and edit that whole Tools section.
♬♩ (*elevator music while I go make the change*) ♬♩
There. The result now looks much better than run-on mess you ended up with in your effort to avoid *verboten HTML*, which according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines, is perfectly fine for editors to use when the need arises. By using rubrics, it is exceedingly easy to see that select tools from the bullet list above are being fleshed out in greater detail. Greg L ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit, which converted the template names {{nbhyph}} to the rendered non-breaking hyphen is sorta nice. But the trouble with doing that is other editors who come in later can’t tell that the hyphens are actually non-breaking ones. So if another editor comes along and types “3-D” from the keyboard, they have no idea that their treatment will behave any differently from the rest of the text; no one notices a problem that is already fixed transparently. To avoid this situation, I suggest we simply use the non-breaking hyphen template to produce the non-breaking hyphens so other editors can see that there is a nice little, behind-the-scenes nicety going on that avoids awkward word-wraps right in the middle of “3-D”. Seeing this will encourage them to copy and paste the non-breaking form. I mean, even I can’t tell just by looking at the rendered character whether I would be copying and pasting a non-breaking version of “3‑D” or not. But you can click on [edit] for this section, look at the code, and instantly tell whether you can safely copy and paste that last “3-D” or not. Greg L ( talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this edit, and the accompanying edit summary (respect user thumbnail preferences) well, unfortunately we can’t when it comes to certain animations. The wikiserver code has undergone a major change in the last several months. Animations that exceed a certain size, as calculated by (frame-size × number of frames), no longer function unless they appear in their native size. Apparently you didn’t even notice that the NURBS animation no longer functioned when you finished with this version and it looked like this. Notice how the *animation* just sits there? The only people it would function for in that state are A) registered editors, who B) set their size preference to something other than the default value, and who C) set their preference to precisely 400 pixels. That must be less than 0.002% of our readership. This is an important detail that is really hard to overlook and I am at a loss as to why you wouldn’t even notice the effect of what you are doing; it is supposed to self-run, as shown here.
In turn, the other animations look much better when they are the same size as the NURBS animation. In fact, the Theora (click-to-play) animations are all native at 400 pixels (one of the standard sizes for Theora videos) and look much better when they are all the same size. Things were done for a reason as regards image sizes; not the least of which is making sure they actually work. Thanks for trying to improve things, but really, the vast majority of our readership are I.P. readers who don’t have user preferences option for image sizes; the important thing is to ensure the animations work and that the page layout is harmonious and attractive. Greg L ( talk) 03:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. How much familiarity with CAD programs do you have? Which ones do you use? Greg L ( talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I don't have any problem with the use of animation here (if I implied that I did it was an accident). The problem is the use of the article prose as a surrogate long caption for the image. That's not explicitly prohibited by the MoS, but it can cause a loss of clarity (and make it harder to create derivatives) for no really compelling reason. I might have a try at reworking the text in question to resolve this myself, though I doubt it'll be today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is impressive writing. A few points, though:
I haven't yet looked at the bottom bits. Tony (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why we needed the same list twice so I merged that Tool sets section together. Probably needs more work to look right. I also removed some rather OWNery hidden comments that seemed to be suggesting that only a select few can edit the page. Perhaps I misunderstood those comments? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cobalt ray-tracing, high-end coffee tamper.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 15, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cobalt (CAD program) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi Greg. A quick read of your earlier comments suggest you may slam me for being lazy, stupid or just generaly an annoying ass. Never the less I have again added these two banners again after you removed them once before and from what I can read quite a number of times in the last year or two (I didn't read this entire page though). I would like to point out what I think are are some important points:
-- duncan.lithgow ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
…that the developer refers to as “Organic Workflow”.[4]
As for your feeling that the article reads like an ad, this article has been intently pored over by me, Tony, Chris Cunninham, and Jubilee and don’t see it the same way you and duncan.lithgow do.
And, looking at your contributions history, you made three edits on three different articles in a two-minute time span (from 14:08 to 14:09 via rapid-fire use of that Twinkle), so it is amazing to me that you can offer expert opinions so fast on an article that four editors labored hours and hours on. Bravo Greg L ( talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now User:Ryan_Vesey has started rolling back my tags. So far he has only cited the fact that there are over a million google hits for Cobalt CAD. That does not fall into the category Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, they are just hits. I'm hoping he will respond here so we can discuss the article merits instead of reverting each other changes. As soon as he enters the discussion here I will stop reverting his changes. -- duncan.lithgow ( talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
wjemather: You slapped a tag marked “Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article.” Luc Heiligenstein published a comparative review of Cobalt and is not associated with the subject. I googled reviews, found his name, contacted him, and he responded. Does it surprise you that an author of a review of a CAD program actually knows what he is talking about and uses the program?
I did the same on Kilogram: I contacted the Ph.D. researcher working on the watt balance and exchanged some sixty e-mails with him. The fact that a Wikipedian would contact an expert might come as a shock to you and others since it is so common for Wikipedians to just regurgitate what they read from Popular Mechanics. I’d quote still other authors if I could find them. Unfortunately, there are few published reviews of Cobalt, so you go with what you have.
In the mean time, I suggest you do something more constructive to do with your time than start an AfD with the intention of deleting content.
My intentions could not possibly have been clearer that I didn’t want that to be a forum for just me to display my work because right at the top of the page, it began with this:
“ | “Topical and germane” additions to this gallery are welcome; that is, additions should be of interest to readers interested in Cobalt’s solid-modeling and image-rendering capabilities. Please keep attributions succinct and take care to avoid commercialism. | ” |
It would be just splendid if others did precisely as invited and diluted out my contributions at the gallery. Moreover, I invited Luc to provide me with some solid models he created using Cobalt so readers could see more complex work. In spite of the drop-dead-obvious intentions as evidenced by the invitation on the gallery, you offered up this doozy at your AfD: “This appears to be nothing more than a forum for advertising the authors work and/or capabilities of a particular CAD package.” I find that to be exceedingly offensive and a violation of “ assume good faith” (or a profound case of jump to conclusions instead of actually read what’s there).
I didn’t have you jumping all over my bones when I slaved over Thermodynamic temperature and Kilogram. Apparently because one can’t go buy either. I think you are a tad too sensitive over the fact that Cobalt is a product for sale and therefore leapt to conclusions and assumed all sorts of nefarious motives where none existed. I use the program and believe in it. If you think the article needs to be balanced with an equal amount of verbiage devoted to the program’s shortcomings, why don’t you become an expert on the subject and add to the article rather than make life difficult for those who fully understand it?
It would also be exceedingly good form if you’d bother to start even the most minimal of a discussion thread here on this page and explain what’s on your mind (and afford me an opportunity to explain myself) rather than run about with your tags. Greg L ( talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think there is too much “Gosh-golly-gee” tone in the article, then point it out please. As far as I can tell, the article explains that Cobalt has an easy learning curve (which anyone who knows anything about the program knows is ultra-true) and it explains pure, cited facts regarding its features and how the program works. Greg L ( talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Pro/ENGINEER is a parametric, integrated 3D CAD/CAM/CAE solution created by Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC). It was the first to market with parametric, feature-based, associative solid modeling software on the market. The application runs on Microsoft Windows and Unix platforms, and provides solid modeling, assembly modelling and drafting, finite element analysis, and NC and tooling functionality for mechanical engineers.
SolidWorks is a 3D mechanical CAD ( computer-aided design) program that runs on Microsoft Windows and was developed by Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp., a subsidiary of Dassault Systèmes, S. A. ( Vélizy, France). SolidWorks is currently used by over 3.4 million engineers and designers at more than 100,000 companies worldwide.
As far as the lack of notability in the lead in: Stop. Not all of us need to see shiny objects, pomp and circumstance or flashy salesman in the lead in of the article to know it's notable. There are those of us who are content with solid, tight, technical writing. Move along, please. SteveB67 ( talk) 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
After not getting your way on the “citation” issue, you then do a shot across the bow with the issue of “notability”, which is totally absurd. I don’t buy your playing coy when you write I have made no allegation of lack of notability. I have stated that there is no assertion of notability in the article. Your meaning was clear enough.
As for your allegation that the ANI against you was “bogus,” if you keep up with your editing against consensus or disruptively editing to make a point, you’ll find yourself the subject of yet another one. That’s not a threat, it’s a pledge. It’s time to start paying attention to cause & effect.
Now we will put the “notability” issue to bed:
Consensus has still not been reached on all of the issues I raise because they have simply not been discussed.
I appreciate Tony's acknowledgement that my concerns are/were valid and I hope having them listed for clarity might help focus this discussion. wjemather bigissue 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that every single other editor didn’t agree with you, you then raised a new issue: how there wasn’t anything in the lead to indicate notability. And again, 80% of the editors on this page don’t share your concern there, either.
You further wrote That [the issue of notability] still stands, as does the original concern regarding inadequate citing that you mistakenly think has been resolved, along with all the other issues. That suggests to me that you don’t believe the consensus view prevails on Wikipedia and that if there is a holdout who wants to jump up and down and persist at arguing, everyone else here—who have other things they had hoped to do on Wikipedia to keep it a fun hobby—has to (*sigh*) and keep on debating with you until the heat death of the universe.
So where this leaves us is A) The consensus view is that this article is properly cited and is clearly notable, and B) you still aren’t personally convinced of these things, exhibit a keen interest to keep discussing every bit of what you disagree with, and believe that obligates everyone else to keep discussing things with you and make you all happy as a clam here. Do I have the current state of affairs accurately summed up? If we fail to keep coming here to discuss things with you, does that mean you will seemingly take on an attitude of “all the others are all wrong” and slap {DISCUSS–I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on the article to force people to keep discussing things with you? Or are you beyond that now?
So let me cut to the chase: The consensus view if that this article is notable and properly cited to independent reliable sources. Are you going to accept and abide by the consensus view? Yes or no? Are you going to raise new issues? Yes or no? If the answer to the first question is “no” or you answer “yes” to the second question, please bone up on WP:Consensus; it lays the foundation for all that prevents chaos and edit warring from running rampant on Wikipedia. I would also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
I have about 40 hours devoted to creating this article, which includes the time making those fine animations that very effectively communicate something that would be difficult to convey with words. I am so disappointed that the sum of my labors has failed to impress Wjemather. Your contribution to the article—the 20 seconds it took for you to slap tags on the article to signal that the article doesn’t meet with your approval—has certainly started a great deal of discussion here. Greg L ( talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The consensus here is that the article is clearly notable and sufficiently cited. If you persist to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping your {Discuss-DISPUTE-I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on an article to force debate in defiance of consensus, you will be held accountable. I understand you might not agree with the consensus here that the article is sufficiently cited and is notable; in the military, that’s called “So sad–too bad.” You will have to live with that and move on. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L ( talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well guys, please remember that this is not a FAC or GAN (yet), so the standards are more relaxed, and we should treat this accordingly. It's useful to have input on how the article can be improved, but the terrible bickering of this fashion is clearly not helpful one iota. If someone still does not feel the article sufficiently asserts notability, we should ask an admin whether a {{ db-nn}} would be entertained - I'm pretty sure it will not. If it is accepted that this article's subject is notable, which seems to be the case, then it would be a case of roll your sleeves up and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are two references that show Ashlar Vellum's history with CAD.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. …except there’s this mind-reader called Ohconfucius, who keeps on doing the exact same edits the exact same way I would was planning on doing them. Thanks. Greg L ( talk) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
All: I thought any of you trying to dig up head-to-head reviews comparing CAD packages, might be wondering “why is there such a paucity?” You’re not alone. I thought you’d be interested in Kevin Quigley’s post here at WorldCAD Access, “What Happened to Head to Head Reviews?” The guy uses SolidWorks, Cobalt, and VX, which isn’t listed on Wikipedia’s CAD comparison list. Greg L ( talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed a few links, per WP:SEEALSO, already found in the lead. -- Tom (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlike an article on, say, Sacramento, California, we don’t need to repeat a link in the See also section for distinct and easy-to-recognize things like Sacramento County when it’s already in the body text.
But in this particular case, where the subject matter is more obscure, the terminology arcane, and where there is a nearly annoying level of overlap in Wikipedia’s related articles (both in content and in the article names), I thought it more convenient for the reader to have a comprehensive list of related articles so the reader doesn’t have to study and parse the body text to discern the fine distinctions between the links. Wikipedia’s practice of aliasing links beyond all comprehension until they effectively become Easter Egg hunts tends to increase the value having comprehensive and complete See also sections, in my opinion. Moreover, Wikipedia has more articles than you can shake a stick at where the same paragraph has multiple links, aliased different ways, but which all point to the same target article; you can’t tell my looking at them and because of redirects, you have to click on the S.O.B.s to find out where you are actually taken to. In short; body text links in many cases aren’t as definitive and precise as on might hope; it depends—in part—on the subject matter. So…
It’s a judgement call, but as I wrote in my edit summary when I restored the links, “Repeating links in ‘See also’ sections is permissible and desirable [in this case] because many readers don’t want to wade through the body text to find every related article. You know: convenience for the reader.” Greg L ( talk) 03:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is still a problem. The see also section's purpose is supposed to be to linkt he reader to other subjects which might be of interest to them; it is unlikely that a reader is going to plough the whole way through an article on a CAD program designed for photorealistic rendering without knowing what ray tracing is, especially as it is indeed linked in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries…
“ | …the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. | ” |
It is not easy to describe the wide variety of images Cobalt can create. The gallery is therefore appropriate and the tag removed.
Note too that the gallery was discussed above at #Sources affiliated with the subject and the community consensus was clearly that the gallery was proper and encyclopedic and fully in compliance with our guidelines permitting them for just this sort of thing. Greg L ( talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You started out by slapping a tag on this article that spoke of “galleries of *random* images” when, in fact, the guideline is quite clear and says “However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.” The gallery needs one more item to round it out with all rows filled. Then you remove control of thumbnail sizes and break an animation so it doesn’t even work. After I fix that, you opine that you prefer animations one has to click to make work vs. the self-running kind. Judging from your picture, you couldn’t possibly have decades of page-layout and technical writing experience. Yet here you are, starting out by wanting a gallery removed and and then quibble about an extra watch. Tell you what, go ahead and delete the watch with the LCD since you are apparently expert on CAD. I would be tempted to reciprocate and become an endless source of critique on an article you write except I see that you specialize in floating about, doing to other articles what you’ve done here.
Now, I will be exceedingly blunt here with you. This is not a personal attack. These are the facts as I see them. I agree with precious little with what you write here because it is obvious that you are citing policies (like our gallery and H:HTML guidelines) without understanding what they are really saying. It is also clear you don’t understand CAD. It is also clear you don’t understand page layout. So I am quite done debating you here since you have so much to learn. Please, just finish with the *improvements* you want to do so I can go back and fix the damage (like making animations once again function). I wanted to discuss legitimate concerns with you here but you are just being petty, quibbling over silly things. Greg L ( talk) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Matters of opinion in the article characterizing the type of uses most suitable for Cobalt are cited to reliable secondary sources not affiliated with the company. Those are MCADVision and MCADonline. Matters of fact, such as features lists, are cited to the company. Every effort has been made to find more second-party articles but the nature of CAD makes for slim pickings; that is simply the reality of what we have to work with. Besides, two citations is perfectly satisfactory to buttress the point that “The distinguishing characteristics of Cobalt are its ease of use and the quick learning curve for new users.”
Please also note that this issue of third-party sourcing was fully discussed above at #Sources affiliated with the subject and the clear consensus was that the article was properly cited. In fact, another editor jumped into the fray and later helped dig up more references. Greg L ( talk) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this edit and the accompanying edit summary, which read “rather than relying on hacks to get a desired visual effect, just remove the headers, per WP:GTL#Headings and sections”, bolding text and making it big is not a “hack”; it is approved markup to make subsections more readable. Please don’t worry so much about how a particular visual effect is achieved. But thanks for trying, nevertheless. Accordingly, I went back to the method originally used, which is HTML for the subsection tags, which is 100% satisfactory according to Wikipedia guidelines at H:HTML, which states “however there are some situations in which the HTML alternative is useful” and specifically lists <h1> - <h6> as suitable code. Using the h-style HTML for the subsections (but not the sections) avoids what you refer to as “hack”, and it shows the subsections in the TOC (which is good), and it avoids the [edit] tags all crowded together one after another against the images (which is also good).
The one exception is the Animation tools sub-section. It is long enough that it would be helpful to be separately editable. Accordingly, I used the ==== type wikimarkup for that one. Greg L ( talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. The W3C quite specifically says:
Users should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to H3). Do not use headings to create font effects; use style sheets to change font styles for example.
Having an "attractive page layout" is strictly secondary here. That other people have done so elsewhere on Wikipedia is hardly an argument for perpetuating bad practice. You still haven't explained why paragraphs as little as fifteen words long need their own subsections, though I do see that yet again you've reverted another user who changed the headers back to wikitext. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Quoting you: Greg is specifically using HTML to a) hack around the auto-generation of section headers. Well, I just can not fathom why you would write such a thing. The applicable guideline, H:HTML, specifically allows its use. So your objection is without foundation. What HTML does is A) allow things to appear in the table of contents, and B) gets rid of [edit] tags in the body text. Sometimes these are desirable; just as H:HTML says.
Quoting you: You still haven't explained why paragraphs as little as fifteen words long need their own subsections. Now there’s a point I agree with. Well, because still other editors come in and do
edits like this, and keep making them active editable subsections, complete with inclusion in the table of contents and all those packed-together [edit] tags crowded against the pictures. But I agree 100 percent with you; we don’t need editable subsections. However, to have attractive page layout and to make it easy to parse the page content, we wouldn’t want to fuse all that text into a run-on mess; the individual features need their own bolded
rubrics. So I’m going to just go back to the ;<big>
method I used before. If the Tools section requires editing, it couldn’t possibly be easier to click on the [edit] link and edit that whole Tools section.
♬♩ (*elevator music while I go make the change*) ♬♩
There. The result now looks much better than run-on mess you ended up with in your effort to avoid *verboten HTML*, which according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines, is perfectly fine for editors to use when the need arises. By using rubrics, it is exceedingly easy to see that select tools from the bullet list above are being fleshed out in greater detail. Greg L ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit, which converted the template names {{nbhyph}} to the rendered non-breaking hyphen is sorta nice. But the trouble with doing that is other editors who come in later can’t tell that the hyphens are actually non-breaking ones. So if another editor comes along and types “3-D” from the keyboard, they have no idea that their treatment will behave any differently from the rest of the text; no one notices a problem that is already fixed transparently. To avoid this situation, I suggest we simply use the non-breaking hyphen template to produce the non-breaking hyphens so other editors can see that there is a nice little, behind-the-scenes nicety going on that avoids awkward word-wraps right in the middle of “3-D”. Seeing this will encourage them to copy and paste the non-breaking form. I mean, even I can’t tell just by looking at the rendered character whether I would be copying and pasting a non-breaking version of “3‑D” or not. But you can click on [edit] for this section, look at the code, and instantly tell whether you can safely copy and paste that last “3-D” or not. Greg L ( talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this edit, and the accompanying edit summary (respect user thumbnail preferences) well, unfortunately we can’t when it comes to certain animations. The wikiserver code has undergone a major change in the last several months. Animations that exceed a certain size, as calculated by (frame-size × number of frames), no longer function unless they appear in their native size. Apparently you didn’t even notice that the NURBS animation no longer functioned when you finished with this version and it looked like this. Notice how the *animation* just sits there? The only people it would function for in that state are A) registered editors, who B) set their size preference to something other than the default value, and who C) set their preference to precisely 400 pixels. That must be less than 0.002% of our readership. This is an important detail that is really hard to overlook and I am at a loss as to why you wouldn’t even notice the effect of what you are doing; it is supposed to self-run, as shown here.
In turn, the other animations look much better when they are the same size as the NURBS animation. In fact, the Theora (click-to-play) animations are all native at 400 pixels (one of the standard sizes for Theora videos) and look much better when they are all the same size. Things were done for a reason as regards image sizes; not the least of which is making sure they actually work. Thanks for trying to improve things, but really, the vast majority of our readership are I.P. readers who don’t have user preferences option for image sizes; the important thing is to ensure the animations work and that the page layout is harmonious and attractive. Greg L ( talk) 03:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. How much familiarity with CAD programs do you have? Which ones do you use? Greg L ( talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I don't have any problem with the use of animation here (if I implied that I did it was an accident). The problem is the use of the article prose as a surrogate long caption for the image. That's not explicitly prohibited by the MoS, but it can cause a loss of clarity (and make it harder to create derivatives) for no really compelling reason. I might have a try at reworking the text in question to resolve this myself, though I doubt it'll be today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is impressive writing. A few points, though:
I haven't yet looked at the bottom bits. Tony (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why we needed the same list twice so I merged that Tool sets section together. Probably needs more work to look right. I also removed some rather OWNery hidden comments that seemed to be suggesting that only a select few can edit the page. Perhaps I misunderstood those comments? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cobalt ray-tracing, high-end coffee tamper.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 15, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)