![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have undeleted this per a deletion review request here. Friday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). We obey standard English formatting of proper nouns, regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner.-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: this edit: User:Cantaloupe2 simultaneously removed references that establish notability and added a notability tag. I'll assume good faith here, but this seems like a strange thing to do. Listing a bunch of books that discuss something certainly is a way to establish notability, and having five references on a single sentence is not a problem, particularly when the question is whether the article topic is notable.
Cantaloupe2 complains that these references merely "mention" Zemax, but the first of the four deleted references is to a book that specifically focuses on Zemax, even to the extent of including it in the title. Another of the deleted references includes a quote, where the cited source says that Zemax is "one of the industry's standards". This is certainly relevant for notability. I don't believe that Cantaloupe2 has reviewed any of the references to determine the extent to which they support notability, which would obviously be a requirement for removing them from the article (especially when raising concerns about the notability of the topic.)
The same editor also removed the see also section entirely, for no obvious reason.
I have reverted all of these changes except for the addition of the notability tag. If no better arguments about the notability of this topic are raised, I will remove that as well.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the lede, fixing the typographical errors in some of the references. I restored the deleted Geary reference, since there is a notability question about the article. It is not acceptable to delete references to reliable sources while questioning the notability of the topic.
I added "commonly used", supported by the direct quote from Fisher ("industry standard" would also work, if you object to the wording change.) The Smith book also supports the claim that the software is commonly used. I fixed the error in the company name: the lede should give the current name of the company first. I removed the historical names from the lede. The history section is a better place for that. -- Srleffler ( talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I also restored the distinction between imaging and illumination optical systems. These two types of optical system are designed very differently. Software that does one type of optical design is not necessarily useful for the other. Zemax does both.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I restored some of the history material, which is relevant and properly cited. Note that WP:SELFPUB allows citing a company's publications about itself and its products, as long as the listed criteria are met.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't dug into the features section yet. Some issues that need to be fixed: the recent edits inappropriately emphasized analysis of optical coatings over ray tracing. Ray tracing is a primary function of this kind of optical design program; coating analysis is not. The separation between the "usage" subsection and the rest of the features section doesn't make much sense. The "usage" section lists some specific features of the program and the specific kinds of tasks for which those features are designed. A citation to the user's manual for the program may well be sufficient reference for this uncontroversial material. I will look into it when I have time.--
Srleffler (
talk)
17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Starting on the features section. I notice that some red links were inappropriately removed. In case you are not aware already, please see Wikipedia:Red link. In particular, diffractive optical element and non-sequential ray tracing are topics for which articles do need to be created.-- Srleffler ( talk) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Canteloupe2, do you still feel that the article's notability is in question?-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have undeleted this per a deletion review request here. Friday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). We obey standard English formatting of proper nouns, regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner.-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: this edit: User:Cantaloupe2 simultaneously removed references that establish notability and added a notability tag. I'll assume good faith here, but this seems like a strange thing to do. Listing a bunch of books that discuss something certainly is a way to establish notability, and having five references on a single sentence is not a problem, particularly when the question is whether the article topic is notable.
Cantaloupe2 complains that these references merely "mention" Zemax, but the first of the four deleted references is to a book that specifically focuses on Zemax, even to the extent of including it in the title. Another of the deleted references includes a quote, where the cited source says that Zemax is "one of the industry's standards". This is certainly relevant for notability. I don't believe that Cantaloupe2 has reviewed any of the references to determine the extent to which they support notability, which would obviously be a requirement for removing them from the article (especially when raising concerns about the notability of the topic.)
The same editor also removed the see also section entirely, for no obvious reason.
I have reverted all of these changes except for the addition of the notability tag. If no better arguments about the notability of this topic are raised, I will remove that as well.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the lede, fixing the typographical errors in some of the references. I restored the deleted Geary reference, since there is a notability question about the article. It is not acceptable to delete references to reliable sources while questioning the notability of the topic.
I added "commonly used", supported by the direct quote from Fisher ("industry standard" would also work, if you object to the wording change.) The Smith book also supports the claim that the software is commonly used. I fixed the error in the company name: the lede should give the current name of the company first. I removed the historical names from the lede. The history section is a better place for that. -- Srleffler ( talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I also restored the distinction between imaging and illumination optical systems. These two types of optical system are designed very differently. Software that does one type of optical design is not necessarily useful for the other. Zemax does both.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I restored some of the history material, which is relevant and properly cited. Note that WP:SELFPUB allows citing a company's publications about itself and its products, as long as the listed criteria are met.-- Srleffler ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't dug into the features section yet. Some issues that need to be fixed: the recent edits inappropriately emphasized analysis of optical coatings over ray tracing. Ray tracing is a primary function of this kind of optical design program; coating analysis is not. The separation between the "usage" subsection and the rest of the features section doesn't make much sense. The "usage" section lists some specific features of the program and the specific kinds of tasks for which those features are designed. A citation to the user's manual for the program may well be sufficient reference for this uncontroversial material. I will look into it when I have time.--
Srleffler (
talk)
17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Starting on the features section. I notice that some red links were inappropriately removed. In case you are not aware already, please see Wikipedia:Red link. In particular, diffractive optical element and non-sequential ray tracing are topics for which articles do need to be created.-- Srleffler ( talk) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Canteloupe2, do you still feel that the article's notability is in question?-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)