This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 14 May 2012 (→Complaints over unfair removal: ce for clarity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparison of CAD editors for computer-aided engineering was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 August 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Comparison of computer-aided design software. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Computing: Software List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Apple Inc. List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Industrial design List‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

New entries to the comparison of notable CAD packages

Criteria for inclusion of a program

Recently some criteria for inclusion af a program in the article were added by User:DuLithgow. As I disagree with some criteria I would like to discuss them here. These are the new criteria for inclusion of an application:

• it must have achieved notability.
• it must be out of beta development.
• it must have been updated in the last two years.
• it must have had its own page established for some time on Misplaced Pages.

I'm fine with the firt two requirements, but I don't see why we should have the other two:

Although lack of updates may indicate that some software is becoming less relevant it may still be more relevant than other programs in the list. I think the removal should be decided case by case if an application is not receiving updates anymore.

I think we should try to include all programs that are notable, no matter if they have their seperate Misplaced Pages page. Otherwise a fair comparison will not be possible because the inclusion of a program depends on whether there is a Wikipedian who is motivated to create a page about that subject.

What do you think? --Marko Knoebl (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marko, good to start this discussion. Basically I'm getting sick of cleaning up the list for junk additions of software products which have limited merit. That's why I've added criteria 4 - in reality 4 is no different from 1. In practise it means we don't have to research how notable a new entry is if it doesn't already have an entry in wikipedia. If it has an article I read that and decide if it's a valid entry or just an advertisement or fanboy entry. So I'm using the existence of an article as a claim to notability. The main reason for criteria 3 is that there were a few (two I think) entries that were out of beta but not updated in years. I simply don't think that software not updated in two years or more is serious about being in the AEC industry and including it on a comparison is just adding noise. This might have something to do with how you and I see the comparison. I see it as a tool for industry players to compare notable software currently in active use - I don't see it as a historical comparison.

So let me know what you think, the best would be if you have a specific example where you think I've made a poor decision. Have a look through the history for 14th June and you'll see the entries I've recently removed. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

i cant seem to add qcad properly to the page, its GPL architecture cad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New entry template

You can use this template to add new software. You'll need to edit this page to see it.

To consider adding

• The CAE Linux distribution has a whole heap of relevant software to investigate. --90.185.222.185 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced. I have used CAElinux a bit (it doesn't play well with my hardware for some reason) and there is a lot of analysis software. Not so much relevant to AEC. The exceptions are FreeCAD and QCad / LibreCAD. I will add FreeCAD. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• List_of_CAD_companies needs cleaning up, should we link to it? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

done --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• What should be done with CAD/CAM? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• People need to be able to compare capabilities... How can we help with that? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• This page Computer-aided_architectural_design is a bit orphaned. --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• This bunch should be able to help: CAADRIA --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Add all remaining of this category: --Efa2 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Add all remaining of this page: --Efa2 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• port all the list to this page: --Efa2 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing?

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.94.155 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of them. If they meet the requirements feel free to add them to the comparison --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason SketchUp is not included here?

SketchUp is listed on the other 3d applications page as having as its primary use "Computer Aided Design". Is there some reason it's excluded here? Hammerquill (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to add it. Feel free to do that! --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considered but not added

Please add software you have rejected for inclusion here --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed and Banned entries

Entries that have been banned

The following applications have turned up here at least once and should be quickly removed if they appear again. Reason are as stated

Complaints over unfair removal

Well, I have a big complaint over the unilateral judgement and removal that is currently happening. I can understand the removal of products that are not considered to fall under the definition of "computer-aided design editors", but I have a great deal of trouble with products that are removed because one editor here considers that they are not "notable", or (in his opinion) "looks like advert". We are not talking about high notability standards that must apply to WP:BLP, and DuLithgow needs to relax his approach here. I'm also worried about DuLithgow's ability to interpret and apply WP's policies and procedures (as demonstrated by his inability to apply the full and proper AfD process at the Cobalt (CAD program) article)—however perhaps that's commensurate with the experience level that comes from only having about 650 article edits.
Lists such as these offer a service to our readers—the ability to compare features of various products. WP is not recommending software simply because of inclusion in this list, however to remove entries smacks of censorship. Even if an article (such as Cobalt (CAD program)) is considered not notable (not yet achieved by the way), there is a strong argument for inclusion in this list (for Heaven's sake, it's a mature CAD product that has been commercially available for more than 20 years for both the Macintosh and Windows platforms). The removal of such entries with comments like "looks like an advert" is an non-objective and rushed approach by DuLithgow who is now taking on the guise of a one-man judge, jury, and executioner. I will support any local editors here in a bid to re-establish this list to the point where it offers a complete service to our readers. And exactly what is wrong with including actual CAD software in this list so that our readers can make up their minds about what they consider useful, or even "notable" (whatever that may mean to each reader who visits this list—which is currently running at just over 150 visits per day)?
To DuLithgow: As a suggestion, how about you get some content-building under your belt before you risk settling into the world of content-removal? Adding content is much more rewarding, and it will help you to gain experience in understanding the demoralising effect that actions such as yours have on the editors here who are trying their best to build (in this case, non-controversial) articles for our readers.
GFHandel ♬  22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes I have limited experience, though over quite a number of years. I will clarified here my reason for removing Cobalt from this list. I originally set up the list out of interest and a wish to learn more about the products around - but the list is specific to AEC and Cobalt is as far as I can see from their website, for product design and manufacture. Sorry, but I do actually know a bit about the industry I work in, which is AEC. The Cobalt article seems to be establishing notability (not with the help of GregL but others who keep trying to make useful references) but that is not what this list is for. This list is not for CAD in general but CAD for AEC. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this article is for the "list of computer-aided design editors" (as per the title), because that's what our readers will be expecting when they land here. You now need to back down, not hunt-and-peck for a reason for removal (your only reasons for removal were "looks like advert, one source and questionable notability"), and give other editors here a say in this matter. If you now want to make the list more specific, then feel free to try and split information into another article or to create extra columns to explain distinctions in the various products. (By the way, your "AEC" link is to a disambiguation page.) GFHandel ♬  23:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of reading the article before telling me what it's about --duncan.lithgow (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also I believe it was moved in error User_talk:Dwarfpower#comparison_od_CAD_for_AEC which is just making the problem worse. There is no sense in comparing CAD application from different industries - who can use that? I've assked him to move it back so I don't get told off for doing it. Dwarfpower made that change 17:32, 4 October 2011 --duncan.lithgow (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:GFHandel is clearly correct here. DuLithgow’s coming in and deciding that this CAD editor or that is not notable, as he did here was clearly way off base. User:Ryan Vesey made this uncanny and pithy edit summary when he he deleted the AFD tag: “millions of google search results, take it to AFD if you wish”. Thus, Users Ryan Vesey, Greg L, and GFHandel just aren’t in agreement here.

Moreover, Duncan’s 18 unilateral edits to delete entire programs from this list over the last few days to delete all manner of CAD programs from this list is clearly without consensus and needs a clear consensus when the edits aren’t copyediting but are instead massive use of the key. Editors are all here on en.Misplaced Pages to build the project. The way things are done here are the product of years of consensus building and an evolution of processes. Moreover, the editors active on the CAD-related articles tend to have extensive experience with the subject matter. It is clear that the evolved intention of the community for this list of CAD programs is to make it an inclusive and comprehensive list that readers can use as an authoritative source for what programs have been developed over the years. Before deleting scores of man-hours of material that other editors have slaved over, there must be a clear consensus here on this talk page for the material’s removal.

Since there is clearly no consensus for these latest edits throughout the project and here on this list, I’ve reverted to the previous consensus view. Please bear in mind that consensus can change. But we can not have editors trying to get their way and slip “consensus” under the door merely by testing the waters as to what content can be deleted from the project. One first comes to this talk page and introduces a proposal and things are discussed. That way, ideas are bandied about, bad ideas are countered with better ones, and a proper consensus can be achieved.

Duncan: Please convince the rest of us before any more of the sort of edits you’ve been making on CAD-related articles this week. Greg L (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, by the way, Burt Rutan used Ashlar’s Cobalt program to design SpaceShipOne. That alone is sufficient to establish that the program has sufficient notability for inclusion in this list and to have an article on it on the project. Only someone with extraordinarily limited understanding of CAD programs would think Burt Rutan would be using some sort of backwater CAD program few have heard of to design a space ship. And, since I actually have some well-earned gray hairs on my head and had used a wide variety of CAD programs before the Internet became all the rage, I long-ago read in an actual magazine (think: “Internet made out of a tree”) about how Burt Rutan used Ashlar Vellum (the wireframe 3D predecessor of Cobalt) to design the Voyager plane that flew non-stop around the world. 17:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. By the way Duncan. Your curious use of the word “BANNED” in the above section heading (perma‑link here) doesn’t strike me as appropriate under the circumstances. Please consider retroactively revising the heading since only something springing directly and clearly from Misplaced Pages’s Five Pillars or ArbCom could “ban” anything on Misplaced Pages. We certainly need “more talky” before using such language. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Entries that have been removed

Put them here to preserve the information in case it should go back again soon. Please preserve the formatting of the original entry, remember to add entries for 'Reason Removed' and 'Signature'

Discussion of usefulness and structure

I regularly visit this comparison and read it through, and even I find it hard to make use of. I really want to remove some columns to make the most important data more visable. For example I want to remove the 'Academic version?' column. What do other think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Old discussions archive

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) → List of computer-aided design editors for architecture, engineering and construction — The article title should start with "list of..." per WP:LISTS, because this is really a list. Secondly, the acronyms should be removed from the title per WP:TITLE. Wizard191 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1. "Arch IFC". FreeCAD wiki. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
2. free-cad Feature List
3. See Platform Support - Parametric Technology Corporation and PTC customer support
4. Parametric Technology Corporation. "CoCreate Language Support". Retrieved 2010-05-25.
5. Ashlar-Vellum: New Features in Cobalt v8

• List-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• List-Class software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• List-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
• All Software articles
• All Computing articles
• List-Class Apple Inc. articles
• Unknown-importance Apple Inc. articles
• WikiProject Apple Inc. articles
• List-Class Industrial design articles
• Low-importance Industrial design articles