Content deleted Content added
m Correct license parameter in {{ConfirmationOTRS}} |
→"Popularity" vs "advantages": new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Engineering|importance=mid}}
{{ConfirmationOTRS|license=dual|source="{{cite book|last1=Hagness|first1=Allen Taflove, Susan C.|title=Computational electrodynamics : the finite-difference time-___domain method|date=2005|publisher=Artech House|___location=Boston|isbn=1580538320|edition=3rd ed.|pages=3-4}}"|id=2012022110009998}}▼
}}
▲{{
==Problems with the popularity section==
Line 83 ⟶ 85:
}}
I have removed the very long list of external links to vendors (for the second time). This is probably the worst violation of [[WP:ELNO#EL14]] I have ever seen. It might be useful to somebody, but it has no place in an encyclopaedia. Specifically, it is a breach of the [[WP:NOTDIR]] policy. If there is discussion somewhere in reliable sources of the pros and cons of various packages then that can be in the article. But we cannot tolerate a spammy list that is completely open-ended with no clear criteria for inclusion. The link to the [[Open Directory Project]] was a reasonable compromise. If a vendor cannot get on that list there may well be a good reason. In any case, it is a list that is filtered by independent editors at ODP. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
Is a long list of software vendors acceptable in the external links section? Requesting input from other editors since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finite-difference_time-domain_method&diff=527944675&oldid=527909001 the list] has been restored. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
I agree that the list violates the [[WP:NOTDIR]] policy. But I am personally not bothered by a long list at the end; it doesn't really interrupt the flow of the article. It is a list of FDTD software packages; the best solution may be to put the list into its own page and refer to it in the [[Finite-difference time-___domain method#See Also|See Also]] section. For example, the long [[List of finite element software packages]] is separate from the [[Finite element method]] page. A separate list page would allow the development of descriptions and comparisons of the packages, which could be invaluable to those who want to implement FDTD methods. [[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 13:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:How would you propose to reference such an article? References to the packages themselves do not really count as [[WP:RS]]. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
:: In the [[List of finite element software packages]], most software packages reference their own Wikipedia articles; at present there is one with just an external reference. [[List of numerical analysis software]] is the same way, with more external references. Wikipedia articles are not necessarily reliable sources, but people seem OK with citing them in these lists. Vendors/projects can generally be relied upon to provide accurate technical specifications about their own software, it is just that they are not neutral. Perhaps they fall under [[WP:SELFSOURCE]] category of reliable sources? I haven't looked at the status of the FDTD packages to see if they have reliable secondary sources available or Wikipedia articles. [[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:::What I object to here is the unqualified inclusion of all and sundry. If there were RS doing comparisons of packages that could be included (whether in the main article or a separate list article is irrelevant) but a list of EL without ''independent'' RS is not really acceptable. Comparisons with other articles does not really cut it either per [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. There is a place for article comparison to achieve consistency of style, but for establishing policy it is worthless: there must be millions of pages on Wikipedia that breach policy and guidelines in some way or another. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
:::: Ah, I was simply suggesting a solution to an ungainly large software list that is the conventional solution to such problems at Wikipedia; there are many more lists of software pages and comparison of software pages than the two examples I gave. There are enough articles that are lists of software on Wikipedia that it ''is'' a convention and the warning against comparisons to arbitrary pages in [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] doesn't really apply. Regarding external links not being cited by reliable independent sources, that is just about all of them at Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the external links here fall under [[WP:ELMAYBE]]: the links may not be reliable sources themselves, but they still have useful information about FDTD modeling capabilities of their own software. [[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 18:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::I am not saying that EL should be reliably sourced, I am saying that EL should not be used as a substitute for a properly sourced list. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
:'''Comment''' I am not inclined to suggest that I am much bothered. Both sides have merit, and my sympathies are mainly with MV, but I must say that if anyone raised formal objections to the list, it would be hard to sustain support for retaining it. Possibly pruning it to a list of "notable" packages or something?... Dunno. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
'''Split''' I would start by splitting the list off to [[List of FDTD software]]. That seems to have worked well for [[List of numerical analysis software]] and [[List of PTP implementations]], for instance. If that's not a fully acceptable solution you can then nominate the new article for deletion and debate it there. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
* '''Split''' to [[List of finite-difference time-___domain software]] as proposed above by Kvng, keeping only ones with sourcing. (I'm uninvolved, called by RFC bot) --[[User:Cyclopia|<
::For the record, RFC bot brought me here too. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 104 ⟶ 106:
:::Despite the verbiage, I am uninvolved with the FDTD article and came via RfC as well. [[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 14:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. As EL, all the entries are already referenced to themselves, but currently, there are no ''independent'' sources discussing or comparing them. As it stands, I would be inclined to AfD such a list article were it to be created. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
::We're not speaking of cut-and-paste the list as it is; it should be referenced to third party sources etc. --[[User:Cyclopia|<
:::Do you have a source(s) that a list could be be based on? '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
:There are probably hundreds of lists on WP that are not collectively cited (there are three referred to in this discussion above). If you don't believe such lists should exist on WP, that's a larger issue that needs to be taken up elsewhere. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 17:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
:: The list as it stands now does not belong. A list that consists of links to articles about the packages would be ok (but if too long should be its own article). Most of the linked software would not merit its own article at present, as not being notable enough. [the result is a list that isn't really useful to anyone except the target sites.] I recommend starting a page similar to [[List of numerical analysis software]], and including one or two canonical examples as external links (say, to the largest open source projects, or to a third-party site that reviews and compares such software). <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<
::: Oh, and I <3 RFC-bot, which brought me also. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<
::Is it not very simple to understand in accordance to [[Wikipedia:External links]] as it states "Some external links are welcome (see [[#What can normally be linked|What can normally be linked]], below), but it is [[WP:NOT#LINK|not]] Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." I have removed many long lists of external links from hundreds of articles. That means those must be reverted as what here is being discussed. I think '''[[User:Spinningspark|<
:::I don't think anyone is supporting the external links section as it currently exists. The question is whether to just delete most of it or salvage it some way. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 20:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 119 ⟶ 121:
*'''Trim the list mercilessly'''. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not web directory]]. Wikipedia lists are ususllay lists of wikipedia articles. Lists of software of unknown notability is not an option. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 17:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
* So... splitting didn't work, since there were too many redlinks. The list was deleted. Restoring just the major tools, in narrative form rather than as external links. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<
{{archivebottom}}
Line 158 ⟶ 160:
Reading through this article, there is too much Frederick Moxley. There are three mentions of him in the section about important historical developments in fdtd(along with people like Yee and von Neumann), and the article ends with his "suggestion" to do other things with fdtd. Compared to someone like Taflove, who appears to be a major player, Moxley appears to have a minor academic record and not many citations for fdtd work. <ref>https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bH0FvSAAAAAJ&hl=en</ref> I suspect this is a case of self-promotion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.149.87.38|128.149.87.38]] ([[User talk:128.149.87.38#top|talk]]) 09:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're right, there have been a series of single purpose accounts who have done nothing but add mentions of Moxley on various articles, including this one. I've cleaned it up. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 02:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== "Popularity" vs "advantages" ==
It seems to me that the points demonstrating the "popularity" for FDTD and the "advantages" of the method, are, for all practical purposes, the same. The method is popular because of its advantages, after all. I suggest we merge this list into just one place. [[User:אקעגן|אקעגן]] ([[User talk:אקעגן|talk]]) 03:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||