Talk:Building information modeling

Reorganisation and clarification
I have just done a considerable amount of cutting and pasting, removal of repetition, restructuring, etc. Much remains to be done, though, so - while I have removed the 'confusing' tag, I still think it needs the other headnotes requiring further work and the inputs of others (I am involved with the Wikiproject on Civil Engineering, BTW). Paul W (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn Discussion
There has been an interesting discussion on LinkedIn Group BIM Experts about this articles definition Wikipedia's "BIM" definition: I made plural the words "representation, model and resource" in this definition to reflect (in my mind) more accurately today's BIM processes. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NIST cloud architectures
On 24 July 2012, good faith edits I had made to the above article were reverted without explanation. My edits were, in my view, appropriate as they sought to group mentions of NIST together and also changed the over-use of upper case initial letters and other style issues from the text previously added. Reverting only one edit also meant part of the text (which I had relocated lower down) was repeated verbatim. I think the NIST architecture is worthy of mention but we should try to present this in a coherent way. I have updated the article accordingly, but would welcome the views of other editors on this area. Paul W (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

---Paul W., I am new to contributing on Wikipedia. I tried (too late) to give an explanation to my edit, and right now need to learn the Wiki Interface better (instead of writing here?); Consolidation NIST as you have done was an excellent move. Still, you removed words which I would like to include to define a potential broader audience of BIM Consumers. Perhaps "BIM Consumers" deserves to have its own section. (David Joshua Plager, AIA)
 * No worries. With Wikipedia, it can take time to learn all the tools and etiquette (Wikiquette?). Even old-timers like me still make mistakes - like sending you a message on your user page, rather than your user talk page (so you might like to change your user page and maybe say something about yourself?). BTW, you can sign off on talk pages by using 4 tildes (~). Paul W (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DavidPlager removed the mention of NIST, replacing the paragraph with one referring to his own conjecture (no citation) - which I have flagged. I believe NIST, as an important standards setting body, should still be mentioned. I am also cautious about focusing on US institutions, particularly as other countries, including the UK, are also developing influential approaches. Paul W (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirected from 'BIM'
I wound up here looking for Bord Iascaigh Mhara, so I've added an 'other uses' to the top. Restoring the redirect to a disambiguation would be preferable, from my point of view, but I'm just an anonymous editor; what do I know. 143.239.9.1 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

History of BIM
I have removed a section of text:


 * According to him and others  the first implementation of BIM was under the "Virtual Building" concept by Graphisoft's ArchiCAD, in its debut in 1987.

I removed this and pasted it here for discussion. In my view, the editor (possible Graphisoft COI?) is trying to reassert a Graphisoft position that is not borne out by a detailed reading of the sources (at least the ones that I can view). One of the Laiserin sources is one already cited, and does not make the assertion stated. Paul W (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A similar addition was made to the ArchiCAD article (see also discussion on that article's talk page), and reviewed the citations in detail. Paul W (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

BIM in Canada
I have twice added the template to the final paragraph (regarding the Canada BIM Council), only for another user to remove it. Also, the final section is unrelated to the article content (BIM) - it relates to litigation regarding a named individual, but without citing a verifiable source. I feel this should be removed. Paul W (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral language / no independent sources
I have reverted the recent addition of IBIMA with promotional language and no independent sources or other evidence of significance in the "India" section (and another unclear self-sourced entry about BIMe too). The referenced website is a personal one-man-project and blog with a total of 700 Google hits, none of which leads to any independent reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only for "India". This whole information is promotional motivated and constructed on a strict business-related private network of small cells of interest holders, often organized arround architect or construction related universities (and there specially selected professors and "representatives") That way of lobbing is the today way of embedded marketing 'at the source of thinking'.

--Cosy-ch (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan details
I have removed this information (for now) until an independent reliable source can be provided to establish the organization's encyclopedic relevance. As mentioned above, articles should not be misused to name-drop unsourced mentions of minor or self-styled marketing organizations, unless the relevance of such details can be clearly shown by independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleting self-references and vague original research
I have removed some of the possible WP:SELFCITE problems, that provided almost no substantial factual information for the topic. The article should not be (mis)used to present new theories or recent personal research, but established knowledge from reputed publications that have already been sufficiently discussed by academics and other experts. Similarly unsuitable are most speculative additions, unless they meet the requirements of WP:CRYSTALBALL (i.e. credible widely-discussed research by reputed experts). GermanJoe (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with those deletions; the article could even benefit from more cleanup. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

BIM in Green Building
I have added the subject about BIM in Green Building. I think this is lack information at this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinchia0617 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See above for the general concerns about this kind of information and source, which also apply to this specific case. Basically it's a tangential secondary detail, and a citation to a research article from a PhD student in a minor online journal doesn't really indicate a significant established aspect within the broader topic. The article is supposed to offer a succinct overview of the most significant facts published by acknowledged experts in reputed publications, not include every "new trend" and minor use case or theory. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of research articles, conference papers, speeches, theses and essays about any given topic. Including all these secondary publications is neither possible nor desirable. GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would add more information about BIM in green building because "green building" is a general concept represent a sustainable issue. This is different with other usage of the process in "water, refuse, electricity...", which are more specific. Although, it still has been improved, many designers have used this tool to analyze environmental performance of buildings for many years. Or maybe I should put this section to "Anticipated future potential" section? Although I think this is not anticipate future, it is a nowadays tool. Erinchia0617 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The quality of your edits is improving, though slowly. Please pay attention to grammar: almost every sentence needs fixing. Please make content additions to the article only, adding them simultaneously to the talk page only adds clutter. Please describe your changes in the edit summary. Please do not mark non-trivial edits as minor. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the gbXML stuff in the future potential section should be moved to this section. gbXML exactly represents the BIM in green building. Is there anybody can help me with this? My edit on this has always been deleted by MrOllie. Thanks much. Ruijis (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of BIM software (again) - Suggestion
This was discussed a few years ago (archived) including a point about what exactly constitutes BIM software. BIM, as a process, encompasses a wide range of activities and types of data (common tools such as Excel and web-browsers, for example, might be used in BIM, plus scheduling tools [4D] and estimating and cost management tools [5D]). The listing of software was eventually removed. Given that the current article includes a template that presents a listing of current and past BIM software (mostly concerned with model authoring), perhaps this section should again be removed? Paul W (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

5D and 6D BIM
Merging of articles on 4D, 5D and 6D BIM included a lot of "commented out" sources, with a note about their potential use for future article expansion. The 4D ones are now incorporated in the article, the 5D and 6D content is hidden below. Paul W (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5D




 * 6D



BIM: Further reading
I have been considering the "Further reading" section (having read Further reading and Layout).

Some of the suggested titles now seem outdated; more recent works are not cited (processes, technologies and international standards have advanced since 2014 - the latest in the list); some listings may have been added by authors or publishers; and the order of the list might be better as chronological not alphabetical.

For now, I propose to sort the list into reverse chronological order (most recent at the top), then to begin reviewing some of the works. If other editors want to help out with suggestions, that would be helpful. Paul W (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added Eastman et al (2011, 2nd ed) to the listing. Paul W (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Industrial design?
Does this article belong in wikiproject Industrial design? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)