Talk:Comparison of EM simulation software

Untitled
The title of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM_simulation_software, is EM Simulation Software. However, every technical definition of simulation involves time, and I don't think any of these programs involve time. The programs will allow one to calculate expected performance of antennas, other EM devices by mathematically modeling the device and using EM tools and computers. But none of this involves time. Brunnegd (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

From trurle: fix of page
Some of EM simulators do include time, i.e. FDTD algorithms. Some others are not (frequency-domain simulators). Frequency is the reciprocal of time, so technically the simulation results in time and frequency domains are interchangeable. The page has become obscure and devoid of FDTD simulators after The Banner user has arbitrarily deleted many entries. I has reverted his edits, so it must be fine now.
 * What I removed, was exactly conform Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Read that guideline first before continuing please! The Banner talk 06:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability of this page
This article is not a reliable source of information. First of all it is more an overview than a comparison. Whether or not the listed properties of the softwares are relevant for a system/software decision is questionable. Secondly, the continous editing work of The Banner has stripped it from many relevant offers in this area, so that, as a result, the list has became biased and has actually adopted a more dramatic "advertising" flavour than ever before. I do work for one of those left out companies and have a quite decent overview over the relevant players in this market. The persistence of The Banner in editing this article makes me believe that further edits to this article from others are pointless. Therefore i would like to ask for a deletion of this article Martin Timm (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try to blame me for the state of this article. Unfortunately, the problem is the lack of articles to list. Write an article about a certain package of EM simulation software and I will not touch it. So the issue is just: Write The Article First. As the article is about "notable software packages", red linked articles without article are deemed not notable and will be removed. The Banner talk 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, i guess what i said is that you have turned a rather extensive, debatably useful article, into a biased one. As a result Wikipedia does not maintain a neutral point of view in a commercial environment. Even if we assume that, if an article is in Wikipedia, it also notable, the conclusion that if it is not in Wikipedia it is not notable is false. If you want to maintain your approach i think you should rename this article to ″List of EM simulation softwares to which Wikipedia can currently offer articles" Martin Timm (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Just write the articles before dumping them in the list! As in stated in the relevant policy about lists: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'write an article'. I submitted Ansys as a supplier of EM software, as they are used extensively. Their website is available on the internet, and you can purchase their products, which are not cheap. My engineering work deals with e-machines, and we are currently looking at electromagnetic phenomena. My dissertation was specifically on the design of e-machines (electric motors and generators), so I'm not unfamiliar with this topic.
 * So why should I have to write an article on a company which has software that other companies are using? The entire list has only three references, all of which point only to JCMsuite. None of these references are more current than 2013. Re34646 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a common requirement for proving notability in lists. So I have revert your removal of the requirement. The Banner  talk 09:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is a common requirement. See the following, from Wikipedia's page on what notability is not.
 * ____________________________________
 * Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics.
 * ___________________________________
 * The information must be verifiable. However, it does not have to be verifiable based on an article on Wikipedia. There is a lot of information on a lot of EM simulation programs available, much of which is not on Wikipedia. Re34646 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a common selection criterion to prevent spamming. And the solution is simple: Write The Article First]. [[User:The Banner| The Banner talk 22:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having related information on the internet or in a book is a common selection criteria. Requiring that the program be referenced in its own Wikipedia article is not an accepted Wikipedia definition of notability. Re34646 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WTAF refers to writing an article on Wikipedia before using the link to an unwritten article. This keeps links from being created for articles which do not exist. Re34646 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You should have read WP:CSC. And it might also be a good idea that you look up what edit warring actually is. The Banner  talk 01:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edits
Hello. As a WP:COI (I'm an employee of the company that produces CST Studio Suite), I'm posting this here.


 * Information to be added or removed: Adding one row to the table
 * Explanation of issue: I believe that CST is as notable as some of the products already listed here.


 * References supporting change: Here are some independent reviews of electromagnetic simulation software, to demonstrate notability:

Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging who has taken good care of this article in the past, to garner their input.  Spintendo   16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The essence of this list is that the programs must have their own article. But the link Computer Simulation Technology (CST Studio Suite) brings you to Dassault Systèmes, conform the latest nomination for deletion: Articles for deletion/Computer Simulation Technology (2nd nomination). So the article is removed in 2011 and 2016, why should that article be notable in 2018? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Because it has been discussed in multiple independent publications as listed above. These were not brought up in the AFD debates mentioned, so the deletion was based on incomplete evidence - per WP:NOTABILITY, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article," so these sources do assert notability even though they weren't included in the original article text. Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest to write a draft and submit that for review through the "WikiProject Articles for creation"-process. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for your help! All the best. Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After going through Articles for Creation, the content was added to Simulia (company). For the purposes of this list, will that count? Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the answer is no. The package must have its own article, not a section in another article. The fact that an AfC-editor suggested a merge when rejecting your article (Draft:CST Studio Suite), does not count here. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. In that case I'll work on expanding the draft until there it's long enough to justify its own article. (A bit annoying that it was already longer than most of the articles linked here, but it would definitely be better to not fill Wikipedia with more stubs.) Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The way you are now working at it, will turn it into an advertisement... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There are many notable EM simulation tools which are not listed, like: Sonnet, EMX, ADS, EMPRO or CST as mentioned above. The article is not useful and in some sense even misleading if the most used softwares are not listed. The definition of EM simulation software might allow to add many other softwares which nowadays use EM simulation to extend or to supersede conventional parasitic extraction. I know for sure that Mentor Graphics has EM simulator in their xACT tool (probably even in its predecessor PEX) for many years. Cadence also offers now EM simulation in their RF package. Synopsis also offers a tool for parasitic extraction with built-in field solver. Unfortunately I do not have time to add all these in sufficient quality and references. Tzg6sa (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about notable software. That means that the software need its own, neutral and sourced article. So please, write the article first. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would there be a requirement for a software to have a wikipedia page in order to be on the list. The people searching for this page are obviously interested in knowing all the possible software packages, me included. This page is subject to censorship.Erik 17:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikBuer (talk • contribs)
 * Because we are not an advertising medium. What you call censorship, is just an agreed upon cut-off point about what is notable and what is not-notable. Everybody has the right to write a separate article about a software package. And if it survives scrutiny (and shows notability), it can be added. Just plain: write the article first. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

After being confused by this article, I added a clarification explaining that "notable" means that a software package has a wikipedia page. This was quickly removed as being "superfluous". I don't understand why - the general meaning of notable has nothing to do with whether something has a wikipedia page or not. Why not be clear about what the criteria are for inclusion on the list, so that a random visitor will understand what he/she is looking at?

Let's keep this page informative!
Latest additions to this page with several different entries for various configurations of the same software package EMWorks contradict the spirit of Wikipedia. I represent QuickField but sure every package in this list may provide several pages of advertisements instead of one short paragraph. If we go this way - this informative page will become huge and useless. Let's keep our product descriptions short and informative, it is Wikipedia, not advertisement portal! Vp1962 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)