Talk:Sterling (program)

Pre-emptive defence
Since I can see this piece being flagged for deletion, here is a pre-emptive justification. There are already articles on Fractint, Apophysis and UltraFractal. None of those articles cites any references. There is as much justification to have an article on Sterling as on these other programs. Unlike UltraFractal, Sterling2 is freeware. Published books have barely caught up with Fractint, let alone more modern fractal generators. Hence it is very difficult to find reputable references to a program such as Sterling. The idea of citations is to prevent challenges to the content of an article. But what are people going to challenge in this article, that Sterling wasn't written by Ferguson, or that there are 30, not 50 formulas? Soler97 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only fractal generator that is mentioned in printed publications is fractint, an obsolete program. Hence I propose the following criterion for notability for fractal generators. If we enter the string "fractal program" in Google and a program is mentioned on one of the items on the first page of hits then it is "notable".

Name
Is the name of this program derived from Mandlebrot being the Sterling Professor in 1999? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Julia

 * It draws in Julia mode

needs to be Wikified to clarify the meaning of "Julia". Perhaps Julia (programming language)??? —DIV (1.145.91.247 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC))  Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects;  support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile'' edits when accessed from designated IP ranges. ''