Talk:MapleSim

"Flow Diagram" vs "Visually Similar"

I just wanted to ask the user who did this edit if they would consider changing it to something more correct. The edit in question is "(diff) (hist) . . MapleSim‎; 08:46 . . (+5) . . 86.139.226.156 (Talk) (Doesn't look anything like the actual system)". While it may be true that some systems may not be visually similar to the actual system, I would also disagree that all systems look like flow diagrams. Flow diagrams all include a direction between all components, and while this holds true for some signal flow models in MapleSim, when doing physical modeling, such as constructing a DC Motor, you do not need to specify signal flow between components. Could we change the wording here, perhaps to

"Models are created by dragging-and-dropping components from a library into a central workspace, resulting in a model that represents the physical system in a graphical form. "

I used that wording because it is straight from the MapleSim help file. Please let me know what you think. If you aren't around for a week or so, I'll proceed to post the change and we can discuss afterwards. Thanks!

I've gone ahead and made the edit. Let me know if you think it should be changed. Sorry for not signing my above post!Chipp C (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Edit/Creation of the Article "MapleSim"

I am an employee of MapleSoft. Every effort was given to ensure that this article is truthful and free of bias. I would like for someone to perform the edit below, essentially creating the article MapleSim. Due to the nature of how I created this article, the discussion comments on this page are sort of intertwining with my proposed edit/creation. Thank you. Chipp C (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See the Notability section here for discussion about the edit that already has taken place.Chipp C (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Creation of This Article

As an employee of Maplesoft, I have created this article to be free from bias to the best of my efforts. I'd like to keep it that way. Please feel free to contribute to this article without jeopardizing (what I feel is) the NPOV of this article. Also, please feel free to edit the article if you feel it does not maintain a NPOV. Thank you.Chipp C (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns About Notability

It has been suggested that this article may not be notable. Obviously, as an employee of this company, I would disagree. A google search brings up many links to MapleSim, but this is shrouded by a cartoon creation program "MapleSim - home of BannedStory" (or something like that). It is not enough for only me to believe that this article is notable. Please see the references and do a google search or two on the subject. I appreciate any user who takes their time to do this.

Would other users please comment with their opinions, so we can establish some sort of consensus? Thank you.Chipp C (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out articles such as Simulink, which are competing products of the same nature with their own Wikipedia pages.Chipp C (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not as notable as Simulink for sure (just comparing the number of google hits for the two words shows that, albeit crudely) but relative notability isn't the issue, it's an absolute standard.

I found a scientific paper on Maple and some evidence of it's use at my [v alma mater]. And I found a review here, which is a bit more than just a rehash of a press release (I found a lot of press release repeats, too). A review here in German and this looks like news coverage. So I'm tempted to say it's just about notable. MadScot (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think some of those are already referenced in the article, my bad. MadScot (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My question is now - where do we go from here? Should the article be posted and a discussion continue here? Or should we wait until more users have voice their opinion? Thanks. Chipp C (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how not many people visit this discussion page, and also taking into account the fact that this page has been in limbo for over 10 days, I've gone ahead and created the article myself. I feel I've followed Wikipedia's rules by first having a discussion here, and I have had input from independent users stating that they believe the article is notable. The article has now been created and I still invite all users to verify the NPOV and notability and discuss it here. Thank you to everyone who commented in the last two weeks on this article.Chipp C (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)