Template talk:3D software

Classification added on 2 June 2014

Hi.

I'd like to discuss the sub-categories added to this navbox on 2 June 2014 in revision #611212559. I believe there are three problems with this addition:

1. Superfluous. 14 items that fit nicely on one line. Not dividing it adds to readability.
2. Wrong and OR. Blender also renders; it is not a purely modeling product. So does OpenFX. PCL (Point Cloud Library) does not. This classification is wrong.
3. Biased. It is seen from open-source POV; against our WP:NPOV policy. In other words, a similar classification cannot be applied to proprietary software due to their vast range of functionality. For example Bryce (software) and ZBrush do not fit into these two (already wrong) categories.

What do you think? Should we revert, edit or keep it?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... The documentation says it all: 3D computer graphics software produces stand-still or animated computer-generated imagery (CGI) through 3D modeling and 3D rendering. User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that. And Blender does both. And Bryce (software) does not do just every 3D modeling. Oh, and there are two other entries as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: And now I added to it: "... or produces 3D models for analytic, scientific and industrial purposes." Because the article also explains a class of computer-aided design as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I second every word of Codename Lisa. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I thought the BRD process says to revert then discuss... I say revert it and let whomever added it come and ask why it was reverted and then discuss it. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave ScotXW a warning about edit warring.[1] If the behavior continues, I will report it at the edit warring noticeboard. ScotXW, please read WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

As for the edit in question, I agree with Codename Lisa. Although there are many exceptions, in general open-source software tends to have more programs, each with less functionality, and proprietary software software tends to have fewer programs, each with more functionality. Neither philosophy is better or worse. The edit by ScotXW in question tends to favor the former, which in my opinion violates NPOV.

Full disclosure: I am a strong advocate of open-source software and hardware, but I do not want Wikipedia to be biased even if the bias happens to agree with my own personal bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't know that much about this template's subject, but I also agree with the setup that Codename Lisa and Guy Macon are proposing. Epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)