Talk:SolidWorks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Industrial design (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

September 2005 to July 2006[edit]

Reads very much like an ad to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.186.4 (talkcontribs) 11:39, September 3, 2005

I'm with you, and added the npov code. The top section on pricing and unnamed 2D competitors is the main problem. --Belltower

This page has an ongoing problem with anon. users adding thinly veiled advertising and linkspam. Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information provides the framework for writing articles about corporations. Cacophony 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the Template:Advertisement due to ongoing problems. Cacophony 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats because it is an ad, having some experience of dealing with the company (today) their web page is so incompetent that its unusable. I would have complained directly but the complaints page was broken too. They are living in the 90's so they assume that free (standard) email addresses are not trustworthy, instead I assume they want me to use and pay for an ancient wheezy primitive virus ridden POP mail address. - You are about one of about 5 sites on the whole internet that demand this, come on SolidWorks its a worse faux pas than making your site Explorer only (Explorer is a toy designed for those who know or care nothing about computers and who don't care about being virused - rather like those who use POP mail actually). - As everyone else knows POP mail is actually less secure than web based email because it is non portable and easily hacked. Lucien86 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Legality of images[edit]

Can screenshots of copyrighted software be released under the GFDL? — Omegatron 18:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anything be written in this comment since it is being written using copyrighted software? -unsigned comment by 24.7.241.33 05:43, June 10, 2006

Copyright notice required?[edit]

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedia article? Alex 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it actually discusses the software, it's capabilities and uses. -unsigned comment by 24.7.241.33 05:43, June 10, 2006
Please refer to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for information regarding copyrights. Wikipedia:Fair use also covers what is appropriate for inclusion under U.S. copyright law (Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida and are governed by U.S. law). The articles about more popular programs serves as a good guideline as well (read Google Earth, Adobe Acrobat, Macromedia Flash, Microsoft Windows, etc.). These articles do not place copyright notices within the article. Cacophony 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As this entire entry is essentially a sales brochure for the product, I figure they don't have much of an issue with the screenshots being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.74.32 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image quality[edit]

Great example why not to use JPG. --BjKa 07:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Practical considerations[edit]

tagged with wikify, cleanup (unencyclopedic, lots of misspellings, useful info could be incorporated into rest of article) -memodude 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of the many misspellings you object to unless you are finding fault with a particular usage of localised English. The item was written specifically to augment the previous content with important detail not specific to the existing headings.It follows loosely what appears as 'criticism' on other wiki pages but is not intended to be such. It endeavours to represent a fuller picture than that previously presented of the software than by lising of its components and in respect of CAD software in general.--219.89.139.186 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)BTW I use this software daily so I know - it is not malicious

It reads more like a blog posting or something you would find on a personal web page rather then an encyclopedia entry. I think you should have a read about a few of the key points such as the five pillars, manual of style, no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. All of which can be found under Policies and guidelines. I'm sure your obvious knowledge of the package can be helpful in developing the article, but it needs to be in line with wikipedia policy. In its current form the practical considerations section of the article isn't suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. skyskraper 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reader, I very much valued the balanced opinion in the original Practical Considerations section, despite the possibly "unencyclopedic" format I would propose to keep it in for the moment.

This entire section is inappropriate and violates the neutal unbaised approach required by Wikipedia rules. If the author's point is to educate about all CAD systems, then he/she must prove this by adding similar sections to the Wikipedia pages for all the other major CAD software packages - Unigraphics, CATIA, AutoCAD, Solid Edge, etc. Otherwise, this is clearly a blog and a personal rant and needs to be deleted from this page. Contributer150 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply: I need not of course spend my life adding similar statements about other CAD systems to the other wiki entries to justify or prove anything.It is constructively mischievous and absurd to suggest so.Although it was not strictly in the format prescribed it was neither a blog nor a rant and I take strong exception to that statement. In returning I find the page has been completely revised of all the factual and truthful information I imparted which leads me to wonder if this page is not subject to commercial influence or in fact that the contributors to this page are exploiting it for the purpose of covert advertising or at least editing out what they consider unflattering information for their own reasons.I will consider reinstating my entry in a more compliant format soon. Unfortunately this whole page seems to subject to ongoing inappropriate interference from vested interests and readers should be wary of the apparently selective editing imparted to it. 219.89.151.224 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the way this article is set up. I really doesn't feel informative in a way that neutrally describes Solidworks. Also, of what value is revision history?Fcsuper 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having used SolidWorks since 1996, I am somewhat disappointed in the presentation of the product SolidWorks, the original SolidWorks company and the current owner Dassault Systèmes.

Our company used SolidWorks and CATIA (the latter since 1993). Some of the attributes of the current software are results of our direct requests to SolidWorks in the late 1990's. The acquisition by Dassault Systèmes in 1997 was (albeit covert) for the primary purpose of exploiting the knowledge to enhance their fledgling CATIA V5 (some SolidWorks program features were nearly identical to those in early CATIA V5). At that time, DS allowed SW to carry on with business as usual before gradually integrating SW into their corporate image over several years. DS made it clear at the beginning that it's "high-end" CATIA was still it's primary focus while SW would remain a "mainstream" product in the successful niche that SW itself had created. During the time I worked with SolidWorks (the company) in the 1990's, their ambitions were made clear by attempts to capture AutoCAD users and those of similar "mainstream" Windows-based 2D and 3D CAD systems.

My point here (before I digress further) is that this writing can be modified to reflect the product and its history in a perspective that will read less like an advertisement and more like a documentary. There is some good descriptive writing, but I believe that the product can be fairly and accurately described in a more interesting encyclopedic manor. Zuschnell (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Dj RAj
aaaaadsfdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.105.195 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Didn't this article contain more images? Where did they all go?--Energman 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

SVG versions of diagrams[edit]

02extrude1.svg

I've just uploaded Image:02extrude1.svg to Commons. Unless anyone thinks I shouldn't, I'll carry on doing the same to the other diagrams here. LittlePete 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pricing[edit]

Like I have been saying in my edit histories, I disaggree with the addition of the pricing section. I don't believe that it is notable and I think the only reason to add it for advertising purposes. Other similar articles on software do not contain sections on pricing ( ArchiCAD, AutoCAD, Pro/ENGINEER, VectorWorks, QCad, Rhinoceros 3D, Poser, Windows Vista, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft FrontPage, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Dreamweaver, Adobe Fireworks, PartitionMagic, Shake, iWork, Final Cut Pro, Apeture just to name a few) Cacophony 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it is notable, and "consumers have the 'right'" to know, it is non-encyclopaedic. Stannered 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe its advertising as its not directing you to go buy the software somewhere, like a particular reseller. I often see posts on forums from people asking how much the software costs so I don't see the harm in placing that infomation on the wiki. While maybe not typical of the old book style encycolpedia (neither is this topic), this type of editable tool lends itself to easily maintain accurate information like price, something book encylcopedias probably avoided due it changing. Like I said, whats the harm in providing information about it, and what's your motive for removing it?SolidGuru 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pricing is notable as time will show that the way CAD software has been marketed to a large extent influences it's penetration into a market. For example, AutoDesk gave away Inventor for years to existing 2D customers to gain market. Pro/Engineer marketed to "high end" customer through direct sales as did UG, Ideas and CATIA. Those markets where the primary developers of the technology in the early days. SolidWorks stuck with the $3,995 price in the US while charging almost double in other countries. Pricing should be in a section called Marketing with discussion on this topic. It could be argued that marketing is the very reason this CAD software is a notable phenomena and ties in with the history noted in the first paragraph. Kellnerp (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a repository of FAQs. Just because something is 100% true and is frequently asked, it does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Although it isn't a paper encyclopaedia, it is an encyclopaedia. Pricing information is unencyclopaedic (and hence should not be included) in the same way that how-to articles are. Stannered 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia: A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. So when does "all aspects of a subject" mean that the price is not relevant information? Actually, encyclopedia entries often mention how much something costs to build like a construction project, is this not the same thing.SolidGuru 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also take a look at Microsoft Office here...it has pricing information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007#Editions_and_pricing SolidGuru 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your dictonary definition of encyclopedia is completely irrelevant to the official policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. But if you want to go that route, please show me where another encyclopedia contains pricing for ANY product. Thank you for pointing out that one of my 18 examples does in fact contain pricing information, I have since removed that as well. Cacophony 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm confused....in one statement...you state that pricing information is "non-encyclodaedic", then later state that the defintion of "Encyclopedia" is irrelevant. Is this a user defined encyclopedia or not? Also, the "indiscriminate collection of information" section leaves a lot to interpretation. It doesn't specially say, "price or cost information for a product should not be included". How are you interpreting it...or rather which section? Just curious, are you a Solidworks user, reseller, or employee? Its difficult to say what the limits of Wikipedia subject information should be. In a book encyclopedia, a subject like Solidworks or probably any software would not be listed as its not significant enough to mention in the limited space of the book. Different here...the rules change.SolidGuru 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I might also point out that the entry for Photoshop here 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop' has some pricing information as well. I suppose you will remove that as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SolidGuru (talkcontribs) 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Why do you care so much that this article includes pricing? I don't think it should for the same reason that Wikipedia does not contain the prices for other products. It does not exist to sell things. Cacophony 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why include information like what add-ins are included in each bundle or even what the bundles are? I thought it simply relevant information to the topic. There's a first time for everything. Some might say that many of the topics on Wikipedia have never appeared in an Encyclopedia before. If you use that as a reason not to include it, then nothing new should ever be added. I'm just not sure how you draw the line..... Price, Versions, Add-ins? If no other software lists their add-ins or versions, does that mean its not relevant here? Listing the price is simple there for information, there's nothing there about selling it or even where to buy it. If I listed links to go buy it somewhere, I could see that as advertising.SolidGuru 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I may not have any other edits for my account but thats simply cause I'm new to wikipedia....I've made minor edits to stuff before with no account. I use this software quite often......but I'm not here to sell it. People who do sell the software don't typically want the price listed anywhere for much the same reason car salesman or real estate agents don't list the price of a car or house. They want to get you in front of them so they can try sell you on it. I've made the assumption that you are a reseller of Solidworks and that is your motive for removing the pricing....if I'm mistaken, then I apologize.SolidGuru 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "low cost" from the article. Yep, this article sure is written like an ad: the claim that the software is "low cost" is completely absurd, given that it costs more than the combined cost of the hardware and software it runs on!!! Even if it costs less than its competitors, it's still insanely expensive as far as software goes. Zaphraud (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Again, such discussion should be put in a section on how the software was marketed which is pertinent in any encyclopedic discussion of a popular product. A marketing discussion would include pricing structure in various markets, penetration into the educational realm, use of the market to drive the design of the software, use of resellers/direct sales, etc. The appropriate section would be Marketing or Historical Marketing. Kellnerp (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact is that "low cost" is not as appropriate as a description now as it once was. In the context of creating a perception of "low cost" the term would be much more appropriate. Originally there was one version of the software, what would now be called "Standard" and this still sells for the original price. Customers are asked to pay up to $13,000 for the highest end version of the software that includes all the bells and whistles with the commensurately higher maintenance fees. Kellnerp (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New SolidWorks 2007 screenshots[edit]

I've added screenshots of SolidWorks 2007 replacing the old JPEG and SVG ones by request of atropos235.

lfdgonzalez 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solidworks 2008 Vista C.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Solidworks 2008 Vista C.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solidworks 2008 Vista C.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Solidworks 2008 Vista C.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Product naming conventions[edit]

The naming of our FEA and PDM applications changed last year. COSMOS was universally replaced with "SolidWorks Simulation" and PDMWorks is now SolidWorks Enterprise PDM and SolidWorks PDM Workgroup. Can someone please update the product names on the entry when possible? Also, the name of the company is now officially "Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp."

Thanks,

Matthew West / SolidWorks

Mattatsolidworks (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I made these edits myself, but did not change any actual content. I only updated the company name and product naming conventions. Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns.

Matthew West / SolidWorks Mattatsolidworks (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the name of the corp article, and added a few redirects for common spelling variations. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in traipsing through the edit history to see what's what, but this article reads like an advertisement (and a bad one at that...). It seriously needs to be pruned. Also, Mattatsolidworks, I'm not going to be a Wikidouche and throw some stupid WP:bullshit in your face, but should you really be editing Wikipedia articles relating to your employer? Thanks for being upfront and all of course. 70.95.252.87 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I spoke privately with one of the page editors before making any changes. Since all I did was doing was correcting the product names, and not making any actual content changes, he felt that there was no conflict of interest. Even so, I thought it prudent to explain what I was doing.

On that note, I also corrected the core product name just now. The packages names were changed over a year ago to "SolidWorks Standard" "SolidWorks Professional" and "SolidWorks Premium." The "Office" thing was removed. Mattatsolidworks (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Matt, don't worry about it. You have been open about your connections (thank you) and what you are doing. I agree that the article reads somewhat like an ad, but that's not your fault. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I find it hard to believe that the notability of this article can be seriously in question. According to the article itself, the software has an established user base of 750,000 users and has sold over 1 million licenses. This particular CAD program is growing in popularity compared to Pro/E and Autodesk software. Does anyone seriously debate the notability for this article? I can find references if need be, as there are likely hundreds of academic journal entries and market share analysis out there, but I would only bother if someone posts stating that they actually think this needs to be done. It seems to me that the tag was added as some sort of bad faith POV edit.

I will wait a few days before removing that particular tag from the top of the page. Regards, CoolMike (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just a matter of getting the notability properly sourced per WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Notability (Organizations & companies), The notes section: "Examples: Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it." Extending this from Microsoft word to Solidworks is not a stretch. Here is a link to a book, sold at Borders, about the solidworks program: [Solidworks for dummies]. There are at least a half dozen other books available as well if you simply search your local book store website for "solidworks". This book was written independantly and published independantly by Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated. Therefore I have established notability for this article. I am unable at the moment to work this into the article itself, but I believe I can now safely remove the tag. Note that Wikipedia:Notability is a guide for whether or not a subject gets its own article, not a guide for the content in the article. I leave it up to users with more time and energy to improve this article. I will return to it as soon as time permits. Thanks, CoolMike (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the tag to attract editors to fix it within the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The sources and references tag should take care of that, adding notability is redundant. The fact of the matter is that notability has been shown, and therefor the tag needs to be removed. There is a tag stating that the article needs to add 3rd part sources and references, and this is very true. Can we just bold this more appropriate tag? CoolMike (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
SolidWorks' notability needs to be shown in the article. It needs to be in the lede. Having multiple sources that demonstrate notability would help us structure the rest of the article as well. --Ronz (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the notability tag with a custom one. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a much more appropriate tag. CoolMike (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the article to be a useful "first go-to" in order to locate more facts about the software rapidly, so I would say that it is definitely notable. Also, yeah it has some issues with being written like an ad. We need more users to edit the article down, unfortunately I'm not yet familiar enough with the software to do so. Zaphraud (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

removing brochure text[edit]

I'm being WP:BOLD and removing huge sections of text that make this article read like a product brochure. Please discuss here before considering restoring the info. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good approach to improving the article given the how poorly the article is supported by independent, reliable sources. Further trimming is appropriate if references aren't forthcoming. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

why you delete the site We should not say it name[edit]

why you delete it from external link it is about subject of solidwoks ?????????? 217.52.178.38 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons given on your talk page, for which you were blocked. Continue to spam it as you did when you added it to this discussion, and you'll be blocked again, for a longer period of time. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong info regarding sales[edit]

We've sold over 1 million licenses of software, not 8 million. As nice as that would be, it's just not the case. Someone should probably fix that at some point.

Matt / SolidWorks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattatsolidworks (talkcontribs) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but there is a blatantly wrong paragraph in the Solidworks article.[edit]

This paragraph should be removed:

"SolidWorks pioneered the ability of a user to roll back through the history of the part in order to make changes, add additional features, or change the sequence in which operations are performed. Later feature-based solid modeling software has copied this idea."

I don't have any outside references at this time other than my memory. PTC pioneered this technology starting in 1985. Solidworks was not even a gleam in anyone's eye until the early '90s.

I'm not entirely sure of the proper etiquette on editing Wiki entries, so I am posting here first.

Garden Herb (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

History section[edit]

The History section of this article is poorly stated and unsourced. Worse yet, it keeps getting changed by an annon editor who is trying to add additional original research. It badly needs attention. First, do we have good sources about SolidWorks history? The source that is referenced by the annon editor doesn't support statements that they are trying to add. That same source also doesn't provide its own sources (it's completely unverifiable collection of unpublished opinion). Second, what information would editors like to see included in the history section? The current paragraph seems short. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal of work involved in documenting the history. The table appears to be correct (as an expert in this area). The table showing the history needs to include the operating systems used. Because the program and the product both bear the same name, some clarification of this point needs to be made. Perhaps two articles, one on the software itself and the other on the company would be in order. Kellnerp (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates needed[edit]

Hi, this is Matthew West at SolidWorks. I've noticed that there are a few things on this page that need to be updated. Is there anyone who can help? For example, there are several products that are not listed, such as SolidWorks Electrical, eDrawings for iPad, and eDrawings Pro for iPad. Also, the logo should (ideally) be updated to the silvery blue one found here http://www.3ds.com/fileadmin/templates/dasty_ds_blogs/img/logo-solidworks.png. Is there anyone willing to help out with this? Mattatsolidworks (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of any one companies software, but a resource of notable articles. So those products will be added when someone makes a case for them being notable. You are welcome to do that, but I think doing it here rather than in the main article could be a good idea to maintain npov. I looked up the logo, and the one on the article matches the one at http://www.solidworks.com/ --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Two notes: capitalization and n!Fuze[edit]

Two quick things FWIW.

1. Per Dassault Systemes branding guidelines, we are now capitalizing SOLIDWORKS in all instances. This regards both the brand name and product names(s). For example, SOLIDWORKS Simulation, SOLIDWORKS Composer, etc.

2. n!Fuze is no longer developed or sold. It is a completely non-existent product at this point.

Matt @ SOLIDWORKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattatsolidworks (talkcontribs) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)