Talk:Ansys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Potential conflict of interest by User:Fmhensle[edit]

Note that the edits of User:Fmhensle suggest ([1] is the exact duplication of [2] by User:ANSYScom) suggest an editor with a potential convflict of interest and need to be watched carefully. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the ANSYS entry to reflect the current number of employees and the current products. I have NOT suggested anything that would be a conflict of interest. Please restore the edits i just made. Fmhensle (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could cite sources for your edits COI may not be an issue here. After looking at the edits I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV. - EndingPop (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per MOS:TM and Wikipedia:Official names.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


AnsysANSYS – The official spelling is uppercase. Please move page. Medina20 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Lots of companies try to promote all-caps spelling of the names of their products and the name of the company itself – perhaps just to try to make their names stand out as appearing more important. (Sony, for example, usually seems to spell its name as SONY.) Wikipedia does not need to blindly follow those suggestions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Further comment: Please see MOS:TM, and its examples for REALTOR and TIME. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ditto. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Draft[edit]

Hi, I work for ANSYS and see that the current article is a great start. I have a draft here I would like to propose as a replacement for the current article. The current article is not complete or up to date. The proposed draft is attached here.Kelliatansys (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@EndingPop: suggested I break down my request for COI review into smaller pieces that are easier for an editor to review. Therefore, I would like to start by suggesting replacing everything from the Product section and below in the current article, with the proposed Products section in the draft. This is just a few paragraphs of content to look at and I believe would help address the advert tag at the top by removing a list of products and availability info. Kelliatansys (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


AnsysANSYS – ANSYS is always capitalized, including by themselves, the article already reflects that. I can’t move the page because the caps-version already exists. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Note: proposal withdrawn, see below.

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ariadacapo and BarrelProof: Pinging current participants. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No. Please see the previous RM discussion at Talk:Ansys. This suggestion directly contradicts the consensus outcome of that discussion. The all-caps formatting within the article was an undiscussed change made two weeks ago by an anonymous IP address that has no other edit history in the past two years, and I have reverted it. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No suitable basis is given for allcaps on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdraw as proposer. I did not take the time to check the relevant policies and previous discussion. I apologize. I don’t think the move should happen anymore. Thank you for your patient and cordial responses. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.