Jump to content

Talk:Ansys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueRoses13 (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 18 March 2023 (Reply to LizardJr8). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Potential conflict of interest by User:Fmhensle

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

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)[reply]

Ansys → ANSYS – The official spelling is uppercase. Please move page. Medina20 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2018

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)[reply]

Ansys → ANSYS – 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.[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ariadacapo and BarrelProof: Pinging current participants. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose – No suitable basis is given for allcaps on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.

Ansys page edits and updates

I am the Content Marketing Manager at Ansys. I would like to share some proposed edits indicated in bold (for additions) and strikeout (for trims) here for review by an independent editor. These changes:

  • Move all of the acquisitions from throughout the page into a table (this change is not indicated with bold or trims)
  • Clarify descriptions of our software that only really described our flagship product.
  • Provides other updates and copyedits, such as adding our latest release.

Pinging @Creffett:, who reached out to me earlier RE COI and seemed like they might be willing to help. Rwilkin1124 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50 workplaces for innovators

Hoping to get your feedback on if this is appropriate to add.

In 2019, Ansys was ranked by Fast Company as a Top 50 workplace for innovators.[1]

Rwilkin1124 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The 50 best workplaces for innovators". Fast Company. August 5, 2019. Retrieved January 1, 2020.

By their very nature, industry-specific recognitions such as this can be subjective in that they represent a very specific point of view: that of the organization which determines who wins the recognition, and why. To counter this, many editors limit the listing of recognitions to only those which are independently notable in Wikipedia.[a] This request for the notability of a recognition is not due to WP:N (which is not a content requirement). The request for notability in those cases is to ensure a WP:NPOV. Regards,  Spintendo  16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to Ansys Wikipedia page

Hi. I work in marketing at Ansys. I've been asked to propose some changes to our page that would focus more on recent events and history and less on dated, historical information. The changes I'd like to request are shown here with additions in bold and deleted content in strikeout. These changes would:

  • Add a Corporate Social Responsibility section
  • Remove the excessively detailed product history
  • Add more Recent history such as being named a "winning" company for female representation on the board
  • Rework the introduction to better explain how Ansys software is used and highlight some of the bigger acquisitions
  • Different section names
  • Other changes

If you have any questions or if there is anything I can help with, please let me know. Rwilkin1124 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: your proposed changes are too promotional. For example: your proposed lead, that engineers, delivers and supports engineering simulation software used to predict how products will behave... sounds more like a press-release than a neutral encyclopedia entry; you want to remove the history section, but you don't explain why; and the "Corporate Social Responsibility" section is unsourced, and again, sounds more like a press-release. However, I would like to thank you for making this request through the correct procedure, and declaring your conflict of interest! But I would suggest you make a few, smaller proposals that are well-sourced, and you explain why you think each change should be made, for example, in the format of: "In section X, change Y to Z, and here is the source:[1] - this is because Z is more up-to-date than Y." If you need any more help, check the links on your user talk page, look at this page, or visit the help desk. Seagull123 Φ 14:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LS-Dyna was not a original ANSYS product

In 1996, Ansys released the DesignSpace structural analysis software, the LS-DYNA crash and drop test simulation product, and the Ansys Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulator.

In 1996 LS-Dyna was a LSTC product and LSTC was aquired by ANSYS in 2019. (see https://www.ansys.com/de-de/news-center/press-releases/09-11-19-ansys-and-ls-dyna-sign-definitive-acquisition-agreement ) Thus in 1996 it was not an ANSYS product and this sentence is suggestive that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:1704:5400:4F33:88F:21A:D52A (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reference number 2


"Ansys opens new markets with user-friendly software". Associated Press. May 16, 2017. Retrieved June 10, 2017.


leads me to "Page not found" on readingeagle.com Jeffwack111 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue-Weight Edits From a Single-Purpose Account?

On March 6, 2023, NasSake made significant changes to Ansys's page. In their edit notes, NasSake wrote, “Updated info, fixed cite web errors.”

This is misleading. The edits don't “update” info, nor do they fix the “cite-web” error. Let me explain:

It appears that NasSake may be a single-purpose account, who made a few cosmetic changes (moving text from one section to another) in order to camouflage an ulterior motive: To add a paragraph of esoteric material. What’s more, NasSake then gave this material undue weight by adding it to the lead section. Finally, instead of fixing cite web errors (actually, one single error), NasSake miscredited the author.

I elaborate on these issues below.

I'm therefore requesting, on behalf of Ansys, which has hired me (a COI I’ve fully disclosed), that NasSake's edit be reverted. Please let me know if I can provide anything additional. Thank you for your consideration.

P.S. I'm tagging User:Ptrnext and User:LizardJr8 in light of their recent contributions to Ansys's page.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Single-Purpose Account

The NasSake account was created on March 6, 2023. Since then, the only edit this user has made is the big one (+1,522 bytes) to Ansys’s page.

What’s more, the detailed level of NasSake’s edits — for example, for the two sentences he added, he supplied four footnotes and four internal links — suggest that this is not a new user, but an experienced one, perhaps with an agenda.

2. Cite-Web Error

The only cite-web error that NasSake worked on lies within footnote 15. The original footnote said the author was “Reuters Editorial.” NasSake changed this to “Ed Team.” In fact, the author is neither. As stated clearly at the top of the page, it’s Sayantani Ghosh.

3. Undue Weight

Here’s the paragraph that NasSake added: 

In November 2020, South China Morning Post reported that Ansys software had been used for Chinese military research in the development of hypersonic missile technology.[1] In October 2022, Washington Post reviewed procurement documents and confirmed that Ansys technology had been acquired by seven Chinese entities present on either the export blacklist or with known links to Chinese missile technology.[2][3][4]

Two of the four sources here (TradeCompliance.io and the Asia Times) recycle the reporting from one of the other sources (the Washington Post). Indeed, the TradeCompliance article starts by saying, “The Washington Post today published...,” while the Asia Times piece says, “The Washington Post reported this week…”

In other words: The reporting here comes from two sources; of the media coverage that Ansys has drawn, the China story doesn’t rank highly.

Put another way: The allegations don’t seem to warrant inclusion in the all-important lead section. Indeed, to include them in the lead triggers the “prominence of placement” problem that WP:RSUW prohibits.

Furthermore, it seems prejudicial to say that the “Washington Post reviewed procurement documents and confirmed.” By contrast, a neutral point of view might say the “Post reported.”

Finally, Ansys has denied these allegations. Here’s the key passage from the Post article: “In a statement to The Post, Ansys said it and its subsidiaries ‘have no records of the indicated sales or shipments of our software products to, nor have we authorized the end-use by, the National University of Defense Technology, Luoyang Air to Air Missile Research group, or the Beijing Institute of Technology.’”

  1. ^ "US software fuels China's military research, despite Washington ban". South China Morning Post. 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
  2. ^ "American technology boosts China's hypersonic missile program". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
  3. ^ Honrada, Gabriel (2022-10-19). "US software gives China its hypersonic edge". Asia Times. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
  4. ^ "Addressing Gaps in US Export Controls Related to China | TradeCompliance.io". www.tradecompliance.io. Retrieved 2023-03-05.

BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the content completely, just relocated to history and removed the redundant Asia Times source. I agree it does not belong in the lede. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LizardJr8, Thanks so much for your speedy response and research — much appreciated. Might I follow-up about a few small things?
1. NasSake's choice of verbs — that the Washington Post “reviewed ... and confirmed” — seems biased. In light of Ansys’s claim to the contrary, “confirmed” is an especially loaded word. Per NPOV, should we say simply that the Post “reported”?
2. In light of the (important) sentence that LizardJr8 added about piracy, might we also add the other part of Ansys’s response (as quoted in the Post): That Ansys and its subsidiaries “have no records of the indicated sales or shipments”? I defer to you on whether it’s better to quote or paraphrase, but I think Wikipedia’s readers should know that Ansys is on record denying a role in these events.
3. The wording of that new sentence from LizardJr8 — “Ansys representatives indicated software piracy was possibly involved, although resellers may have in fact sold the software to the questioned entities” — may lead readers to believe that Ansys said resellers may have sold the software. In fact, this inference comes from the Post, not Ansys. Accordingly, what do you think about tweaking this:
"Ansys representatives indicated software piracy was possibly involved, although resellers may have in fact sold the software to the questioned entities."
to this:
"Ansys representatives indicated software piracy was possibly involved; the Post indicated that resellers may have in fact sold the software to the questioned entities."
Thanks again for your judgment and for volunteering your time.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ansys&oldid=1145330408"