Talk:AutoCAD/Archive 1

External links

I just deleted a bunch of external links. Some were obvious spam, some just didn't really have any real relevance to the article. See User:DragonHawk/External_links for my rationale. If you feel I deleted a useful link, please feel free to put it back, but I ask that you please also add some commentary here as to why you feel the link belongs in the article. --DragonHawk 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this line:

Free AutoCAD tutorials|Tips and Help - Improve your AutoCAD with this free site by Clayton - Site consists of dozens of "Ads by Google" links and no information whatsoever. Spammer may of have squatted domain.

The links were simply linked to Autodesk website, which you can get just by searching the site yourself. - CobaltBlueTony 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD LT

Where it says 3D modeling isn't possible is wrong. I'm using 2006 LT right now and I have a 3D model I just made. I should note that the 3D capabilities are VERY limited but there is still a small amount of 3D modeling available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.209.16 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this story about AutoCAD LT meaning "AutoCAD Laptop" come from? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it means "Latest Technology"

According to whom? It certainly wasn't any "latest technology"; AutoCAD LT consisted of the main AutoCAD codestream, with lots of parts commented out. From what I can tell, the name "LT" preceded any meaning assigned to the letters. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to AutoDESK. I used to work for a dealer and when LT first came out I was attending "CAD CAMP" in San Rafael and was told on many ocassions that we were not to refere to LT as "LITE". It meant "Latest Technology". And in the beginning of the LT development there were several commands that were not implemented into the flagship AutoCAD product. Remember, back then the products were not on a development cycle that we have today (every spring we get a new release).

Well, we'll need better documentation of that. I've asked one of my colleagues from Autodesk (the one who actually deprogrammed LT) for his recollection. I seem to recall that the "Latest Technology" was something of a hoax to give the name some meaning, rather than "just a name" -- becuase it really DID mean "light", because that's what it was. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into an argument with you here, but there were several commands that were in the LT version before they were in AutoCAD (full version). ie: Match Properties, Entity Linetype Scaling, etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore I don't believe that Richard Cunneo (the president at the time) would perpetuate a hoax in his own company and to his emense dealership network.

It is very common for software company marketing departments to engage in this kind of revisionist naming/spin control, especially if they can't get the engineering department to change the naming/version numbers/whatever due to deadlines or other technical concerns. -Ehheh 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneo wasn't president. He was senior vice president of sales. And yes, there were sometimes AutoCAD features that got released in LT because the release cycles were staggered (mostly to take the load off the QA department.) Anyway, Duff Kurland will advise me on the nomenclature issue. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whale oil beef hooked. Duff says it really did stand for "laptop". That's weird. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just talked with Godfrey Sullivan and he confirmed that the original meaning for LT was "Latest Technology". Godfrey would know this because he was the head of the Personal Solutions Group and they were the department to develop the "LT" release.

Given the differing information from equally reliable sources, I think we need to leave the "original meaning" blank, then. We've got contradictory word of mouth from several sources Who Should Know (including me), none of which will stand as a verifiable reliable source. (We're probably doing original research here, too.) My memory of it was that this was during something of the "lite" craze in the early-mid '90s, and that when engineering staff first heard of it, the general opinion was "you're going to call it what??" followed by "yeah, right, LT doesn't mean Lite, we get it. Uh-huh." What I don't remember -- and Duff is busy travelling somewhere, so I can't get to him on this right now -- is where LT was actually conceived. A lot of stuff at Autodesk, at least throughout the 90s when I was there, was conceived first on the engineering side, and formal things like "what's the product going to be called" came later. In other words, Godfrey is likely right from the Official Company Point of View, Duff's memory of "Laptop" is likely right from the engineering point of view -- and I'm right that it didn't really mean a damned thing, and any meaning assigned to it is a "backronym". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it probably doesn't matter and could easily come out of the article completely. Nobody disagrees that it was called "LT" so why not leave it at that. I don't remember why what IBM XT or AT meant either - does it matter 30 years later? Not really. We don't need to explain it in the article. Do you remember what year LT came out? I've got a bunch of old Cadence magazines from the 1990's and maybe there's a review in there somewhere that might have a mention of what the name "officially" stood for. It's more of a curiosity now than anything else. As for the article, why don't we just take out the speculation and just call it LT? It's good to know Duff is doing well, BTW. He was always one of the good guys. Pete K 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now you already took it out. Cool! Pete K 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought LT stood for Limited Technology as there is no LISP or 3D functionality, although Autodesk clearly used to use LT to showcase new technologies like the group manager which still is not in AutoCAD!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.224.219 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LT = Low Technology, as far as I know. Since it is the weaker version of the two. Kassie (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link inline to the AutoCAD LT FAQ which provides information about it's capabilities and limitations. I'm just not 100% sure how to make it "proper" (The click to the list at the bottom), so I would appreciate it if somebody could set it up correctly. --GaidinBDJ (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are with the <ref><\ref> tag, but the external link seems more appropriate than a ref tag. That kind of thing shouldn't need a reference anyway. --Raijinili (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlay programs

I don't think "overlay programs" should be used. Or where does this comes from? Use "AutoCAD vertical's", "Software's build on the AutoCAD platform" or "AutoCAD software's" instead. 212.181.17.179 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but for God's sake, please don't use apostrophes in plurals DaveBrit 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Added some stuff

Hello everyone. I'm here at Wikipedia editing some other articles, but I thought I'd drop by and expand a few AutoCAD items. Unless anyone minds, I'll add a little info here from time to time. Pete Karaiskos - Pete K 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, somebody thinks calling blocks "powerful" expresses a POV. Is this article controversial? Is the idea that blocks represent powerful objects controversial? Blocks are probably the most powerful element in AutoCAD. Does anyone really deny this? Just curious. I think it's OK to use adjectives when they are accurate. Pete K 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling anything 'powerful' sounds like cheerleading to me, and is IMO not encyclopedic in tone. Honestly, I'm iffy on the section in general, because I don't really see instancing as all that noteworthy. But I'll leave it as-is for now. -Ehheh 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I changed it to "versitile". I don't know how much people would like in this article - we could cover lots of stuff here I suppose. I found a sub-section on blocks to be rather out of place in an encyclopedia too - but I thought I'd add to it in case people are interested in adding more stuff that's similar. "Blocks" seems to be a primarily AutoCAD term and that's why I thought it might be OK to talk about it. I don't know if AutoCAD "jargon" requires explanation at all. Pete K 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks, or their equivalent, are a common feature in CAD software. Autodesk's implementation is unremarkable. There's no substance here, and I've removed the section. EvanYares 03:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing double-redirect ("commenting" out)

In consequence of a move the link from the word "commenting" in the article leads now to a double redirect. I was going to fix it but the issue (pre-dating the move) is that the article about computer languages comment isn't particularly helpful to gather the meaning of "to comment out" for a computer newbie. So I'm wondering: would it be OK to change "commenting out" to "disabling"? In truth, I don't think we really know whether they used comments or, say, #if 0 / #endif directives :-) —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do! Mostly it was #ifndef AUTOCAD_LT. But "ifdeffed out" is even more confusing than "commented out", I would think! The problem with disabling is that disabling/enabling can mean that the executable code is there, but somehow is being prevented from executing (as in a demo version of a program, for example); "commented out" does correctly indicate that the code was simply never compiled. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Uh... should we have those books there? Looks an awful lot like advertisement to me. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autodesk Student Community

I just added a paragraph to the AutoCAD Student Version section about the free download of student software from the Autodesk Student Community website. I also added a link to that website in the External Links section.

Springfish 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about AutoCAD, and AutoCAD is not available for download from the Autodesk Student Community. EvanYares 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AutoCAD 2006 drawing.png

Image:AutoCAD 2006 drawing.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autocad buildings

can anybody give me info about the buildings that were made using autocad....

please reply at the earliest.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinavgupta25 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was the turn from 2D to 3D, with Autocad and the DWG & DXF formats ?

Double entry of questions, both for "DWG" and "Autocad" Wikipedia entries, which I would like to get answered: Autocad was a just-2D CAD software in the 1980th and in the 1990th ( Autocad R13 is still just-2D) a) So which was the first release of Autocad supporting 3D ? b) So which was the first time, that Autocad stored 3D information in its DWG ( and DXF ) output files ? c) Did 3D-CAD products of other companies store 3D informations in DWG ( and DXF ) files earlier than Autocad ? If so, please supply name of the product&manufacturer & date of release c) Was there a change necessary in the formats, for the turn from 2D to 3D ? d) Which was the first free/commercial DWG / DXF "viewer" applications with 3D support, and when ? It would be also interesting to document the story of DWG/DXF viewers, which slighly differs from the story of the real CAD products. hemmerling (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Even AutoCAD 10 had functions like extrude or for creating spheres, cones etc. 195.145.245.83 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD Pimp

Who is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.155.153 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD 2009 release date

Hi there! AutoCAD v2009 is now released (since March 18, 2008 I hear), but the page indicates that the release date for that version is "June 2008". Does anybody know why? I could have fixed it, but I didn't want to intrude and input the wrong information.Danielmolina (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Grotte corrected release date for AutoCAD 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.44.249 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

version and release numbers confusion

Why Autodesk not consistent in this? I was forced to make 2 rows in the table. Kassie (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing, mostly. It's harder to sell Version 2.6 to someone who has Version 2.5 than it is to sell Release 9 to someone who has Release 8. And my guess regarding the change to AutoCAD 2000, besides marketing, is that there'd long been an "odd version curse" associated with AutoCAD releases; R11 kinda sucked, R12 was good, R13 deserved the 13, R14 (the last one I worked on) kicked ass. So R15 became 2000, breaking the cycle kinda like Ronald Reagan did. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

autocad 2009 UI

The article has two images that show the differences between the classic UI and the new UI, but not much info. The new UI is often referred to as the ribbon and is a Microsoft proposed interface that the newest version of MSFT Office also has. Also, since microstation is mentioned, solid works should also be mentioned (if microstation reference is removed then there would be no need for solidworks to be mentioned)

(also if strict restrictions are placed on what info about Autodesk product AutoCad can be mentioned through DMCA or other legal rangling, I think the complete article should be removed (yanked, nixed, you get the message)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.165.99 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you guys know, they have in fact now released the standalone full version of AutoCAD 2010 as a free download for students. 78.86.23.53 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better screen shots

The screen shots provided are at such a low resolution that they don't provide any information, I would suggest larger ones if not full scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.174.52 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2010

I think it is copyright fears that there is no higher resolution screenshot. But, globally, the layout of the Autocad screen is not exactly top secret.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejens (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No free support

I believe it noteworthy that Autodesk does not offer any free support (aside from activations) for the AutoCAD LT software. Many other software companies offer free support for at least a specific duration after the purchase.
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=7031104&linkID=9240817 192.249.47.198 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD Civil 3D

Why is AutoCAD Civil 3D a redirect to AutoCAD? While Civil 3D looks like a vertical product, it has been a parametric, object-based modeling tool operating inside the AutoCAD interface for 6 years, whereas AutoCAD itself has only had parametric drafting tools for a year. AutoCAD Civil 3D, as a BIM/VDC tool, needs its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.45.62 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an open community and you are free to create the page for AutoCAD Civil 3D.12.169.83.231 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

117.55.243.14 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a microcomputer-based system prior to AutoCAD

Dear Sirs,

I recently read the introductory history about AutoCAD and due to the fact that several of our employees, including the Chief Financial Officer Alvin Green, went from another first microcomputer-based CAD company to AutoCAD and influenced the direction of AutoCAD, I modified that introduction based on my first hand knowledge and experience as Vice-President of Systems Development of Cascade Graphics Development. Two years prior to AutoCAD's first release, our company actually used an Apple IIe microcomputer with a 68000 mother board to produce the first micro-CAD system in 1980. Significantly, this system was marketed by McGraw-Hill and distributed both domestically in the U.S. and in Europe. An editor removed the edit and stated, "Sorry, we do not write about ourselves on Wikipedia." Is this true--that one cannot relate facts that one is intimately familiar with on Wikipedia pages? For an external reference, I show a picture taken of me (with my own camera) sitting at the First microcomputer-based system in the offices of Cascade Graphics Development back in 1980. I could cite several high-level executives that could confirm that what I have related (such as Jake Voogd, a Dutch businessman who was Chief Executive Officer of Kinetics Technology International Corp.) was factual.

Sincerely,
Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D.
email: pearblossominc@aol.com
Computer Scientist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.229.11 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one cannot relate facts that one is intimately familiar with on Wikipedia pages -- unless one can cite verifiable reliable sources. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below, #AutoCAD origin bogus. —Quicksilver^{T @} 07:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version history list

The Release column did show the number of the release before. Now it shows the ACADVER number instead. Should the column heading be changed? Should we have separate column as well? What do you think is useful to see here? Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many DWG files are there?

This part needs cleaning, fact checking:

"In 2006, Autodesk estimated the number of active DWG files to be in excess of one billion. In the past, Autodesk has estimated the total number of DWG files in existence to be more than three billion.[2]"

idledebonair (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qt and .Net

autocad 2011 GUI has based on qt and no more .net?? [1] --195.60.133.246 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release / Version numbers

Someone has changed this column to show a numeric count up of each release. To me this is wrong and has little relevance, as far as I can find AutoCAD 2009 is never referred to as "release 23", nor AutoCAD 2010 as "release 25". The internal version number however is of relevance and is used to refer to the products (some third party applications designed to work with AutoCAD use these versions to show which versions of Autocad they are compatible). Also as far as I can see it is not normal on Wikipedia to number software by how many times its been released. I'm going to revert this back to how it was before this column was changed and hopefully this can be discussed. HughMillard (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above i've found this http://communities.autodesk.com/?nd=content__5__411 . If nobody disagrees i'll update the table later to show a column for both version and release numbers HughMillard (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD

Hi All,
Im an Interior designer based in Nairobi Kenya and a long time user of AutoCAD (1997 to date).I would like to know how the name AutoCAD came about.

Alex Odhiambo Odero archlantis2009@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.212.11.19 (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD origin bogus

The origin of AutoCAD, as currently described in the article, appears to be totally bogus. Here's a quote from a 1992 article by G. Pascal Zachary that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

“

Mr. Walker didn't invent the program that drove all this phenomenal success. Instead, Autodesk's hit product proved to be a computer-aided-design (CAD) program that Mr. Walker purchased from an outside programmer named Michael Riddle. The program, which became AutoCad,[sic] did for designers of buildings, interiors and machines what VisiCalc's spreadsheet did for the accountant: It made the personal computer an essential tool, where once pencil and paper reigned.

Mr. Walker quickly grasped the promise of AutoCad when Mr. Riddle gave him a presentation in 1982. "When I showed him the program, he was quiet for 45 minutes. It was the first time he's ever been quiet with me," says Mr. Riddle. Then, "he says, `You've got a fortune here.'" Before long, Autodesk dropped virtually all of its other work to concentrate on AutoCad.[sic] The program, which now sells for about $3,500, was a runaway success, cutting deeply into the sales of computer companies that blended software and hardware into systems that might cost 10 times the price of a PC with AutoCad,[sic] and yet afford only somewhat better performance.

”

—Quicksilver^{T @} 07:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late response but -- one should read John Walker's Anatomy of a Smear to get a sense of what insiders thought of Mr. Zachary's article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrections read and noted. I tend to give Mr. Walker and The Autodesk File more credence in this matter. — Quicksilver^{T @} 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD copy paste problem

Here is a common bug on old versions of Autocad that needs to be mentioned: AutoCAD Services & Support Hotfix - Cut and Paste There are many other discussions on the Net regarding this issue. If someone finds a proper way to develop a new section about this issue... My question is: I feel this is a good information and I find useful. Does it also work for wikipedia? --TudorTulok (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013

I think version 2013 is out now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.92.139 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Someone has corrected that. Next time go ahead and make the change yourself. If something goes wrong there are people who get an email for every change - so it'll get fixed. Wikipedia:Be_bold --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"According to its own company information..."

In the introduction of the [current version]is the passage: According to its own company information, Autodesk states that the AutoCAD software is now used in a range of industries, employed by architects, project managers and engineers, amongst other professions, and as of 1994 there had been 750 training centers established across the world to educate users about the company's primary products.

I don't see the relevance of this, if it belongs anywhere it should be on the Autodesk page and not here. It's not AutoCAD specific information. (on a break from Wikipedia:Be_bold after getting burnt) --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

User:201.82.151.218 has added in [this revision] a table of AutoCADs release history. Is that useful? Can't we just link to it, perhaps this one: http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/autocad-release-history.html I just think it's clutter and don't see why it should be here. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change

This recent change asserts AutoCAD is written in C. Now, I've not been at Autodesk since 1998, and I guess my memory could be fuzzy, but I do seem to recall we converted the thing to C++ sometime before that... Is there a source for the current programming languages? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD → AutoCad
ooVoo → OoVoo
Mitsubishi i-MiEV → Mitsubishi I-Miev
M/A-COM Technology Solutions → MA-Com Technology Solutions
inSSIDer → Inssider

– Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks, User:Croctotheface raised the concern about the inclusion of examples of pages that do not follow standard English capitalization. Although there does not appear to be anyone in that discussion that thinks that these pages certainly violate the guideline, this requested move nomination is to test and open discussion on whether these pages do or do not currently go against the current guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. New questions? 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: These pages currently correctly follow the guideline because the page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks has long stated, "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)."--New questions? 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close nominator opposes request, and it seems formulated to fail anyways, with the inclusion of "AutoCAD". The discussion at WP:TM seemed concerned with "ooVoo" and "i-MiEV", while this listing is much broader, and much more likely to get in trouble individually, since many have separate concerns. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I second this notion. This is the wrong way to go about this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, this is bad form in yet another way; there's no reason to group these together. They don't raise similar stylistic issues; the only connection is that the nominator thought might go against the MOS. But I'd keep this article at "AutoCAD" and probably move some of the others. There's no reason to have opened this or to keep it open. Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close silly discussion. we should follow the software companies spelling and capitalisation which has long been AutoCAD, see: http://www.autodesk.com/products/all-autocad --duncan.lithgow (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some are a bit tricky here, but I'm especially opposing AutoCAD which is 'Computer Aided Design', inSSIDer which uses 'Service set identification', and ooVoo is CamelCase which is up to the editor. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As per the arguments above. We should be more respectful of brand names.--Mariordo (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "AutoCAD", "CAD" is an acronym -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "ooVoo" and "OoVoo" are exactly the same from Wikipedia's software perspsective, why bother listing it? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why "MA" instead of "Ma" if you're nominating "AutoCad" ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – without individual evidence of what's in use in sources, there's no case here. A case could be made for M/A-Com and OoVoo, but they're not all that common, so would need some individual discussion, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To the extent that any MoS page tells us to invent new spellings or capitalisations which are neither the most commonly used (in the real world) nor the most faithful imitation, that MoS page should be revoked, burned, and ignored. bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally opposed to this exercise. I participated in the MOSTM discussion, which you can see here. I think that this is a bad, WP:Pointy sort of way to make this argument. RM discussions are shocks to the system, and they're not a good way to address the question I asked. Here's the question I asked: are styles like ooVoo deliberate choices because sources only use that style, are they cases where sources use a more standard style but we've chosen to ignore the guideline for some reason, or are they cases where we didn't standardize because people were unaware of the guideline. I hope we can close these RM discussions as improvidently started. Croctotheface (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As others have said, CAD is an widely understood acronym for Computer Aided Design, therefore should be capitalised. As an AutoCAD user for many years I've known people regularly use the format AutoCAD and Autocad, but rarely AutoCad. Sionk (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2013 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AutoCAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110816160221/http://usa.autodesk.com:80/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=15421056&siteID=123112 to http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=15421056

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]