Talk:Caddie (CAD system)

sounds like an ad 75.21.198.9 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Next time you can simply edit and remove it as well. -- Mentifisto 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About concerns about notability (2009)

The Caddie article was tagged for deletion and non-notability by DuLithgow on 20091107140017. His reasons were "I've looked at the manufacturers website and it is not very professional. Several dead internal links to modules not in use. I looked for reviews of this product at these sites: http://www.cad-reviews.com/ http://www.cadinfo.net/scripts/find.cfm http://www.reviewcentre.com http://reviews.cnet.com http://www.reviewcentre.com and none of these sites has a review of the product. I then searched tucows, brothersoft and download.com but none of these sites offered the software for download. None of this means the software is bad, but it is certainly not notable." (numbers mine).

I don't think these reasons are valid, because:

1. A professional web site does not make a program notable, and an unprofessional web site doesn't make it non-notable. Not all software uses its web site as its main selling channel.
2. The fact that the web site is broken or is not the company's main priority doesn't mean the product is not notable.
3. The Cadinfo.net site lists over 150 CAD tools, so it should not be surprising that smaller CAD products are not reviewed in general software review sites. The Cad-reviews.com site has a rather small selection of products, of which many aren't even CAD tools, and most reviews on it date from 2001-2004.
4. If Caddie is dongle driven, it would make no sense offering it for download at the shareware sites and download sites you mention.

I understand that it functions as a file viewer without the dongle. That would be useful as a download --DuLithgow (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think that there are indications that Caddie is notable, namely:

1. Googling for Caddie + keywords for university training shows that the software is included in the curriculum of several engineering courses, though mostly in South Africa.
2. Googling for Caddie + keywords commonly found in résumés and CVs (curriculum vitaes) shows that many professionals who might use CAD list Caddie as a program they have experience in using.
3. Googling for Caddie + keywords such as DWG, DXF and AutoCAD shows that the product is mentioned on several independent web sites about CAD software.
4. The old Caddie file format CEX is listed on many file extension list sites, and it is mentioned on a few CAD related forums where people ask how to open it.
5. Several warez sites contain cracks for the Caddie dongle. :-)
6. Try Googling for "Autocad or Caddie" and "Caddie or Autocad" (including the quotes) to see how many companies or job sites requiring skill in either of these.

The current Caddie article in the Wikipedia isn't particularly well written -- it is written like an advertisement. It was likely added by the developer of Caddie itself. Consider it a stub, then, and improve it. -- leuce (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's previous position in the South African market is enough to establish notability, but this needs to be referenced from a reliable independent source. _wjemather^bigissue 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of reference would satisfy you? Do you want a single source saying "it is notable", or would it be acceptable to show from a variety of references that the software is (a) used in several training courses, (b) required in several job advertisements, (c) was represented at several trade fairs?  :-) -- leuce (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to assess notability from either a) or b), and c) certainly would not confer notability in any way. See WP:N and WP:RS for further guidance. _wjemather^bigissue 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with wjemather and have added the 'notability' tag to this article. It is now a much better article and not an advertisement, but lacks significant reference to sources other than the owners of caddie. Only five of the 20 references are from secondary sources. Have a look at WP:N, that convinced me that there is still work to do. --DuLithgow (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Still concerned about notability (2012)

I have again added the notability tag. Of all the links used as references none of them address the key issue of notability. They do not describe why Caddie is worthy of our attention, just that it has this or that feature. Base the text on the information contained in external, verifiable, trustworthy sources before removing the notability banner. I consider many of my remarks from 2009 as still valid. Please read Wikipedia:Notability if you don't see what the problem is. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Features

I think the article should have a section on program features, but I'm not sure what features should be listed. For example, here is what the product guide says, but I'm not sure how much of it is fluff and sales talk and how much are truly features that an engineer might want to see in the list:

• Industry standard 'DWG' drawing format
• Architectural, steelwork, surveying, civil mechanical & landscaping tools
• Insert photographs and images into drawings
• Block creation, insertion and editing
• Opaques to mask areas of drawings
• Automatic Hatching with island creation and origin editing
• RGB hatch and gradient fills
• Artistic tools for "hand" finishing drawings
• Multiple sheets and scaled viewports from a single model
• Individual pen configurations for each view-port
• Automatic scale sensitive detailing
• 3D modelling, walkthroughs and live image textures

The above list is from http://www.caddiesoftware.com/pdf/caddie14webinfo.pdf. -- leuce (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed this from the intro, but it would be part of a later list of features in the article: "including Terrain modelling" -- 41.243.62.81 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (leuce, not logged in)

Several links required updating due to the new website and the licensing was no longer up to date (DB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.33 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caddie (CAD system). 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/20120229082736/http://www.revitup.co.za/main/page_10862.php to http://www.revitup.co.za/main/page_10862.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)