Talk:Network simulation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Network simulator was copied or moved into Network simulation with this edit on 00:41, 23 December 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Linkfarm

The current External links section is just a list of links to network simulation software providers, violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK. Isn't there something that meets WP:EL that could be there instead? --Ronz 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the inappropriate external links. --Ronz 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we disagree on what are appropriate for the External links section. Summarizing my edits:

NS2 - Free, Open Source - Simulation software site
OMNeT++ - Simulation software site
Shunra - SPAM
NetSim - SPAM
OPNET - SPAM
QualNet, formerly GloMoSim - Simulation software site with a historical link as well.

None of these links belong per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK, especially those I see as being spam. Instead we should have links to articles about network simulation. --Ronz 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any additional external links. There are currently 5 external links under network simultion software. If you need to add any further links, kindly mention about them in the discussion page. They will be added only if consensus is got among regular members.

Durnitz

I think that the link to OPNET is very appropriate. When I think of network simulation, I immediately think of NS2 and OPNET. It would be better to link to OPNET, but that article doesn't exist yet. WP:NOT#LINK says pages should not be only/primarily link farms -- that article has substantial content other than these useful links. $0.02 LachlanA 01:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links marked as spam are certainly valid as network simulations. Ronz maybe biased against them on the order that they are not free, open-source, nor an open-source derivative. Having used most of these software, these applications are just as relevant to the page as a list of software with the capabilities listed. However, adding pages for major pieces of software (such as Qualnet and OPNet) may have merit and provide more information than the company websites.

Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 19:11, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the list again, after another link was added. Again, I think this is clear-cut. If we want to make a list of network simulators, we should follow WP:LIST --Ronz 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it yet again. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again. --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again. Going to start blacklisting the links. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the article clean from external links. The external link should be placed in the article about the network simulator, and not here.

Personally I have no problem with intra-wiki links from this article to articles about specific network simulators. If a network simulator is notable enough for its own article, then it is notable enough for mentioning here. Especially if the Network simulation article is merged with Network simulator article, as I have suggested, the article should contain a list of network simulators that have their own wp articles. Mange01 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a list of simulators that have their own article already could be useful. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]