Talk:Flomerics FAQ

From CFD-Wiki

This looks more like advertising than real FAQ's. CFD-Wiki is not the place to advertise your products and people who are writing about codes or products sold by their employer should be very careful to write in an objective way without any bias. --Jola 14:04, 6 June 2007 (MDT)

In my opinion, these questions and answers do not belong in the wiki. These question and answers are not on the use of the code, and I think we should reserve the FAQ's for usage-type questions. --Jasond 14:57, 6 June 2007 (MDT)

Yes, I agree. It is too close to advertising and thereby directly breaks the CFD-Wiki policies. I will remove these questions and answers from this FAQ. I hope Sharon will understand. --Jola 03:39, 7 June 2007 (MDT)

If that's the case then I suggest that you take a look at the other vendors who have also posted similar information. I made sure that there were no true advertising type content placed. - Sharon

I'm sorry if you are feeling targeted (that was not the intent) - but I don't see what you are talking about. Have other vendors posted advertising? Yes. Have we done our best to keep that from happening? Yes. There is an ongoing discussion about guidelines/rules for the posting of code information (see Talk:Codes and the forum discussion that begins here). I am not 100% happy with all the info that is currently posted, but this is not my personal wiki, and given the collaborative nature of a wiki, compromise is important. In that spirit, I suggest that you get rid of the question and answer formating, condense what you have (a lot), and post it as a "Flowmerics" page that is linked off of the Codes page. A significant portion of my objection to what you posted was the Q&A format. --Jasond 10:36, 8 June 2007 (MDT)

I followed the format of other vendors. FAQ, doesn't that mean Frequently Asked Questions? It invites Q&A format. I'll do what I can to make it completely different than anyone else. Also, why was the addition of "Flomercs" removed from the subhead under FAQ? Certainly that can't be considered objectionable. Sharon

I really don't know what format you are referring to. The FAQ's here are usage FAQ's. The Flomerics link was removed because there is no content in the Flomerics FAQ right now. If you look at the Codes page, you'll find a lot of edits have been made to remove commercial wording. The path I outlined above should get you to the point where any editing is to remove wording, as opposed to wholesale deletion.--Jasond 20:43, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

I agree with Jason that the type of information in the questions/answers that Sharon wrote in the Flomerics FAQ are more suitable in EFD, FLOVENT or FLOTHERM pages linked to from the Codes page, or perhaps in a separate Flomerics page. I don't know which FAQ it is that Sharon refers to that contains this type of questions/answers. In any case it is very important that all information added to CFD-Wiki is objective and verifiable truths that your competitors will also agree on. This is especially important when the author is an employee of the company or the products described. Links from the main page should not link to empty pages IMHO. --Jola 06:19, 12 June 2007 (MDT)

The current revision of the article appears to be very similar to the version that Jonas removed some time ago. I am somewhat dismayed that this has come up again, especially in light of all of the previous discussion. Unless something is done to address the previous objections, I will remove the text later today. --Jasond 11:17, 27 June 2007 (MDT)

I agree with you and I noticed that you removed the additions this time also. --Jola 06:02, 29 June 2007 (MDT)