Talk:Discrete element method

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mathematics C‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Engineering Start‑class Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why only particles of micrometer sized scale and above?

It seems very strange to me why there should be a limit at the micrometer sized scale. I put a {{fact}} tag after that sentence. Discussion for the tag goes here. —Kri (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see there were not much of a discussion. Maybe it's better to just remove uncited, dubious statements directly, like Glrx did. —Kri (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to discuss issues on the talk page, but WP also asks editors to be bold.

If an a statement might be true, then quickly look for a source. If you don't find a source, then tag it with cn. Statements tagged with cn can stay around a long time. If a statement is doubtful, then tag it with dubious and explain. A dubious statement should be removed if a source isn't provided within a reasonable time. If you believe a statement is wrong, then remove it.

For me, the statement seems clearly wrong; one of my professors was doing discrete element simulations of galaxies long ago....

Others simulate atoms in UHV or electrons in orbitals.

Glrx (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend removing software section entirely

The list of commercial software seems contrary to WP:NOTADVERT. If we remove the commercial software and leaving in the non-commercial software would introduce WP:NPOV.

For this reason I recommend removing the section. I would be okay with a list of notable software (that is, software which qualifies for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia). I would also be okay with mentioning software which was unique in some significant way such as being "seminal" - that is, being the first software to do X, where X became a common feature in all similar software and where X is unique to the domain, not some generic feature of software in general (i.e. "first to print in color" doesn't count). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]