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]

Hmm. I usually agree with severe paring, but I'm hesitant about this one. The list of links has a lot of worthless commentary (written by X, maintained by Y, uses Z), but it also has some reasonable comments about approaches (powder, gravel, transfer chutes). I'd rather that there be an intelligent trimming. It is also possible that some of these programs could have an article but do not have one now.

In other articles, I've gone along with the metric of removing projects by single persons or that do not seem like serious efforts and keeping academic and commercial products that are well-known or have some interesting aspect. Glrx (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]