Talk:AutoCAD

message: This article appears to be missing any mention of AutoCAD Architecture which include numerous drawing tools specific to architecture. I believe it is sufficiently different from their primary offering that it deserves mentions in the variants section. It's also expensive as hell at over $5K. ;-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanr (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  AutoCAD Architecture 

message: It's a popular misconception that AutoCAD LT is just 2d. In fact it can draw lines and simple entities in 3d, but what it lacks is 3d solid modeling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.57.174 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  3d modeling 

message: Why isn't there a version history for AutoCAD?Rixn99 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Rixn99. According to the page history User:The Grid deleted it because of WP:IINFO. Although such information, as change of DWG-Format is kind of relevant (there is no backwards compatibility), but who needs it, right?--95.91.26.149 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  looking at the article before my removal here - the removal was due to the wikitable violating WP:IINFO. If AutoCAD's history can be described in prose form (instead of list form) with reliable sources, that would be perfectly fine. There's no disagreement with the importance of the DWG file type but the statement needs to have citations or else it's original research. – The Grid (talk)  13:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, if I understand you correctly, the whole version history is taken away just because there are some issues about DWG importance? Why can't the release version and respective release date be in a list, as those two parameters should carry enough importance to be presented? Other software have such a list, so what makes AutoCAD different?Rixn99 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

text: *First, just because other articles have it does not mean it's valid. If you were bold on the edits, you will understand there's not a black and white thinking to it. The reverts are a simple portion to discuss per the bold, revert, discuss process. Second, just because I am reverting your edits does not mean I'm doing it for my benefit. I know I don't own these pages (and never did). I did a good summary on my thoughts above:  – The Grid (talk)  01:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Version history has been removed. You had not left a single message on the talk page prior to engaging in the edit war. I've moved the version history to a separate page. It's not feasible to convert this history to prose as 1) it will make it harder to read 2) it will make it harder to edit 3) it achieves nothing. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version History 

message: I am about to decline a request for full protection at WP:RFPP because it looks like the edit war is at an end. I know it's frustrating but please use the normal dispute resolution procedures. I guess an WP:RFC is needed with the question "Should this article list the version history as shown at permalink?". I will fully protect if someone notifies me if edit warring resumes because blocks should not be required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (WP:NPR reviewer) The table is now at AutoCAD version history (if kept, the title should probably be List of AutoCAD releases...). I don't hate it as a potential standalone list, but sourcing is currently purely primary. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate page is fine. I'm surprised the  asked for a full page protection when that's not how this issue is solved at all. Please be more familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. – The Grid (talk)  19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war