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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
OpenMM is quite popular and from my perspective may take AMBER's place soon. However, I don't know enough about its features to add it myself. --h (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) what is the difference between "Yes, has QM/MM" (Y) and "has QM/MM Interface" (I)? I do not know which is more developed, Y or I. Is it that Y has the capability to perform QM/MM and I has the capability as well as a user interface to facilitate model building? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.148.15 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be a good idea to add some references, e.g. for the algorithm details, e.g. for comparing force-fields, homology model algorithms, and semiempiric details?
JKW (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea to always provide references (the original reference in, say, PubMed). This is because not every website makes it easy to find the associated references. I would suggest using an abbreviated form. Something like: Bacon D, et al., 1998 (for Raster3D and where the link is the DOI number). I also suggest we try to add all of the license types to each entry. --Thorwald (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an 'External links' section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember
and
"If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article." Wikipedia:External links#External links section
also WP:NOTLINK, articles are not lists of external links.
These "policies" are only suggestions, not hard rules. The guideline, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable", is clear and this case is "justifiable". There are cases where it is appropriate to use external links inline (e.g., in a table). This article is certainly such a case. Until we write each of the associated articles, the external links should stay, as they help the user find the packages. This is the primary goal of Wikipedia: Helping users find the information they require. --Thorwald (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, helping people to find stuff that is outside of wikipedia is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The main goal is writing an encyclopedia (WP:ENC). Also, if you look at WP:REDLINK, leaving red links compels people to write those articles. Also, people might link at the "What links here" to see if a certain mane is being used often, or to find other articles pointing at the article they are creating so they can check them out, or to check if it's linked from many articles before nominating it for deletion as a measure of its "popularity". By using external links you are breaking all of that.
As I said before, these are guidelines, not rules. I don't care if it is a "violation" or not the goal of some people on Wikipedia to help people find stuff; it is my goal (and has been for the ~six years I have been active on Wikipedia). Anyway, my compromise can be seen on my last edit of the article (i.e., I moved the external links to a separate column). --Thorwald (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That looks good enough to me, I was mostly interested in that the names were red links; I explained my reasons here to another editor (I reached a similar agreement with him about the links at List of nucleic acid simulation software but your version looks much better, I'll tell him about it). Again, thanks for understanding and for finding such a good solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original version was better, but a separate column is also acceptable. But in this case column "Website" should not contain a "link", but a source name. And should not be empty cells, even where article on Wikipedia exist. Please look at my latest version of List of nucleic acid simulation software. (P99am (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps the idea of a separate column is good enough if the work is done accurately.
Look what happened now:
We have a column with the same "link" statements.
Some of the blue links become incorrect.
Some names of programs black and some red, without any principle.
Half of the links had become red. This is too much. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia for the first time for users, and only secondarily is invitetion for the editors.
To meet some formal rules are not sufficient reason to do such things. Those who want to improve the article should make a good job, but do not break the page. I therefore propose to revert to the original version - with external links. (P99am (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is easy to criticize, but better to help fix things. You didn't give any specific examples to the new "problems" you find with my latest edit. What did you mean by "We have a column with the same 'link' statements"? Which of the blue links became "incorrect"? I fixed the names in black (you could have as well). We should rename the "links" to the names of the institutes the packages originated (like you did in List of nucleic acid simulation software). I actually now think the new version is better, as it retains the external links (for our users) and reminds the editors which articles need to be created (the red links). The new version should stay, but be improved. --Thorwald (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, reading through the article I noticed several links, which only had numbers which never reappeared. I took the liberty to change those to human readable text. Similarly, some only read as "link". Is it desirable to change that text to either the domain of the link or the name of the software?
Also, there is one singular link to a download page of a software. Personally, I am inclined to remove this link from Wikipedia, but I am not sure whether there is a policy to follow? Thank you for any input. Kadhgar (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to separate simulation software from visualization-only software[edit]
This list contains a mixture of visualization software, like Chemitorium, and simulation-only programs like Desmond. The large number of narrow columns and the many rows in the table make it difficult to read. I propose that we break this table into two separate tables (possibly on two separate pages), one for simulation programs and one for visualization. There will be some duplication, since some packages have both capabilities....maybe three tables? This would also eliminate the "View 3D" and "Model builder" columns from each table. Oanjao (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of software for molecular mechanics modeling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of software for molecular mechanics modeling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
As the list is only for notable software, I will soon start cleaning out the list. All software without an own article will then be removed, as deemed non-notable. The Bannertalk07:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
