The unoffical Octane Render Wikipedia Tweet

[radiant]

I could restate it with a "First GPU based unbaised renderer to be released to the public" or something like that, worded more professional

[suhail_spa]

btw...the page's been deleted by a user called 'deb'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_render

it says:

07:31, 29 April 2011 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted "Octane render" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

as a first measure, i just posted a request for undeletion..
here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... undeletion

lets see what happens..
hopefully it would be 'undeleted', as there are many other similar pages of other renderers- which still exists..

[radiant]

wtf, why did he delete it for???? Unambiguous advertising????? what a lazy prick, has he ever heard of google or even bothered to check the references to see the FACTS of this renderer.
Very pissed.

[matej]

lolwut? Unambiguous? Did anybody of you put a sticker "Buy Octane or GTFO!" there?

Can just any idiot come by and mark an article for deletion?

[Daniel]

That's a bit ridiculous. So ridiculous that I'm sure we'll get it back. And when we do...

I could restate it with a "First GPU based unbaised renderer to be released to the public" or something like that, worded more professional

You could try "First commercially available GPU-based unbiased rendering engine".

[suhail_spa]

Its seems the wiki user Miss 'Deb'- who deleted our page, is on a deletion spree...
deleted many pages in the past...and angered many in the process..
here it is..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb

anyway...i have posted on Deb's 'user talk' asking for undeletion..
i am sure we will get it back..

[suhail_spa]

finally...
was able to get the octane render wikipedia page back....(well at least its available on my user page)
after putting up my case with the user- deb (who is an admin- and has rights to delete any page she thinks isnt worth wikipedia)...
now..we need to edit it before putting it up again on wikipedia...or it might (or will) be deleted again

these are some of the issues pointed out by the admin- Deb
- name of page should be "Octane Render", not "Octane render" (with captial R) . (big mistake on our part... )
- following need to be considered before we put up the page again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _a_soapbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nt_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... f_interest
- we might need to add that citation in the 'overview', or maybe modify the line altogether

attached is the .txt file of the wikipedia page.
Of course all images are gone, and need to be reinserted..
at least we got the text back.
lets suggest some edits based on the above, and we can put the page back again..
cheers

[Daniel]

I had a quick re-read, and I now see where Deb was coming from. What's in there is barely an offense, but if anyone wants to be really picky, it's there. I'll rewrite what needs to be changed and post it here. Watch this space.

[suhail_spa]

I had a quick re-read, and I now see where Deb was coming from. What's in there is barely an offense, but if anyone wants to be really picky, it's there. I'll rewrite what needs to be changed and post it here. Watch this space.

hey Daniel..
thanks for taking the initiative...will look forward to it..

btw..all the images related to it are now under 'orphaned' category of wikipedia..
means- if they are not linked to the page soon- these will too get deleted..
(means after 7 days from date of tagging- which is 7 days after 1 may2011 )

maybe after the text is OK- i will re-insert the images...

lets hope we dont get deleted next time
cheers

[Daniel]

Change log:

- Changed the software summary. In doing so, removed “unlike most unbiased renderers” which could be seen as saying “this is better than theirs because it can do this” and merged many sentences beginning with “It is...” into few. Also reworded a few things to be a bit more informative – “onscreen” changed to “rendering viewport” as it wasn’t apparent where the changes were made or what they did. A reference to “on the fly” (quote) may be needed although it might be covered by the link to the Refractive Software website. I, myself, can’t remember where I read it but I know it was either on the website or perhaps the Evermotion review.

- Changed “Octane Render runs exclusively on [[Nvidia]]'s [[CUDA]] technology, meaning that it runs only on [[Nvidia]] [[video card|video cards]] and not [[ATI]] cards.” to “Octane Render runs exclusively on [[Nvidia]]'s [[CUDA]] technology, meaning that only [[Nvidia]] [[video card|video cards]] are supported.” There is currently no support for [[ATI]] cards” to reflect that support for ATI cards in the future is possible, and reworded some of it for better sentence flow. Added “Multiple cards can be used in conjunction using Nvidia’s SLI technology and an appropriate motherboard or GPU hub.” onto the end. I’m not sure if GPU hub is the correct word, so that needs reviewing, and “SLI technology” can be linked to its Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Link_Interface and "appropriate motherboard" may need changing to "compatible motherboard". Which would be more technically correct?

- Removed “Octane Render was the world's first [[GPU]]-based [[Unbiased rendering|unbiased renderer]]{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}}. It uses the GPU to calculate all measures of light, [[reflection]] and [[refraction]]” since my above change already covers that it’s the first commercially available. However now there’s nothing under the overview section. Is the summary supposed to go under that? I’ll let you handle the formatting.

- Added “ [between users] over a material database...” into “Sharing of materials between users via OctaneLive”. We’ll need some documentation on what, exactly, OctaneLive is.

- “Built in noise removal (“firefly”) tool” to “Built in noise (“firefly”) removal tool” for clarification that fireflies are the noise, not noise removal.

- Changed “The commercial version of Octane Render comes with free plugins...” Having “(commercial version)” tacked on the end of “Octane Render” looked unprofessional.

A review of my review may be necessary, because generally when someone corrects something they won't tend to notice any errors they made themself.