From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to economically use the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Engineering [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

Who else is interested

So, who else is interested in polishing Engineering and Engineer up a bit and put it into shape? ...said Jochen Wendebaum (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2006

Merging Engineer with Engineering

I think Engineering should be the main topic. An Engineer is (presumably) someone who practices Engineering. This seems to me to be "the right way round" and much better than saying that Engineering is what someone who calls him/herself an Engineer actually does. In English Engineering is quite unequivocal, whereas Engineer can also mean someone who drives a train or tends to a major piece of machinery....said Haasan Aref (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2006

I could use the same reasons to justify the maintanance of these topics separate. Marcelo Matos, 6 January 2007
While I do agree with you that an engineer is someone who practices engineering, not all engineering is done by engineers. Its kind of like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Anyone who uses physical science to create something useful (or not lol) has committed the act of "engineering". In most States/Provinces the words "Engineer" and "Engineering" are protected under statute, so a person who is not a registered engineer with a PE or PEng designation cannot advertise themselves as being able to do engineering work or call themselves an engineer, but this is in a legal sense in order to avoid public confusion. I do not believe the term engineering should be merged with Engineer.-- Brandon Turcotte 20:38, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Telecommunications engineering

Telecommunications Engineering is missing as a subgroup. I believe it should be listed Juan J. Zubeldia 02:27, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Post WP deletion: fresh start

Whatever was there before has gone and we have a blank sheet. I've done a bit to get the ball rolling. Richard Lamont 14:00, 28 January 2007 (CST)

New to article

  • I'm new to this citizendium thing and have added some items before I found this talk page. For future reference I will consult this forum before making any additions or changes. Sorry guys.  :)--Brandon Turcotte 20:40, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Structure of Engineering Portal

Please, I need sugestions to improve this portal. The main topics I sugest are the following.

  • History & etimology

...said Marcelos Matos (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2007

Engineering 'branches' -v- 'fields' -v- 'types' -v- 'disciplines'

I don't wish to engage in a semantical discussion whether the types of engineering should be called 'branches', 'fields', 'types' or 'disciplines', but I thought in unwise to have a section entitled "Major branches", then have a page expanding upon it entitled "Fields of engineering". So, I changed the name of the 'expansion page' to "Branches of engineering".

My thoughts are we should use the term 'disciplines' to describe the various types of engineering, but I am not fussed if one of the other terms are used.

Andrew Fleisher 01:07, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Why is this list of types of engineering so sacrosanct?

I question why a comprehensive list of types of engineering should not be an integral part of the "Engineering" page. I don't think such a list should be relegated to a separate page. Though I agree the separate page would be a good place to give a brief description of each kind of engineering, even the principal ones.

I also question what is so sacrosanct about the list of types of engineering in a U.S. National Society of Professional Engineers FAQ. Their list isn't even a formally issued document of the Society. (At least, such a formal list is not cited.)

Other organisations, e.g. The Institution of Engineers Australia, have their own lists. See

So, I suggest additional types of engineering should be added to the Engineering page, and have done so myself.

Andrew Fleisher 00:38, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Software engineering

I do not see Software egnineering mentioned anywhere on this page. I would think we need to add that topic. Charles F. Radley 17:18, 17 June 2007 (CDT). One criterion might be to recognize here branches of engineering which are recognized by some government agency. Software Engineering is recognized and regulated by the U.S. State of Texas, for example.Charles F. Radley 17:26, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

RE: Wikipedia credit

This article contains material from the WP article. This means one of these two needs to happen before the final approval template gets placed:

  1. A writer of the article here must make a brief statement claiming credit for the same writing in the article there.
  2. The "From WP?" checkbox must be checked.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:21, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

This article is not ready for approval

This article is scheduled for approval in 6 days, yet it is not ready. There are two completely empty subsections, at least one of which ought to be filled out. (Problem identification. Tools isn't as important, though computer use is logically subordinate to it. Engineering in a social context needs expansion. Cultural presence has some issues which need to be addressed. I am not aware of the proper procedure for blocking an article approval, but this article should not be approved in its current state. Anthony Argyriou 17:11, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

Hi Anthony, thanks for noticing and raising this issue. I've placed a message on Jochen Wendebaum's page to make him aware of your concerns. Are there some of the issues that you may be able to help resolve to push the article further towards an approval-worthy state? I'll have a think about it as well. Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 20:27, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

How to stop Approval clock

I'll point out that anyone can remove the template to stop the clock towards approval. This entails going to the metadata page and removing the content from the metadata template. If you want to document you did this just cut and paste the current fields from the metadata template into the {{approval}} template and place it on the approval page. An example of what to put on the approval page is shown between the <pre> tags below:

|           cat1 = Engineering
|           cat2 = 
|           cat3 = 
<!--required for ToApprove template-->
|    article url =
|    subpage url = 
|        cluster =
|            now =01:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
|     ToA editor =  Jochen Wendebaum
|    ToA editor2 =
|    ToA editor3 =
|           date =20071010
|removed = Anthony Argyriou ~~~}}
There are two completely empty subsections, at least one of which ought to be filled out. 
'''Problem identification'''. '''Tools''' isn't as important, though '''computer use''' is logically 
subordinate to it.  '''Engineering in a social context''' needs expansion. '''Cultural presence''' 
has some issues which need to be addressed.  signed AA

Having placed that on the approval page you can just blank all the fields in the ToApprove section of the metadata template. Chris Day (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

Chris, many thanks for your explanation and assistance with this. I've removed the ToApprove section and removed the Approval template for this article. Still have to understand how to use these subpages and how they work ... Hendra I. Nurdin 03:55, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
Me too, thanks for de-approving the article, there are still some things to be done to it. Jochen Wendebaum 09:42, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
It was never de-approved, as it never got approval, if you see what I mean. This just goes to show that the system works. It is designed so that people can object and work towards an article that all editors can agree is in a state worth approving. Being bold and putting an article up for approval does get peoples attention in a good way. Hopefully this will now move forward to significant improvement :) Chris Day (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
Sorry for the non-responsiveness earlier - I haven't been keeping up on how the approval process worked, and as I hadn't applied to be an Editor, I wasn't sure if I could stop the approval on my own. Thank you to those who took care of a potential embarrasment. Anthony Argyriou 19:03, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Changes to "Major branches" section

I thoroughly agree with the comments posted above by Andrew Fleisher on April 29, 2007. I also see no reason why this article cannot list all of the various engineering branches (or disciplines)... nor do I see why the list by the U.S. National Society of Professional Engineers is sacrosanct. I feel sure that there are other lists in other organizations and in other countries. And, in any event, surely we CZ users are competent to arrive at our own list.

Therefore, I have put on my Editor hat, and revised the "Major Branches" section. Regards, Milton Beychok 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on these suggestions

There are a couple of suggestions on which I would like to have the opinions of others:

  • Should we delete the section on "Professional organizations and societies"? If the article lists all of the professional engineering organizations and societies in the world, the list will be very, very large ... probably many hundreds. Just the organizations and societies in the United States alone amount to 50 or so.
  • Many of the photos in the article could be made quite a bit smaller and still provide the wanted visual impact.

Regards to all, Milton Beychok 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)