Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering/Archive 5

	This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Engineering This page 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

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Engineering talk page (Discussion page). (January 2011 - December 2011) - Please Do not edit!

The Marine engineering article is kind of a mess. It is currently NOT a part of any Marine-related nor Engineering-related WikiProject. It is a part of both the Technology WikiProject and the Transport WikiProject—but I'm guessing those projects are not heavily peopled with folks who understand engineering, nor marine technology. Furthermore, the article seems to be confused about whether it is about the operation side of "engineering" (in the sense that railroad train operators and ship operators are "engineers") or the design side of "engineering" (folks who do the design of large engines, big ships, power plants, electrical networks, etc.).

In short, I think the article badly needs to be in some other project to get it the attention it (probably) deserves. Thought it might be a good idea to let your project think/discuss it. N2e (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Japanese engineer and mastermind behind the Edogawa River Project (also known as the G-Cans project) Tadashi Suetsugi has been an unreferenced biography of a living person since January 2009 (which is the current focus month for the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed to find any reliable sources to support the text of this stub - which I find surprising if he did, indeed, play a major role in the creation of this huge project. I have tried more than one spelling of his name. I'm posting here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the area might like to take an interest and provide a source for the text. If it remains unreferenced much longer it will probably be nominated for deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a significant difference in meaning between communication engineering, communications system engineering and telecommunications engineering ? In particular, would it be incorrect to rename Category:Communication engineering to Category:Telecommunications engineering? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for renaming. Comments and suggestions would be welcome at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Engineering WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers

Thank you. Pandelver (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move. See talk:Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse. Simply south...... 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage of {{pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the role of infinitesimals in engineering? Was there a previous discussion along these lines? The article hardly mentions applications in engineering at all. Tkuvho (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Moving parts (AfD discussion)

The aforementioned article is listed at AFD. You may have missed it because the discussion page was incorrectly categorized. It's now in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology), though. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Engineering articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a significant difference in meaning between communication engineering, communications system engineering and telecommunications engineering ? In particular, would it be incorrect to rename Category:Communication engineering to Category:Telecommunications engineering? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for renaming. Comments and suggestions would be welcome at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Engineering WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers

Thank you. Pandelver (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move. See talk:Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse. Simply south...... 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage of {{pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an issue of inconsistent terminology between physics and engineering courses regarding torque. As the article states: "The terminology for this concept is not straightforward: In the US, in physics it is usually called "torque" and in mechanical engineering it is called "moment".[2] However outside the US this varies. In the UK for instance, most physicists will use the term "moment". In mechanical engineering, the term "torque" means something different,[3] described below. In this article the word "torque" is always used to mean the same as "moment"."

I am proposing to change the article title from the physics term torque, to the engineering term, moment of force. You can agree or disagree at Talk:Torque. :-) --Steve (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Combat engineering has been requested to be renamed. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Crower six stroke has been nominated for deletion. Expert opinion needed there and at Six-stroke engine. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• ICASE 2009 (AfD discussion)

The aforementioned article is listed at AFD. Please contribute to the discussion. Gsingh (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted an article with this title which was a copy of http://www.leanengineering.com/. When the article was tagged as copyvio, the author, Kcschlack (talk · contribs) replied on its talk page that he was the owner of the site and that his intention was "to remove the content on www.leanengineering.com and move it to Wikipedia." See User talk:Kcschlack#Lean Engineering for the advice I gave him: I think there is the possibility of an article here, but I have doubts about the distinction from Lean manufacturing and about whether the meaning of the term is sufficiently well established to pass WP:NEO. Posting here to see whether anyone is interested in following this up and perhaps collaborating with Kcschlack on an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone with an opinion on the technical aspects of the discussion at Talk:Harmonic drive please weigh in there. --John (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Kharon2 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a new wikiproject proposal, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electrical Engineering

70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Started as WP:WikiProject Electrical engineering -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We could use some hydraulic engineering input in this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Chemical engineering}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
Is the article at Foss Dyke suitable for this project as an example of (very old) Civil engineering? And if so, what about Louth Navigation or South Forty-Foot Drain or other examples of artificial waterways?

Would you welcome Pinchbeck Engine or Dogdyke Engine as Mechanical engineering articles?

Do you differentiate types of engineering when putting banners on talk pages?
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so because with same argumentation you could for example add any existing Drawbridge to mechanical engineering. Ofcourse a structure can be an example of mechanical engineering but engineering is just interested in categorizing and describing mechanical principles, not samples. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created Category:Locks in Canal du Midi‎. But since its sister category is Category:Aqueducts on Canal du Midi, I wonder if the name should be Locks on Canal du Midi. What is correct? -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The article L-EXOS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unrefrenced, orphan single-line stub -no meaningful improvements in more than 6 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dixy flyer (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox engineer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

file:ThirdAngle.png and file:FirstAngle.png have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a new engineering article that is up for review: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axial fan design. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We really need a subject specialist to take a look and evaluate the draft - it has been improved in terms of referencing and structure but to determine how good the content is, needs an expert reviewer - please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Gibbs-governor.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone care to review this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Fluid mechanics and Bathymetry applied on Geology and Topography so you should best ask for help in Portal:Earth sciences. --Kharon (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Coal gasification article needs some help for cleanup/expansion. There is also an issue if this article should include different project description or not. Beagel (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should ask the Portal:Chemistry for help with this. --Kharon (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-lubricating Chains - I don't know enough about the subject to tell the difference between objective information and advertising. Please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well its a Patent so its not made up fantasy however the producer should not use Wikipedia as advertising platform. Technically it is nothing new really because its simply a Plain bearing out of composite material fabricated by Sintering. I assume this Patent claims this special material composition in connection with this special use but its just an adaption of Sintered bronze, very commonly used for bearings for as long as Sintering exist, which use is based on a practically similar concept of selflubrication. Additionally i think the claims (cite)"[...].chains achieved strength on par with regular roller chain.[...]" and "[...].performance of the final chain product is the same as standard carbon steel chain in tensile and fatigue strength.[...]" are wrong or better put fabricated, most likely by choosing a fitting weakly constructed chain out of steel. Sintering is an very advanced technology with great results but this can not compete with Chains made of forged or high alloy steel. In consequence of course an PR-department is free to "fabricate" a good impression with well chosen rhetorics and comparisons to some degree but this may not be used here naturally. --Kharon (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems a very minor innovation, that of adding a sintered (i.e. oil reservoir) bush to a commonplace roller chain design. Sintered bushes are nothing new either, although applying them to chains was novel enough to justify a patent. It's certainly worth a para in an article on roller chains. If it's justified as a stand-alone article for WP:N, it needs independent coverage for the specific combination of roller chains and sintered bushes. I'm not seeing that as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear engineers: This proposed article in the Afc could use your expertise. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This one too! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[1] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Portal:Technology

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Aeronautics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into aviation, see talk:aviation -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, aeronautics has been proposed to be renamed to aeronautical science, see talk:aeronautics -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Undercarriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:undercarriage (disambiguation) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear engineering experts: This old abandoned Afc draft is about to be deleted. Is this a notable company/product and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Călan steel works has been nominated for DYK. There are a few things in there I don't understand enough myself to say if they have been correctly translated. Particularly this piece: "In 1953, production of two semi-coking batteries began; these were placed in use in 1956 and 1957 respectively, but proving unsatisfactory, were soon abandoned. The first carburizing oven was inaugurated in 1957 and was used for manufacturing semi-coke by fluidization." Does it sound ok to a metallurgist (in English)? Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Electrical engineering for a featured article review here. The reason for this is a serious lack of citations: much of the article is completely unreferenced. It would be great if someone knowledgeable in this area could improve the article and help it remain an FA. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kapitza Number. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas F. Edgar pass WP:ACADEMIC? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Nandktech/Forouhi-Bloomer Dispersion Equations as a Basis for Characterizing Thin Films. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Crcatala/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Deep Hole Drilling. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ecomechatronics. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear engineering experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

At a first look, this is definitely a keeper. We have much worse articles than this live already. I'm rather disappointed in the negative tone of the comments so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the editor improved the draft after those comments were made, but then never resubmitted it. I have postponed its deletion as a start so there's time to check it over or make improvements if needed. This seems like a well known topic. Is it by any chance already covered under some other title? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's got a copyvio - http://www.energydigital.com/global_mining/revolutionary-low-impact-rock-breaking-technology If someone here thinks it's better in main space and is willing to work on it, I'm happy to approve it after that is redacted. Drop me a note on my talk page if this offer interests you. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear engineering experts: This old AfC submission seems to me to be about an interesting topic. Is this notable, and should the article be saved and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This has a copyvio from http://www.hypermembrane.net/#!objectives/c240r --j⚛e decker^talk 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Too bad- I have deleted it. Thanks, j⚛e decker, for pointing that out. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Standard wind tunnel models. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been accepted by a reviewer. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Piston-cylinder apparatus. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been accepted by a reviewer. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please evaluate Draft:Energy and hydraulic grade line, the sourcing seems to be quite skimpy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please express your opinion here. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is barley used as Crystallite- and Grain size in Engineering and very specialized in Metallurgy, thus much more a focus in Geology. --Kharon (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at Draft:Efficient Motion Converter and check it for notability, sourcing and any other issues that affect it's acceptability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This reads like a commercial. The pure positive viewpoint makes you wonder why no one in industry is implementing it. The claimed 0.4% effectiveness gain over a common crankshaft is doubtfull as this construction needs way bigger and more Bearings (each common mechanical bearing usualy counts for atleast -,5% efficiency). Sources like the "Upstream Pumping Solutions Magazine" seem focused more on "press release services" than on technology and thus are very likely far away from NPOV. Besides that the mechanical description seems insufficient. I failed getting a picture of this just from the description, no matter i think i would count as professional. --Kharon (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Material properties (thermodynamics) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Turkish textile engineers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Dual Merging into Category:Textile engineers and Category:Turkish engineers. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Would this WikiProject like to adopt Diamond grinding? It is a newish article. It has plenty of info but it needs a bit of attention from someone who knows how to write about this sort of thing. Yaris678 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww (talk), Tim Vickers (talk), Coren (talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:

• HMS pioneers

There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:

Article	EoHT article	Deletion #1	Deletion #2	Desired neutral article
Human molecule	(human molecule)	AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007)	Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010)

What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.

My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:

(a) the mention that French philosopher Jean Sales (friend of Voltaire) coined the term in 1789 as follows: "we conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules."

(b) the Sterner-Elser 2002 published calculation for the empirical molecular formula for one “human molecule”, as found in their Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, where they define a human (a publication which has been cited over 750-times): ^[1]

${\displaystyle H_{375,000,000}O_{132,000,000}C_{85,700,000}N_{6,430,000}Ca_{1,500,000}P_{1,020,000}S_{206,000}Na_{183,000}\,}$

${\displaystyle K_{177,000}C_{l127,000}Mg_{40,000}Si_{38,600}Fe_{2,680}Zn_{2,110}Cu_{76}I_{14}Mn_{13}F_{13}Cr_{7}Se_{4}Mo_{3}Co_{1}\,}$

It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per suggestion by Kww at the 27 Aug 2010 deletion review, I have initiated an incubator space page: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule. I will work on developing a cogent acceptable article over the next week or so. Feel free to contribute with objections or suggestions. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Is there a Wikiproject signal processing? I do not see one. The signal processing articles are generally reference free and in need of help, e.g. Quantization (signal processing) has no references whatsoever. Anyway, whoever wants to should probably start a project on that, at least to tie these overlapping articles (with a great deal of redundant text) together. As is the ratio of text to references is really large. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure has been rated by the project as of high-importance while only being a start class article. However, the current article deals almost exclusively with non-engineering related failure. Does it make sense to split the article into Failure (engineering) and Failure, have a section of the Failure article introduce engineering related failure, and then finally write a new article that will deal exclusively with engineering related failure? I think this makes the most sense, since a sizable article about engineering related failure will make the non-engineering material seem out of place and obscuring while the article does maintain, in its current state, a good source of information for people unfamiliar with the various connotations of the word failure (not sure who that would be, but it doesn't mean it's not useful...) Others' thoughts would be beneficial. I plan to begin to update this page, but would like to sort out this matter first. Schmittz (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see engineering-related failure and related topics as very important, and distinct from non-engineering failure. A discussion of why engineering failures are important, how they happen, how engineers predict failure, etc., are all important and won't fall under the umbrella of the current Failure article. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please could contributors have a look at my offering for a portal revamp? the page is at User:Samdlacey/sandbox and i would love some feedback. Thanks Sam Lacey (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The revamp comment isn't a discussion of the wikiproject page, it's a note concerning the portal page...and as such I think it's more suited to the actual wikiproject page. I'll not move it back to save an argument but I stand by the placement. Do you have any comments on the portal?

Sam Lacey (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page isn't just for talking about the main page, its for talking about any engineering related topic. See the above discussions. Wizard191 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I posed a question on the Coandă-1910 talk page which as yet has not been answered and thought that maybe someone here might be able to help. Basically, the Coandă-1910 was an aircraft built to test an experimental propulsion system comprising a rotary fan driven by a 50 hp conventional piston engine, argued as being the first jet engine (but that's another matter). This propulsion system was claimed to have generated approximately 485 lbf thrust with the piston engine running at 1,000 rpm, but it's not known whether this figure was achieved during static tests or while using a test bed at the front of a moving railway locomotive. Considering this was 1910 and that aircraft were typically reaching speeds of around 50 mph, my question is what thrust figure might be generated by a typical aircraft propeller of the day driven by the same 50 hp engine? There might be many variables to consider, and assumptions made to answer the question, but I'd just like to get an idea of how significant (or not) this propulsion system would have been had it not been destroyed in a crash.--TransientVoyager (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 76.66.203.138 for intiating the improvement! Article is improved, copyedited, verified on recipient names and got one more reference. Article is now also moved to IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper Award. I deleted the proposal for deletion and unreferenced template. SchreyP (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate some input here regarding the perennial issue of the Main Branches of Engineering. Many thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Marine engineering article is kind of a mess. It is currently NOT a part of any Marine-related nor Engineering-related WikiProject. It is a part of both the Technology WikiProject and the Transport WikiProject—but I'm guessing those projects are not heavily peopled with folks who understand engineering, nor marine technology. Furthermore, the article seems to be confused about whether it is about the operation side of "engineering" (in the sense that railroad train operators and ship operators are "engineers") or the design side of "engineering" (folks who do the design of large engines, big ships, power plants, electrical networks, etc.).

In short, I think the article badly needs to be in some other project to get it the attention it (probably) deserves. Thought it might be a good idea to let your project think/discuss it. N2e (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Japanese engineer and mastermind behind the Edogawa River Project (also known as the G-Cans project) Tadashi Suetsugi has been an unreferenced biography of a living person since January 2009 (which is the current focus month for the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed to find any reliable sources to support the text of this stub - which I find surprising if he did, indeed, play a major role in the creation of this huge project. I have tried more than one spelling of his name. I'm posting here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the area might like to take an interest and provide a source for the text. If it remains unreferenced much longer it will probably be nominated for deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the role of infinitesimals in engineering? Was there a previous discussion along these lines? The article hardly mentions applications in engineering at all. Tkuvho (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I can find WikiProjects for Electronics and Computing, but none for Electrical Engineering. Have I just not found it and it is there, or does it really not exist? If not, shouldn't we get it started? -- Nczempin (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a task-force for WP Engineering would be sufficient until it is big enough. Electrical engineering is one of the one of the basic fields of engineering according to the WP Engineering. It is also distinct from Electronics/Electronics Engineering, which is a sub-field of EE. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be wikiprojects for each major field of engineering. We already have WP:WikiProject Civil engineering; there should be one for EE, Computer Engineering & Software Engineering, Mechanical Engineering & Industrial Engineering. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor). Steve Dufour (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This article could have sections copied from here, as "Types" or Introduction. Please, check. I tell you because it has a template is under your scope. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If any WikiProject Engineering members wish to contribute to the Edward J. Wasp (the pioneer of coal slurry pipelines) article, please feel free. I am not familiar enough with the technical aspects of his contributions to get this article to Good status. I have posted a few links on the article's talk page, and I am certain other articles exist so more research is needed. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've started new article on Arachno-Bot. Will appreciate your help in copy-editing, minor fixes or anything you desire to improve the article. ASHU^IND 09:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article on bridge scour needs to be moved and generalized since this is a phenomenon involving any submerged structure. I'm not sure where to move it to: scour is currently occupied by a defunct software product. I'm inclined to either move it there and displace the software, or move it to scour (hydrology). Assistance on the move and/or updating the article would be appreciated as I am not a civil engineer; I just happen to write articles on structures which are plagued by scouring. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Strength of materials and make notes on the talk page about what needs further work, please. I did some reorganizing to try to get rid of the old cleanup tag but it seems to consist mainly of definitions. Suggestions on how to improve the article appreciated. RJFJR (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. My name is Juan Hernandez and I'm currently writing an article on "women in engineering." The page is in its early stages at this point, but it could use some serious revision. I need all the help I can get, so if there is anyoene available, please visit the page or discuss this on my sandbox.

J hernan26 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)J hernan26

Do you mean your updating of Women in engineering or is this about another article? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 08:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A new article, Flow through cascades, has been created by an engineering student in India. The article provides a nice academic exercise on the topic of fluid flow through a series of turbine blades (a cascade), but it is just that, an academic exercise. The simplifying assumptions made throughout the article render the information useless in the real world.

Can someone from this project weigh in on whether such an article is appropriate for Wikipedia? My suggestion has been that it would work better at WikiVersity, but I am being perhaps too narrow in my concept of what the encyclopedia is for.

Please express thoughts or opinions at Talk:Flow through cascades. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I recently cleansed the "Nutation" article for reasons, obvious to any experienced user. Remains of content wrote by Globbet (talk · contribs) now reside in the dab page, in a severely trimmed form. If one feels that the topic of "nutation in engineering" deserves an article (a separate article, of course), then make it please. Thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure whether it is within the scope of this project but would anyone be willing to look at the engineering and collapse sections of the Clevedon Pier article. It seems to be a unique construction, which I'm not sure I have done justice to and the description of the stress testing and collapse are outside my comfort zone.— Rod ^talk 15:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Women in technology and engineering edit-a-thon 2012. -- Trevj (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings engineers, I have come here to ask for assistance from editors to address bias in the Ductile iron pipe article. My read on the article is that its content has become slanted, possibly due to activity by advocates of the PVC pipe industry. A disclosure before I explain further: I work with—and my presence here is on behalf of—the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. While my aim is surely to reduce the bias in the article, my approach is strictly to do so by working with disinterested editors on talk pages.

There are several areas of the article that I would like to discuss, but the most immediately concerning instance is the biased content under the heading "Environmental". On the talk page for the article, I have detailed the issues with this existing content in full. Also, realizing that editors would prefer to replace rather than simply remove problematic content, I have provided new content drawn from peer reviewed journal articles that aims for a balanced view of ductile iron pipe's environmental impact.

I should be very grateful to anyone willing to review my suggestion and offer an impartial opinion. If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Bias_in_this_article PiperOne (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible.

Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. --Jesus Presley (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is rated "high priority" by your project, but is currently the subject of an editing dispute because it is largely unsourced. The editor arguing for removing the content is technically in the right since this is a technical article and needs to be verifiable, but it would be a shame if good content was removed on that basis. I have tracked down some sources on Google Books preview which may be of use, but this isn't my area, and I would not feel comfortable adding references to an article where I am not familiar with the subject matter. If someone could spend an hour or two adding some sources to diffuse the situation it would be appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A request in 2010 asked if there's such a project; I think there's still not. So let's start one.

At ICASSP 2013 (May in Vancouver) there will be a special session Signal Processing Education in the Internet Age, organized by Jay Unnikrishnan, Martin Vetterli and Richard Baraniuk. It includes a panel that I'll be on. And it will be followed by an event about wikipedia, to try to encourage people in the SP field to work on making the coverage here better. I've suggested that to help make this go well, a wikiproject would be useful; but I don't have much experience working with wikiprojects, so I don't feel like I'm the guy to do it.

At this point, I'd like to both encourage editors who are into signal processing to join us at ICASSP, and to start or participate in a wikiproject. Any takers? Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dick! That sounds like a great idea. I have started a project page here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Signal_Processing. Looking forward to more editors interested in signal processing. Jay (User talk:Shantham11) 16:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The chemical elements pages contain a point Vickers hardness and Brinell hardness and there it is given in MPa which was pointed out at the tungtsen talk page is strange. The definition of both test does not include the MPa but that it is a force divided by a a area.

Please answer at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements --Stone (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

done --Kharon2 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WT:PHYSICS, where a discussion on creating an article on "transformation" is occurring. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Electron beam melting, Electron beam freeform fabrication, and Electron beam technology could probably use some sort of merge and a possible wikilinks with 3D printing if they aren't there already. I know little of the fields though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article New product development and the Category:Product development seem to be rather lacking any solid reflection of the importance of technical and engineering processes to the overall topic of product development. The New product development article is focused on the marketing and business side of product development, and at present, the Category:Product development has no engineering or technology subcategory in it, except for "Software development."

I'm thinking that an initial start would be to include some aspect(s) of technical product development to the Category:Product development, as subcategories, but am unsure which Engineering subcategories would best fit there. Anyone here have any ideas? Is Category:Engineering too broad a category for this purpose? Is Category:Technology better? Or worse? Other ideas would be appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes by the same editor to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51 in general? It looks to me like he is confusing the bit addressing instructions ("Boolean processor") here with the actual 8051 architecture, which is of course 8-bit. Before I respond to this, I would like a second opinion. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I started a Talk section on the organization of the Aerodynamics article here. I'm concerned that the article currently is not very accessible/sensibly organized for a lay person (or indeed, for me either as a not-so-lay person), and it would be great to have some feedback. Corvus coronoides _talk 03:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Aerodynamics is Fluid mechanics and as such part of physics so you should ask for help in Portal:Physics. --Kharon (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this: new editor repeatedly removing "incompressible" as a qualifier for hydraulic fluids, with reference to gas-charged accumulators. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tho from a physics view he is right. The only matter that cannot be compressed is what black holes are made of. Any fluid or solid will become a tiny little bit smaller as pressure rises.--Kharon (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an engineering question though, not an abstract piece of physics. An accumulator is a practical device for storing useful amounts of energy (if it's not both practical and useful, no-one bothers to make them). You can't deliberately store energy in compressed liquids so as to store useful amounts of energy with credible pressures (i.e. is it practical to make one that way), but you can do so easily by adding a gas bladder to the same vessel.

Liquids are compressible in engineering terms too - water hammer is one result of this, although not a helpful one. The point for the understanding of this article though is that accumulators rely absolutely on the compressibility difference between liquid and gas. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Missing Topics about Engineering - Skysmith (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is essentially an advertorial and original research. needs some expert eyes to clean it up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A 'low interest' rated article in Project Physics that could deserve better, perhaps if viewed from one or another of the subbranches in WP:TECH. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Advice please: (Solid State) Fault Current Limiters and Superconducting Fault Current limiters. Perhaps relating the subject to Category:supraconductivity only is misleading. Thank you. --Askedonty (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In accord with the above, I will edit the above article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_current_limiter in a more balanced manner, giving fair treatment to these 4 types of FCL technologies: 1. SFCL superconducting FCLs, 2. reactors, 3. SSFLC solid state fault current limiters, and 4. fuses. All 4 technologies are discussed in the official US Government Dept. of Energy publication on FCL, here http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/hts_fcl_110609.pdf even though two of those (fuses and reactors) are deprecated. Even technologies which are deprecated, still find wide-spread use in legacy installations, and in new installations where price and simplicity are driving factors. 1capybara (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I need some help with the article for Heinrich Gottfried Gerber. I saved it from deletion, as it looked to be a relatively weak translation of the German article using Google Translate, but there is still an issue of fleshing it out and sourcing it. I've found some sources but ultimately I have no idea what I'm writing about and this doesn't help the article at all. Can anyone help out with writing this properly? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The scope, name and usage of State of the art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:State of the art. This was an article prior to 2 February 2014, when it was overwritten by a disambiguation page previously found at State of the art (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See talk:climate engineering for the discussion on the name of the article -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently reviewed a draft about a semi-destructive testing technique and declined it per WP:NOTHOW. The draft writer has asked for assistance with making the article compliant. IMHO the "NOTHOW" violation is quite borderline in this case but unfortunately my knowledge of engineering is too "marginal" for me to be of much use. Please assist the writer with their new article. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Has this project died? If nobody responds soon this draft and a competent writer will probably be lost to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of this article. Any pointers on which sections breach the guidelines would be great - for instance, would the the Technique Overview section be better off written as prose, and described more generally? Or is there anything else I should add or subtract from the article? Thanks Dcave1 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I added some comments, but I am not an expert in the field of SDT. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The LR-87 article isn't flagged to indicate the particular scope of this WikiProject, but WikiProject Rocketry seems to be dead in the water and I have an important rocket engineering question for which I'd really like a meaningful consensus decision (so yes, it is (;-> rocket science), see Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Engineering is inactive at the moment but you better ask such questions in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science anyway. Sorry. --Kharon (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science --Kharon (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Hello. I'm expanding the article internal combustion engine. If anybody has reliable sources for the name of the type of two stroke engines which use the crankcase as an air pump to perform scavenging (common for motorcycles and small engines) please drop me a message in my talk page (As I don't check this page regularly). I have seen it refereed to as “crankcase scavenged” for instance, but I need reliable sources to cite. Thanks very much. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a redirect at Energy system redirecting to an ATP metabolism article. It occurs to me that there are many energy systems, and that this should lead elsewhere or be a disambiguation page. Do we have a general article or would it be energy ? (note also a discussion at talk:energy systems ) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, could anyone look over Draft:Magnetic Gear and let me know their thoughts? It is quite poorly written at this time but it might serve a base for a future article. Figured I'd throw it at you guys and make sure it's not complete bs before proceeding. --TKK! bark with me! 02:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

See answer under #Draft:Magnetic_Gear. --Kharon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi All

I wrote an article for the Tesla Model S manufacturing process, the manufacturing plant has a high level of automation and uses a lot of robots. As far as I know it's the first Wikipedia article about the manufacturing process of a consumer product. I'd very much appreciate someone who knows about engineering looking at it.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A Request for Comments is in progress as to whether Magneto (generator) should be: renamed to Magneto (bulk power generator); merged with Magneto); or left as is. Please participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear engineering experts: This old AfC submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Although it's a little confusing (to a musician...) it seems to me an interesting topic. Is this page worth keeping and improving?—Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not worth keeping because its badly structured, incomplete and the references are unacceptable (youtube? (and contains a mess that looks more like an general literature collection)). Should be deleted from article space and moved to the main autor's (User:Ozykiss) space. B.t.w. it seems rather new (June 2014). --Kharon (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kharon, the draft was deleted, after your recommendation, but it was later restored, improved to some degree and moved to mainspace. It appears to have collected some tags... —Anne Delong (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated Gas tungsten arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello engineers. When I read this draft, I thought it was written in a rather confusing manner. I went looking for the more general article about heat transfer efficiency, only to find that there isn't one. Is there an existing article on this topic under another name, and, if not, should there be? (PS - I am a musician, not a physicist)—Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am presuming from the lack of a reply that this draft was of no interest. It's been deleted now.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please assist AFC to evaluate this draft for possible inclusion. If you do not wish to, or do not know how to do a full AFC review please simply post your comments on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like us all to understand that as companies evolve we as project manager must continue to grow. We cannot limit ourselves to one area. Although we may have the basis for as project manager's there is so much diversity in what is required of us in these organizations. We must be flexible. -----June 13, 201520:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Dedrajd1 (talk)

2000squar fit building make 20×54 20×54 20×18 20×18 20×18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.116.182 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the biggest problem with science articles in general.

Clarification of equations Equations are elegantly presented, but need to have all variables More cleanly defined, in a table with applicable units would be preferable. Each equation should have information or a link to more information about each variable or function, and sample solved equations (ideally that would be randomized and editable like a calculator)

Check out Linear Induction Motor These equations like so many on Wikipedia require additional information. Typically, some variables are not easily defined. Pole pitch. There is no information on what this means, no link, and most importantly, no units. Number of poles... These things are not readily apparent to a layman. Equations should have SOLVED SAMPLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.124.158 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I would value additional perspectives in this discussion on appropriate material for inclusion within subject article. Thewellman (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

These both say different things with regards to Phillips heads and cam out-ing. Torx#Principles_of_operation and List_of_screw_drives#Phillips

Could someone figure this out? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this person notable? Draft:WH Mayall. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I had the pleasure of writing Trinity Chain Pier recently. I invite anyone with interest to look it over. There are already some interesting discussions on the talk page. --John (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 3D printer extruder to be moved to Fused filament fabrication. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

FYI, there is a suggestion to merge the history of science and history of technology category trees, see WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_12#Science_and_technology -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to help out a new user at Draft:SEFDM? A quick search shows that this could be a notable topic. I'm absolutely unfamiliar with this, so he'd definitely need someone who knows what all of this means. The user in question is Tongyang xu and they seem to be eager and willing to work on the page, but they could probably use an engineering specific mentor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:COMPUTING and WP:ENGINEERING.
2. I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Computing and Engineering, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Engineering and technology.
3. I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
4. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gradian to be moved to Gon (angle). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Casio fx-991ES to be moved to Casio Natural Textbook Display calculators. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Is this centrifugal concrete pipe casting? There are more I took here. Could this fit into any article? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone here consider cleaning Draft:Andrew Jenike up? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup work on this article, but I think it needs input (and trimming) from someone with more Wikipedia Manual of Style expertise, as it's a bit shabby around the edges. Thanks...Johnprovis (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello all,

I have been considering revamping a few articles about flight control systems :

Flight control system

Flight management system

Autopilot

some of avionics, and several other redirections.

This topic is about many engineering areas: electromechanical, software + I posted in Robotics and Systems projects already.

I have been working alone for a few months now, got some sound materials, would greatly enjoy to receive any help, review, comment, suggestion!

Regards, Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxorazon (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That is covered under WP:AVIATION, you should make a notice there as well. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage and topic of Thermal ManagementThermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fellow Members of the SME, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The Hyperloop pod competition could really use some additional eyes from engineering-interested editors. Actually, with three prototype test tracks underway now, the Hyperloop main article could also use a really good going over. The idea, a mere technology concept in 2013, is becoming somewhat real as real prototype tracks and pod vehicles are being engineered and built. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Will some previously uninvolved editor please review and comment on Draft:Geopolymer concrete. Should it be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bioprinting definition includes a picture of a Russian printer that Wikipedia says "prints live organs" This is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:8001:6E00:A1F4:5D74:23D4:6D29 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on this page about the correct spelling for "uniflow". (or is it "unaflow"...?) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 Minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost (an essay!) some Wikipedians seem to accept such invitations but i strongly advice otherwise. I spend about 30 minutes trying to find out about the costs accessing your "collection" and failed. Seems you keep it well hidden and i guess i would have been schocked by it - so thanks for hiding! Using your "collection" as reference in Articles would generate a need for payed accounts to verify this in the long run and establish your commercial privat Library concept, which happens to look exactly like a conceptional competitor to us, the Wikipedia, to me. So from my point of view id like to answer it this way: Nice try! --Kharon (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kharon. The The Wikipedia Library (TWL) is a Wikipedia library project conceived by Ocaasi. All access is free to experienced Wikipedians who apply and qualify. I am a brand newbie coordinator of three of the 50+ databases in the library. This post here was my first stab at getting the word out about one of the databases I coordinate. If you notice I have already edited this notice so it is more obvious that the access is free, a year at a time. I am a volunteer Wikipedian, just like you. I welcome your input on how I can be of better service to you. In summary, if you apply for access to any of the databases and qualify (barrier to entry is very low), you receive a full year free access, and it is renewable yearly, subject to availability. Germination of the library was a process and its fruition was approved by consensus of Wikipedians. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. Could you write me a link to that approval and its discussion? Thank you in advance. --Kharon (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kharon. I did not participate in the discussion, as far as I can remember. I was an early adopter of signing up for free access to the TWL partner databases. Here are some links on Meta: original proposal, final report, and renewal. The Foundation had to approve those three submissions based on their IEG criteria. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I will not apply for access because the small volume of my participation here could never justify such privileges. --Kharon (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic instability has been nominated for deletion at RFD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that template:convert should support an option that forces output to use scientific notation ? I've noticed there no such option at template talk:Convert. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see if Draft:Predictive engineering analytics is an acceptable article. AFC is in backlog, assistance from topic specialists would be appreciated. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Engineering might be interested in the newly created Category:Recipients of Engineers Australia engineering heritage markers. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for GPUdb to be moved to Kinetica (software). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

There does not appear to be an article on this subject. Is this correct? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Any volunteer to shape this idea d:Wikidata:Project_chat#WikiObject_project_proposal?--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Myself and another editor are having a protracted disagreement over whether 'Atkinson cycle' is defined by the Atkinson thermodynamic cycle or by the internal linkages detailed in the original patent. Neither of us is able to convince the other. Please do not respond here but add your comments to talk:Atkinson cycle#Modern Atkinson Engine.  Stepho  talk  08:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please join this rename discussion about signal estimation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Engineering/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on whether Category:Automation should be part of Category:Control engineering or they should maybe be categorized the other way around?

Automation seems to have a much wider scope than Control engineering so maybe the relation should be reversed.

thank you, --KaiKemmann (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiKemmann (talk • contribs)

My lists of missing topics about engineering part 1 & part2 are updated (maybe third one needed later...) - Skysmith (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors with an interest in this subject are invited to comment on this discussion of recent and proposed changes to Wikipedia coverage and nomenclature. Thewellman (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone who understands higher math please have a look at this article and try to make heads or tails of it? For the life of me I cannot comprehend what it's for or if it's necessary or encyclopedic. If it isn't, I'm happy to do the work taking it to AfD, I just need someone who can read it to tell me so. If it is worth keeping, please point me in the direction of where I could de-orphan it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see

• Comments requested on merging "air cooling" process descriptions from multiple Wikipedia articles

I think that descriptions of "air cooling" are all the same concept but somehow started to be described in multiples places. I am seeking advice on what can be merged together and where. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has been nominated for merging with Template:IEEE councils. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.

• WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
• WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
• WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Watch out where you write. We engeneers tend to shoot any of these filthy Chemists on sight! All they ever do is cause and spread corrosion. Guess who always has to go and fix it.. --Kharon (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion on its talk page about whether it is actually a thing, and if it is, whether the existence of an article is justified in terms of general notability and available sources. It is tagged for this project, so there may be someone interested enough to comment. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 03:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There does not appear to be sufficient evidence that the topic is real, and a merge and redirect has been proposed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds a bit to madeup to be relevant. Also saw the article Army engineer diver but these seem more commonly, simply called Frogman. I also have no clue why some diver could need an Engineer's degree. Highly skilled divers are technicians at best and thats what these "Engineer divers" probably really are. No Engeneers. --Kharon (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I am both an engineer (university degree) and a diver (surface supplied commercial) but I have never thought of myself or been referred to as an Engineer diver, but that is WP:OR and therefore doesn't count in the discussion. Army engineer divers are simply members of the (US) army engineering corps who are also divers, and refers to the unit rather than their technical qualifications - they would not be engineer divers if the left the army. Frogmen is another problematic and poorly defined term, but that is a separate issue. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here in Germany the military ones are called Kampfschwimmer and famously known to be as tough as humans can get. Ofcourse they get extensive technical training on top but nothing near an Engineer's degree. I also happend to get to know some "industrial divers" some time ago and learned that they are only checked on top health and diving security and regarding technical matters only need to get the job done, no technical degrees needed. --Kharon (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I found the article Outdoor heating, which may need improvements. Those interested may help out. --George Ho (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles Graphical projection, 3D projection, Projection (linear algebra) and Engineering drawing#Multiple views and projections all kind of talk about the same stuff. There are also several child articles that go into more detail. Can any of this info be merged together into one place? What is the best way to structure these topics? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I can see a possibility for combining Graphical projection and 3D projection. Possibly a merge with redirect to Graphical projection as the preferred topic name. The subsection in Engineering drawing looks like a reasonably appropriate summary in an appropriate place and appropriately links to Graphical projection as its main article. It may be reasonable to summarise the section further, but I have not looked into this in detail. Projection (linear algebra) looks like it is sufficiently different to justify a separate article. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I started a discussion here. SharkD  Talk  03:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Engineering.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Engineering, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any difference between these three things? To me they seem like the same thing, and I'm considering merging them. SharkD  Talk  01:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

They are probably specific terms common to one branch of profession. Projections are used frequently in architecture, mechanical engineering and even in art. So dont be surprised if some specific professionals start to frame you as amateur who should not edit profession articles. --Kharon (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#World_Science_Photo_Competition_2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Engineering journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

a very small section here v:Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams#Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) is being questioned. Someone, please, could check and correct? Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

shear diagrams look ok at a quick glance, but BM diagrams have lost the plot. I don't have the time or the inclination to fix, but there are problems. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As a quick way to check if the sense of the curve is correct for BM, mentally integrate SF with distance along the beam. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Engineering

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Mathematics of radio engineering has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Serious concerns on talk page have not been addressed since 2012.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Sebastian 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have started an RfC[2] on the Collapse of the World Trade Center. The article has historically been subject to a great deal of controversy, but this hasn't been a problem for several years. The conspiracy theorists have been largely run out of town. It now seems possible to make a WP:GOOD article that clearly explains the mechanics of the collapse in such a way that people who want to know how it happened can inform themselves. Unfortunately, qualified engineers appear also to have lost interest in the article. The RfC is an attempt to find a way to move forward. Please help by offering your suggestions.--Thomas B (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I found this article very useful for discovering new and interesting projects to learn about. However, I'm not so much interested in the historical projects. Would it be possible to provide a way to identify projects that are still ongoing? Or perhaps list them by start/end date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.133.143 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ergun equation links to the DAB page Friction factor. Can any chemical engineer here help solve this problem, either by a link or by a short inline explanation? Narky Blert (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not a chemical engineer, but none of the dab links look like what is in the Ergun equation. I would suggest just removing the link. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Mark viking (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A typical comical plumber's pragmatic solution. It's all about what helps our readers best :-) Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There are two new merger proposals:

• Merge Order of reaction into Rate equation (discussion here.
• Merge Residence time distribution, Residence time (fluid dynamics), Hydraulic retention time and Mean residence time into Residence time (discussion here).

These were tagged for WP:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, but that project is inactive, so I have added them to this project. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have every confidence this picture shows a computer with a calculator, but she also has an optical tool, which I called a microscope but have much less confidence. Was I right? Jim.henderson (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Over on WP:WPM we been working on identifying draft which come under our project and reviewing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Part of this process involved finding draft which had mathematical of chemical equations in them. Quite a few of them come under your project and we have listed them at Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering. You may wish to examine these and see if any should be promoted to main space. --Salix alba (talk): 07:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there is a proposal here to merge Airbreathing jet engine into Jet engine. The discussion is getting a bit bogged down, so more votes would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster#RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I discussed at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent, I am having a bit of trouble figuring out [ https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/4f/8c/b1df4e115e8359/US7872576.pdf ]. In particular, I am having trouble with

"FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having one pair consisting of one transmitter positioned opposite one receiver. FIG. 5 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having two pairs, each pair consisting of a transmitter positioned opposite a receiver."

What is the point of the two transmitters and receivers (which anyone else would call light sources and light detectors)? Figure 7 shows one or the other being blocked. Why?

Because I can't conceive of an engineer who isn't also interested in the religious aspects (and because the religious aspects may be the reason for the two sets of light sources and light detectors), I discuss them at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent. I would like to keep all discussion on this centralized there. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear,

We need some help on the "heat treating" property on Wikidata :

Would it be possible to :

• Give your opinion on the request for comments ?
• Vote for the property proposal ?

Thanks

-- Thibdx (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find good sources for noise pollution levels of cities around the world? If so, please be a dear and drop me a line at my talk page. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Over the past few months, I've been working with the Istanbul-based engineering and construction company Enka İnşaat ve Sanayi A.Ş. to draft a new Wikipedia article. You'll notice the existing article is entirely unsourced, and there are two tags at the top of the page.

I don't edit the main space because of my conflict of interest, so I'm looking for an editor to review my proposed draft and update the main space appropriately. I've disclosed my COI at Talk:Enka İnşaat ve Sanayi A.Ş., where I've also submitted an initial request to add the proposed company overview.

Is someone from WikiProject Engineering willing to review the request? Thanks in advance for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Are drafts on electrical engineering topics reviewed here, at WP:WikiProject Computing, or is there an electrical engineering project? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Transpiration cooling is a new article I recently created to endeavor to explicate for the general Wikipedia audience a concept that has been much in the (spaceflight technology) news lately, as it appears this thermodynamic process will be used to actively cool the heat shield of the new next-generation rocket of Elon Musk and his company SpaceX.

Would appreciate it if others might happen over to that new stub article, Transpiration cooling, and review it for usefulness to the general Wikipedia reader. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually my 15 year old, big Refrigerator also uses its Side- and Backwall(s) to "transpier" the heat. So dont mention Mr. Musk here for he is just a notorious copycat. --Kharon (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all

I just created an article for Computed axial lithography, a new method of using light curing resin to 3D print objects (different to stereolithography), could someone take a look? Also I can't work out which infobox I should use for it.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This man is often referred to as the inventor of the electric car. An early source is this one [[3]]. My question is: Could this be a mistake? Is this Robert Davidson (inventor)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattivi (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please review this draft, or should I take this request to another project? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Formal request has been received to merge: Radiant cooling and Radiant heating into Radiant heating and cooling system article; dated: 7 April 2019 (UTC). Proposer's Rationale: {none stated}. >>>Discussion is here<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A review of this draft is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw that there was a request for history of mechanical engineering article so i created a draft. Can someone review it so we can get it out faster? - AH (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit thin and the sourcing is scant. Much of what's claimed also wobbles between too thin and too dubious.

What's "mechanical" engineering, vs. military engineering and civil engineering? Also mining, as an engineering discipline. Because if this is an article on the history specifically, it really needs to compare against these as a context. Is it the oldest? If it's so old, why are the professional bodies only appearing in the 19th century? (and are those really the first?)

If mechanical engineering relies on maths (as the lead claims), then how did it operate early on? Civil engineering certainly adopted maths in a big way in the 1840s. But this is apparently a big contradiction for such a small article and it needs explanation.

Some of the sources I'd regard as essential are missing:

• The Ancient Engineers
• Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine
• What Engineers Know and How They Know It

Also some of the classic historical texts which recorded and communicated mechanical engineering knowledge really need to be mentioned:

• Diderot's Encyclopédie
• Rees's Cyclopædia
• John Farey's, A Treatise on the Steam Engine
• Nicholas Wood's A Practical Treatise on Rail-roads
• Samuel Smiles' Lives of the Engineers

Clearly this is a vital article, and eventually a big one (there are many very large books on just this). As it is, we're not past a draft yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I will definitely take my draft and use your sources to create a more indepth article. Thanks for the feed back. If anyone else is working on a draft, we should certainly collaberate. - AH (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Very little collaboration occurs in Draft space. Per WP:IMPERFECT, I have moved this to mainspace as History of mechanical engineering where it will get the attention it deserves. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created a draft in order to separate the massive list that is on the main article Agricultural Engineering because I want to improve that article as well. If someone could review, I will make the article and improve btoh articles. - AH (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the notability of the Aluminum internal combustion engine on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion involves the reliability of Russian news sources, including TASS. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of (mostly) Russian news sources for an engineering breakthrough in Russia. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a good case to merge this into the main article. I have talked about it on its talk page and the reliability discussion is now over (what ever that may had concluded) - AH (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Hammer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Does anyone have any ideas? we know efficiency = actual output/effective capacity x 100 and Utilization = actual output/ design capacity x 100 Well efficiency is defined as the ratio of the actual output to effective capacity. So in order to calculate efficiency, you first have to determine what the effective capacity of the operation is. Once you determine the effective capacity, that will help you then to know the design capacity. Design capacity is defined as the maximum output achieved under ideal conditions. Design capacity represents 100 percent of total output. Now utilization is, the ratio of actual output to design capacity and gives a better picture of how the operation is making the most of its potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JENNWEISSCONNERS (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, design capacity in engineering is never 100% because engineers know that no perpetuum mobile exists. There is always some fraction where energy "leaks" aka "closed system" and ideal conditions dont exist anywhere. --Kharon (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

efficiency = actual output / effective capacity ?

What an odd definition. More often it's = desired output / spent input.

Fuel efficiency, for example, is very often calculated. The numerator is distance or impulse or smelted iron or some such; the denominator is fuel burned.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shell Professor of Chemical Engineering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell Professor of Chemical Engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theprussian (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Telegraph Road Bridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Subject to some important engineering technology and studies. See the sources in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am hopefully wrong, but it seems a bit promotional. I don't have enough knowledge though to be sure. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There are some WP:PEACOCK issues but not enough for me to even justify slapping {{peacock}} on it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the Blackbird wind powered vehicle really could go into the wind of velocity X at more than speed X, the same vehicle on a windless day pushed by a pick up truck at the same speed X, would accelerate into the same relative wind leaving the truck behind, thus demonstrating perpetual motion that we all thought impossible. If the vehicle actually can go 2.1 times the wind speed into the wind, it seems to me that if the wind died down to X-1, the vehicle would continue to move into the wind at 2.1*(X-1) and then accelerate back up to 2.1*X, limited by the fact that wind drag is proportional to the wind speed squared (X²), while the force provided by the turbine is proportional to Wind speed X. So a slight drop in the wind speed would allow the vehicle to accelerate back up to 2.1*X and repeating this decrease in wind speed would eventually reach speed 0 while the vehicle remains at 2.1 times its relative wind (2.1*X), again achieving perpetual motion. What am I missing?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(land_yacht) Lipppy (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please review this draft? Is it ready for acceptance into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Accepted ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This is out of scope to me or seems like a misnomer. Unless we are discussing a facility, owned and operated by an individual healthcare company then how can there be such a system? A [[4]] System can be defined as a combination of components that work in synergy to collectively perform a useful function.

I see no synergy in the American Healthcare Industry. Each Incorporation is self optimizing either for profit or not. They do not work together.

Just how should an actual healthcare system be described conceptually? I believe it requires a payment system, a delivery system, a scheduling system, etc. How might a system integrate, with synergy, the American Payment System Payers and Payees, with the delivery system (being standardized)?

It makes no sense to refer to the "American" Healthcare industry as a Healthcare System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.112.29 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because a system has free-market characteristics and no central planning doesn't mean its not a system. Really, its more of 50 different medical systems of each state which then form a larger system of state medical systems. Its just a very compartmentalized one. - AH (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A redlink user wants to see in a crossbow trigger mechanism a cam (brief vid on mechanism). I disagree. Qualified opinions are welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I was looking over multibody dynamics and noticed this page. It has zero citations but the info there seems quite solid. From what I know, this is a pretty important topic with more and more applications these days. However, I couldn't find any good source material to cite. Does anyone happen to know some good sources for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Elgamal (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK, the Women's Engineering Society, and the Institution of Engineering and Technology are holding an editathon on 24 June to improve articles about women in engineering. There will be an online training session for beginners. Experienced editors are welcome and you can add your name to the project page. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, volumes 1 to 18 of The Woman Engineer have been digitised and are freely available on the Institution of Engineering and Technology's website. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and added a source to this article: International Standard Link Identifier. I received the suggestion to add sources to this article on my Talk page. I hope I have improved the article rather than creating a new problem.--Carol Goudie (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! On behalf of IBM and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted a Wikipedia article for John E. Kelly III (Wikidata entry), the "father" of Watson (computer) who has also received multiple notable awards, including the IEEE Frederik Philips Award and IEEE Robert N. Noyce Medal. Mr. Kelly's career is well-documented, and I've worked to draft a neutral article using only reputable sourcing. IBM has reviewed the accuracy of the text, and I should also note, there are red links requesting creation of this page at List of Dublin City University people and List of Union College alumni, among other pages where he is mentioned. Before I submit to AfC, I wanted to see if any editors here might be interested to review this entry and potentially move into main space?

Thanks in advance! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This request has been answered, so I've marked this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have a background in this subject but am trying to create an article on this chap anyway - any help in establishing his bona fides would be most welcome. If it's not in the right place please let me know and I'll move it.

---

W.T. David
Born	William Thomas David (1886-04-19)19 April 1886 Laugharne, Carmarthenshire, Wales.
Died	29 May 1948(1948-05-29) (aged 62) Leeds, Yorkshire, England.
Nationality	Welsh
Citizenship	British
Awards	Thomas Hawksley Gold Medallist:1937[1] Starley Premium Recipient:1941[2] Dugald Clerk Prize Winner:1941[3]
Scientific career
Fields	Engineering
Institutions	University College Cardiff Trinity College, Cambridge University of Liverpool

W.T. David M.A., Sc.D (1886–1948) was Professor of Engineering at Liverpool University from 1922-48 in the United Kingdom and from 1920-22 at University College, Cardiff in Wales. His pioneering doctoral research under Professor Bertram Hopkinson at Trinity College, Cambridge into flame gas phenomena anticipated later developments in quantum mechanics and David became an established authority on gaseous explosions in combustion engines. During WW1 he served as an Army Major (Research and Inspection) and in 1915 was appointed Director in the Ministry of Munitions and in 1918 Inspector of Technical Schools in the Ministry of Education. Professor David was a member of the Institutions of Civil and of Mechanical Engineers, and was chairman of the Yorkshire Association of the Institution of Civil Engineers for the session 1928-29. He died in 1948.^[4]

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

• David, W.T. (1926). "Radiation in gaseous explosions". Trans. Faraday Soc. 22: 273–280. doi:10.1039/TF9262200273.
• David, W.T. (1934). "Flame temperatures in carbon-monoxide and air mixtures". The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 7. 17 (110): 172–181. doi:10.1038/150521b0.
• David, W.T.; Pugh, B. (1937). "Influence of Hydrogen and Water Vapour upon the Combustion of Carbon Monoxide Mixtures". Nature. 17 (110): 172–181. doi:10.1080/14786443409462378.
• David, W.T. (1937). "Turbulence in internal combustion engines". Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical engineers: The Engineer. 164 (110): 733. doi:10.1080/14786443409462378.
• David, W.T.; Pugh, B. (1940). "Latent Energy and Dissociation in Flame Gases". Nature. 195: 896–897. doi:10.1038/145896a0.
• David, W.T.; Mann, J. (1942). "Influence of Water Vapour on Flame Gas Temperatures". Nature. 150: 521–522. doi:10.1038/150521b0.
• David, W.T. (1943). "Temperature of Flame Gases". Nature. 152: 521–522. doi:10.1038/152278a0.
• David, W.T.; Mann, J. (1947). "Unusual Flame Gases". Nature. 160: 229–230. doi:10.1038/160229b0.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPROF and determine whether this subject meets the requiremets outlined there. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Superadobe will be linked from the main page in a few weeks for the Pomona College Organic Farm DYK. It's in a pretty sorry state currently, so someone inclined may want to fix it up in anticipation of the upcoming views. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have recently created the Simcenter STAR-CCM+ (in main space) as the existing material on the CD-adapco page was outdated. I'm reaching out to the Engineering Wikiproject to see if there are any other editors out there who would be keen to contribute to this article or review it for neutrality and quality? I'd like to mention that I am a CFD engineer at Siemens and I have put in a lot of effort to ensure that the page is neutral, accurate and encyclopedic. Would really appreciate some help with it and look forward to collaborating!

Thanks in advance, DrMesh (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Shielded metal arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there engineering enthusiasts! I created an article on the Swiss engineer Draft:Michael Unser via the Article for creation process, what should I do for it to figure on the AfC list on the Egineering WikiProject?

Thanks in advance!

BatYote. (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out! ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Edwards (engineer) § Request Edits December 15, 2020. PC7956 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs help. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This page needs work or to be deleted. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Still no work since August. It is at risk of being deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINES. Do you intend to propose deletion yourself? ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

SAE 304 stainless steel 16,062 535 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a stub. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've assessed it as C-class. ~Kvng (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, please do me a favour and have a look at Talk:Diesel_engine#List_of_manufacturers. Opinions from the WP:Engineering community would be appreciated. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks, I am trying to improve the draft article on Duane McRuer (late aircraft controls engineer; National Academy of Engineering). Can you please take a look and provide any advice on how to make it better? Thanks so much. Jbgeddes3 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on over the introduction to Balance wheel. Would appreciate more outside opinions at Talk:Balance wheel#Recent changes to introduction. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Could someone fix the above article page? The split was reverted, but the 2nd page that was split is still out there, and on the current talk page, the archiving bot is messed up because the article name has a "period" at the end of it, that I don't think should be there. I don't know enough about it to say what should be done. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:ThorCon_nuclear_reactor_-_draft
Talk:ThorCon_nuclear_reactor#Major_revision

Hello fellow engineers, I would like to see a series of articles on the new reactor designs, focused on the key issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. The problem is - if we want details on these designs, we have to go to company websites and videos of talks by the engineers who designed these reactors, which by the rules are not reliable sources. I tried using documents filed with the IAEA regulatory agency, and got a second rejection - the data is still from the company. I suggested we put a statement in the lead paragraph: "This article is a brief summary of information from <company>. For more details see the <company> documents[1] and <company> Status Report to the IAEA.[2]" One editor thought that was OK, but I'm not getting a clear consensus on how to proceed. Another editor suggested that I take an old article on the TMSR-500, rename it, and morph it step-by-step into the article I submitted as a draft.

My time is valuable. I'm doing this as a public service. I have no connection with any of the companies or any interest in the nuclear industry or any advocacy group. I don't want to continue "flying under the radar" only to find my efforts wasted. Are there any participants in this group who have enough interest in this topic to work with me, if not writing, at least helping me navigate the rules? I have read the rules on reliable sources, and I agree with them. I just want to avoid the nitpicking rigid enforcement, for example, when there is no good reason to reject a source that is actually more reliable than a peer-reviewed journal.
David MacQuigg 18:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I am an experienced WP:AFC reviewer and can help you navigate acceptance criteria and evaluate sources. We would really like to see some WP:SECONDARY sources covering the subject - magazine or news articles, WP:INDEPENDENT scientific papers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng Thank you for your interest in this project. I have added some secondary and independent sources to the first article ThorCon_nuclear_reactor#Further_reading. Let's continue the discussion already started on the talk page of that article. I will hold off on the second Draft:FC-MSR_nuclear_reactor and further articles until I am confident the first article is acceptable. David MacQuigg 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have watchlisted ThorCon nuclear reactor but that doesn't seem to need the kind of help I can offer. We generally prefer to improve existing articles over replacing them with a new draft so it doesn't look like Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft is needed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Help. We need a nuclear engineer to resolve a question on gaseous fission products. See the discusssion at Talk:Molten_salt_reactor#Gaseous_fission_products — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macquigg (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed
ThorCon nuclear reactor
Molten salt reactor
I have started making improvements on these existing articles, but the effort dealing with conflicting edits is getting more than I can tolerate.
Is this workgroup still alive? Is there anyone here with an interest in the new reactor designs, or even just a general interest in stopping global warming?
If I don't see any further interest, I will have to abandon the effort.
David MacQuigg 00:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see some articles on the design of new reactors that focus on the issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. I tried submitting one, but was asked to improve an existing article instead. I started making bold changes to an old article on the ThorCon reactor, replacing the lead paragraphs and re-focusing the article on the four issues above. Nobody has touched this article for five years, but my new edits have attracted relentless opposition from one person who doesn't like the changes, but won't contribute anything himself. I have read the WP:Dispute Resolution page, and it suggests I start with this request to the relevant group, which I think is clearly engineering. If you would like to comment, please read the last three sections of the talk page, starting with [[5]]. Thank you for your help. David MacQuigg 00:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the category for people to request images related to engineering is a good idea. I am going to give creating that category page Creating Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of engineering subjects a shot, but if I did not do it correctly, please let me know! Ivangiesen (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Replying to myself here. Turns out the category page had already been created, but the link on the main wikiproject page was incorrect. I corrected that so now it directs to the right category page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivangiesen (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am posting this here to see if there are other users interested in also contributing to anything HVAC related within the scope of building engineering. I am a mechanical engineer at a University, so I have access to lots of mechanical rooms and equipment. Cheers! Ivangiesen (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Car layout § Requested move 27 July 2022. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all. I've been investigating the articles on HVAC and hydronics on wikipedia, and it seems to me that there is huge opportunity to discuss steam in its applications for utilities, district energy, industrial applications, hydronic heating, food/beverage industries and laboratories. It's referenced as a kind of system in multiple articles (see: Energy_storage, Hydronics) and likely others I haven't found yet. Is this something that other people would be interested in helping out with/see the need for? Even if you can't help, voicing your comments and questions is very helpful! Thank you. Ivangiesen (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have an article on Steam heating. This currently redirects to Central heating § Steam heating. All the other systems in Central heating § Types of central heating have their own {{Main}} article except for Steam heating. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng Ah, thank you for that link, that was very helpful. It's interesting that process steam is mentioned (currently red-linked) so someone thought that was an article worth creating as well. I wonder what the significant difference would be for a Steam heating system versus a Process steam system. I kind of think that they would better served in one article. I'm not sure and I think I'll come to a better conclusion after doing more research. I've got a draft in the works at User:Ivangiesen/sandbox/Steam distribution system that you are welcome to add or make edits to. No references yet, but I'll start to add them in.

Edit: I am thinking of modeling the article after the Water distribution system article. What are your thoughts on that? Ivangiesen (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ivangiesen, looks like a good start. I was wondering about steam and water heating confined to a single building and just discovered the Hydronics article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I proposed updates to improve the stub at Talk:Modern Meadow. Modern Meadow biofabricates new materials. I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks. Olympus4Me2 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Walter Hunt (inventor) has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

i recommend adding 3D printing filament SirSharp (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Robin from Beutler Ink. I've posted a draft article on behalf of our client Monolith Inc. at Articles for Creation. Because of my COI, I am looking for editors who might be interested in reviewing the draft and thought someone here might find the topic interesting. I've also asked for help at WikiProject Nebraska and WikiProject Technology. If you'd like to take a look, you can find the draft article here. I welcome feedback and suggestions. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Madman Muntz for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi All,

I have added the {{Engineeing}} tag to the Asset Management page, to ensure that this is categorized as a specialized engineering discipline, which it is internationally recognized as (see the sections on Physical, Infrastructure, and Engineering Asset Management)

I am assuming this needs some peer review or concurrence to get approved. Please if someone can do this, that would be great, or alternatively if there are any questions or comments on the addition of this tag, please do reach out to me I would be happy to respond/resolve.

Thanks. Erikvandenberg (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Construction of the World Trade Center
2. Glynn Lunney
3. Joseph Francis Shea
4. Science and technology of the Song dynasty

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Hoping someone can write a bio , please note the wikidata has lots of useful links on it. BhamBoi (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ORG, sourced from subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This article is rated mid-importance by your project Ascelyn (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to draw your attention to an important ongoing discussion regarding the potential merger of {{Infobox aircraft engine}} into {{Infobox aircraft}}. While a previous merger discussion resulted in the merger of this Infobox, there have been concerns raised about merging an Infobox related to engines with a Infobox about aircraft.

I would like to invite all interested and willing editors to participate in the ongoing discussion and lend their expertise to help us reach a conclusion that ultimately results in the successful completion of the merger. Your valuable contributions are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Prarambh20 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI. The article Functional decomposition has been PRODed. If anyone cares about it, they should take steps to clean it up a bit. I think its a valid (software and systems) engineering topic, but what do I know. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated CFM International CFM56 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Water frame, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Raytheon_Company#Requested_move_5_August_2023 about whether to move Raytheon Company to Raytheon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tractive force#Requested move 1 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers. Similar goes for Geomatics engineering whose scope is increasing and article is yet to be made on wiki. Even Survey engineering can be redirected here.Franked2004 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tesla Cybertruck, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for can Munro & Associates media content ever be used as a source in the Cybertruck article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The usage of Seal (device) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:seal (emblem) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:International Board for Research into Aircraft Crash Events#Requested move 20 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Archimedes' screw#Requested move 17 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Mechanism (engineering), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I'm looking for a copy of A. O. Austin, A Laboratory for Making Lightning (paper presented at the International High Tension Congress, Paris, 6-15 June 1929). I can't find it in JSTOR. Could somebody who has access to the IEEE library (or some other repository out of my reach) take a look and see if it's there, please? RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6534903 is talking about the right conference, but that's just the announcement that the proceedings will be published. What I'm looking for are the actual proceedings. RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

I've started to improve Communications in the State of Palestine but this really isnt my area of expertise. Could someone who knows about this stuff also take a look, I know a lot is missing.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Buro Happold has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 12:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Robert Noyce page characterizes the Silicon Valley giant as a "physicist," but on that article's talk page I argue that he was more of an engineer. What do you actual engineers think? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

From his page: "He received his doctorate in physics from MIT in 1953". I've worked with many physicists who made their money as engineers based on their intimate knowledge of physics - especially when we're talking about semi-conductors. Noyce definitely knew his physics and used it extensively while at Fairchild and Intel. He could also be classified as an engineer or entrepreneur but both of these built on his knowledge of physics.  Stepho  talk  08:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course an engineer needs to know physics. You don't categorize famous people by their education, you categorize them by their achievements. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what type of engineer and what type of physics. A structural engineer' knowledge generally does not need to know much about subatomic physics. A typical electronics engineer (ie circuit designer) doesn't need to know much physics. A software engineer can get away with no physics (I've required high school physics for many of my SW jobs and basic knowledge of NQR when I did baggage scanners and I read a lot but I am no physicist). Someone at the forefront of electronics engineering (ie advanced chip design) needs intimate knowledge of atomic/subatomic physics. Perhaps you are confusing physicist (the general term) with theoretical or experimental physicists (specific fields for expanding our knowledge rather than applying our knowledge) ?  Stepho  talk  00:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I get you to participate in the discussion on the Robert Noyce talk page? I linked it above. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Could I have extra eyes at Mean radius/Talk:Mean radius. There's a dispute about whether or not certain things are mean/effective diameters/radii, and providing sources (or common sense) doesn't seem to help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The regulars at CFD are not engineering experts, so we would really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 15#Category:Chemical looping technologies. Initially it looked like it was about chemistry, but it appears to be about engineering after all. Questions are: if merged to what categories, if renamed to what name? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22#Category:Chemical looping technologies. We would really appreciate your input; none of the CFD people know what we are talking about :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there!

I just went and put my input on the relisted discussion which is actually at this link ChemicalBear (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! I have corrected the link. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have just recently created Sharpness (cutting), but the focus right now is on sharpness occurring in nature (sharpness of stones, thorns, teeth, claws, horns, etc.), and could use some expert expansion from an engineering perspective. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For the rest of the wiki, could you elaborate a little more on what you are looking for as additions to the article? I see examples of occurances in nature, but (for me personally), Im not seeing the connection you are requesting from the WikiProject. (Besides our brothers and sisters in material sciences) ChemicalBear (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)/Archives/2024/December#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Four years ago I started the Simcenter STAR-CCM+ page, a topic I am knowledgeable about as an employee of the company producing this software. For this reason the 'close connection' banner was added to the page. I just came back to see how this page has developed since September 2020. I'm pleased to see there have been changes by several other editors to maintain and even enhance the page over the past years. I'm wondering if this has now been sufficiently reviewed and adjusted by the community for the 'close connection' banner to be removed, since I am no longer a main contributor? I note that other comparable pages about commercial software don't have this, just any relevant disclosures on their talk pages like there is on Talk:Simcenter STAR-CCM+. I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a quick look and make a judgement about the banner. Thanks. DrMesh (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that would probably be answered better by an more advance person on the actual article themselves, such as when you made the original talk post for declaring WP:COI.

Looking, the majority of actual content (from a rough look at edit counts and actual amount of bytes changed), you seem to still be the greatest contributor to the page. Its great that it is still being edited by others to make it a WP:NPOV

So, best thing, make another talk post on the page regarding this and a better page patroller than me would be able to better determine if COI should be removed! Thanks for the question though! ChemicalBear (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Refer to this section of the "When to remove this banner" help guide, specifically #7. It basically says what I say up there, to initate a talk page discussion of removal on the original article ChemicalBear (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance ChemicalBear, I did try the talk page on the article itself so I could ask one of the people who originally reviewed it, but no response (understandably, as this was such a long time ago). I'm just not sure how I flag it to the attention of another page patroller? Apologies if I should be asking these kinds of basic questions elsewhere DrMesh (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I've went ahead and removed it myself, after looking over it again. Again, more non-COI editors have made edits to the page to help form it further. I have removed it under the "When to Remove" #7 Prompt. No worries about it

As for discussion stalling, these things happen, especially on lower trafficed/'less important' pages (typically meaning start class pages just due to the article formatting), so getting attention back to the page, or even from the original COI adder, can be difficult.

Have a great day Dr. Mesh ChemicalBear (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed this person from this category [6] as in Australia an electrical engineer is defined by someone who holds a degree in electrical engineering as per https://www.yourcareer.gov.au/occupations/233311/electrical-engineer?tab=how-to-become&distanceFilter=25 . My edit was reverted. I welcome community input into this. Thanks LibStar (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some other Australian links about qualifying as an electrical engineer: https://www.open.edu.au/advice/careers/engineering/electrical-engineer and https://www.seek.com.au/career-advice/role/electrical-engineer . LibStar (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My reasoning for the revert is that Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources which define the topic. If the person is described as an electrical engineer from Australia, then that's what we put into Wikipedia, without regard to certification or degree. The guideline WP:CATDEF agrees, telling us that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". Bruce Jackson was president and chief engineer at Apogee Electronics, designing electronic circuits to improve the fidelity of digital audio streams. He was granted a patent for Phase locked loop reference slaving circuit in 1991. Without certification he performed the work of an electrical engineer. And he was from Australia. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether you have a specific profession or not is not based on whether you have a specific degree. In fact, most people don't even work exactly at what they've a degree for. If you work as an engineer, you are an engineer. If you have a degree in engineering but don't work as an engineer, you're not an engineer. Killarnee (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Is he an electrical engineer (for voltages that can kill you, requires government certification) or an electronic engineer (designing circuits for voltages that will not kill you, no certification required) ? They are 2 very different fields.  Stepho  talk  23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This was a redirect, but made into a stub that has been unsourced for almost 15 years. Let's either source it, or restore the redirect. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Bearian, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I did some cleanup and added two sources. Extraordinary Spaces removed the redirect but unfortunately hasn't been there for some time; I think the difference between Permissible stress design and Allowable Strength Design should be more clear, and the capitalization standardized. Killarnee (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this really notable? If yes, please source it immediately, as it's been missing sources for at least 15 years. If not, please do us a favor and propose it for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources added. Straight-9 engines are mostly for very large ships.  Stepho  talk  12:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Compound turbine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page's only source is retracted, the information here is already present at Steam Turbine, and the page has barely been touched in almost two decades.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Relm (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)