Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering

WikiProject Engineering Navigation
Main page \| Discussions \| Project templates \| Assessment \| Portal \|

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Engineering and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

Site office

Welcome to the Engineers Site Office. This is where engineers gather and check in when they have project tasks to organise and carry out.

This page is to discuss anything related to WikiProject Engineering

and Issues of going concern

More articles or pages in need of attention could be found here at Category:Unreferenced Engineering articles and Category:Engineering articles needing attention.

Suggestion: Robert Noyce

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:Mean radius

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)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 15#Category:Chemical looping technologies

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)[reply]

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 :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Sharpness (cutting)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Connected contributor banner removal on Simcenter STAR-CCM+

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

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