# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering

Main page | Discussions | Project templates | Assessment | Portal |
WikiProject Engineering (Rated Project-class)
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.
Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Site office

Please leave hard hats, boots and tools outside
Make yourself comfortable, we have work to discuss

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

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

## Failure

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)

## Articles listed at AFD

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)

## Diamond grinding

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)

## WP:COI: volunteers needed

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:

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]
$H_{375,000,000} O_{132,000,000} C_{85,700,000} N_{6,430,000} Ca_{1,500,000} P_{1,020,000} S_{206,000} Na_{183,000} \,$
$K_{177,000} C_{l127,000} Mg_{40,000} Si_{38,600} Fe_{2,680} Zn_{2,110} Cu_{76} I_{14} Mn_{13} F_{13} Cr_7 Se_4 Mo_3 Co_1 \,$

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)

## Signal processing

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)

## Engineering articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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)

## Portal Revamp

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)

## Coandă-1910 thrust comparison

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)

## WikiProject cleanup listing

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)

## IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper

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)

## Perennial debates

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)

## Marine engineering

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)

## Tadashi Suetsugi engineer - can you help?

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)

## Communication engineering

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)

## Citation templates now support more identifiers

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. 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

## Please review seriousness v. proposed deletion as parody of new article Names of small numbers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers

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)

## Gerrards Cross collapse

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

## Template:Pi

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

## Infinitesimals

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)

## no WikiProject Electrical Engineering?

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)

## Proposal to rename the Torque article to Moment of force

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

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

## Six-stroke engines

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

## AfD

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

## Oil platform

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)

## RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

## Request for assistance

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)

## Arachno-Bot

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. ASHUIND 09:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

## Articles listed at AFD

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

## Need some help with bridge scour

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)

## request for review: Strength of materials

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)

## New article needs revision

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)

## Lean engineering

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)

## WikiProject Electrical Engineering

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)

## Talk:Harmonic drive

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)

## Article help needed

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.

## Outdated articles?

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)

## Nutation (disambiguation)

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)

## re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 22#Category:Pumping stations

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

## Help with engineering section of Clevedon Pier article

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)

## Women in technology and engineering edit-a-thon 2012

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)

## Addressing bias in Ductile iron pipe article

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)

## template:Chemical engineering

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

## Foss Dyke or Pinchbeck Engine suitable for this project?

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)

## In or on a canal?

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)

## Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

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)

## Synchronous motor

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)

## Proposed deletion of L-EXOS

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)

## WikiProject Signal Processing

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)

## Vickers hardness

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)

## Transformation

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)

## 3 article merge

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)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox engineer

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)

## Angle projection images up for deletion

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

## Product development

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)

## 8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?

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)

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axial fan design

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)

## Gibbs-governor.jpg

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

## AfC submission

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

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)

## Request for comment: Aerodynamics article organization

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)

## Help needed at AfC

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)

## Compressible fluids and hydraulic accumulator

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)

## Missing topics page

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

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coaxial Solenoid and Externally \controlled Valves

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)

## Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

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 for featured candidacy

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)

## Subject matter experts needed at Energetically modified cement

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)

## "Aeronautics"

FYI, has been proposed to be merged into aviation, see talk:aviation -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

## Aeronatics

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)

## Advice and any initiative would be considered helpful: Fault current limiter

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)

## Help with an article?

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)

## "undercarriage"

The usage of 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)

## State of the art

The scope, name and usage of 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 -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

## Copy-editor with knowledge of metallurgy?

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)

## Notifying of relevant FAR

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)

## Popular pages tool update

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 ) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

## Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!!

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:

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)

## "Climate engineering" or "geoengineering" ?

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

## AfC submission - 10/03

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

## LR-87 rocket engine

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)

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)

## AfC submission - 18/03

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

## AfC submission 20/03

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

## AfC submission - 25/03

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

## AfC submission - 01/04

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

## AfC submission - 04/04

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

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gas pressure blasting

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 deckertalk 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HyperMembrane

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 deckertalk 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)

## Leaflet For Wikiproject Engineering At Wikimania 2014

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.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

## AfC submission - 26/05

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

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

## AfC submission - 04/06

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

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

## Draft at AFC needs help

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

## Wrong category name?

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 evaluate a new draft at AFC

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)

## Leaflet For Wikiproject Engineering At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

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