Talk:Glossary of engineering: A–L

Thanks

@Wtshymanski: I want to thank Wtshymanski for his extraordinary work on this glossary of engineering. Wtshymanski's brilliant and extensive contributions, along with admirable help from DocFergus, to the Glossary of electrical and electronics engineering made it one of the best glossaries on Wikipedia. I hope other editors will be inspired to expand the Wikipedia glossaries across all topics. Glossaries are one of the most important features of this encyclopedia. They make complex subjects easier to understand. Sometimes the articles on Wikipedia become too technical for high school and college students. The glossaries counter that. They also allow students to review an entire subject without having to click on each term. This glossary of engineering is a great resource for engineering students who need a broad overview of all the subfields. So again, I want to thank Wtshymanski for all the hard work. Engineering students around the world are grateful. --LearnMore (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Er. Not guilty. I have done nothing here - yet! DocFergus (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@DocFergus: Please note that I was referring to the other glossary, not this one. However, I am sure engineering students would be thrilled if you could help out on this one. --LearnMore (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly just mechanical work...save your praise. Mindless tedium, rather like solving sudokus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: Don't belittle other people's contributions. While I grant it is not in the same league as populating the glossary, it is neither mindless tedium nor just repetitive 'cut and paste'. Since my efforts are so unappreciated, you can sort out the remaining glossaries yourself. DocFergus (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was commenting on my own edits. I've no idea how much work anyone else puts into these things, and didn't you justsay you haven't done a lot to this list yet? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: My complete misunderstanding. And I apologise unreservedly if I caused any offence. DocFergus (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up for the next couple of days, but I shall try to edit the current entries and populate a few more sometime next week. DocFergus (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@DocFergus: Thank you very very much.--LearnMore (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a great glossary

This is a great glossary. Very helpful. Please add more definitions.

More thanks

Thanks to all those who have contributed to this glossary. And thanks to all those who will contribute to it in the future. LearnMore (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Should't this be a Wikibook instead?

The title says it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting this article

This article is currently at 504,000+ bytes, and it is the largest article on the wiki. I suggest splitting this article, or splitting sections of it into different articles. After looking at the section sizes, the M section appears to be largest, with 71,000+ bytes, which would total to ~433,000 bytes. Since that is still too long, we should also split the second largest section into a separate article. The second largest section is S, with 47,000+ bytes, so splitting that off would give us ~386,000 byes. However, there is also the option of doing a split in half. I looked through the section sizes yesterday and did the math, and the most direct split in half would be to split it into A–L and M–Z, each one giving ~246,000 bytes. However, since we have 26 different sections for each letter, there are multiple different ways that this article could be split. I think the most preferable option would be to split based on each section. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose splitting by letter, except combining H-K, O with either N or P, Q with either P or R, U with T or V, and X through Z, and also splitting M into two. Ji11720 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And I assume you mean by individual letter. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I did the math, and here are the results (I also combined W with X–Z):

• A: 34,056 bytes
• B: 30,502 bytes
• C: 47,301 bytes
• D: 19,225 bytes
• E: 37,681 bytes
• F: 25,912 bytes
• G: 21,008 bytes
• H–K: 19,964 bytes
• M: 71,778 bytes
• N–P: 48,326 bytes
• Q–R: 18,650 bytes
• S: 47,507 bytes
• T: 28,318 bytes
• U–Z: 27,489 bytes

All in all, this mostly seems like a good split. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose we should get on with it. Ji11720 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We should probably combine U–V with W–Z and combine P with N–O now that I think about it. I will edit the original list. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need for sections to be divided, but I fully support the article being divided into two or more articles. I would prefer a split like H-K and L-Z rather than splitting out individual sections into new articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)