![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There are a number of disjointed articles covering deep foundations. I am personally confused about the nomenclature we should be using to describe the different types of foundations. Perhaps we should combine this topic into one article built mostly from the content at piles, but titled deep foundations. It seems that most deep foundations are quite similar and that it is only naming conventions that vary considerably between engineers. Basar 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking mechanically stabilized earth could be a useful article. It could be a subtopic in retaining wall, but I think it is more than a subtopic and used in things other than retaining walls. Basar 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed sheet piling and sheet pile redirect to deep foundation. It seems retaining wall would be more appropriate, or perhaps it could have its own article. Basar 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we include 'Dams' as a subcategory? It currently has its own category page. Benefit: we wouldn't have to list every single (earthen) one we stumble across. -- Zuejay 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, it looks like three articles will be covering our coverage of foundations: foundation, deep foundation, and shallow foundation. Does anyone think it should be something different? Basar 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Found a nifty trick for redirecting. If we use 'redirect Deep foundation#Pier and beam foundation, it will take the user directly to that section of the article. This might cut down on people saying something like "But I typed in pile!" Hehehehe... -- Zuejay 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In terms of re-organising the geotech pages, may I suggest using the Burland Triangle (From his Nash lecture: "The Teaching of Soil Mechanics, a personal view", 1987. Proc. 9th Conf. Soil Mech & Found Eng) as a rough guide. It essentially separates Geo-Engineering into three main areas, linked to each other. These are:
At the nexus of the three points it has: Practice: (Empiricism "based on well winnowed experience"; Insitu testing; Atterbergs; bearing capacity; earth pressure; geotechnical processes;(other design aspects) etc).
"soil mechanics", whilst retaining links to "Ground Profile" & "Practice" topics, it essentially is better described as covering Soil Behaviour and Applied Mechanics groups. In this sense, I think items relating to "Ground Profile" and "Practice" should be moved to link directly from Geotechnical Engineering (eg. Ground Investigation, Bearing Capacity -comes under Foundation Design, Slope Stability -comes under Slope processes), whilst aspects relating to Soil Behaviour and Applied Mechanics should stay within Soil Mechanics. This is fairly logical, and Geotechnical Engineering already has the more practical (less theoretical) aspects.
I think once the framework is there, we can work on developing each subgroup, gradually becomming more detailed as we (and others) see fit. GeoEng 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm a complete newbie and have found that many of the articles of the technical terms I use on a daily basis are a worthless mess. The boreholes article is just one example. It starts out innocently enough then becomes a long article on rural water wells written by a seeming layman. I tried editing it but ran out of energy and wonder if there can't be consensus to just delete most of the "boreholes as water wells" sections wholesale. This is a vital term and it doesn't deserve the abuse it receives in the current description.
While I'm on the general topic, most drilling articles are very heavy on the oil stuff. One of them Casing (oil) would be great if it could be renamed casing (well) so that it could be applied to more than just oil well casing. It would be not so much good to have articles like casing (xxx) for every different type of well casings. I don't know how to make or even request a change like that. Best, Drillerguy 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else with the time or interest to expand this beyond the realm of the agriculturalists and soil scientist types? There is no description at all of the engineering of soils, nor of any other topic out of their domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drillerguy ( talk • contribs)
What do you guys think about using subcategories more extensively for the geotech articles. For example, one for drilling, one for geosynthetics, one for frost, etc. It seems to me that it would encourage sets of articles to become more cohesive. Right now everything is sort of scattered. Basar 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Have seen this Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil around lately. Should we add a bit ('nother header) to the Geotech wikiproj page to link to them? There should be some overlap between the two. Zue Jay ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it; I hope you all like it. -- Basar 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
someone has prodded geophysical engineering. 132.205.44.5 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Created a member userbox - Please feel free to play with it; I'm not 100% satisfied with the image. Took the basic code from Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Zue Jay ( talk) 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to be aware of when templates that probably fall within the scope of WikiProj CE are being discussed. Here's one: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 4#Template:Japan dam. Zue Jay ( talk) 15:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Created an assessment parameter for the project tags - Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering/Assessment. Whadda ya think? Zue Jay ( talk) 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Dam appears to be under the Wikipedia:Spotlight. Not sure what it means, but it looks to receive a high amount of editing right now. Zue Jay ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I do a bit of an overhaul of the WP:CE page? I will blatantly borrow format-type items from WP:MILHIST and probably also WP:LGBTSTUD. Zue Jay ( talk) 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a lot of articles related to this, and I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how we should organize them. Here is a list of what I have found:
-- Basar ( talk · contribs) 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I merged secondary compression and proposed merger on unconsolidated (in case is geologist are watching it and might want to object). I'm now not sure if we need to merge ground water related subsidence since it seems to be relatively large and there is so much already on the subsidence article; it also seems there is enough to talk about there to warrant a full article. The two other articles are settlement and compaction. I'm still not sure if settlement is different than subsidence, and I'm also unsure that compaction is a concept we can write an article on apart from soil compaction, lithification, data compaction, cold compaction, and landfill compaction vehicle. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
As you said in your edit summary, the CE cat may need some improvement. I'll go thru the sub-cats and make some quick suggestions.
[+] Buildings and structures (put into structural engineering?)
[+] Civil engineering contractors OK
[+] Civil engineers OK
[+] Concrete (into SE?)
[+] Construction OK?
[+] Construction and civil engineering companies (partially redundant with ce contractors?)
[+] Construction trades workers (into construction)
[+] Engineering vehicles (axe)
[+] Environmental engineering OK
[+] Fortification (remove?)
[+] Geotechnical engineering OK
[+] Hydraulic engineering OK
[+] Parkways remove? put into transpo?
[+] Pavement engineering into transpo?
[+] Physical infrastructure maybe ce should be in this cat instead of the other way around?
[+] Road transport into TE
[+] Sewerage into EE?
[+] Streets and roads into TE
[+] Structural analysis into SE
[+] Structural engineering OK
[+] Transport infrastructure into TE?
[+] Transportation engineering OK
[+] Water wells into HE
[+] Civil engineering stubs OK
To me, it makes sense to put most of these categories into their own sub-discipline. For me, it is easier to find stuff that way. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested to know that there is currently a proposal for Wikiproject Engineering to be created. The proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Engineering. Thanks. Tbo 157 talk 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered Wikiproject Highways, which seems to have barely tagged anything relevant to the project. It seems redundant to have relevant articles tagged as both CE and Highways. Should Highways be adopted as a Descendent Wikiproject; or perhaps should Wikiproject Transport be considered as a descendant of CE? That latter is currently a parent of the former. Considering the previous topic of a proposed Wikiproject Engineering, that could then be a parent of CE. So it'd be: Engr --> CE --> Transp. --> Hwy (?) -- Bossi ( talk • gallery • contrib) 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about how to improve the interconnectivity of our pages in the spirit of WP:BTW, and I think adding some navboxes to some of our article sets would be beneficial because it would make them feel like a solidified series of articles. I have made one for soil mechanics in my sandbox, but I am having a hard time organizing it. I am unfamiliar with some of the articles, and I am having a hard time grouping the articles together. Any insight would be appreciated. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been moving the organization around in here, and I think I've got something reasonable going on now, but feel free to change it around as I am not totally satisfied with it. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a temporary page for WikiProject Engineering at User:Tbo 157/WikiProject Engineering. Interested users should add their name to the list and are encouraged to help improve the page so that it is ready to be moved to the Wikipedia space when there are enough participants. Tbo 157 talk 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Has there been a major initial assessment and project notice tagging phase for this project? I think there are many more civil-engineering related articles than the current 137 tagged and assessed civil engineering articles (as of 2007-09-10). I'm guessing that number might be somewhere in the thousands. Hydrogen Iodide 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(break) OK, I arranged the related projects on the main page to show some order. Feel free to change it around or add other projects. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is the importance rating disabled for this project? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to have an infobox outlining this project. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
|
Hydrogen Iodide 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to organize the structural engineering cat, and I am having a difficult time. I am wondering if we should split it up into steel/concrete/timber instead of splitting it up by structural system/structural connector. I think that is the more traditional way, at least in school. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this has come up a few times, I have taken the liberty to write a proposal for our project scope:
This project generally considers any article on civil engineering topics—including the topics of its various sub-disciplines—to be within its scope. This, however, does not include specific engineering projects like particular bridges or buildings (we would be happy to provide consultation on these articles). Our project does include articles about the methods of analysis, theories, and engineering systems of civil engineers as well as articles about the people and organizations of civil engineering.
– Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears this project does not have an invitation template to invite new members (correct me if I'm wrong). I think having a template will help increase the number of participants in this project. It should look something like...
Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How about the Burj Dubai, or the Shanghai World Financial Center? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here:
Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Soil which is desiring additional participants if any of you are interested. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is now a stub with only a brief description, if anyone here would like to help flesh it out that would be great. Drillerguy 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Cribstone bridge (via WP:PROD)
I have just noticed several articles have had an importance rating added. Until now I thought we didn't rate articles for importance, has this changed? I'm not against an importance rating system, just wondering what happened. Dumelow ( talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the talk page regarding above article's deletion process. SriMesh | talk 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Earthquake engineering needs some urgent cleanup on a number of fronts. There are a number of plagiarized passsages, taken from both public domain and non-public sources. The article's major author also very heavily quotes, cites, and promotes his own work.
A number of related articles also need to be pulled together, as content is duplicated several times across a group of articles. Please see Talk:Earthquake engineering#Article problems for a summary, and Talk:Earthquake engineering/problems for a highlighted copy of the article where I've identified the most problematic sections.
Finally, our existing articles on the structural engineering experts George W. Housner and John Blume had to be gutted, as they were also largely plagiarized material.
The aid of experts and good samaritans is welcomed, encouraged, and appreciated. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This unique bridge doesn't have an article. I was hoping someone with more Civil engineering background would volunteer to create it. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11345214
- Ravedave ( talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I started a couple of stubs for articles that deserve a bit more attention that what they have now. I've done one on traffic counters and one for the TIRTL, a specific traffic counter. I've been able to keep up with the latter, but the former has been sitting dead for a little while. Do either of these articles fall under this project's scope? JaKaL! ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Engineering traditions in Canada has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated as a featured article. If you have the time and the inclination to review it, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. In particular, a review of the article's Mechanism section would be appreciated, as that contains some details about the engineering involved. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I found Neoloy Geocell and Novel polymeric alloy while doing page curation. They look horribly promotional to me and it's hard for me to judge their notability. Expert review is needed! -- Slashme ( talk) 09:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Buffalo Box for deletion. If you are interested in chiming in, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Box -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 00:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Category Tree should include Bridges and Tunnels.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:06, 25 October 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)
Subject to some important structjural engineering technology and studies. See the sources in the article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Rubicon Global that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked a question about Planograph on this talk page: Talk:Asphalt_concrete#Looking_for_English_name_of_Planograph. Anyone here who could help? -- Dr. George ( T) 19:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
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 "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
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.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Western Wall 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There are a number of disjointed articles covering deep foundations. I am personally confused about the nomenclature we should be using to describe the different types of foundations. Perhaps we should combine this topic into one article built mostly from the content at piles, but titled deep foundations. It seems that most deep foundations are quite similar and that it is only naming conventions that vary considerably between engineers. Basar 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking mechanically stabilized earth could be a useful article. It could be a subtopic in retaining wall, but I think it is more than a subtopic and used in things other than retaining walls. Basar 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed sheet piling and sheet pile redirect to deep foundation. It seems retaining wall would be more appropriate, or perhaps it could have its own article. Basar 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we include 'Dams' as a subcategory? It currently has its own category page. Benefit: we wouldn't have to list every single (earthen) one we stumble across. -- Zuejay 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, it looks like three articles will be covering our coverage of foundations: foundation, deep foundation, and shallow foundation. Does anyone think it should be something different? Basar 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Found a nifty trick for redirecting. If we use 'redirect Deep foundation#Pier and beam foundation, it will take the user directly to that section of the article. This might cut down on people saying something like "But I typed in pile!" Hehehehe... -- Zuejay 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In terms of re-organising the geotech pages, may I suggest using the Burland Triangle (From his Nash lecture: "The Teaching of Soil Mechanics, a personal view", 1987. Proc. 9th Conf. Soil Mech & Found Eng) as a rough guide. It essentially separates Geo-Engineering into three main areas, linked to each other. These are:
At the nexus of the three points it has: Practice: (Empiricism "based on well winnowed experience"; Insitu testing; Atterbergs; bearing capacity; earth pressure; geotechnical processes;(other design aspects) etc).
"soil mechanics", whilst retaining links to "Ground Profile" & "Practice" topics, it essentially is better described as covering Soil Behaviour and Applied Mechanics groups. In this sense, I think items relating to "Ground Profile" and "Practice" should be moved to link directly from Geotechnical Engineering (eg. Ground Investigation, Bearing Capacity -comes under Foundation Design, Slope Stability -comes under Slope processes), whilst aspects relating to Soil Behaviour and Applied Mechanics should stay within Soil Mechanics. This is fairly logical, and Geotechnical Engineering already has the more practical (less theoretical) aspects.
I think once the framework is there, we can work on developing each subgroup, gradually becomming more detailed as we (and others) see fit. GeoEng 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm a complete newbie and have found that many of the articles of the technical terms I use on a daily basis are a worthless mess. The boreholes article is just one example. It starts out innocently enough then becomes a long article on rural water wells written by a seeming layman. I tried editing it but ran out of energy and wonder if there can't be consensus to just delete most of the "boreholes as water wells" sections wholesale. This is a vital term and it doesn't deserve the abuse it receives in the current description.
While I'm on the general topic, most drilling articles are very heavy on the oil stuff. One of them Casing (oil) would be great if it could be renamed casing (well) so that it could be applied to more than just oil well casing. It would be not so much good to have articles like casing (xxx) for every different type of well casings. I don't know how to make or even request a change like that. Best, Drillerguy 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else with the time or interest to expand this beyond the realm of the agriculturalists and soil scientist types? There is no description at all of the engineering of soils, nor of any other topic out of their domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drillerguy ( talk • contribs)
What do you guys think about using subcategories more extensively for the geotech articles. For example, one for drilling, one for geosynthetics, one for frost, etc. It seems to me that it would encourage sets of articles to become more cohesive. Right now everything is sort of scattered. Basar 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Have seen this Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil around lately. Should we add a bit ('nother header) to the Geotech wikiproj page to link to them? There should be some overlap between the two. Zue Jay ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it; I hope you all like it. -- Basar 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
someone has prodded geophysical engineering. 132.205.44.5 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Created a member userbox - Please feel free to play with it; I'm not 100% satisfied with the image. Took the basic code from Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Zue Jay ( talk) 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to be aware of when templates that probably fall within the scope of WikiProj CE are being discussed. Here's one: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 4#Template:Japan dam. Zue Jay ( talk) 15:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Created an assessment parameter for the project tags - Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering/Assessment. Whadda ya think? Zue Jay ( talk) 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Dam appears to be under the Wikipedia:Spotlight. Not sure what it means, but it looks to receive a high amount of editing right now. Zue Jay ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I do a bit of an overhaul of the WP:CE page? I will blatantly borrow format-type items from WP:MILHIST and probably also WP:LGBTSTUD. Zue Jay ( talk) 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a lot of articles related to this, and I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how we should organize them. Here is a list of what I have found:
-- Basar ( talk · contribs) 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I merged secondary compression and proposed merger on unconsolidated (in case is geologist are watching it and might want to object). I'm now not sure if we need to merge ground water related subsidence since it seems to be relatively large and there is so much already on the subsidence article; it also seems there is enough to talk about there to warrant a full article. The two other articles are settlement and compaction. I'm still not sure if settlement is different than subsidence, and I'm also unsure that compaction is a concept we can write an article on apart from soil compaction, lithification, data compaction, cold compaction, and landfill compaction vehicle. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
As you said in your edit summary, the CE cat may need some improvement. I'll go thru the sub-cats and make some quick suggestions.
[+] Buildings and structures (put into structural engineering?)
[+] Civil engineering contractors OK
[+] Civil engineers OK
[+] Concrete (into SE?)
[+] Construction OK?
[+] Construction and civil engineering companies (partially redundant with ce contractors?)
[+] Construction trades workers (into construction)
[+] Engineering vehicles (axe)
[+] Environmental engineering OK
[+] Fortification (remove?)
[+] Geotechnical engineering OK
[+] Hydraulic engineering OK
[+] Parkways remove? put into transpo?
[+] Pavement engineering into transpo?
[+] Physical infrastructure maybe ce should be in this cat instead of the other way around?
[+] Road transport into TE
[+] Sewerage into EE?
[+] Streets and roads into TE
[+] Structural analysis into SE
[+] Structural engineering OK
[+] Transport infrastructure into TE?
[+] Transportation engineering OK
[+] Water wells into HE
[+] Civil engineering stubs OK
To me, it makes sense to put most of these categories into their own sub-discipline. For me, it is easier to find stuff that way. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested to know that there is currently a proposal for Wikiproject Engineering to be created. The proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Engineering. Thanks. Tbo 157 talk 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered Wikiproject Highways, which seems to have barely tagged anything relevant to the project. It seems redundant to have relevant articles tagged as both CE and Highways. Should Highways be adopted as a Descendent Wikiproject; or perhaps should Wikiproject Transport be considered as a descendant of CE? That latter is currently a parent of the former. Considering the previous topic of a proposed Wikiproject Engineering, that could then be a parent of CE. So it'd be: Engr --> CE --> Transp. --> Hwy (?) -- Bossi ( talk • gallery • contrib) 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about how to improve the interconnectivity of our pages in the spirit of WP:BTW, and I think adding some navboxes to some of our article sets would be beneficial because it would make them feel like a solidified series of articles. I have made one for soil mechanics in my sandbox, but I am having a hard time organizing it. I am unfamiliar with some of the articles, and I am having a hard time grouping the articles together. Any insight would be appreciated. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been moving the organization around in here, and I think I've got something reasonable going on now, but feel free to change it around as I am not totally satisfied with it. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a temporary page for WikiProject Engineering at User:Tbo 157/WikiProject Engineering. Interested users should add their name to the list and are encouraged to help improve the page so that it is ready to be moved to the Wikipedia space when there are enough participants. Tbo 157 talk 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Has there been a major initial assessment and project notice tagging phase for this project? I think there are many more civil-engineering related articles than the current 137 tagged and assessed civil engineering articles (as of 2007-09-10). I'm guessing that number might be somewhere in the thousands. Hydrogen Iodide 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(break) OK, I arranged the related projects on the main page to show some order. Feel free to change it around or add other projects. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is the importance rating disabled for this project? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to have an infobox outlining this project. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
|
Hydrogen Iodide 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to organize the structural engineering cat, and I am having a difficult time. I am wondering if we should split it up into steel/concrete/timber instead of splitting it up by structural system/structural connector. I think that is the more traditional way, at least in school. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this has come up a few times, I have taken the liberty to write a proposal for our project scope:
This project generally considers any article on civil engineering topics—including the topics of its various sub-disciplines—to be within its scope. This, however, does not include specific engineering projects like particular bridges or buildings (we would be happy to provide consultation on these articles). Our project does include articles about the methods of analysis, theories, and engineering systems of civil engineers as well as articles about the people and organizations of civil engineering.
– Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears this project does not have an invitation template to invite new members (correct me if I'm wrong). I think having a template will help increase the number of participants in this project. It should look something like...
Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How about the Burj Dubai, or the Shanghai World Financial Center? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here:
Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Soil which is desiring additional participants if any of you are interested. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is now a stub with only a brief description, if anyone here would like to help flesh it out that would be great. Drillerguy 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Cribstone bridge (via WP:PROD)
I have just noticed several articles have had an importance rating added. Until now I thought we didn't rate articles for importance, has this changed? I'm not against an importance rating system, just wondering what happened. Dumelow ( talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the talk page regarding above article's deletion process. SriMesh | talk 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Earthquake engineering needs some urgent cleanup on a number of fronts. There are a number of plagiarized passsages, taken from both public domain and non-public sources. The article's major author also very heavily quotes, cites, and promotes his own work.
A number of related articles also need to be pulled together, as content is duplicated several times across a group of articles. Please see Talk:Earthquake engineering#Article problems for a summary, and Talk:Earthquake engineering/problems for a highlighted copy of the article where I've identified the most problematic sections.
Finally, our existing articles on the structural engineering experts George W. Housner and John Blume had to be gutted, as they were also largely plagiarized material.
The aid of experts and good samaritans is welcomed, encouraged, and appreciated. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This unique bridge doesn't have an article. I was hoping someone with more Civil engineering background would volunteer to create it. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11345214
- Ravedave ( talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I started a couple of stubs for articles that deserve a bit more attention that what they have now. I've done one on traffic counters and one for the TIRTL, a specific traffic counter. I've been able to keep up with the latter, but the former has been sitting dead for a little while. Do either of these articles fall under this project's scope? JaKaL! ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Engineering traditions in Canada has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated as a featured article. If you have the time and the inclination to review it, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. In particular, a review of the article's Mechanism section would be appreciated, as that contains some details about the engineering involved. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I found Neoloy Geocell and Novel polymeric alloy while doing page curation. They look horribly promotional to me and it's hard for me to judge their notability. Expert review is needed! -- Slashme ( talk) 09:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Buffalo Box for deletion. If you are interested in chiming in, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Box -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 00:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Category Tree should include Bridges and Tunnels.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:06, 25 October 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)
Subject to some important structjural engineering technology and studies. See the sources in the article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Rubicon Global that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked a question about Planograph on this talk page: Talk:Asphalt_concrete#Looking_for_English_name_of_Planograph. Anyone here who could help? -- Dr. George ( T) 19:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
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 "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
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.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Western Wall 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)