Talk:Engineering Wiki

Visitor Robin's early comments

The main page should contain numerous internal links to major articles and categories, for the benefit of both the readers and the contributors. I'll add a few. But look at some other wikicities to see how they do it.

Create links

Most of your pages, in fact, should have lots of internal links.

Links should be for existing pages but also for proposed pages - that's the easy way to start a new page, just clicking on a red link.

Wikipedia material

I notice some material is identical to Wikipedia articles. On the assumption that it was copied, I'll set up the necessary acknowledgment [[template:enWP]] template:enWP (for adding to future copies and all identified existing copies).

Best of luck! Robin Patterson 05:04, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC) (trained land surveyor - which included some civil engineering)

Inventing the (yeat another) wheel

Sorry, but here (actually, not here, but in the first page) must be explicit explanation 'why another wiki (clone?) is neccesary (because already we have [1] , [2] , [3] and [4]) so from the engeneering point of view: "what problem solves this wiki that doesn't solve others?" --213.226.190.126 15:36, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC) [5]

I'm not much of an engineer, but my view is that this can go into much more detail than Wikipedia would. Robin Patterson 11:29, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Very recent comments on my talk page are about categories. This may be a more obvious place for discussing them, though maybe it's time we had a page called project:categories.

Same as Wikipedia?

In subjects closest to the heart of engineering, I suggest we have all of Wikipedia's categories and probably some more.

Where the subjects are on the fringe of engineering (eg education?), I suggest we start with all of Wikipedia's categories but expect to drop some of them when it becomes obvious that there won't be more than a couple of subcategories of interest to engineers.

Robin Patterson 11:29, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree here; the category structure does not need to reflect wikipedia's. This should not be just a copy of wikipedia abridged to focus on engineering. For starters, Category:Engineering is at the top level here (where it belongs), whereas in wikipedia it's buried way down in Category:Applied Sciences, next to Law and Journalism. Here it makes more sense to have it at the top and put also at the top the other major subjects (i.e., Science). siafu 22:38, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Addendum--Category:Technology might also go at the top. siafu 22:41, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hello; I hadn't looked at your above comments till you prodded me! You're not really disagreeing much if at all, as far as I can see. We can use Wikipedia (in order to save a lot of thinking and typing) as far as it's useful, and you engineers can start diverging whenever you like. If you want things like Science and Technology to share top level, that's not a problem with me. Robin Patterson 13:22, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

We Must Start Engineerfication

We must start to modify an article that was copied from Wikipedia, so that it fits better on Engineering Wiki. We must start to remove things which are irrelevent to engineers and add things which are releivent to engineers which is absent in wikipedia. For this I have started Engineerfication King2006

School of Engineering

People who are intrested in this Engineering Wiki might also be intrested in Wikiversity School of Engineering. I invite u to join us.

Main page

I feel that the main page has to be an exciting one for engineering community just like hot news of latest events for general public. In this case you can think of titbits or tidbits on engineering on methods of solving/testing/rectification etc. evolved by any engineer/technician in his profession. Just recollect titbits by one Mr. Marmaduke in American Power Magazine in early years(not sure whether it continues to appear to day also) who used to write about his practical problem solving on small ships at high seas without much facility available readily on his ship. This used to be very good attraction for reading by engineers/technicians and follow up in many cases. This is based on my own practical experience for years.

Adding one article category like hot tidbits and call for contribution from field engineers/technicians of today from any part of the world, in any language may be worth. For opinion please.

--Dore chakravarty 19:46, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Main page- Categories

So far it appears no article has come up on practical side of Power stations proper in the English version. With these new articles coming up the categories and sub categories may require recasting. One such recasting is shown below for Administrators in the organization involved in such duties. I do not want to venture as I am not fully conversant with Wiki requirements.

Main page--portals-Categories-Technology-Energy- -Electric power----Appears OK up to this point.

Sub categories to be added under Electric power:

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

Sub categories:

To be added POWER PLANT,

Sub categories: THERMAL

FOSSILE power plant and NUCLEAR power plant,

HYDRO power plant and pumped storage power plant;

OTHERS like wind mill, solar etc;

Under Electric power, ‘Power plants’ can be shifted to the corresponding type indicated above.

For articles the authors should indicate the correct category from the above categories indicated, if felt necessary.

--Dore chakravarty 19:53, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)