Template talk:Engineering fields

What qualifies as engineering

I just added Audio engineering and Security engineering to the template. I realize that these could both be considered non-engineering professions, especially audio which requires little formal training. However, they are commonly used job titles, and there are indeed some trained engineers with such titles. For example, an electrical engineer doing extensive sound signal processing is sometimes called an audio engineer. Mamyles (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mamyles, I think any field of science which involves technical issues is known as engineering. Thanks for adding those two, we need to add more. I think major fields are just 4 or 5, but we have to add minor fields, we have to add more to have a complete list. Any article in Wiki which is titled "Engineering", should be added. If you don't think so, I'm curious to listen to your idea. Soroush90gh (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that this template should represent the broad topic of engineering. Due to space it is inevitable that some sub-disciplines will be excluded. For example, there are dozens of engineering articles on List of engineering branches for "Biological engineering" alone. A "Biological engineering fields" template would likely be most appropriate to connect these, although I'm not opposed to moving it out of Chemical and adding a new "Biological" line to this template. (Note that I've also just added Fire protection engineering.)

Ultimately, this template should be improved in conjunction with List of engineering branches and Outline of engineering. New templates for every major discipline should be created to connect sub-disciplines. I unfortunately don't have time to do such extensive work now, but it's something to think about, and if anyone does have time please feel free. Mamyles (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not everything

Perhaps more for @Zaheen; I don't think we really should include everything that is "ABC engineering" here. I suggest focusing on the big ones which are in most universities. For instance Piping certainly is not. Some big ones are not given enough weight, for instance Computer science should be a category with subareas. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954, 1) I didn't add piping, so please address your concern to the person who added that. 2) As far as my additions are convcerned, you have actually NOT removed several of my additions with Engineering in the name. So I don't know why you are singling me out. It also appears that you have single-handedly imposed a moratorium on any further additions from me, as evidenced by your request on my talk page, perhaps not assuming good faith on my part, which is not how wikipedia operates. (update: In a later reply you have authorised me to add, at least that's how it looks to me, so thanks I guess) 3) If you want to add big weighty engineering disciplines taught in most universities to the template, please go ahead and do it yourself, I promise to assume good faith, not to go on your talk page and tell you to stop adding anything. I didn't have such grand ambitions with this template. I just added entries that I thought was worth adding. You are free to disagree. --Zaheen (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

These additions of mine have been removed

Ldm1954, you have removed the following additions I made:

• Water resources engineering (added as a subfield of civil engineering)
• Pneumatics (added as a subfield of mechanical engineering)
• Avionics (added as a subfield of electronics/electronic engineering)
• Microelectronics (added as subfield of electronics/electronic engineering)
• Power electronics (added as a subfield of electronics/electronic engineering)
• Photonics (added as a subfield of electrical/electronic engineering)
• Electromagnetics (added as a subfield of electrical/electronic engineering)

I had my own doubt about the last one as well, even though it is an integral part of EE curriculum (especially analog electronics). But the rest of the removals I don't understand. What is your criteria of inclusion/exclusion here? What is considered an engineering field? One that leads to a degree? One that has an academic department? One that is a field of research strongly related to Engineering and has journals and societies and conferences? I would like to have explanations especially regarding the disciplines removed above. I will take it as an opportunity to learn your perspective. Thanks. --Zaheen (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As I already said, just because someone put "engineering" in a title or text does not make it so; for instance neither Social engineering (political science) nor Social engineering (security) would be appropriate to add. The most obvious of your list is "Water resources engineering" which redirects to Hydrology.

The following are science subjects as the article indicates

• Water resources engineering (added as a subfield of civil engineering) --> Hydrology
• Photonics (added as a subfield of electrical/electronic engineering) Physics or Materials Science
• Electromagnetics (added as a subfield of electrical/electronic engineering) Physics

These are a techniques/methods used in many areas, not disciplines

• Pneumatics (added as a subfield of mechanical engineering) General technique
• Avionics (added as a subfield of electronics/electronic engineering) Stuff used in planes

These are topics which are general, not just engineering

• Microelectronics (added as subfield of electronics/electronic engineering)
• Power electronics (added as a subfield of electronics/electronic engineering)

Curriculum means little, and as we know Wikipedia pages are not sources. For instance many engineering disciplines teach solid-state band structure because it matters, but that does not make them the owner of the topic. The point I am making is that the articles have to be read and checked in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaborate response. I just want to talk about water resources engineering for the moment. Yes, I was well aware that in Wikipedia, the title redirects to Hydrology, but does that mean that it does not exist in the real world? There can be various reasons for this omission: may be nobody took notice, may be no water resources engineering specialist or someone who knows the discipline took the time to write up an article. But water resources engineering is a valid subfield of civil engineering. For example, in Bangladesh, a flood-prone country where water resource management in crucial, there is a department of Water resources engineering in the country's top engineering school (See this link. Water resources engineering is considered a specialization of civil engineering in Texas A&M University (See [link). Using a simple Google search, I see water resources engineering offered as a specialization under civil engineering in Rutgers, Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and other universities. Just because Wikipedia currently doesn't have a standalone article on this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or is this a removal based on a technicality criterion (exact article doesn't exist on wiki so no link in template?)? I have remarks about your other explanations as well, but will touch them later. --Zaheen (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding avionics, there are two dictionary definitions of the term. As a plural, it means, as you said, stuff used in planes. But as a singular, it means "the science of electronics used in aviation" or "the science and technology of electronics applied to aeronautics and astronautics" (Collins dictionary entry) and "the science and technology of the development and use of electrical and electronic devices in aviation." (Random House dictionary entry) and "the science and technology of the electronic devices used in aeronautics and astronautics" (Cambridge dictionary entry) and "the science of electronics when used in designing and making aircraft" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary entry). It is in this second sense of the term that I added avionics as a subfield of electronics. And it is considered as such by at least four dictionaries, which are as far as I know reliable tertiary sources. I hope this clarifies my addition. --Zaheen (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally dont think that subdisciplines should be included unless they are massive. For instance metallurgy is (now) considered as a subdiscipline of materials science, but the number of people (at all levels) who identify as metallurgists is in the many 10**4 to 10**5 or more. I dont think avionics or water resource engineering compare. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So now you think that the two disciplines under discussion are actual engineering disciplines but not massive enough for your liking. It seems like you are making up criteria on the spot, but I might be wrong. According to you, even if prestigious universities give out masters and doctorate degrees on Water resources engineering, it still cannot be included in this template, because it is not "massive" enough. I strongly disagree. I personally think we should not differentiate between "massive" and "non-massive" disciplines in this manner. In my view, the goal of this template is not to include only "massive" engineering fields. It sounds very subjective and unintuitive to me. --Zaheen (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What I said was that small subdisciplines or topics don't belong in this template. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that I don't entirely agree with your viewpoint, and definitely do not agree when it comes to your removal of WRE and Avionics, for the moment. --Zaheen (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have looked around a bit more and found out that the American Society of Civil Engineering awards board certification on Water Resources Engineering, along with Coastal Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Navigation Engineering, Ocean Engineering, Pipeline Engineering-Water and Port Engineering.(See here). I think this adds more weight towards the inclusion of Water Resources Engineering in this template. Obviously this is a legitimate civil engineering subfield, its "smallness" or "bigness" notwithstanding. --Zaheen (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that every single "ABC engineering" subfield, subdiscipline or subtopic belongs in the template then I suggest you do an RfC to get a wider set of opinions. I obviously will oppose this, not the least because the template will bloat to I expect more than 100 entries. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel that every single ABC engineering or subtopic should be included in this template. That's not my position at all. I feel like you are continuously caricaturing what I am trying to convey. I did not add hundreds of topics, neither was I planning to. I didn’t think that far. I don’t have a grand centralized vision of things for this template that you seem to have. And it has been been quite a process to tease out different aspects of your vision through this conversation. I don't think the 5/6 topics in question would have contributed to any bloating. I don't see the point in this kind of overreaction. I think at the moment we can still keep adding important subfields to the template. If and when the template really gets bloated, and I doubt that will happen amytime soon, it can always be split. But I guess I have not been able to convince you despite my numerous efforts. All I can hope for is that you will understand and revert these particular removals (the ones that I added) yourself. I am not going to waste any more energy on this. Thanks. --Zaheen (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I was very specific. Of the topics you mention,

• 3 are science topics, not engineering disciplines
• 2 are general techniques, also not engineering disciplines
• 2 are generally areas, not engineering disciplines.

Hydrology, Photonics, Electromagnetics (electromagnetism) are large areas of science; power electronics and microelectronics are subareas of research and technology; pneumatics and avionics are minor subtopics/methods. My statements have not changed. None of the 7 qualify as a major engineering discipline. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. You can repeat and listen to yourself to convince yourself. No point rehashing this. --Zaheen (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I just couldn’t help but add this info: The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has inside it a professional engineers society called the Power Electronics Society, which has 13 thousand+ members worldwide. But apparenrly it cannot be included in this template as a subfield of EE. This is hilariously absurd. --Zaheen (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Direct quote from the page:

Power electronics is the application of electronics to the control and conversion of electric power.

Nowhere is engineering mentioned in the page. It is a legitimate subfield, but not a major discipline in its own right. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, obviously social engineering is not considered a term based on hard science, which obviously sets the scope of this template. I did not add social engineering, I did not add anything remotely close to social engineering. And water resources engineering isn't anything like social engineering. So why are you bringing this up as if I don't understand this? This is irrelevant and kind of a red herring. Let's move past this.--Zaheen (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mamyles:, since you have contributed earlier to this template. Your remark would be helpful. --Zaheen (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)