Talk:Civil engineering

message: I reverted the edit by 66.133.214.16 as we now have two universities both claiming to have the largest program: Texas A&M and also Cal Poly Pomona.  I reverted to Texas A&M for the following reasons:
*It was the original post for a disputed entry.
*While it has a smaller undergrad population, it has more faculty.
*Cal Poly Pomona offers only MS degrees as a graduate program.  Texas offers additional degrees and is a HUGE destination for graduate students.  I am quite sure Texas has Cal Poly Pomona beat on this, but Cal Poly Pomona fails to produce any evidence (that I could find) indicating the graduate student population.
The burden is therefore upon an individual to locate the graduate student population, at which point it may be up to debate as to which is truly largest; or perhaps we should include both.  As an engineer and also a student, I'd definitely say Texas is at least the more prominent, by a large margin (I never even heard of Poly Pomona until now). --Thisisbossi 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion of both schools might be the safe course for now; these numbers are not static. A third-party source would also be most appropriate for a citation on any one school "claiming" the title. ZueJay (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me until a reputable NPOV source can be found. --Thisisbossi 08:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest CE Program

message: Environmental Engineering is an other branch of Engineering, not a sub-title of Civil Engineering therefore should be excluded in the list of CE sub-titles.  SEY01 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are alternate sides to this, none of which is correct; or both of which are correct.  My civil engineering background includes environmental engineering and is treated as another discipline.  What exactly falls under the umbrella of "civil" can always be debated, particularly as most engineering professions were at one time considered "civil". --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, my background does not include. Env.Eng. is still a separate dept. in the Faculty of Eng. in my university, that's why I wanted to add that previous comment.
SEY01 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Eng.

message: There has been discussion on the sub-disciplines of CE before, but I don't think we have ever really hammered out a final version based on reliable sources. I found two websites which listed CE disciplines and they both seem to be similar: University of Florida ASCE. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page can be added: CSCE -- Basar (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think sorting these alphabetically would be a good idea? Also, I don't have any sources saying fire protection engineering, materials science, or general engineering are sub-disciplines of CE. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Fisher just removed Urban planning from the list of subdisciplines in the introduction via this edit.  Transportation engineers are very involved with urban planning, just as non-engineers and architects trained in urban planning are becoming increasingly familiar with aspects of civil engineering.  I am aware of several universities which have shared courses and faculty between the departments, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of Maryland. Land use is based on transportation and transportation is based on land use.  Any further thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that there are many overlaps between civil (transport) engineering and urban planning, but I feel they are distinct disciplines. Certainly here in Australia, they are distinct and one is not regarded as a sub-set of the other. (I'm a civil / transport engineer by the way). Paul Fisher (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-disciplines 

message: I am having a hard time finding sources for writing this article. I'm just putting this up here in case someone else has some good sources. The only ones I have found are quoted in the article, and they aren't very good. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Right now there is a lot of specific information on licensing requirements for the US. I think it might be appropriate to pare this down to generalities since we are supposed to have a worldwide view on Wikipedia. We could create a separate article like "professional engineer licensing in the United States" or something. What do you think? -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of licensing 

message: I argue that London Millennium Bridge is not the best representation of what structural engineering is. It is mainly a (not so successful) work designed by architects that cost massive amount of money both in construction and in retrofitting. I propose structures such as the Golden Gate Bridge, or CN Tower. Emancipator (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong in thinking that the Millennium Bridge was mainly designed by an architect. Foster & Partners were involved in the design, but the lead designers were Arup, and specifically Chris Wise (now of Expedition Engineering). The structural design is very challenging because the bridge has very little height. The structural story of the bridge only becomes more interesting when you consider its problems. They were a previously little known structural phenomenon of biological positive feedback causing horizontal dynamic excitation of the bridge. This was researched extensively by Arup and others (http://www.morgenthal.org/MillenniumBridge/, and solved using tuned mass and viscous dampers under the leadership of structural engineer Tony Fitzpatrick. I included this photo precisely because it is so representative of structural engineering. However, there are many different highly notable structures out there, any of which could take the place of this photo - up to you...Tkn20 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explaining your intention. While I totally agree with you that this bridge is a significant structure in its uniqueness, I was just thinking of a more "classic" structure. But I think the photo of the millennium bridge makes a lot of sense too. Emancipator (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to change it - but choose a cool one! Tkn20 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo for structural engineering 

message: "Engineers are in high demand at banks, financial institutions and management consultancies because of their analytical skills." ? What is this all about?  --  Ucla90024 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exactly as it says. Any engineering recruitment fair at a university will have banks and management consultancies there, and as an example, over 50% of the engineering graduates from Cambridge University go into banking and engineering consultancy, rather than engineering. Engineers are popular with these organisations because they know the mathematics necessary, and also are taught management and accounting skills. Tkn20 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Careers

message: What is the difference between architecture and civil engineering? They both design buildings - more with engineering, though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.72.189 (talk)  02:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In layman's terms, architects make it aesthetically pleasing and civil engineers make it stand up. The best way to figure this out is to read the articles on Civil engineering and Architecture and compare the differences. ZueJay (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between architecture

message: Most other engineering occupations (see mechanical engineering) have a single article on the engineers and the engineering.  Inwind (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: First to use mathematics in construction? This claim is nonsensical Indian cultural aggrandizement with no basis in fact. The article itself repudiates it- the timelines do not match. Roman aquaducts, not to mention the Pyramids of Egypt documented within wikipedia to have used mathematics for construction predate Brahmagupta's own birth by 600 years or more. Thus evidently a load of crap.
Please fix this hagiography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.135.214 (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a problem, since Wikipedia is a wiki, you can fix it yourself, and are encouraged to do so by the WP community.  I fixed it, but go ahead and have at it.  What's more, I encourage you to create a user name, login, and join the community.  Thanks, SteveMc (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Brahmagupta hagiography

message: Hi, i notice that in the education section of the article it states that it normally takes 4-5 years to achieve an engineering qualification. In the UK, a full-time student will expect to achieve and undergraduate degree (BEng or BSc) in 3 years (http://www.uel.ac.uk/cite/programmes/undergraduate/civileng-beng.htm). I understand that the qualification may take longer in other countries or under a different tertiary education system - if this is correct, should we change it from 4-5 years to 3-5 years? It may make the time required sound quite broad, but if it is accurate then surely it is the right thing to do. Best Darigan (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I've made the change. Graham87 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Education - time required to complete degree 

message: While certainly worth mentioning here, I don't think Suveying should be included as a sub-discipline of Civil Engineering. Surveying is a technique and a science, Surveying is not engineering. Any thoughts? Mariokempes (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haseeb, That is fine- and I agree with you; But, can it be considered a sub-discipline of Civil Engineering? I don't think so. Like the math used by engineers, Surveying is a separate and distinct discipline. (I'm an engineer too). Mariokempes (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Surveying

message: Hi, A number of other professions have external links to sites relating to pursuing a career in the profession. I wanted to add a link to the relevant area of: www.myninetofive.com (MyNineToFive_Civil_Engineering ) which is one such site that consists of user generated reviews making it quite appropriate for a link from here. The link was removed from here (and some other professions) but I think that they make a valuable addition in helping people considering entering the profession continue their research in a similar way. --Natasha 81.154.224.36 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:EL, external links should be "directly relevant to the article" and your site obviously isn't.  Using your arguments above, every second article on Wikipedia would include a link to your site and dozen of other similar sites. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I am currently the owner of a pe exam preparationsite and I receive a lot of questions regarding materials and courses that will help in becoming a professional civil engineer.  I would like to see if anybody has any thoughts on the creation of such a sub topic in the wiki?  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffbirm (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Registration process and preparation 

message: i like to do bsc in civil engineering , so please , identify any college in india  , by doing course or distance .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.176.127 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. Graham87 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  b.sc in civil engineering 

message: civil engineering is one of the wide career that provides a relevant knowledge 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.43.15 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  civil engineering as a profession 

message: I have deleted numerous seperate professional and academic fields that are NOT subdiscplines of civil engineering. Atmospheric Sciences, Geophysics, Geodosy, Earth Science, Land Surveying are all seperate fields both in academy and in professional practice. Each of these has their seperate article. Some are sepearate licensed professions (EG a civil engineer is not a licensed geologist and vice versa). While civil engineers may apply some remote piece of these fields in their day to day work, these fields are often not in the professional expertise or scope of the average bachelor's degree educated civil engineer. In addition, there is a limit to what is a discpline of civil engineering and is not. It seems as though there is a movement toward continously expanding what a civil engineer's scope of practice is to the detriment of other fields.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.160 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sounds sensible to me. Graham87 09:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest that the long list of sub - disciplines of the civil engineering discipline be moved somewhere else in the article - appears messy - is there any reason for it.Happydaise (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list of sub - disciplines is removed at the beginning of the article it would look much cleaner and still give people an idea that there are many sub- disciplines.Happydaise (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Go ahead and be bold! I don't know why that list is there. Graham87 07:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good - thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydaise (talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdiscplines listed in introductory paragraph 

message: There's a draft for an outline of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of civil engineering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft outline 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Civil engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812030647/http://whatiscivilengineering.csce.ca/civil1.htm to http://whatiscivilengineering.csce.ca/civil1.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.uel.ac.uk/cite/programmes/postgraduate/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No mention of Stonehenge and much else. Very strange off balanced and unprofessional article. References to vague ancient Asian projects shoehorned in. No Stonehenge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.185.33 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprofessional/Vague/Biased 

message: The article on civil engineering has provided information that I believe is relevant to the topic presented. The lead section of the article is good. It has an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the topic, it includes a brief description of the article's major sections and it does not include information that is not present in the article. The content of this article covered important elements of civil engineering like the history, discipline, education and profession. However, it does not mention equity gaps when it comes to gender and pay. It is missing the a little bit of the necessary organization to read and understand easily. Due to the information being so much, even with the bold and italic fonts, information can still be misunderstood with proper organization. The tone in the article was neutral through and through, there were not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Some of the information from the sources presented in this article cannot be evaluated as factual because the links do not work or do not exist anymore. The article has an assessment of a C. It is a well developed article but it still has room for improvement. ~~~~ Sierrabasden (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation of the civil engineering article  

message: — Assignment last updated by Kvauls (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition II