Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil engineering/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: The naming is a problem. I personally call things which are driven into the ground "piles", and things which are cast in place "piers". But the auger-cast pier folks call them "auger-cast piles", and CalTrans calls piers "Cast In Drilled Hole Piles" (CIDH piles). I'd be happy to see Pile moved to Deep foundations, and lose the current Deep foundations article altogether. (There's a right way to do this, and I'm not completely sure what it is. We can ask an admin.) Argyriou (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about pier (architecture), pipe piles, and timber piles? Basar 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that different pile materials really need their own article. Pier (architecture) might be useful, though plenty of people think that those 12x12 concrete blocks which are embedded 2 inches into the ground underneath columns are "piers". And the article currently there says nothing about foundations. Argyriou (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed the merger. I didn't include Pier (architecture) for now because, as you said, it didn't mention foundations. I did add the appropriate alternative link message to the article. Basar 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for deep foundations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles to create 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sheet piling 

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds like a fine idea to me. Basar 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Not sure how to do it, yet. Working on it. --Zuejay 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. I added :Category:Geotechnical engineering to :Category:Dams. I think that is what you were proposing. Basar 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That's totally it! I didn't know how to do it. That's awesome. --Zuejay 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ya, I know about that, but I'm not a big fan of it. I just don't like it when my computer jumps down to a certain place for me, but I'm fine with you formatting them that way if you want. Basar 02:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of that. I just think it might cut down on replication of articles we've moved, merged, etc., and folks being confused about why they ended up on a particular pages. I don't know...something to think about before I do it again, anyway. --Zuejay 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When redirecting 

message: 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: 
*1. Ground Profile: Genesis, SI, Ground Description (Minerology; Classification; Ground water; geological processes). 
*2. Soil Behaviour: Laboratory & Field Testing, Measurement & Observation (Particulate behaviour; effective stress; stress paths; compressibility; Ko, preconsolidation; permeability, consolidation, creep; Drained strength, dilatant & contractant behaviour; excess pwp; undrained strength; critical state framework)
*3. Applied Mechanics: Idealisation, conceptual, physical, analytical modelling (Stress, strain, elasticity, plasticity, limit equilibrium, limit analysis, finite element analysis, soil constitutive models)
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)
replies: text: Moved from original post at Talk:Soil mechanics. ZueJay (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg geotech? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Howdy, I did the move for you. If you think editing borehole in that manner would benefit the article, then be bold and go for it. I'm not very familiar with this stuff, so I can't help you much. Hope you're still around and sorry about the long wait for an answer, I'm not sure why that happened. Basar 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boreholes is a mess 

message: 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) 
:I noticed that about the article, and it should be expanded, but I've never really had the motivation to do it for some reason. At least soil mechanics is linked. Basar 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I did :Category:Soil tests as an example and added a couple articles. Basar 03:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. ZueJay (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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. ZueJay (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I was thinking of something like that. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology may also be appropriate. Basar 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. You've been poking around more at these articles than I have, so you do know more of the related wikiprojects. I'm kinda surpised there's not a civil engineering wikiproject.ZueJay (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, someone should make one. Maybe there aren't enough editors from other concentrations though, structural engineering and transportation engineering are pretty short. Basar 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd be obligated to join too. That's why I was wondering if it would behoove all of us to make a Civil Wikiproject, then have "Departments" for the branches? I'm not sure I'm that enthusiatic right now! ZueJay (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, that would be cool, like the biography project, but I'm not that enthusiastic either right now. Maybe sometime one of us will feel like it. Cheers. Basar 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: HA! I just realized YOU DID IT! Brave soul, you. ;) ZueJay (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Wikiprojects 

message: someone has prodded geophysical engineering. 132.205.44.5 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  geophysical engineering 

message: 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. ZueJay (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! The banner picture I used isn't too hot either, but I don't know what else to use, although it does incorporate lots of prototypical civil engineering aspects. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the picture following the one that User:Dream out loud found. I think it's great since I believe most any civil engineer could identify with something going on in the picture; however, the aspect ratio is rather wide. I'm not very good with images, so I'm not sure how to re-draw it easily, or put it into SVG. It still seems to be an improvement though. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created a userbox 

message: 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. ZueJay (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for deletion 

message: Created an assessment parameter for the project tags - Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering/Assessment. Whadda ya think? ZueJay (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, it's about time we got that article assessment feature. It looks nice! -- Basar (talk · contribs) 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: 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. ZueJay (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dam]] is under [[Wikipedia:Spotlight]] 

message: 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. ZueJay (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there's an expansion of your start, Basar. Borrowed a bit from WP:WPARCH and WP:USPL as well. What'cha think? ZueJay (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks nice, good work. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone mind? 

message: 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 157talk 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Wikiproject Engineering 

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. The people at WikiProject Transport or Highways may object though since they are not strictly an engineering project and may feel that they are beyond our scope, but I think it is a good idea. It would indeed seem a little redundant to have all of our tags on an article's page when they are more tailored to meet the article's needs. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this brings up an important point about our scope. Is an article on a dam part of our project because it was designed by civil engineers, or should we just leave it to the dam project? I think I am in favor of leaving it to the dam project and concerning our project on engineering design aspects, methods, norms, ideas, etc. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Leave it to the dam project. ZueJay (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents and descendants 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was actually just contemplating one for a "Geotechnical Engineering Series". As for organization - umm...hang onto that a bit - requires a bit o' thought. Perhaps Argyriou has some good thoughts on it. ZueJay (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a good idea. I started one in the same sandbox. There are a lot of options as I see it: we could have everything in one giant template, we could split soil mechanics/geotechnical engineering, we could have a separate one for geotechnical tests, or we could make them even smaller and more specific. Right now, I think everything in one might be best although I was thinking very specific ones earlier. The reason one big one would be appealing is that we could have lateral earth pressure with the retaining wall articles, etc. They also look a little sparse the way I have them now. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done more of this work here: User:Basar/Sandbox 2 -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! The geotechnical investigation section, though, looks more like geotechnical testing. Geotechnical investigation might best be served by linking to monitoring well and borehole while keeping CPT, SPT  and geophysical exploration, then maybe a section for geotechnical laboratory testing. ZueJay (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I think that was a good change. Feel free to edit it if you want to. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice; good work. ZueJay (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox for soil mechanics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Structural engineering|Structural engineering cat]] 

message: 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 157talk 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update The project has now been created and moved to the project namespace. Tbo 157talk 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary page for WikiProject Engineering created 

message: 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)
replies: text: No we haven't. Depending on how inclusive we are when tagging pages, I think we would have between 500–1000 pages on the low end and several thousand if we were more inclusive. Can AWB do talk pages? I just started with AWB and don't remember a modify talk page feature. – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh by the way, welcome to the project! – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the welcome! =). I think AWB can do talk pages (not entirely sure), but it is kind of tedious to manually tag civil engineering articles with AWB, even though AWB is made for repetitive edits. I think some projects like WP:LAKES used Betacommandbot to do all the tagging work. On the other hand, some projects like WP:VOLCANO did manual tagging with several editors. Hydrogen Iodide 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if a fully automated bot does it, all the better. Quality assessments still need to be done semi-manually though. – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question about the assessment: How comprehensive do we want the tagging to be? Should we include all skyscraper/building, roads/highways, pipelines, power lines, water treatment plants, bridges, dams, piers/wharfs articles? Hydrogen Iodide 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, that is how we could get tens of thousands of articles. I'm strongly in favor of not having every bridge ever build have our tag since we can just link to other projects that specifically do bridges, roads, etc. If we tag every type of bridge, dam, and what not, I bet we could get close to a thousand articles, and think that would be a pretty reasonable project scope. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think defining parent and descendant wikiprojects (see my above post) is more critical: let a dam project handle dams, bridges can handle roads, state roads projects can take on roads, etc.  I'd see the CE wikiproject as little more than a parent for those, providing a link to a great Engineering Wikiproject.  That done, there probably wouldn't be too many articles within this project, per se. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the project could quicly get out of hand, as it were, if we tried tagging every related article, even though we should still consider those articles within the project's purview. For now, I would recommend staying manual or semi-maual with tagging efforts, tagging articles with overreaching, generic or general CE content such as branches stemming from CE and very famous or very notable CE items and/or people who are strongly associated with the profession. There's gonna be a lot of judgment involved. ZueJay (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think if we just do some of our most important categories automatically? I've cleaned up a lot of them, so they should be pretty good. @Bossi, I'm not really sure if I did the parent/descendant thing right. Am I supposed to notify them or something? Also, the relations between other projects seems to be fairly confusing, so I am not really sure what to put down since we don't need to put down descendants of other projects of they descend from us. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would be best to do the auto-tagging with a bot. I think the WP:VOLCANO project took like one to two months to tag all volcano related articles even though they have only about 2,000 articles. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been poking around some of our categories, and even the good ones are in pretty bad shape. I think we can find some that are good enough to do by bot, and even if it tags some bad articles, we can always detag them. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found out that AWB has a plugin made for it to tag talk pages: User:Kingbotk/Plugin. It is very fast, so I think we can just use this method; I haven't seen anything about fully automated bots doing this anyway. – Basar (talk · contribs) 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found out that we have around 300 civil engineer articles out there; I was surprised there are so many. By the way, we got our first featured article now . . . – Basar (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We just don't have one currently; think we should? – Basar (talk · contribs) 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this project should have importance assessments just like many other WikiProjects. However, I think some projects like WP:HK disabled the importance rating because an editor got upset about the importance assessment or something like that (I forgot what it was exactly). Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 03:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be sort of nice too. From my experience, a number of projects seem to be going with just assessments for whatever reason, but it still seems like most incorporate both features. I doubt any of us will get hung up over a low importance rating, at least I won't. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience. When I first set up the assessment on the WikiProj scope box, I left off importance in favor of focusing on quality assessment. I have no objection to including importance, I just didn't think it was necessary to include, at the time. ZueJay (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone added the code for importance assessments to the WikiProject banner yet? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. – Basar (talk · contribs) 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe...ZueJay (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment(2) 

message: I think it would be beneficial to have an infobox outlining this project. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? – Basar (talk ·contribs) 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean something like this:
----
----
Hydrogen Iodide 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, why not. Wow, I haven't been to the bay bridge since they started putting in the new one. It looks really nice. I'll put the infobox up since I doubt anyone will object, and I'll correct the links. I also didn't know they were separating the lanes like that. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template doesn't support our userbox right now since it is in Wikipedia space, but I'll expand the template a bit later. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An infobox for this WikiProject 

message: 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)
replies: text: Phw... I don't know. I think steel/timber/concrete will generate more trouble than systems/connectors/analysis/etc. I was just looking at :Category:Engineering and its totally bonkers. The structural cat doesn't look terrible based on a cursory glance (probably due to your cleaning). ZueJay (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about it more, and I think creating steel and timber categories would be good because 1) that is how it is broken up outside of Wikipedia 2) I have found a lot of articles that do not categorize well with the categories structural system and structural connector like the article I-beam. I also misrepresented the situation in my OP because the current system is half and half because the category concrete is created and that is how all the concrete articles are stored, and I also just had created structural connectors cat so it hasn't been a long standing method of sorting. Structural analysis would of course stay. This would leave the cats as structural analysis, concrete, timber, steel, continuum mechanics, structural engineers, and construction. It would also have buildings and structures and engineering failures, but I'm weary of those although I don't know how to change them yet. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural eng cat 

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds pretty good. The current text under the "Scope" section is too vague and that could lead to problems as mentioned in the Assessment(2) section. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: 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...
----
	
You have been invited to join the WikiProject Civil Engineering, 
a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! ~~~~
----
Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I've been wanting one of those. I usually just add a sentence on to the end of a welcome template. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like this template could use an image. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bridge picture seems alright, but is there a better picture for the template? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 02:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, if there was a better picture I knew of, I would have put it on there. Feel free to find something else though, there is always room for improvement. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, one thing I don't like about skyscrapers is that they are pretty structural centric whereas a bridge incorporates most major areas of civil engineering. I also couldn't find a picture of those two that was particularly exceptional. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Golden Gate Bridge? Or the Tsing Ma Bridge? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation template 

message: 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)
replies: text: The soil article needs peer and expert input from a civil engineering perspective. Unfortunately Basar, who had been working on this,  as of a few days ago. Hopefully other CE-types will wander over to take his place. I would like to return to GA-status and that is not going to happen without a balance of perspectives.  -- Paleorthid (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Borehole]] 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Cribstone bridge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Importance Rating 

message: Please comment on the talk page regarding above article's deletion process.SriMesh | talk 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrological geoengineering]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed at [[Earthquake engineering]] 

message: 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
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vandrielmechatronica.nl%2Fbruggen%2Fslauerhoffbrug_01.html&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=EN&ie=UTF-8
-Ravedave (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very cool bridge.  Have you been able to find any free images of it?  It would make a very nice dyk article.  I will try to sort an article out for it but it may take me a few days (I am a bit busy at the moment), cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool bridge - no article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Traffic monitoring equipment 

message: Engineering traditions in Canada has been nominated for deletion.  76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering traditions in Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Water fluoridation nominated for FA