Category talk:Process engineering

Rename

 Oppose I tend towards opposing this move, as it is obviously different enough from "normal" chemical engineering to be used specifically. There are also uses outside of chemicals, such as in Computers. Process is a pretty wide concept. I therefore suggest that we move it INTO Category:Chemical engineering AND change the name to Category:Process engineering (chemicals). Even in that case, it should be a subcat of "Chemical engineering", though. Ingolfson (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this category isn't useful. --Aushulz (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, files are now classified in more specific categories (e.g. separation techniques), so move them here instead of single files, or more simply delete this category: it's overabundant. --Aushulz (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you simply need a collection of images, create a page like this: Industrial distillation towers. In this manner, categorization problems will be avoided --Aushulz (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I continue to see no reason why this should be be deleted, or renamed (except possibly to Category:Process engineering (chemicals)). I consider pages as a rather problematic way to "supplement" categorisation, as they depend on external work, rather than sorting the image file itself. As such, they are a much less useful process - which has applications for individual users / projects etc... but not for the "big scheme" of things where a robust categorisation - via categories - is needed. And this category clearly has a goood number of files, as well as being representative of a specific sub-spec of chemical engineering. Regards Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel this category is too general, the images in it can be classified into more specific categories, such as 'distillation columns', 'separations', etc. The category page says "Process engineering is often a synonym for chemical engineering" so I think the images that cannot be classified should be moved into Category:Chemical engineering. Waqqasd (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose Although many of the images in Category:Process engineering involve chemical engineering, perhaps leading some to believe the term process engineering involves only chemical processes, but I do not agree. I think process engineering can involve any manufacturing, production, or industrial-like process even if it's not manufacturing, production, or chemical engineering. I say "industrial-like" because government or possibly other non-industrial (non-commercial) institutions may run such processes. Production would include heat and power production as well as production of food, oil, steel, other materials, and manufacturing a wide variety of items which are not usually thought of as chemical. Non-production processes also involve process engineering such as treatment of water (for drinking, purification, desalination, etc.), wastewater, air, flue gases, recyclables, garbage (such as combustion maybe), etc. All these and others may involve process engineering and use diagrams for explanation, equipment, etc. Category:Process engineering would be a good general category for technical aspects of such processes. It could have its own subcategories eventually develop.
H Padleckas (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposal here

The above discussion starts with Ingolfson opposing to the renaming of this category. I can't seem to find this proposal itself. Did this discussion started somewhere else? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• @Marcel Douwe Dekker: here you can see what happened: [1]. I deleted this category on 12/01/2009, then on 18/01/2009 the "move" template was added, because in my opinion this category is totally usefulness. On 09/02/2009 Foroa declined to move the category. So I ask to reconsider to delete this category. I don't really see the reason for don't delete this category, and renaming of this category with "Category:Process engineering (chemicals)" is ridiculous.. I can make a mistake, but I supposed that Ingolfson don't know what "Chemical engineering" and "Process engineering" are.
• @Ingolfson: "they depend on external work", which works? On wikipedias? I think we can modify that links in one minute.

"this category clearly has a goood number of files": this is true, but the files are ordinated in apposite categories, so why put a file at time when we can put a whole category here? I think too much files make the category confused and less accessible. --Aushulz (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed my idea: now I know better what "Process Engineering" is: it isn't the same thing of Chemical Engineering, so now I think this category is useful and indipendent. I'm sorry to have nominated this category for deletion, it was my mystake. --Aushulz (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)