Talk:Geoengineering

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geoengineering redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 31 days

Use of "Geoengineering" versus "Geological Engineering"

This page was recently created, and superseded the use of the title "geoengineering" on the page that refers to proposed methods to reduce global warming (now renamed "climate engineering"). I understand that geoengineering is accepted as a shorthand for geological engineering for people in that field, but isn't "geological engineering" still the full term? Currently, it isn't used once in this article. I think that this change will be very confusing to people who are searching for the term as it is more widely used (to mean climate change intervention).Belfrey (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added geological and geotechnical to intro line. Seems this really should be a disambig page between geotech and climate uses rather than trying to sorta duplicate the geotech article. Vsmith (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially since the geotech engineering article has a header that states "Not to be confused with geoengineering." (with a link that would previously have gone to the climate intervention article.)167.95.1.164 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped that outdated dab header. Vsmith (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree, by far the most common use of the term in the last 20 years has been to refer to Climate Geoengineering. Oberono (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a reversion of this change on the new Climate engineering talk page, but as I was the only supporting voice and Vsmith continued to oppose having the title reflect the current common usage, it was declared as "no consensus" and the topic was closed. I encourage others who are familiar with how the term "geoengineering" is now commonly understood to try again, or go ahead and make the change if you're familiar enough with how to do so. So far, the Wiki crowd-editing model has failed on this one.Belfrey (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the discussion: I am glad to see the change in the content of the page of Geoengineering to reflect the broad field that encompasses geological engineering, engineering geology, geotechnical engineering, rock mechanics, geophysics and oil exploration. I had made that request in the past, but without success. The term is used in that manner since the early 1960s and is widely used by geoprofessionals worldwide. A number of academic programs and Departments also use it. For example: University of California at Berkeley (see here: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/programs/geo) and the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geo-Engineering at the University of Minnesota (see here: http://www.cege.umn.edu/)--DZekk (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the term is also used by many academic/scholarly sources to refer to climate change intervention - and outside of the realm of the "geoprofessionals" themselves, that is now by far the more common usage.Belfrey (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get this change reversed ASAP? There's no balanced justification for the continued use of this page for what should properly be on geotechnical engineering. By far the most common current use is for climate engineering.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that promoters of various schemes to modify the climate have used geoengineering to describe their ideas relatively recently. However, climate engineering better describes their promotions. But ... whatever. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoengineering in general use is taken to mean climate modification, not geotechnical engineering. Can an admin please get this silly change reverted asap? 94.119.89.240 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed for climate engineering

I was brought to this Wikipedia article by a news article covering climate engineering techniques that referred to said techniques as geoengineering techniques. At the bottom of this Wikipedia article, I found a "see also" link to Climate engineering, and when I followed that link, the very first line of that Wikipedia article said that climate engineering was also known as geoengineering. As such, to be clear and consistent, the "see also" link on the geoengineering article should be changed to a disambiguatiom notice. // Internet Esquire (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Convert to a disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoengineering → Geological engineering – It is my understanding that "Geological engineering" is the proper name of this subject described in the article. On WP:MV it says pages should be moved if "The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use", and this is kind of like that in a way, only it's Climate engineering that has changed names, at least as far as the common name is concerned. WP:RECOGNIZABLE states that the most commonly used name of a subject should be the article's title. However, to distinguish Geological engineering from Climate engineering, I think that both articles should use the proper name of the field (as Climate engineering already does), and Geoengineering should redirect to Climate engineering. I have never heard the term Geoengineering used outside the scope of Climate engineering, granted, that's only my experience, but the media uses this term almost exclusively in any coverage of Climate engineering, so it's reasonable to assume that the general public associates it with that subject. SarrCat ∑;3 18:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Geoengineering" should be a disambiguation page, and should direct to "Geotechnical engineering" and "Climate engineering" according to the meaning. Aszilagyi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support disambiguation because it can make a distinguishing definition. All the texts I found in a preliminary search used the term geoengineering in relation to climate change. However it may have a wider meanings or different historical meanings. Geotechnical engineering and climate engineering are fairly developed so there probably is no need to create geological engineering. This needs to be resolved as someone who is not familiar with the subject it was a little off-putting. One thing is for sure - we don't start articles with see also links. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this article cannot be moved to "Geological engineering" because Geological engineering already exists, and it is a redirect to Geotechnical engineering. So let's close this discussion and conclude that such a move is not possible. Instead, we should really convert Geoengineering to a disambiguation page, which is the only viable solution at this point. Aszilagyi (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation as outlined by Aszilagyi makes the most sense. The "Geoengineering" article has bothered me for a long time, partly because two of the alternate names are wikilinks themselves! — Gorthian (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the last sentence of the lead of geotechnical engineering says The fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are closely related, and have large areas of overlap. However, the field of geotechnical engineering is a specialty of engineering, where the field of engineering geology is a specialty of geology. The hatnote on this article says "This article is about engineering and geosciences." So it can't make up its mind between being a fork of geotechnical engineering (engineering) or a fork of engineering geology (geology or geoscience), or a lame broad-concept overview of both. And though the hatnote "For intervention in the Earth’s climate system, see climate engineering." implies that this is not about climate engineering, that seems to be exactly what the article's only reference is about: "Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.", per the Oxford Geoengineering Programme. So, consensus is to clear up this confusion with a disambiguation. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I copied content to Geoprofessions § Geological engineering. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]