Talk:Process design

Cleanup Flagged Feb 2006

The lists at least need formatting; I guess separaste main articles for Chemical / Software / Business Process design are needed. The article doesn't link in with enough other material on Wikipedia. — Stumps 16:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were entirely correct that this article needed a lot of clean up and Wikifying. I did quite a bit of that today and I think that the cleanup tag can now be removed ... which I shall do. However, that is not to say that the article could not still benefit by more editing and expansion. - mbeychok 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process design (chemical engineering) → Process design – Unnecessary dab. Pascal Hacutin (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Designing of processes happens outside of chemical engineering, too, but that's covered elsewhere

And the hatnote now takes care of it to my satisfaction. Regarding my article-scope edits (this edit and this edit), and then Mbeychok's rebuttal, OK—it's a language-usage thing. It's not that the designing of processes doesn't happen outside of chemical engineering, as well—for example, designing processes and systems is what industrial engineering is all about—it's just that the set phrase "process design" has a long history of usage specifically in its chemical engineering sense, which is the specific topic that this article is about. This usage-difference discussion reminds me also of this discussion, where it was drawn out upon discussion that nowadays there are subtractive processes that can make prototypes rapidly, but the set phrase "rapid prototyping" has had a long life referring only to the original additive sense. In this article's case, I am satisfied now, with the improved hatnote. — ¾-10 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm happy that you are happy. mbeychok (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]