Talk:Chief mechanical engineer

Requested move, re-opened

 * 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. 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: moved, with the caveat that there is no consensus to move the subsidiary list articles – they should go through their own RM. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Chief Mechanical Engineer → Chief mechanical engineer – Per the extensive discussions above, and following the suggestion to re-open the move request (Favonian had closed with "close for now with no move, pending outcome of RFCs"), it's time to fix this. The discussions made it clear there is no compelling reason in sources (since many British railway magazines and such did and still do use lower case), and no widespread support among editors, to adopt a style at variance with the WP style expressed in MOS:CAPS, by which the job title should be lower case. We can still accommodate the formal use of the title for individuals by capitalizing it when it's present as part of a name/title, as proposed by Jojalozzo and supported by many. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfCs mentioned above were Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer and Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer. There may have been others: as I noted on 11 September 2011, some discussions occurred off this page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – I haven't read through the case history and have no topic expertise, but offhand I don't see what is more special about this title than chief executive officer or chief financial officer, which aren't capitalized in Wikipedia titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This should probably have been submitted as a multi-page move along with List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway and List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Western Australian Government Railways. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There will no impediment to keeping those subsidiary lists in sync if we decide this one. No admin help needed, no controversy.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't we say that specific positions in specific companies like "Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway" had to be capitalized? Shouldn't it still be capitalized if it is in plural? --79.151.251.30 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did we say that? If it's in the context of "Joe Blow, Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway", then maybe.  But plural, I don't think so; that's clearly a generic in that case.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Every single item in the list is uppercase, but the list name has to be lowercase?.... This means that List of Presidents of the United States needs to be downcased, and many articles under Category:Lists_of_presidents. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There would be no analogy there unless you first convinced people that the office title "president of the United States" is OK without the capital. After looking at sources, I'd say that's a very unlikely case to succeed, compared to chief mechanical engineer.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (warning, I am not talking about this specific move, I am talking about downcasing List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway)
 * But "Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway" is a specific position just like "President of the United States", so the list names should follow the same rules. (And "Chief Mechanical Engineer of the" + company name is also capitalized in sources) Can you explain why these two lists should follow different rules? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't totally explain why they are treated so differently in sources, but due to that (per MOS:CAPS) we should treat them correspondingly differently in WP. See books and magazines for that title.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In lists which enumerate sets of people with a particular job title such as the "List of X Railway chief mechanical engineers" or "List of French kings", job titles are downcased. If we considered the office of CME very important, we might upcase CME in "List of holders of the office of Chief Mechanical Engineer of X Railway" but we're not using that construction. We downcase CME in "List of chief mechanical engineers of X Railway" since the latter enumerates people with a particular job title. Joja  lozzo  04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dicklyon: only the older sources use downcase. Modern sources capitalize the position.
 * @Jojalozzo: yet we don't downcase List of Presidents of the United States. The truly generic positions are stuff like List of heads of state of Yugoslavia. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is a difference between List of French kings (people who were king in the general region of France, even before the word "France" was coined) and List of Kings of France (people who held the title of King of France). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:JOBTITLES. Cf. chief of staff, chief information officer, or attorney general. This title is lower-cased in Railway Mechanical Engineer. Merriam-Webster also lower cases job titles, for example "chief executive", "chief of naval operations", or "king". Kauffner (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—I don't see any reason to capitalize this, a job title. If sources don't always do it we probably shouldn't per MOS:CAPS—we generally don't capitalize when it's optional. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is about all those people who served in the office of CME with the job title CME. The name for such a generic class is a common noun phrase which Wikipedia MOS recommends be written in lower case (or sentence case for the article title). Joja  lozzo  23:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

"Engineer"
Does the chief have to be a chartered/certified/professional engineer, and a member of the Engineering College/Society/Bar/Guild ? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In Britain, a Chief Mechanical Engineer of a railway was almost always a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Some were also members of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Most were members of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers: not all were though - Charles Collett of the GWR encouraged his staff to join the IMechE and the Civils, but did not permit them to join the ILE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Proper noun
Honestly, I've never read anything so ridiculous as the discussions above about whether it's 'Chief Mechanical Engineer' or 'chief mechanical engineer' outside of name+title use. I'm frankly horrified to see it ended up with the entirely wrong result. I came here from the home page presentation of Oliver Bulleid's pacifics, and can only wonder at some people's theory that by decapitalising CME, they think laymen are going to be saved any sort of confusion, or indeed praise this adherence to a consistent style. The simple fact is, anyone who claims that either in historical or contemporary usage, people use/d 'CME' as just a common noun for the name of a position that was no more worthy of capitalisation than 'toilet cleaner' and no more uniquely identifying of a post than 'king', are just wrong, wrong, wrong. While it may have initially only been used as a common noun, there can be no doubt that by the time of the period of Bulleid's pacifics, it had become a proper noun for that unique position. Just like there was King Henry, one of the Kings of England, there was Chief Mechanical Engineer Oliver Bulleid, one of the Chief Mechanical Engineers of the railways. It's amazing that the nonsense talked above about toilet cleaners and internal consistency managed to derail Wikipedia away from this undeniable reality of the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CME9949 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OS Nock
O. S. Nock became "Chief Mechanical Engineer" of Westinghouse in 1957 (referenced in the article) - a railway job - in a different sort of railway company - I think the article needs to address other contexts such as this.Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying either that Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company Ltd was not a railway company, or that other kinds of companies having chief mechanical engineers is somehow odd or railroad-like, or both? I don't see the issue.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief mechanical engineer. 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/20090105182253/http://www.34058.co.uk/Oliver%20Bulleid.htm to http://www.34058.co.uk/Oliver%20Bulleid.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) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Chief mechanical engineer → Chief Mechanical Engineer – CME is an official title and is usually capitalized in railway literature.&#32;Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Happily888 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * queried move request Happily888 (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * @Edwin of Northumbria there was a discussion on the talk page resulting in the current page title. Even if it was 10 years ago, such move back will have some resistance. Open a discussion instead? – robertsky (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Of course, the "chief mechanical engineer" should stay, as well as chief executive officer, chief operating officer and similar ones. Kamdenek (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no "of course" about it, and opinion seems to have been divided when the issue was raised previously (thanks to robertsky for pointing this out). Applying the same logic as Kamdenek, the page Chief of the Armed Forces should be "Chief of the armed forces", which clearly it isn't!! – Edwin of Northumbria (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC))
 * The difference for Armed Forces is that in that context, it is more often than not a proper noun, a proper name given to the (usually, official) national collective military organisation. – robertsky (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. Both articles (Chief of the Armed Forces (France) and Chief of the Armed Forces (Switzerland)) define the chief as a person (not an organisation). Kamdenek (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chief of the Armed Forces is in the style of "Position of XYZ Organisation", which is similar to other titles like President of the United States. whereas "Chief mechanical officer" in this case may be taken as "Job title". A more appropriate example might be Vice President of the United States v.s. Vice president. – robertsky (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. robertsky, most job titles refer to a "position of XYZ organisation" – but would you write She is a Cashier at Walmart? See also the examples below (OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare). 2. Your examples do not confirm (fully) your opinion – we can read: The president of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state... and The vice president of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest officer in.. Kamdenek (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this general discussion about the content or the page title? – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an eligible technical request - open a move discussion if you think this is worth doing, I agree with @Robertsky — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am curiuos in what way "opinion seems to have been divided" when all the voters supported lower case. And yes, it should probably be "chief of the armed forces", as often used in scientific publications. Kamdenek (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:CAPS and especially MOS:JOBTITLES, this is an easy and obvious example of: Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan....The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES - especially since the article is not about one particular position but about a the category of such positions. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the comments. I believe robertsky has got to the heart of the matter, as that was precisely the point I was trying to make. "Chief Mechanical Officer" is an invented job title used (see the content of the associated article) to emphasize an individual's level of professional expertise, status, and degree of authority within a company. As such, it is a proper noun and in my opinion should therefore be capitalized. I take what Shibbolethink says on board, but the policy is problematic in this instance for the following reason:  Firstly, I note that if one were to say "I contacted Acme Corporation's vice-president, Wile E. Coyote", there would be little room for ambiguity (i.e. Wile E. Coyote is vice-president of Acme Corp.). However, the same is not true if one were to say "Leon Skum is Acme Corporation's chief wit". Here, there may or may not be a position of "Chief Wit" (perhaps the modern equivalent of a court jester) within Acme Corp., the problem being that by "chief", the speaker may simply mean "best", "highest-ranking", or even (with irony) "worst". The situation is somewhat analogous to the Oxford comma debate, in that whilst in most instances, omission of the comma has no effect on the meaning of what is written, there are some circumstances where it does (hence the reason why it may be argued that by always inserting the comma, there is more to be gained than lost). In this respect, it might have been better if railway companies had kept the older job title of "Locomotive Superintendent". The policy assumes that "one size fits all", when in life this is very rarely the case!!  I refer Kamdenek to the view expressed by CME9949. Shade.png – Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But, Cinderella157, there was only one CME in each company (and their status was rather like that of God). – Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The assertion that this is a proper name is at odds with what is a proper name since a true proper name is not descriptive but an arbitrary label that tells us nothing about the subject. If it appears to be descriptive, an alternative proper name might equally have been chosen. This case certainly is descriptive. There is a general perception but false equivalence between capitalisation (orthography) and proper name (grammar) which ignores that we often use capitalisation to emphasise or distinguish a phrase in much the same way that we might use quote marks or italics. We might then justify using caps by asserting that the name labels [describes] something that is unique, specific or significant.  This is the assertion being made in support here.  But we (WP) don't use caps for emphasis, significance or distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS.  Even though job titles are sometimes capped, they are certainly not proper names and we have guidance at MOS:JOBTITLES that tells us not to cap a job title in this type of case. Paraphrasing, the advice tells us that we might cap when referring to a very specific position. There is one God but many gods. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In law, chief justice vis-a-vis "Chief Justice of X" (see the list in the article). – robertsky (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES. Cases like this are why that guideline exists in the first place.  RMs like this only happen because not everyone reads the guidelines. Pretty much no one capitalizes "assistant manager of Jimbob's Burgers"; the urge to over-capitalize almost always applies to fairly high offices, and our rule is to not do it, except when it's directly attached to a name: the president of the United States, vs. President Biden.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly not a proper name unless part of a unique job title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)