Talk:Engineering disasters

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is very American centric, as if the rest of the world never got anything wrong. The Titanic sank due to poor engineering, for example. The St Francis dam doesn't rate a mention? Nothing from the heavy civil engineering field, just mechanical? St Francis Dam?

De Havilland Comet, DC-10 cargo doors, Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi, Concorde, The Vasa, Boston Molasses, The Banqiao Reservoir Dam (171,000 dead!!!).

Chann94501 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total agreement on that. Incredibly North America-centric. 72.106.148.177 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engineering disasters. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud & Malfeasance[edit]

I think people underestimate the prevalence of fraud & malfeasance in engineering disasters. It would improve the article if this could be mentioned. Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fails to define subject. rename to "causes of engineering disasters"?[edit]

the article fails to give a definition of what an engineering disaster actually is (or is considered to be), instead it mostly gives a short definition of engineering, and then lists causes and examples of disasters.

compare this to e.g. Natural_Disaster, which has a whole section for the definition, which starts "A natural disaster is ...". or to Disaster, "A disaster is ...". 77.23.1.131 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]