Talk:Overengineering

Examples section
It'd be good to add a section with examples and separate them from the main text. Well-sourced examples (this thing with German tanks is a total nonsense) including stuff like software, perhaps also linking to relate practices like Scope creep, Feature creep or God object. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Example" should be deleted
The so-called "example" is no example of overengineering, but an example of bad engineering. To qualify for overengineering, engineering must meet certain minimal quality standards. I would delete the section without replacement. 95.88.184.223 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm not sure the example is even right. My Sony (CRT) TVs had the same feature in the early 90s (but only showed a relatively small icon). Certainly not 'entirely alien'. Jeroen74 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. The example is really convoluted (to say the least). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.68.148 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove Article?
((QUIX4U (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC) asks WHY? -- see below.))

It seems to me that this article should be removed altogether. The terms overengineering and overengineered are so colloquial that they don't even appear in my dictionary. And the meaning, as described in the article, is exactly backward: a product that is "more robust or complicated than necessary for its application" is, if anything, under-engineered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think the EL supplies enough notability for it stand, unless you think it ought to be deleted for other reasons. As far as the definition be backwards, I don't follow you at all; the definition seems correct to me. Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the main purposes of engineering is to determine how robust a device needs to be. And a key principle of engineering is that the simplest device that achieves its intended purpose is the best.  So, by definition, if something is "more robust or complicated than necessary for its application" it can't possibly be over-engineered.  It would, if anything, be under-engineered.--Tedd (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Engineers design a product to achieve certain goals, however there are applications where its know that extra robustness will be required for unknown circumstances. For instance, the strapping machines I design are over-engineered because we know they are going in harsh environments. For example they may get hit by a fork truck or something else, so we just add extra robustness in case. We don't ever recommend that you hit the machine with a fork truck, but we over engineer it just in case. However, we also don't test it, so maybe if you hit it just right, it will still break. You follow? Wizard191 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I follow perfectly, but I disagree. You say these machines have to be over-built because the circumstances in which they will be used are to some extent unknown.  Hence, they are under-engineered, because a critical part of engineering anything is to characterize, in engineering terms, the circumstances in which it will be used.  How could applying insufficient engineering be sensibly referred to as "over-engineering?"  I realize that your use of the term is common, I'm simply pointing out that it's not very sensible.


 * The important point here, though, is that the term is a neologism and, as such, probably doesn't qualify as legitimate Wikipedia content. Plus, it's already defined in Wiktionary.--Tedd (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do consider that designing to withstand fork truck impact is overengineering if that is something a customer does in fact want/need; something that might reasonable happen in the normal environment for the product. It may make your design more expensive to build than a competitor's, but their product won't take such a hit. Designing your machine (which seems to be for a manufacturing environment) to take a hit from a grenade would be overengineering ... since the average user would not expect it to continue to operate after that. ... But, it's hard to pin down a definition of a word since it may have different meanings in different lines of business. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tedd: You have an odd understand of what overengineering means. If something is 'more robust and complicated than necessary' then IMO it's overengineered. Less robust than necessary would be under-engineered. (less complicated than necessary isn't even a thing ... but I digress) ... What does it matter whether it's in a dictionary? A large portion of WP articles are about things not in a dictionary ... like people and places and movies and... Stevebroshar (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

((QUIX4U (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC) asks WHY? -- see below.)) Re: User:Wizard191's comment that something complicated is NOT over but Under.. is factually wrog .. As I have actually recently seen (advertised in: The Central Lakes & Districts NEWS (newspaper0 .. a NZ was $10,9999 reduced to NZ $8,999 (possibly because they couldnt sell it) -- "supposedly" TOP_END BIG_BRAND PRODUCT -- of huge physical dimensions .. incorporating ALL of: (I think it was a Sonos 6room system) What appears to be "basically" - JUST a 6way A/V (240V50Hz AC powered) "amplified" splitter box Which - th=ith it's HUGELY EXPENSIVE untionalities in the LATEST digital feilds.. And a massively humungous multi buttoned remote.. / I'd say -- it was definitely in a class of it's own - with way too much "OVER" engineering .. And including all of it's? rather never likekly to be used .. futuristical desidgned proofed HIGHLY complex functionalities.. Way too many - for the actual task .. of splitting six inputs .. across 6 rooms .. in any order -- and simultainiously .. to any room of any signal ..

Which .. to all intents and purposes .. is completely OPPOSITE -- to that of a NZ manufacturer of analogue surround sound systems .. (since 1965) .. Whom - in 2003 .. did handbuild.? Basically the same (it's my own 2003) Hedgehog "blackbox"- which is a truely under-engineered simplex NINE way input - ONE way out "analogue" deplexer decoder .. to convert multiple A/V inputs.. alternately -- for comparison reasons .. out to a quad_speaker 3D_3ch surround_sound AV output .. (which is SOOO basic .. it even derives it's power .. from the inputted audio signals A/C power components.. without reducig it's signal stages.. via CT metering technology -- that as an Industrial Electrical 2000 amp power switchboard manufacturing taught me -- POWER CT can derive a 5V source .. from an unrelated AC signal -- passing through .. in an UNRELATED electrical circuit) Thus- it has an ONBOARD .. instantly available - "no batteries ever required" self generating power supply (.!.) under-rengineered precisely. And with.. it's QUAD 3D 3 way balanced potentiomeer variabled 3ch output controls. Cost? Oh - about NZ$50 (all_up) "as built". As against the one -- OVER RENGINEERED .. (overseas) RRP in NZ was NZ$10,999 ..

Thus must be a good ADDED value -example- comparison wise on opposite ends of this argument -- ? And- YOU "all" wish to delete the whole article..? WHY. I have absolutely NO IDEA ?WHY? .. Nor do i have any ideas - as to where ALL of that other info (that i had PUT in here a mo or two ago) .. with it's CITED refernced links.. to FULLY verifyable photos, and audio visual (220 or so) videos .. showing exactly these - UNDER_RENGINEERED products.. that have been handbuilt and sold,, from WITHIN NEW ZEALAND.. for over 45yrs.. But /// all that info dissappeared.. in a flash -- of some "bot" removal thing error..? When I went to do a save .. a while ago. but.. the p.s stands..

P.s.. As this IS .. a discussion page .. on "Overengineering".. it therefore IS the best place.. for me to "ask" Wiki Admin Editors.. (of the highest levels ie: Beurocrats etc).. to consider this directly related to - 'compatible" .. yet hypothetically directly opposite.. "paired page" .EXAMPLE. to be added? - either as a sub-page .. to Overengineering .. or as a stand alone .. (WITHOUT my included referenced material obviously .. BUT with JUST the principal of thought -- the Idea). That .. of having LESS- actually IS BEST .. principles added. As when I was "myself" reading almost through - the entire "Over-engineered" page's good value for thoughtfullstudy & self examination reseach -- which -- before I was then doing.. That Overengineered article page.. Than- as I had simply WANTED to "also" read the oppoite effects .. of "Under-engineered" I simply swapped Over- for Under- and hit refresh.? Ah- ?.. but it DOES NOT EXIST -- Even though - i myslf know -- across Both Agriculture & Professional Engineereing trades.. There are many products out there .. (mostly of Kiwi Engineered inventions & $=#8 wire technologies.. we kiwi use) that are designed in exactly these TWO fashions Over & Under - rengineered 9and many are delibereatley re-engineered .. as soon as they're bought -- for NZ kiwi ingenuity NEW USE conditions... And - for the exact COST REDUCING -- value adding - same reasons. But you'all wana remove it. WHY. ?. QUIX4U (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Re: A HEDGEHOG .. I made- in 2003 .. for exactly the Underengineered principle.. of having a 9way 2ch A/V input device .. switchable across all modes.. and with potentiometre controls on just TWO circuit parameters .. AND just one quad ch 3way A/V output.? incorporating my "own" 1965 PUBLIC DOMAIN invention .. never patented .. sold from 1965 onwards.. in both NZ & Australia & one went to a private collector in China (under a strict secrecy licence) plus one even went to the USA .. in 2004. About NZ $50 compared to a ? I think Sonos bvasically the same but different -- at NZ $10,999. Surely removing this page entirely.. DELIBERATELY negate these two EXISTING fully verifyavble .. made in two f=different contries products.. Non-existant.? Or is Wikipedia .. NOT here for the truth after all.?

Plus- as that useless auto bot -- destryoyed hours of 'wher'd i put that photo - on which website.. and wheere' a video .. and where ..? Well- - YOU will just have to do ur own research on Windows LIVE (doht) com's Photo albumed "skydrive" .. (under my username) .. and on xanga -under a totally different (my_own)username (too) - for the Hedgehog.. 9way deplecer decoder switchbox photo --? Plus:.. and on youtube .. for the hundreds of visual_audio 10ch & 25ch analogue slideshow & .mp4 mono cellphoned videos -- with all of there .. verifyable information "IN LIGHTS" .. across educational transformativeness videos. Have fun.. I'm sick & tired of cuttng & pasting my (own websites) own .. open_lcence non_copyprotected PUBLIC_DOMAIN info... (that some auto bot deleted).

As I am apparently NOT allowed to many PUBLIC DOMAIN hosted websites (i run some 200+ "educational" fully informed PUBLIC DOMAIN information websites now - worldwide)Which i was able to self source.. & thus referenced (or) via cut & paste from my any of own NZ Manufacturing Compsny's - or from public domained -- free licenced ..(own material) general forum chatback -- open access websites.? ..? And YOU wanted to delete / Over as if it was under.? Well-? NZ$10,999 RRP products made overseas.. are NOT UNDER.. Just as I (4 sure as H) know, my NZ $50"units" are NOT even slightly "over" engineered. Oops.. forgot the tiddleies..~!QUIX4U (talk)

Carriage poem is not about overengineering
The poem about the carriage is not what I'd call overengineering. It's about single point of failure and catastrophic failure ... bad engineering. But not overengineering.

The Porsche quote is good though. It may seem similar to the carriage story, but it's different in that after a race the car is no longer of value and therefore falling apart is not a hardship ... assuming you plan to build another for the next race which I assume is normal for the kind of racing he was talking about. But, if a carriage falls apart during normal use, that is a big safety problem! And therefore insufficient/under engineering. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)