Talk:List of engineering societies

Canadian Engineering Student Societies vs. Professional Associations

To bring the Canadian component of this page into line with the spirt of the rest of the page, the following needs to happen:

1. Create a new page called Canadian Engineering Student Societies or something like it.
2. Move the bulk of the info from the Canada section to that new page.
3. Create new links to the provincial and territorial Professional Engineering associations.
   • APEY
   • NAPEGG
   • APEGBC
   • APEGGA
   • APEGS
   • APEGM
   • PEO/OSPE
   • OIQ
   • APENB
   • APENS
   • APEPEI
   • PEGNL
4. Add note that Engineering Societies in Canada usually refers to student societies, w/ link.

I will be working on this when I have time. UMwoodr0 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

17 June 2006 edits by 83.22.61.42

To 83.22.61.42: I think I can understand your efforts to make the list of societies more organized. However, in making your edits, you removed a lot of the context surrounding the societies of certain countries and regions (i.e. the different meaning of Canadian engineering societies, the UK granting of professional credentials, etc.).

While I agree that this article is not very good and needs more work, we should figure out a strategy to divide the information into new articles, etc. before deleting information from this page. Thus I'm reverting to a previous version of the page. However, I would like to work with you (if you're willing) to improve the organization and content of this article. Let us discuss below how to best deal with the organization and wide variety of information on these pages. Feel free to disagree with my treatment of this article, but please discuss your objections here so that we can have a debate instead of an edit-war.

Also, if I may make some suggestions to make future interaction more productive:

• Consider creating a Wikipedia account, so that we know who you are and so you can stand behind your work.
• Please fill in the edit summary whenever you make an edit. It allows other users to quickly understand your changes on the History page, and makes it easier for editors to do their jobs.
• If you're making major changes to the content of an article, and especially when you delete a lot of content, please discuss the changes on the Talk page and/or post the deleted material on the Talk page, along with your reasons for deleting. See WP:Bold

Thanks! UMwoodr0 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of engineering societies. 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/20111004225504/http://www.eic-ici.ca/member_societies.html to http://www.eic-ici.ca/member_societies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated UK Engineering Council Lists

Ive updated all the UK lists based on https://www.engc.org.uk/our-role-as-regulator/licensing-professional-engineering-institutions

Unfortunately quite a few institutions dont have a page of their own as yet - would appreciate some help creating them!

Tkerby (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion criteria for UK engineering institutions in this list

There has been some debate over how the UKs Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs) are included in this list. See the collapsed section for history.

The Engineering Council is the statutory regulatory body for the UK engineering profession and publishes the authoritative list of licensed PEIs and affiliate bodies. This makes it unique compared to other list pages as for the UK there is a definitive source of recognised organisations. Not all of them currently have a Wikipedia page (and may or may not meet notability criteria).

The questions for community input are:

1. Should the Engineering Council’s published lists be used as the primary source for identifying UK engineering institutions for this article?
2. Should verifiable institutions be included in this list even if they do not yet have a Wikipedia article?
3. Alternatively, should this list only include organisations that already have their own Wikipedia articles and the premise of the page adjusted to only include notable engineering organisations instead?

We need to ensure both list accuracy and compliance with guidelines such as WP:NLIST. For clarity, this RFC is not about whether every listed body is automatically entitled to a standalone Wikipedia article. It is about whether this list should accurately reflect verifiable engineering institutions, including where some entries are currently unlinked.

Tkerby (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended content

There is a disagreement about recent edits to the United Kingdom section of this list.

I updated the UK entries using the Engineering Council’s published lists of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliated bodies. These edits were intended to correct outdated information and ensure the list reflects the current recognised organisations.

Some of these institutions do not yet have their own Wikipedia articles. In a follow-up edit I deliberately avoided creating red links while still including the organisations.

These edits were reverted by User:Randykitty, who noted that lists like this attract spam and stated that entries should only be included if they already have a Wikipedia article (citing WP:WTAF).

I raised the issue on this talk page and on the editor’s talk page but the underlying disagreement remains.

For clarity, this RFC is not about whether every listed body is automatically entitled to a standalone Wikipedia article. It is about whether this list should accurately reflect verifiable engineering institutions, including where some entries are currently unlinked.

The Engineering Council is the statutory regulatory body for the UK engineering profession and publishes the authoritative list of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliate bodies. This makes it quite unique compared to other list pages as for the UK at least there is a definitive list.

As context: I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but I am a Fellow of multiple UK engineering institutions andtherefore familiar with how these organisations are recognised and regulated in the UK. I am also working to create orimprove Wikipedia coverage of some of these institutions.

The questions for community input are:

1. Should the Engineering Council’s published lists be used as the primary source for identifying UK engineering institutions for this article?
2. Should verifiable institutions be included in this list even if they do not yet have a Wikipedia article?
3. Alternatively, should this list only include organisations that already have their own Wikipedia articles and the premise of the page adjusted to only include notable engineering organisations instead?

The aim is to ensure the article remains accurate and verifiable while also maintaining appropriate quality control forlist entries.

Tkerby (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• See also discussion on my talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• #3, probably. List items do not necessarily need to be notable, but that can be a standard for a given list article (WP:CSC), as it seems to be for this one. There are already a lot of UK organizations listed, so I don't see a need to make an exception. I'm just responding to a bot notice, and don't have strong feelings about whether the list's inclusion criteria should change. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Hi Tkerby, I have collapsed your RfC statement and removed the {{rfc}} tag per the WP:AITALK guideline, as your RfC statement appears to have been generated by a large language model (e.g. an AI chatbot), and the RfC statement does not fulfill the requirements stated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Statement should be neutral and brief. You are welcome to post a new RfC statement written in your own words that meets the requirements above the collapsed statement, and then restart the RfC with a new {{rfc}} tag. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Newslinger While this wasn't AI generated (I'd hope AI would have fixed my typos if it was!) I've shortened the RFC though if that meets the guidelines better Tkerby (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've replaced the AI-specific collapse template with a generic one, as your have shortened your RfC statement. Thanks for making the amendment. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• There's a gap between #2 and #3, in which an organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article but nobody has written one yet. I oppose #3 ("blue link required"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)