Jump to content

Talk:Engineering technologist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

This page fails to mention an important group in the technologist milieu-medical imaging technologists. The original author or someone equally inclined should add this important and as of yet, unstated/recognized group of technologists.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.109.65 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ndyguy 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

techologist as a general term

Can not a person who works with technology toward the betterment of mankind be considered a "technologist"? This is the context to which I have always heard and understood the term.

In my country, you must graduate from a recognized program and have several years work experience to be officially a technologist. You can 'consider' someone a technologist in the context you describe, and it's likely that a person that works with technology as you describe could apply to the governing bodies for the designation and associated benefits. For instance a Canadian Engineering Technologist does not need a green card to work in the United States. I would assume the reverse is also true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.32 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-for consideration —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.135.191.159 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's as good point. As the article states, the term "technologist" is used within the scientific and engineering communities. If you are aware of other communities or sources that define the term in a broader sense please start a disabmiguation page.--ndyguy 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I use and refer to the term as many other do in my field, to represent a mix between design / technology as a profession. A multimedia technologist for example is a key bridge between the design and computer programming worlds and is able to communicate and work in both creative and technical contexts due to a wide knowledge base and skillset. Additionally it refers to the benefit this kind of team member brings to projects by being able to bring together creative and technical minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.148.148 (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

game desgining

Game desgining is one of my favorite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.193.177.1 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technologist As A Profession in the United States

As described in Profession, the engineering Technologist is not licensed and has no direct access to provide services. The technologist is legally equivalent to a technician in that an licensed engineer is required to perform works that affect the public. This is not so in other countries. ABET is moving toward requiring significantly more education and experience to become an engineer. Why then should engineering technology be considered '...separate, but intimately related professions." (Emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.4.11 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engineering technologist. 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: 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) 11:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Engineering technologist. 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, 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) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engineering technologist. 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, 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) 05:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engineering technologist. 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, 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) 21:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Terminology

It should be noted that the name of this entry is offensive in some countries, including the United States. Would it perhaps be better if the entry title was changed to Engineering Technology. That way, an offensive term is not used as an entry. Thank you. EngineeringUnited (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the offence taken? 24.137.118.29 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There's been a great deal too much edit-warring at this page recently; I've protected it for a few days in the hope of stimulating some discussion here on the talk-page. WYQ3995, EngineeringUnited, Saudi IPv6, would you please engage in a conversation here and try to reach agreement on what content should be in the page? Thank you!

Drmies, Ed6767, I see that you recently did some cleaning-up here. Should the page again be reverted to this version pending the results of the discussion, do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I'm surprised this is still going on nearly a month later - there is a small thread in my talk page archives regarding this in which I encouraged EngineeringUnited to start a talk page thread (see top of this page). In regards to your question, I think that version is a good one to restore to, yes. Ed6767 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. I wonder what EngineeringUnited hopes to achieve with this kind of unverified editorial commentary; I may end up blocking them for abusing Wikipedia. It's not a forum. The IP/IPs who reverted that and other edits are, IMO, correct, but they went about it the wrong way, of course. What WYQ3995 is trying to achieve is even less clear. So yes, I agree that the 30 April version is a good one to restore to--but of course that was the situation after I had removed an enormous amount of trivial and improperly verified information from the article, so I'm arguing for me, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, 2001:16A2:915B:D300:1D12:51D8:1DAA:BD22/64 probably needs a rangeblock; those 188 IPs need to be blocked for edit warring as well--that is, all the Saudi IPs. EngineeringUnited needs to make sure they're logged in when editing, and if they can't promise to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:V, they should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, to throw a bunch of anagrams around. WYQ3995, if they continue in the way they've been editing, needs to be blocked for failure to provide reliable secondary sources. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Engineering_technologist&oldid=1207116111"