Talk:Commonwealth Engineering

On 5 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Commonwealth Engineering to Comeng. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Commonwealth Engineering is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Dunn Vol 5

The following was claimed to have been extracted from a private email to an anonymous editor. "Thank you for your email. John saw the final proofs of Comeng 4 and knew the book was at the printers. I have publication scheduled for April 2013. John had done nearly all the work on Comeng 5, and it is now in the hands of Phil Gutteridge." Ordinarily, a private email would be invalid as a reference (how can we verify you really received this email?, how can we verify the publisher really sent it?) But since it is a relatively small claim, the claim is realistic and within 12 months we will have proper publishing details for the reference anyway, I'll not fight against it. Stepho talk 14:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

I think I'll expand this article over the next few days or weeks, I have the complete history of Comeng by John Dunn. 56KPK (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2026

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: withdrawn. I have been won over by the argument that WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT prevails in this case. Considering that there is unanimous opposition for the time being and there hasn't been any activity for a few hours by now, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere and should not stay open any longer. If someone wants to propose a similar move again, go right ahead but I can see that consensus has probably not formed in favour of this option now. (non-admin closure) Qwerty123M (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Commonwealth Engineering → ComengComeng – As per WP:OFFICIALNAME, we should use whatever name is most commonly used for a company or other topic, in this case I hear the colloquial name "Comeng" used a lot more than "Commonwealth Engineering", it makes a lot more sense to use this short name in daily conversation. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australian Transport, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject Business have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this move, but would appreciate a bit more of a higher standard than the colloquial name the nominator hears in conversation. Is the shortened name used in scholarly sources, reference publications, news publications, or is the more formal "Commonwealth Engineering" used? In the absence of any evidence suggesting that "Comeng" is the most commonly recognisable name, I would weakly oppose this move. --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
That colloquial name is used by the majority of the sources in this article. Shortly after the first mention, "often shortened to...Comeng" is stated. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I can't immediately access any of the sources on this article, but out of nine, five are books from the same author. One is an obituary for said author, presumably to verify that he had died before his final book had been published. Two are journals from the Australian Railway Historical Society Bulletin, neither of which I could access. The final is from the Continental Railway Journal, which seems to be a UK-based railway publication. I'm sure the sources do use the name "Comeng" (hence, "often shortened to Comeng"), and the books from John Dunn are named "Comeng" and have the Comeng logo emblazoned on their front cover, but I would expect that most of the prose in the books and the journals refer to "Commonwealth Engineering" primarily rather than "Comeng". Certainly "Comeng" is a recognisable name to refer to the topic, but is it the primary name used in reliable sources? I couldn't check any of those sources to prove otherwise, but the burden of proof, I would suggest, should be on the nominator in this instance. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NWFCTM unless there is some more solid evidence that this is the common name in WP:RS. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per above. How reliable, independent, secondary sources refer to the company are of utmost importance. I'm open changing my !vote if such sources favoring the move are presented. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 March 2026 (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.

Related Articles