Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Transistor not a vital article?

I noticed that the "Transistor" article is no longer listed as a vital article. Does being a vital article mean it is an important electronics topic, or does it have something to do with the quality of the article? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

clockless CPU

Currently there are 2 identical sections on clockless CPUs. One section in History of general purpose CPUs, and an identical section in CPU design. This unintentional WP:CFORK is entirely my fault.

What should we do about it?

On Talk:CPU_design#clockless_CPUs, R. S. Shaw suggests that perhaps clockless CPUs belong in some other, third article. Any suggestions? Perhaps asynchronous circuit? (Is there a better place to ask this kind of question than "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics"?)

Is "clockless CPUs" notable enough for an entire Wikipedia article of its own? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stepping back in time

The Academic Journals wikiproject is collaborating on Electrical Experimenter this week, and it would be good if some domain experts and enthusiasts could either assist or simply mention factoids on the talk page. If anyone has physical copies of this magazine that are in the public domain, it would be great if you could scan a few pages, upload them to Commons, and note the availability on our "Transcription" page. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Direct Toner Method

Survey: bit/s/Hz, (bit/s)/Hz or bit·s−1·Hz−1 as Spectral efficiency unit?

Please vote at Talk:Eb/N0#Survey on which unit to be be used at Wikipedia for measuring Spectral efficiency. For a background discussion, see Talk:Spectral_efficiency#Bit/s/Hz and Talk:Eb/N0#Bit/s/Hz. Mange01 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review of XtremeData (FPGA manufacturer)

Hi, we need some expertise at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_3 (look for XtremeData title) to help assess the notability of the XtremeData company and see if the article should be undeleted or at least brought to AfD to discuss the sources. Basically, we are not sure if it's a notable FPGA manufacturer or just a minor one. Please answer there and not here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Plea from a reader

I've read through dozens and dozens of technology-related entries (I'm not in the field) and it is standard practice to define an acronym or abbreviation the first time it is used in a written piece. I've printed out the 18 page, single-spaced, list of computer and technology abbreviations but a lot of acronyms are still frequently used that don't even appear on this long, long list. YOU might know what these letter combinations mean but the average reader (who is not an engineer or computer programmer) does not. Some entries are just abbreviations strung together with some filler words and you'd need a Ph.D. to decipher what the hell they mean. You can communicate an idea to a layperson without "dumbing" it down, just realize you are writing for readers who do not have the same technical degrees you have. If they did, they wouldn't be going to Wikipedia for answers to their questions.Nwjerseyliz (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointing to some examples instead of ranting might possibly succeed in getting something done about it. SpinningSpark 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How about simply tagging the offending alphabet soup with Template:Expand acronym whenever you come accross one. Roger (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pinouts external links

Many of the articles related to Pinouts have a variety of external links to sites showing various pinouts. Has any consensus been developed as to these kinds of external links? It seems to me that it is pointless having 5 links to much the same info, but I don;t particularly want to pick one myself. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 290 articles are assigned to this project, of which 107, or 36.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Electron}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

I would be interested to know whether User:Spinningspark speaks for the entire WikiProject when making this edit, indicating that this project has elected not to use the new C-Class assessment; as I can find no archived discussion amongst this project's members to reach this conclusion. Any thoughts? Happy‑melon 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I opted the project out for the very reason that there had been no discussion here to take part. SpinningSpark 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of that. That does not mean you represent the views of the entire project; it simply means that you are the only member of the project to have expressed your views on the subject. I'm keen to hear others do so. Happy‑melon 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Universal Product Code in your project's scope?

An IP user has recently added your project's banner to Talk:Universal Product Code, along with several others and other talk page banners. If this article is really in your project's scope, please rate it; otherwise please remove the banner. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 21:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the banner. UPC really has very little to do with electronics. I am well ware of bardcode reader design (I was on the engineering teams for the MSI Data bar code reader and have designed toys for Mattel using invisible bar codes using ink that fluoresces in he IR region) but the UPC's relationship to the scanners is a lot like the Arizona Grand Canyon's relationship to a digital camera. Guy Macon 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List of users

Can we have the list of members on a subpage? It would look a lot less cluttered and is not information that's needed daily by the project. The robot outputting to the task list section could also do with being on a subpage, but I cannot do it as I have no idea how to control the robot (or even which robot it is). SpinningSpark 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a better strategy would be to have Project users add the Template:User WikiProject Electronics template to their user page and add a Category within the template for this WikiProject (or its users). Then displaying pages within that category would be a list of users. Those users who don't want to add the electronics button to their user page could just add the category instead (or a tinier template — that way the category name could be easily changed later). — TedPavlic | (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The category is a good idea, I think. Do you want to go ahead and do it? It would need putting in the big template as well. The trouble is, not all members are using it (including me) and we can't really go round adding the category to existing user pages without permission. New members are a bit easier, just need some suitable words on the project page recommending they do it. So all in all I think the list should remain, besides, introducing yourself here gets some interaction. Projects are meant to be collaborations, they are useless if all people do is stick a notice on their userpage and then carry on working alone. Oh, and welcome to the project by the way. SpinningSpark 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that populating the existing template with a category might tick off existing users. Additionally, I think I saw an existing category called "WikiProject Electronics members" or something, and that makes me think that once upon a time this idea had already been tried and was thrown out. Additionally, you're right about being notified about a new user... So I think you convinced me that the template is not a great idea. So go ahead and make the user page a subpage. It will give users practice at editing/using subpages, and that's a good thing regardless. — TedPavlic | (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me slightly. I was not saying adding a category to the template is a bad idea (I think you have a good idea), I was saying directly adding a category to members' userpages who are not using the template is a bad idea. You are right the category exists already - good catch - its category:WikiProject Electronics members. It is populated from template:User WP Electronics which is different from the template on the project page template:User WikiProject Electronics. I cannot find anything in the archive project talk or the template talk pages discussing this. I think maybe that template has just been overlooked, it seems to have other benefits as well, such as a wikilink to the project page. SpinningSpark 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wardenclyffe Tower

It would be great if a few experts in the field would look this article over. It certainly seems a most exciting issue, as the size of the article, its content, the strong opinions and some mentioned sources on the talkpage suggest that Tesla's concept of wireless energy transmission of industrial-level electric energy was and remains very feasible, but especially as they all suggest that Tesla obviously knew about stuff such as waves in plasmas, magnetohydrodynamics, the ionosphere, ELF transmission communication, intentional telluric current, Schumann resonances, planet earth's self-capacity and its use as a cavity resonator, and Zenneck waves as far back as around and shortly before 1900, and that his only problem was financial support as soon as his entrepeneur investors found out that he intended to provide free electricity out of thin air for everyone on earth as a quasi-socialist public service; J. P. Morgan asked Tesla, "Where do I put the meter?", but Tesla neither knew nor cared. --80.187.125.4 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories subpage

Can someone take a look at the Categories subpage's talk page? I've made some comments about using something like Special:CategoryTree to automate the generation of that page, but that would require some super WPE category that we'd have to make sure every category belonged to. — TedPavlic | (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

Wikiprojects are supposed to be collaborations to produce better articles. In those terms this project has been defunct for some time. In my view, it either needs to be kick-started again, or else closed down. Taking a look around at what other succesful projects are doing, one thing that caught my attention was monthly collaborations and the Mammals project is a good example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Collaboration. I propose that our project take on this strategy. It encourages collaboration and produces measurable and visisble results in a short space of time. I will set up a trial page, based on the Mammals example, at which editors can suggest articles for collaboration. When I have a trial page I will post on the talk pages of everyone on the members list. Obviously, this is only going to go anywhere if we get a critical mass of editors taking part. Alternative/additional suggestions welcome. SpinningSpark 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Now set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration for anyone wishing to take part. SpinningSpark 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WP electronics templates

I noticed that a lot of the templates were in the form of {{Electron}} and {{Electron-stub}}. I think they should instead be of the form {{Electronics}} or {{Electronics-stub}} to avoid confusion with things related to electrons. How would you feel about moving those templates to properly named pages, have bots change all instances of {{electron}} (or similarly named templates) to {{electronics}} and similar template names?

Don't really see the need, personally. No one is likely to be confused, the template explains itself and it is always possible that something unexpected can get broken in such a change. Also, Template:Electronics already appears to have a use. SpinningSpark 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Capacitors and related articles

Hi there,

I started a discussion here about articles related to capacitance. At the moment, we have several very long articles with huge scope, which all overlap significantly. I think we need to decide on a better way to divide up the subject matter, which may involve some page moves. Please join the discussion! Papa November (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Electron FAC

Although this article hasn't been categorized in this WP, it touches somewhat on the subject of conductivity (very much summary style) and so I thought I'd mention the FAC nomination. If you have an interest, please take a look here and comment. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Analog-to-Digital Timeline

User:Bob the Wikipedian/Analog-to-Digital Timeline Can anyone help create this list of technologies? It's a list of analog devices which have been remade digitally. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of help? SpinningSpark 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Basically coming up with devices that have undergone a transition from analog/mechanical to digital, and adding them to the timeline. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke article: Smoke emitting diode

Resolved
 – AFD started Papa November (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do joke articles, such as Smoke emitting diode have any place in Wikipedia? Is this an article that should be deleted?--Lester 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the joke had been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, then yes. However, it's essentially a spin-off from the main Magic smoke article. I've started a deletion debate. Papa November (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey! what's the idea. Tell me first - I want to read this stuff before you delete it. SpinningSpark 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New infobox for components

Hi everyone,

I've made a new infobox for summarising standard electronic components (Template:Infobox electronic component). Take a look at Capacitor, Inductor, Resistor and Potentiometer for examples of the template in use. I'd appreciate your comments on the infobox, including suggestions for fields, layout etc. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like "working principle" and "year of first production/prototype"--Thorseth (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Added first_produced field and compacted inventor/date fields to invented. Can you give an example of what would go in the working_principle field? Papa November (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I realize it may be somewhat redundant but something like Resistance, Inductance, Electroluminescence (LED) or Electrochemistry (Battery).--Thorseth (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added the "working_principle" field and put some documentation up. Papa November (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MOS composite static induction thyristor

Hi, I hope someone here can help. I am looking at the above article as a member of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles as it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since August 2006. Due to my lack of electronics knowledge I can barely understand the article, let alone add a reference (my fault, I know!). It would be extremely helpful if someone here had some references they could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The device exists and I've left a couple of refs on the talk page, so its verifiable. Notability is another question although its turning up in a few IEEE papers besides the refs I left. I am not intending to edit the article myself though. SpinningSpark 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added one of those refs and changed {{unreferenced}} to {{refimprove}}. Thanks again, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

E-waste village

E-waste village has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

merge of Tuner (electronics) and Tuner (radio)

join in the fun at Talk:Tuner_(electronics)#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OCL Amplifier

Do you guys think it's salvageable? The author apparently appears to be unaware of amp topologies preceding the ipod (grin), and my love affair with solid state faded away back in the eighties, so would someone with a more balanced mindset check this out? One sure thing is that if a circuit motorboats, it's about the builder and not the schematic. NVO (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article would be much better if some discussion of design principles of OCL amplifiers were included. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As I recall it there isn't much to say apart from protecting output from DC offset and a change in load impedance curve. Wiring high current bipolar supplies may be tricky but it's just tips of the trade ("wikipedia is not a how-to"). Going into more detail (e.g. differences in global feedback analysis) will inevitably lock onto a particular topology, narrowing scope of an article (global feedback is not a must-have at all etc.). NVO (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

VLSI Technology

VLSI Technology, the company, has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Photovoltaic cell

Photovoltaic cell was merged with solar cell some time ago, and now redirects there.

Personally, I think the merge was a bad idea... we need two articles, one on solar cells and a more general and probably also more technical article on photovoltaic cells in general.

This has come up because someone else raised a move request to move the solar cell article to photovoltaic cell. My feeling is that if the articles must remain merged it's preferable for the result to be at photovoltaic cell, but far better still would be to split back to having two articles.

Input welcome. Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

  • Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
  • Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
  • Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
  • Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Component articles

There are a number of articles on individual components. Examples are 1N4148, 1N5401, 2N3055, 74181, BC548, Category:Commercial transistors and some in Category:Integrated circuits. Should we limit part numbers to series such as 78xx, 7400 series etc? We would otherwise have difficulty setting a boundary for inclusion of a particular device. How about articles on some of my favorite parts such as OC72, BC108, 1N4007? Am I showing my age??? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a definitive answer on this one, but dictating that series only should have articles is not the right approach. Clearly, some of those are part of a series or related components: BC108 is closely related to BC107 and BC109, 1N4007 is a component in the well known 1N4000 series and both could be covered in an article about each group as a whole. The Wikipedia criterion, as always, is notability, so we require a component to have been written about in multiple reliable independent sources. I would anticipate no problem finding such sources for all three of your suggestions, even OC72 (yes I do know what that is, I also know how to scrape the paint off to make a photo-detector), whether or not you could write an interesting article on them (or want to) is another question. On the other hand 1N4148 is not part of any series as far as I know, unless you consider the 1N to be a series which is just tantamount to saying it is a silicon diode, but it is so ubiquitous that it is again hard to imagine that sources cannot be found. Unfortunately the only sources currently in that article are manufacturers data sheets which is less than satisfactory. Likewise many of the others. A decent article to my mind should give some of the history: when was it first manufactured, for what role, what are the applications etc. SpinningSpark 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Liquid crystal display

This article is probably very important. I happened on it by chance while editing a page on an entirely different subject that links to it. I read the page with interest but felt I had to point out some critical Mos flaws in its presentation. See: talk:Liquid crystal display. I have carried out some minor copy editing, but as electronics is not my field, I am unable to address the other points I have flagged.--Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

good definitions of memory terms

http://www.kingston.com/firoot/branded/notebook_memory.asp?id=2 Only blunder is use of unexplained EDO in explaining SDRAM. --Espoo (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition

I recommend adding Third-order intercept point to the Electronics or Communications WikiProject and I nominate it for assessment. Full Decent (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch - I agree. I'm a big fan of being bold, so I added and assessed it. I marked it as start because it needs some references/mid importance. Would you agree? GyroMagician (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

AVI Sound International

Please see the AfD for AVI Sound International. I have no desire to delete a notable page and would happily withdraw if members felt that it met WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since several couple of Wikipedia-Books are electronics-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP electronics people can oversee books like An introduction to electronics much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.

There's an article in last week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very basic page on circuits

I have recently made this same plea at Talk:Electrical network, but will repeat it here in the hopes of faster uptake.

There is, as far as I know, currently no basic discussion on Wikipedia of what a circuit or a network is or how one works. Open circuit is a disambiguation page whose most relevant link is to Electric circuit; that in turn redirects to Electrical network. That page discusses network design and electrical laws, but doesn't give much basic information for the uninitiated. Would some editor or editors consider creating a page with more basic information at either Electric circuit or Electrical circuit (both are currently redirected to Electrical network), or perhaps adding a section with more basic information, such as definitions, to Electrical network? Thanks, Cnilep (a mere social scientist) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Taser

I know it is more of a chemistry/electric engineering thing, but it is a basic level request, the article on Tasers was completely lacking engineering info so the unverified info from talk page was added with a warning, could someone verify it, please? thanks

Blue laser

I've added this to the electronics wikiproject, is it suitable for inclusion? It's very relavant at the moment with the advent of Blu ray etc. Paul-T (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM

FYI, Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

IEEE

FYI, several IEEE categories have been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

X-ray lithography

FYI, X-ray lithography is seriously messed up, and the current version is not an article but a message saying you should learn another language and read it off another language Wikipedia.

There was actual content on this page last year.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class electronic articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing electronics topics

I've update the list of missing topics list related to technology, including its electronics section - Skysmith (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Joule thief

I've been watching the poor article on Joule thief for a while and it has become only worse. There is no explanation of its working mechanism, the diagram looks wrong (the LED seems to be in place of actual end terminals, see the talk page) and for some days there's been a really dubious claim about some analogy with nickel-cadmium batteries. Please, wise guys, take a look! — Pt (T) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some editing over there, hopefully it's better now. SpinningSpark 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Distributed element filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. SpinningSpark 09:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

External link to Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist

I would like to open a discussion about the recently added external link to Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist. I reverted it, then SpinningSpark reverted my revert, so the right thing to do now is to talk about it and seek concensus. I think that it's pretty clear that both of us making good-faith edits that we believe improve the page, so there is no question of vandalism or disruptive editing here, just a disagreement about what is best.

I am having trouble seeing how an external link to Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" as described in [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links ]. We don't put a link to the WikiProject Electronics page's own history in the links (internal or external) so why put in a link to the history of the pages that the WikiProject Electronics page links to?

Every Wikipedia page has a topic, and the main page is devoted to information about that topic. Meta-information about the history of the page's edits, discussions about improving the article on the talk page, etc. do not belong in the main article. Edit histories are not notable, and they do nothing to help the reader to better understand the topic.

Seeing a couple of other Wikiproject pages with external links to Wikiproject Watchlists would go a long way towards convincing me that I am wrong on this. I just checked several and did not find any such links. Is this a new/novel usage for external links, or is it a widespread practice that I just happened to miss seeing?

I am of the opinion that in general controversial or disputed edits should be held while being discussed rather than being left in while being discussed, but in this particular case I see no harm in leaving it in while we talk about it. Guy Macon 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked several [Wikiprojects] and did not find any such links. You couldn't have looked very hard, I found several hundred straight away.
WP:EL and WP:N are concerned with article content. Project pages are not articles, they are in the "Wikipedia" namespace, not the main namespace. The purpose of a Wikiproject page is to help editors organise the improvement of articles; they are not intended as information for the encyclopedia readers. The criterion for being on this page is not notability (irrelevant) but usefulness to editors working on the project. The tool in question provides editors with a list of recent edits to all the articles within the projects scope. This is unarguably useful to editors interested in this project who want to patrol the information going in. It is like a subset of recent changes. It also means that individual editors do not need to keep large numbers of articles on their personal watchlists if they don't want to. SpinningSpark 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
After careful consideration of the above, I agree. Guy Macon 22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC

I invite participants in this WikiProject to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC.—Wavelength (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:MOSFET#Wrong_picture

Lenore (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Signal processing

Hi, Is there a Wikiproject signal processing? I do not see one. The signal processing articles are generally reference free and in need of help, e.g. Quantization (signal processing) has no references whatsoever. Anyway, whoever wants to should probably start a project on that, at least to tie these overlapping articles (with a great deal of redundant text) together. As is the ratio of text to references is really large. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those articles are probably within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications or in some cases both projects. SpinningSpark 00:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Mechanical filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. SpinningSpark 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fluke Corporation

FYI Fluke Corporation was prodded for deletion. I deprodded it, but it needs some work. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in this sentence

Consider (from section "Using a vector editor and prepared components)":

... intended to help drawing SVG circuits simple, fast and flexible.

Shouldn't it be something like the following?

... intended to help drawing SVG circuits in a simple, fast and flexible way.

Or perhaps:

... intended to make drawing SVG circuits simple, fast and flexible.

--Mortense (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Electronic articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Electronic articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interlace

FYI, Interlace has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic_accelerator_gun

FYI Magnetic_accelerator_gun has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Netbook and Subnotebook

Reading those articles, I can't tell the difference between those types of computers. Can you describe it? (in those articles, of course, not here) --190.135.47.43 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gunn Diode

A couple of us have been working on the Gunn diode page. I think we have improved the history, the applications and the references. But none of us have the requisite physics/electronics background to improve the technical description. There is already a box saying "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject". Someone on WikiProject Physics suggested this might be a more productive place to find an expert. Thanks `Jpg1954 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC). Jpg1954 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Electric circuit basic elements

{{Electric circuit basic elements}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese tsunami and the electronics/semiconductor/computer industry

We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for the Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the electronics industry ? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Electronic articles"?

There are a bunch of categories including sub-categories that talk about "electronic articles" (for example all the sub-categories of Category:Electronic articles by importance). Now perhaps there is a specific reason to call them that, but shouldn't they be called "electronics articles"? After all it is not the articles that are electronic. I don't think (although I haven't checked) that we have "physical articles", "chemical articles" or "biological articles". I'd prefer to hear an answer from an English native speaker with a high level of language skills. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

a large number of electronics articles prodded for deletion and nominated for deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 23 March 2011, a large number of discrete component articles are up for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 24 March 2011, as some more have been prodded. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also deprodded CK722. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the prods on a couple (BC548 and 2N3055) that are clearly more informative than merely copying from the datasheets. This seems to be turning into a campaign to remove all specific transistor articles. As such, I think it would be better to open a discussion on this either at AfD or here rather than have a lot of piecemeal activity on different articles. Having once debated the principles of this, it is then much easier to make sensible decisions on individual articles. On those grounds, I would not be against a mass de-prodding of the articles under threat while the debate takes place. Also, has this been discussed here before? SpinningSpark 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not think there has been such a discussion before, but I could be mistaken, as I am infrequently on this discussion page. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone is entitled to challenge a proposed deletion simply by removing the prod template. SpinningSpark 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Previously deprodded: 2N3904 , CK722 , BC548 , 2N3055 , 2N2222 , AF107 , 1N400X , 2N7000 , 2N3906 , TIP31 , 2N2907 , 1N4148 , 1N5401 , 1N540X
Currently under prod: BS170  ; — these can be contested just by removing the deletion banner
I merged and redirected that one to the essentially identical part 2N7000. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It was never redirected, you might want to fix that. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently at AfD for deletion, after failing prod: 2N3055 , 2N3904 , 2N2222 , 1N400X , 2N7000 , 2N3906 , TIP31 , 2N2907 , 1N4148 , 1N5401 , 1N540X ; (for these, you have to register an opinion at the discussion page for deletion in order to see if it will be deleted or kept)
65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

An extended discussion has occurred at Talk:2N3055 as well. See also Talk:2N2222. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, up at AfD for deletion: BC548 .
65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Might best be merged and redirected to 2N3904. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to open a centralised debate at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components. SpinningSpark 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2N3904

2N3904 has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3904 for the discussion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2N2222

2N2222 has been prodded for deletion. I note that it is rated as "mid" importance to this project. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deprodded it, since I found a nuclear EMP study about it, and since it is frequently used as a "standard" transistor. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It has now been sent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N2222 . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in science article names

We need to have a certain position on this general issue (better say, I would like to know an answer :). Please comment here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2N3055

2N3055 has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055 for the discussion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

nominated for deletion

These discrete active components have been nominated for deletion recently:

65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Silicon transistor

I noticed that silicon transistor redirects to Texas Instruments. Shouldn't there be an article about this, instead of redirecting it to TI? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, there could be an article. For now, I suggest that this is an inappropriate redirect and should go to transistor instead. It appears to have been created because of its use in Timeline of historic inventions (the first silicon transistor was built at Texas Instruments). However, Texas Instruments is already linked in the silicon transistor entry and in my view it would be better to link to Transistor#History or History of the transistor (both of which have the same information), via a pipe such as Silicon transistor. The only other place this redirect is used is in the BC548 article in the lede sentence "silicon NPN BJT transistor". Besides being a mess of four contiguous links, the silicon element is piped to silicon transistor which then redirects to Texas Instruments. Just linking silicon in this case would be better in my opinion as transistor is already linked further into the mess. SpinningSpark 10:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1381 voltage trigger

Apparently 1381 voltage trigger was also sent for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Elektroniki-swahili

Help may be needed. This phrase -- (elektroniki-swahili) -- was placed in the lede of the Electronics article apparently by a new editor. I am assuming this is a good faith edit. Perhaps someone could create a link to the Electronics article in the Swahili wikipedia at the same location as the links to other non-english Wikipedias. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Swahili wikipedia does not currently have an article called elektroniki. Interwiki language links should not go to redlinks. SpinningSpark 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Interwiki language links should not go to redlinks. I thought perhaps there was a Swahili electronics articles. Thanks for your help. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sndr and SINAD

Could someone have a look at these? Sndr was a redirect to SINAD but a new article has now been created there: both start off by claiming that the title "stands for Signal-to-noise and distortion ratio", but their formulae are different. PamD (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources confirm that SINAD and SNDR are synonyms. The first definition in the SINAD article is either wrong, or at least abnormal - the article then goes on to say that there is another definition. But really, the SINAD definition is total power to N+D, not S to N+D and is therefore a self-contradiction. Also the title of the first article should be SNDR (caps). SpinningSpark 14:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Negative differential conductivity

There is a notice at WP:Physics about the unreadability of Negative differential conductivity, an electronics theory related article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars

There are edit wars going on several electronics pages relating to additions made by one editor, Circuit dreamer. See:

Circuit dreamer seems knowledgeable, well-intentioned, and enthusiastic about electronics, but his idiosyncratic explanations of circuits have been criticized as WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Maybe if a few experienced electronics geeks could get involved and gently point out the problems, he would become a valuable contributor. Cheers. --ChetvornoTALK 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I for one have spent many hours/days cleaning up after circuit dreamer and trying to mentor him into a better approach. I have now lost patience with him as he seems unable to listen and after a pause of afew months will just come back with the same old stuff again. It has reached the stage where there needs to be a community restriction on him. SpinningSpark 08:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it time to take it to WP:ANI? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have seen this type of behavior before. It appears there is an attempt to promote one or more points of view which are usually outside the mainstream scientific view. Part of this pattern is bogging down talk page disscussions, and usually some edit warring. It seems to be disruptive. When this happens on talk pages it uses up the valuable time of Wikipedia editors that could be focused in a much more productive manner. Also it may exhaust the patience of some where they quit the WikiProject or Wikipedia.
It seems that this guideline, WP:DE, clearly describes this type of editing behavior, and what can be done about it. In particular, I emhpasize this section Attempts to evade detection, and Signs of disruptive editing. Perhaps Refusal to "get the point" is also relevant.
Also, I reccomend not having much hope for changes in behavior. Instead I reccomend taking action that will block this type of editing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminological troubles about "high" voltage

There is one of two levels of a digital signal, sometimes referred as a "high" voltage. It is a positive voltage relatively to the ground, and hence high, contrasted to "low" voltage which is about zero. Of course, you know these things, and this term was recently added to a dab page.

But I have a disagreement with user: Wtshymanski, see a discussion, who repeatedly inserts an unsourced claim that aforementioned thing is the same as high voltage, a well-known engineering and safety term describing high electric tension, which means high by absolute value of its magnitude. As Wtshymanski explained in article about electrical engineering, in electronics it is "only several hundred millivolts", which presented as a contrast to hundreds volts for h.v. in engineering. My attempts to request sources confirming that these are the same notion, not a coincidence of terms should be dealt with disambiguation, were futile. Although no sources were provided, I am not proficient in digital electronics and possibly miss some important clue. So I am not willing to throw away a doubtful content for the third time without a broader feedback. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unusual behaviour for user: Wtshymanski.
I can see some minor value in having this sentence, in much that same way that we hatnote some articles, "Not to be confused with ...". However it could be clearer (in particular I'd use the term "logical high value" rather than "high voltage". It should also come clearly after any other instances of a genuine high voltage, not in the middle of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reworded this, hopefully it's now clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
...and of course, he immmediately reverted it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Electronics article

An anonymous IP has recently edited the Electronics article with some small additions to the article (beginning with this edit). It might be worth taking a look. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Already saw it and I think anyone is going to be hard pressed to find a source saying that connection technoogies are an essential part of the definition of electronics. The material should not really be in the lede. However, I chose not to do anything about it, the whole article really needs some work, in particular the lede was already not a proper summary of the article, and it is certainly true that connection technologies are very important to electronics. SpinningSpark 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

3rd (or 4th?) opinion

Hi! i m afraid that my english is too bad to understand the source properly... and because of WP:WAR, i started this: [3]... and this: [4]... can u help? thx. bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

An ionisation smoke detector will respond within seconds to artificial smoke injected directly into it but the ref cited clearly supports the order of magnitude stated for a smoldering fire. SpinningSpark 12:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Drawing circuits

Hi. I noticed the mention at WP:ELEC#Drawing circuits of vector graphics and Acorn Computers. Draw on its own wouldn't satisfy the criteria, which is presumably why it's not listed at WP:WikiProject Electronics/Programs. But now there is cheap ARM hardware available (especially the imminent Raspberry Pi) perhaps some programmers around here with (with plenty of free time) might fancy writing something suitable to interface with Draw! Just a thought! -- Trevj (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Help for correction

Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk#Help for correction

I wrote a detailed article about “Dielectric absorption”, please see under User:Elcap/Dielectric absorption This article was translated from German, but I am not an expert of the English language. If someone please can help and correct my mistakes I would be very glad. --Elcap (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at this. SpinningSpark 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Audio electronics redirect

I just noticed that audio electronics has been redirected to audio engineering since 2008. This is highly inappropriate, but understandable for anyone not aware of what audio engineers actually do, so I have reverted it to its pre-redirect state.

That is a long time to go undetected for such a key article. Could a few more people put it on their watchlists? Or even improve it - it is in a very poor state. SpinningSpark 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to volunteer to improve the audio electronics article. I'm pretty much a noob with the whole "editing Wikipedia" thing, but I spend a lot of time on here, and I actually have an assignment for a college course that requires me to make needed improvements to an article. I wouldn't consider myself and "expert", but I think I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject, as it is closely related to my field of study (electrical engineering) and hobbies I pursue as well. I already have a better definition worked out and was planning on adding some more detail to the subject as a whole. I just wanted to see if that was alright with people involved in the electronics Wikiproject if I took a shot at this. Also, I'm not entirely sure if I am posting this in the right place, so I will also put this in the talk page of the actual article as well. Cp99-NJITWILL (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't need anyone's permission, just get stuck in. Welcome to Wikipedia! Other editors can change things they don't like. When you have it in a decent state, you can ask someone else to review it. If you can expand it five times in less than five days from your first edit to the article then you can submit it to DYK and get it mentioned on the front page. You can also submit it to WP:GAN and get it recognised as a Good Article. SpinningSpark 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

New article and category - Electronics industry

See Electronics industry and Category:Electronics industry. Could do with some work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor, need of help

Hi, in the English Wikipedia I had missed an article about “Film capacitors”. This very important electronic components is it worth to describe, see User:Elcap/Film capacitor. Because I was the main author for the German article I tried it with a translation from the German Wikipedia article ([[5]]). During translation I found a lot of new links and new informations so that the new written English version is not a one by one translation. But; the translator, Elcap, a little bit older expert of capacitors is not an expert of the English language, so I am asking for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Editors may wish to consult the parallel German article to clear up any remaining points of confusion, or to import more-recent improvements from there. If anyone can help i would be very glad. --Elcap (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Electrical Engineering

FYI, there's a new wikiproject proposal, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electrical Engineering

70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Inverter versus NOT gate?

It looks like the article Inverter (logic gate) might be moved to NOT gate by some people who were pissed off about moving Inverter (electrical) to Power inverter instead of making it a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you care one way or the other, comment at Talk:Inverter (logic gate)#Requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics/Archive_5&oldid=1142155839"