Talk:Electrical and electronics engineering

A neutral page on electrical/electronics eng

I intend to make a separate page for each of the subfields mentioned in this article without further referring to the differences between electrical and electronics eng as I dont believe its now necessary. Any comments welcome here--Light current 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My working definitions

Electronics engineering is an independent stand alone field of engineering that has some overlaps with electrical engineering and physics

Electrical engineering is an independent stand alone field of engineering that has some overlaps with electronic and mechanical engineering

--Light current 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, suppose an evil genius wants to shoot all the electronics engineers. What instructions does he program into his simple-minded army of evil killer robots (though to be strictly fair, not all evil robots are killers)? How do you tell an electronics engineer from an electrical engineer? They *both* know that E=IR, and think that the square root of -1 is j. So what's the litmus test? And what's an "independant stand alone field of engineering"? EE or EE does not exist independant of other fields! --Wtshymanski 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, easiest way to tell is to say: "Are you an electrical or an electronics engineer?" Then depending on answer, you aim the death ray.:-) Each of these breeds here is extremely proud of what they are and do not like to be labelled as the other sort!. We have a healthy (dis)respect for each other and each thinks he is superior to the other. (when in fact we all know that electronics engineers are actually superior ;-))) Independent means, you dont need to know the other fellows job to do yours and you do different things. Look they may be the same thing where you live but not over here! Which has been the point Ive been trying to make for months.(seems like years)--Light current 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hub page

This is intended to be what I call a hub page on electrical/electronics engineering from which each of the specialist fields of electrical/electronics eng can be reached. It is intended to have a description of the common features of the two disciplines but no more than that. All further info on subfields mentioned here will be provided on the relevant page(s) as per disc on talk:electrical engineering--Light current 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with sub-fields of electrical/electronics eng

I intend to make a separate page for each of the subfields mentioned in this article without further referring to the differences between electrical and electronics eng as I dont believe its now necessary. Any comments welcome here--Light current 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to think that the history of electrical and electronics etc doesnt fit into this page very well--Light current 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History section

History of electrotechnology

Early days

Electricity has been a subject of scientific interest since at least the seventeenth century. However it was not until the nineteenth century that research into the subject started to intensify. Notable developments in this century include the work of Georg Ohm who in 1827 quantified the relationship between the electric current and potential difference in a conductor and the work of Michael Faraday who in 1831 discovered electromagnetic induction.

However during these years the study of electricity was largely considered to be a subfield of physics and hence the domain of physicists. It was not until the late nineteenth century that universities started to offer degrees in electrical engineering. The Darmstadt University of Technology established the first chair of electrical engineering worldwide in 1882 and offered a four year study course of electrical engineering in 1883. In 1882, MIT offered the first course on electrical engineering in the United States. This course was organized by Professor Charles Cross who was head of the Physics department and who later became a founder of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (which later became the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). In 1885, the University College London founded the first chair of electrical engineering in the United Kingdom and, in 1886, the University of Missouri established the first department of electrical engineering in the United States. [1] During this period, work in the area increased dramatically. Tesla's work on induction motors and polyphase systems influenced electrical engineering for years to come.

The emergence of radio and electronics

Edison's work on telegraphy and his development of the stock ticker would prove lucrative for his company (which would eventually become one of the world's largest companies, General Electric). As well as the contributions of Edison and Tesla, a number of other figures played an equally important role in the progress of radio and electrical engineering at this time.

In 1896, Guglielmo Marconi made the world's first wireless radio transmission. In 1905, John Fleming invented the first radio tube, the diode. One year later, in 1906, Robert von Lieben and Lee De Forest independently developed the amplifier tube, called the triode.

In 1931 Manfred von Ardenne introduced the cathode ray tube and thus the electronic television.

In 1942, Konrad Zuse presented the Z3, the world's first functional computer. In 1946, the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) of John Presper Eckert and John Mauchly followed, beginning the computing era. The arithmetic performance of these machines allowed engineers to develop completely new technologies and achieve new objectives. Early examples include the Apollo missions and the NASA moon landing.

The invention of the transistor in 1947 by William B. Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain opened the door for more compact devices and led to the development of the integrated circuit in 1959 by Jack Kilby and independently in 1961 by Robert Noyce. In 1958, G.C. Devol and J. Engelberger invented and built in the USA the world's first industrial robot. Such a robot was used for the first time in 1960 in industrial production by General Motors.

In 1968, Marcian Hoff invented the microprocessor at Intel and thus ignited the development of the personal computer. Hoff's invention was part of an order by a Japanese company for a desktop computer, which Hoff wanted to build as cheap as possible. The first realization of the microprocessor was the Intel 4004, a 4-bit processor, in 1969, but only in 1973 did the Intel 8080, an 8-bit processor, make the building of the first personal computer, the Altair 8800, possible. [edit]

Redirect to electrical engineering

I would really like to see this page redirected to electrical engineering after the merge is complete. That article already has the term "electrical and electronics engineering" highlighted and explained in its first sentence. Cedars 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure you would . but leave it alone please.--Light current 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root page principles now being tried

Hub page has merged with Root page and some new idea are now being tried which should help in the reorganisation of this and associated pages.

A brief look at this page tells me that perhaps the sections on training etc warrant a separate page called Electronics as a career with appropriate redirects. --Lindosland 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a good idea and Im sure I would have thought of it eventually!--Light current 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for redirect to electrical engineering

Hi all,

I thought I would list the reasons for redirecting this page to electrical engineering.

The electrical engineering article thoroughly covers the subject of electrical and electronics engineering
The electrical engineering article mentions the term "electrical and electronics engineering" in its first sentence and the term is bold as suggested by the manual of style
The electrical engineering article is both a featured and peer reviewed article
The electrical engineering article has substantial contributions from a range of editors
The electrical and electronics engineering article has faults not present in the electrical engineering article (e.g. it does not have a proper lead, proper formatting and working citations)
Much of the content of this page is from an outdated version of the electrical engineering article
Some of the other content is copied without attribution from this page
Even after the redirect any content from this page will still be available through the page's history
At the time of writing, no major changes have been made to this article since December 2005
Multiple articles with similar content can confuse readers and editors

I hope this gives some insight into why I have redirected this article again. If you undo the redirect please explain why.

Cedars 11:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensUs. electrical and electronic engineering is a work in progress and is evolving. If you would like to try and improve it please do so. Otherwise please do not disrupt other editors work. Thanks.--Light current 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Light current, I will post a survey to try and guage whether there is a consensus for the redirect. Cedars 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

:This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys.

This statement is misleading. It isn't a vote that bindingly determines what will be done, but if it shows that clear consensus (or more practically, a supermajority) exists, acting against that consensus is editing in bad faith. --Christopher Thomas 06:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a statement that was added by an admin to the recent vote on Root page. I assume he knew what he was doing in adding it to this sort of vote thing. However I tend to agree with your sentiments that acting against consensus is in bad faith.--Light current 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a survey that aims to determine whether this article (electrical and electronics engineering) should be redirected to the electrical engineering article. Please vote for or against the redirect. Feel free to add additional comments to your votes. For background as to why the page should or should not be redirected please see the section above.

For redirect

Redirect. I believe that a redirect would benefit the subject for the ten reasons listed above. I also believe multiple articles with similar content will confuse readers. Cedars 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In my opinion, "electronics and electrical engineering" is a redundant article and suffers from the usual Wikiwordiness. Most of its content was stripped out of "electrical engineering" anyway. The distinction between "electrical" engineering and "electronic" engineering is of greater concern to some of the editors than to me. I know some universities have faculties of "electronic and computer engineering" but then a few years ago no cow college was complete without a "faculty of aerospace engineering" either. I doubt anything sensible will be resolved by this survey since the parties involved have not previously been models of cooperation. --Wtshymanski 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect electrical engineering to electrical and electronics engineering. The two fields are considered different in Europe, but part of the same field in North America. Moving the content from electrical engineering to electrical and electronics engineering avoids confusing either group. --Christopher Thomas 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It just doesn't make sense to have 3 different articles with the same topic. If the page needs to be split, it should be split at more appropriate lines. (the 3 articles i'm talking about are electrical engineering, electrical and electronics engineering, and electronics engineering). Also, in repsonse to Light Current, I think a page that incorporates international viewpoints would be much more useful than two pages with separate viewpoints. Fresheneesz 08:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect electrical and electronics engineering to electrical engineering (and add a section about the differences). The fact is electrical engineering is a better article. Further, the title is less cumbersome. Anyone searching for electronics engineering shouldn't have a problem finding the section on electronics engineering within the larger article. -- Superdosh 06:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect something. Without a doubt; please, these topics are so similar. I'd prefer redirecting E&EE to EE (though I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting EE to E&EE). Either way, however, the material in the article should be what appears in the current Electrical Engineering article. The more specific electronics engineering stuff should be in a subarticle. It's better to make the primary article be the term that is the most broad (Electrical Engineering in the American view or E&EE in the more international view), and that specific electronics engineering information be in its own article and summarized in the main article. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Cedar's material but Light Current's article name? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article is IMHO poorly written in comparison to Electrical Engineering and contains no content of significance which is not already included in that article. I believe it would be an improvement to merge any relevant information into Electrical Engineering and subsequently redirect this page to it. Regards, Celcius 06:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against redirect

Against There is far more development of electrical and electronics engineering to be done. Since the effective freezing of electrical engineering by virtue of its featured article status I and many others have refrained from editing it as a matter of politeness. However, there should still be a page on which to develop a more balanced picture of electrical and electronics engineering and the relationship/differences between them. Also please note that there are combined degrees that go under the name electrical and electronic engineering especially in the UK. I really cant see why Ceadas has sought to effecitvely destroy this page when it is patently doing no one any harm whatsoever. It is reasonably accurate and presents a balanced point of view whereas electrical engineering still presents (tho not as much as it used to) mainly an American, Canadian and Australian viewpoint (ie US oriented).--Light current 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that there are two articles that have great overlap of content. If you'd like to discuss the names, an article like Distinctions between electrical and electronic engineering would be better. Also, I think it's important to know what other countries in the world primarily use E&EE rather than EE. If it's just the UK, then I'd say that America, Canada and Australia constitute a more international viewpoint than just the UK. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that in the UK and some other European countries, the terms Electronics Engineering and Electrical Engineering are distinct. The electrical engineering article tries to lump everything together and call it electrical engingeering! Its therefore better to have two articles:

Electrical engineering

Electronics engineering

with each mentioning the overlap areaes and maybe referring to the other. ~~I will~~ prefer not to see Electronics engineering subsumed to electrical!! --Light current 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. Making unilateral statements such as this is the wrong approach, because it's not you who decides, it's the community. Anyway, are you also adamantly opposed to an article being called "Electrical and electronics engineering" and covering both? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not opposed--Light current 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither strictly for nor against redirect

First, I find it disturbing that electrical engineering was put for deletion by Light current (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical engineering) especially considering the poor state of Electrical and electronics engineering. Such an article is not worth sacrificing a featured article.

The root of the problem appears to me as:

the US uses electrical eng as the broad field description; electronics is a subfield of electrical
the UK uses electrical for large scale and electronics as small scale

I think the similarities of electrical in the US & UK and the similarities of electronic in the US & UK drastically outweigh their differences. Suffiently enough that I don't see warrant for breaking the status quo. I see sufficient discussion on electrical engineering to be satisfied with the status quo as well. The ultimate destination of accuracy would be to make electrical engineering a dab for electrical engineering (United States) and electrical engineering (United Kingdom) but I don't see sufficient dichotomy between them to sacrifice readability (you now have to read two articles on the subject because of minor differences) in favor of accuracy. Cburnett 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Cburnett, this was rather a rash action on my part entered into at the height of an edit war between me and User:Cedars. I regret this action as it was totally inappropriate. I offer my apologies to you and all editors offended. BTW thanks for your above comments.--Light current 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't really care what the title of the merged article is, but it seems pointless to keep them separate when there's so little difference between them. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from extreme nationalist points of view!--Light current 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I can confirm that within the UK, electronic engineering is not a subset of electrical engineering... In the UK naming convention, electrical engineering is more like power engineering while electronic engineering covers most other things - DSP, comms etc - one devinition I've heard being 'electronics deals with milliwatts, electrical with megawatts'. On the other hand, we proper spellers have Talk:Aluminium/Spelling - which is clearly correct - so maybe we could allow the ignorant foreigners this tiny victory :P. I'd just shove a section on international definitions into 'electrical engineering' and leave it at that. Mike1024 (t/c) 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronic engineering

I think it could be Redirected to Electronic engineering instead!--Light current 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page splitting or renaming?

The electrical engineering page needs to be dismembered. The material should be split into the 3 separate articles

Each outlining thier differences and similarities to the other two and I think that all pages should incorporate international viewpoints.--Light current 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dismembering" would be unnecessary (see Wikipedia:Summary style), but perhaps renaming is the best approach. Do you have a problem with the electrical engineering article itself or just its name? Would you accept its being moved to Electrical and electronics engineering without significant modification? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all the material (even pure electronics device design) is put under the umbrella heading of electrical engineering. If it were to be only one page then that page should be entitled Electrical and electronics engineering This would hopefully cover the European aspect.

However, the subjects of Electrical engineering and Electronics engineering are so large in themselves that each subject could easily have its own page and this I feel would be the final long term solution.

But in answer to your question - it would be a significant step forward to removing my longstanding objections. I would say tho' that maybe more expalnation of the distinctions should be made at the beginning of the article. I notice that the article electrical and electronics engineering already has a substantial para on the differences and similarities. I should like to retain that--Light current 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this comes down to how commonly each term is used to describe what you call electrical and electronics engineering. Normally, in my experience, article naming in situations like this works like this: If say 70%+ of the English-speaking world's population agrees that Term A means Topic B, but the remainder believe that Term A means Topic C, we cover Topic B at the article named Term A, and put text on the top that says, "Topic C is covered at the article called Term B", where Term B is a term that both parties can agree on. If the usage is more evenly split, then we might choose to name the article Term B. The actual number cutoff is based on the ease of use of Term B. If Term B is just as understandable and easy to type as Term A, then the magic number might be around 60%. If it's more difficult to understand and type, it might be closer to 80-90%.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but naming articles is a tough issue. Personally, based on the dominance of the US in technical education, the agreement of Canada and Australia, and relatively small size of the UK, I think the article should stay at Electrical engineering. Countries where English is not spoken are irrelevant. For example, the article on welding covers only welding, not brazing or soldering. However, in Spanish, the word for welding, "soldar", also includes brazing and soldering. Maybe another language includes adhesion in the same word. All that is totally irrelevant for the naming of the article in English. But I digress. Anyway, while I think it should stay at Electrical engineering, I think it would serve us to put a notice at the top that says:

This article covers electrical engineering as it is defined in many parts of the English-speaking world. For electrical engineering as defined in the United Kingdom, see Electrical engineering (UK).

or:

This article covers electrical engineering according to the common definition that it includes electronics engineering as a subfield. For discussion, see Distinctions between electrical and electronics engineering.

The wording obviously can be improved, but note, however, that this is not the same as the current setup. The links in this italitized text would lead to short articles explicitly covering the distinctions between the two names of the same topic. The actual subarticles (as suggested in Wikipedia:Summary style) would be the topics listed under "Sub-disciplines" in the Electrical engineering article.

Thus, develop power engineering, electronics engineering, etc., but don't create an article that attempts to comprehensively cover electrical engineering as defined in the UK. That's too much overlap, and it confuses the structure of article --> subarticle. A reader from the UK looking for information on electrical engineering as s/he understands it will go to the electrical engineering article, read the notice at the top, read the article on naming differences and understand what areas fall under the UK definition of electrical engineering, and then go read various articles on those areas. LC and Cedars, both of you, what do you think? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, right now, I just want this issue to be done with. In truth, I'd rather just move to electrical and electronics engineering than have italics across the top of the page. See my proposal to below. Cedars 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a democracy! All views should be represented. Im not just talking UK. What terminology is used in the rest of Europe, Asia, Russia, China, Japan etc? Its about time someone found out rather than just sticking with what the Americans and Australians say (what is the popn of Australia these days? greater than Europe?) because they are the most vociferous. Also, an important point that many seem to have missed is that electronics and radio development occurred in parallel with electrical engineering from the turn of the last century. They are really separate subjects! The fact that some people lump them together should not override this fact.--Light current 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia popn :20M, UK pop 55M. Also total pop of Europe (730m) is greater that America (225m?), Canada (32m) and Australia put together--Light current 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all views should be represented, but not necessarily on the main article page. For a rather extreme example, Creationists might think that there should be sections in the Big Bang and Evolution articles that gives their perspective on the evidence cited in those articles. However, their opinions are severely summarized and regulated to the end of the articles. They're of course entitled to their viewpoint and their space on Wikipedia, but because they are in the minority, they don't get prominent placement on the main Evolution page. Thus, while it's true that "all" views should be covered on wikipedia, they shouldn't all necessarily be covered on the topic's primary page. Creationism has significant coverage in Wikipedia, but on articles like Creationism and Creation-evolution controversy, not on Evolution. It's not a perfect analogy, but we can't say that simply because "all" views must be represented that they must all be represented thoroughly in the same article. Rather, they might be split up. The same thing here—my recommendation is that all views are represented and are made easily accessible to the reader, but that they are all not covered in detail in one article. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if were having majority rule, then the European view (total pop of Europe 730m) should take precedence!--Light current 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the US has 300M+, but I'm not sure why you're counting all of Europe. How many countries in Europe have English as an official language? It doesn't matter if the Spaniards say "Ingeniería de electrónica y electricidad", because we're not concerning ourselves with writing the Spanish wikipedia article at this point. We need the most common English usage. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World wide viewpoint and languages

No were not writing in other langs, but other countries practices need representing in the en:WP version regardless of what languages foreigners speak. This is obvious! Meaning trancends language! eg. Whats the Italian word for electronics and is it different from electrical. is the meaning also different. I bet it is.--Light current 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. A dictionary in English explains the meaning of the word in English and maybe includes information on the root, but doesn't go into a discussion of how other languages translate the same meaning and the same word. Wikipedia simply inserts interwiki links in articles to link to wikipedias in other languages that cover the same topic. There is of course no problem with linking the English article on Electrical Engineering to the Spanish article on "Ingeniería de electrónica y electricidad" (if one exists), but I am completely at a loss as to why the name of the topic in other languages should have any relevance here. Of course the Italian word for electronics is different from electrical, just as is the case in English. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the target audience of this Wikipedia (English speakers) consider electronics engineering to be a subset of electrical engineering.

I'm sorry I don't understand your argument, but I may be totally missing your point, so please, help me understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to marginalize your opinion or say that it's not important to hold an international perspective; I'm just trying to think of what is going to most benefit the readers of this Wikipedia. Some of course would benefit from the change you propose, but I feel that the majority would benefit from the changes I propose. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering clear reply--Light current 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Im saying is that in all other European countries as well as the UK, the concepts of electrical engineering and electronics engineering are very probably very different from each other. So, regardless of which language we are writing this stuff in (it happens to be English in thais case), we ought to represent the concepts as different (if they truly are in the majority of the world) and not as the same (as a minority of the world (US +CAN +AUS) seem happy to do). Is my meaning any clearer now?--Light current 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate

Electrical Engineering and Electronics Engineering are slightly different fields, although they are usually taught by the same department at universities. They need to be kept as separate articles.

One commenter stated that Computer Engineering is a subset of Electrical Engineering. This is not ture. In some cases both may be taught by the same department, but they are separate fields. Computer Engineering deals with the design and development of computers, both hardware and software. Electrical Engineering deals with the electrical aspects. 147.240.236.9 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how do you define electrical aspects?--Light current 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical and electronics engineering -- Proposal

I support the electrical engineering page staying as-is with this page redirecting to it. However, if it will resolve this dispute, I am happy to move the electrical engineering content to this page (electrical and electronics engineering) and redirect electrical engineering to this page. The content would basically be what is on the page now (which is the peer reviewed, featured and now main page featured content). The poll came in 7-1 overwhelmingly in favour of a redirect - so keeping the two articles separate or creating a disambiguation really isn't an option. If there are no objections together we can complete the move over the next few days. This is big operation that would involve adjusting the featured article listing, templates, other wikilinks. If there are objections I will redirect this page to the electrical engineering article as the consensus of the poll generally supported. Please help us to put this relatively minor issue behind us, so we can continue to improve this encyclopedia's coverage of all electrical engineering topics.

Cedars 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my talk for visibility

Light current,

Please review my proposal on Talk:Electrical and electronics engineering. Please leave the revised content in tact until the proposal is resolved. If you are not happy with the proposal then I am happy to simply redirect electrical and electronics engineering to electrical engineering as the majority of survey respondents seemed to support. If I recieve no correspondence from you (and you don't make the change yourself) I will revert the content on electrical and electronics engineering shortly to see if we can gain support for the redirect proposal. That said, I hope we can reach a compromise.

Cedars 03:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on talk page

Straw polls dont count as policy decisions to make changes (that would need an official survey):

This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys.)

As I said above in response to Spangineer, Im happy to see electrical engineering renamed as long as the extended introduction/expalnation of differences on this page is included in the new page. --Light current 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current, assuming we are going to keep the peer reviewed, featured and now main page featured content and comply with the 7-1 majority survey, do you want electrical engineering redirecting to this page or this page redirecting to electrical engineering? That said, as always, small adjustments to the featured content are welcome if they will improve the article. Cedars 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have had the featured article business. Now we can get down to writing the page properly. I suggest redirecting electrical engineering to electrical and electronics engineering as a start. I would hope that we can retain the featured status but this should by no means take precedence over accuracy and worldwide POV/neutrality etc. Im sure you will agree on that. As I said before I would want to substantially modify the lede in accordance with what I have written on this page. --Light current 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead on this article as it stands isn't a lead. See Wikipedia:Lead section. More terminology information could be added to the lead on electrical engineering, however. That said, the current terminology section in this article needs work. Most importantly, it needs references to back up these claims, so let's add a little explanation in the form of a disambiguation comment at the top (the kind that go in italics like on the top of Thomas Edison) or another sentence in the lead while the terminology section is improved. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!--Light current 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great; glad we're making headway =). One more thing though, related to your comment made at 3:23—are you suggesting that the EE article needs major changes once it is moved here? If so, I don't think that's a good idea. It's already been reviewed by numerous people, so the only changes I can see as being necessary would be to make the vocabularly consistent and to possibly add the terminology section, though I'm not convinced that that can't be summarized into 2-3 sentences and added to the lead. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the essence of my intro on this page can be incorporated into the lede of the new article I'll be fairly happy.

I was not happy at the way the EE article was sub edited before being put on the main page as it had a number of my careful modifications to the terminology and distinctions simply ripped out. This gave a false impression to casual readers. Some comments were recieved about that.

I want to avoid that possibility in future by having a proper lede and intro section. Also as an ongoing but important issue, we should really try harder to get more info from other parts of the world to represent the WW view on the differences between electronic and electrical eng. Its far too Westernised ATM.--Light current 03:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make the introduction changes to my version of the article then (and we could then discuss them)? Cedars 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When you say your version, do you mean the existing featured article?--Light current 04:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ammended version I placed on this page that I feel correctly explains the terminology for this page (which has a different title). Thanks for this, I can't guarentee that I am going to accept all your changes, but I will try and make my criticism tasteful. Cedars 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be copied and pasted, but rather moved to preserve the page history. Would you like me to do that? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on Spang, what are you offering to do exactly?--Light current 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on merge

I understand the need to move on and compromise, but I don't think there's a consensus to move the electrical engineering article to this one. I think the distinction is a bit pedantic.

There is a reason many diverse fields (including computer engineering and electronics engineering) are covered under the umbrella term "electrical engineering" in the US, Canada and Australia (not to say it's necessarily more correct, but User:Light current makes it sound like there is no reason). It's a systems approach to things like communication systems (that require communications theory, electronic devices, VLSI and computer engineering, etc.) or power systems.

It also seems a bit unreasonable to make this change when User:Light current seems to be the sole voice of dissent. My two cents. -- Superdosh 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for this all embracing term being used? In fact its not used so much now with the idividual disciplines having overtaken (one of) their parents. THe other parent is of course electronic and radio engineering. Ever hear of the IERE (Institute of electronic and radio engineers?) now sadly defuct taken over by the IEE. --Light current 06:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Consensus to find the meaning of the term

I quote:

Consensus vs. other policies

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

--Light current 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think NPOV applies here because this isn't about opinions. All terms in question are certainly neutral in that neither conveys sympathy nor opposition to the subject.

This is semantics, and as Spangineer has pointed out, this is the english-language encyclopedia. Thus the majority consensus amongst the english-speaking world should win out in some sense. The sense I mean is the title. Certainly an inclusion about the differences makes sense, but I don't see a reason to move the electrical engineering article here. Shouldn't the title be the most inclusive umbrella name because it contains all the relevant topics? -- Superdosh 07:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course its about opinions. Its about the opinion of some editors that everything comes under the umbrella of electrical engineering. I ask, what evidence is ther worldwide for such a view? I have shown in the past at length that at least in the UK the two subjects are separate. If it can be shown that the current view persists worldwide (ie that everything stems from electrical eng and that all electronics and radio could not exist and would not exist without it)) then I will reconsider my position.--Light current 08:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In review, Superdosh is right. No matter what choice we make Light current will not be happy unless we agree to rewrite the article exactly the way he wants it. There was a poll to see if this page should redirect to electrical engineering and the proposition was well supported. It is non-sensical to allow one user to dictate the direction of an article against the majority verdict. Especially when that article is a peer reviewed and featured article. Based upon the survey's results and a failure to compromise with Light current, I will now redirect this article to electrical engineering. Hopefully Superdosh will assist me in ensuring this article remains a redirect. Cedars 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll is NOT a survey

Cedars, A straw poll is NOT a survey and cannot be used to force an issue. You have acted in an illegal manner in this redirect by ingnoring the legitimate concerns of a fellow editor. Consensus means that everyone agrees -- not that the majority has it. Why dont you read the policies more carefully? If you want a proper survey, then set one up.

Can you read? If so tell me what this means.

...a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

Why are you blatantly ignoring WP policy and guidelines? --Light current 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article

LC, I've created a new article at Electrical engineering (terminology) that comes from the E&EE article, and I've linked to it with an explanation on Electrical engineering. I feel that that is sufficient notice for people who might be confused about what the terms mean, and I hope that you feel that while it isn't exactly what you want, that it's good enough so that we don't have to have a revert war. I know what it's like to have one's ideas shot down, and I realize it isn't a great experience, but I hope you see the reasoning behind these changes. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (crosspost on LC's talk page)[reply]

Well now, if we were to have a sister article on electronics engineering giving the other side of the story, with the reciprocal disclaimer at the top (about the differences/terminology etc)) that, I think, might be a satisfactory solution to me. I would have to be assured, though, that the new article would not be obliterated by Cedars in his quest to subsume everything to electrical engineering.--Light current 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on LC

Light Current, you certainly are as stubborn as you say in your userpage. And is this black and white? If this is Black and White you are a moron. Or a Troll. Now, electronics is undoubtebly a branch of electrical. This isn't just opinions or semantics, it's scientific and historical. Come on, man... Having a page to cover the two subjects is a waste of wikipedia space. Have this redirect to Electrical engineering and have your way on your beloved Electronics Engineering article. VdSV9•♫ 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second, let's assume good faith. My experience with him suggests that he's just trying to improve the encyclopedia. I'll agree with the stubborn part, but sometimes stubbornness is good (remember Winston Churchill, anyone?). In this case, though, I think he happens to be wrong, and the majority of people seem to agree. That's the way it works in any community—win some, lose some. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your use of the term troll is not appropriate to this discussion.

Trolling: In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as in online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants (see Anonymous Internet posting). "Troll" can also mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity.

Show me the rude or offensive messages. Call me stubborn or awkward if you like - I dont mind that!

--Light current 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your reference to Black and white. I thought they were colors.--Light current 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the moron and troll accusations, but read his userpage. I first read that b&w rant of his and kind of felt sorry for him, but if by that he means this discussion I see no good faith there. He tries to sound like a victim there but he was having this one-man-army discussion to have it his way with no one backing his opinion... Sorry again VdSV9•♫ 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, VdSV9, I think your apology should be to me (not Spang) about the moron and troll accusations--Light current 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I didn't bother to check the page history. I didn't say that you are a moron and a troll, my intention wasn't to attack you in any means. But as I said, if that did (and it didn't) mean this discussion you would've been. VdSV9•♫ 11:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, and I too hope that the B/W thing refers to something else. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My B&W example actually refers to some other discussions but is a general comment on how wheels (as in wheel wars can run you over. If you had checked the page history you would have seen it was written a while ago. I think this particular subject has many shades of grey and that is the problem we have!--Light current 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible discussion (continued)

Spangineer. I thank you for listening to me patiently. You and I were having a discussion about my concerns on the E & EE page and I was trying to outline my position to you and trying to reach some sort of compromise, when suddenly, Cedars (having previously pretended to be reasonable) decides he can not be bothered with waiting for the results of discussion and redirects the page I created to show how this article should be to present a fair POV.

He has acted in exactly the same manner before on the EE page. ie if he cant win an argument, he just does what he wants anyway! We must ask ourselves whether we wish to support or condemn such actions in a fellow editor. One must also ask : What are Cedars motives for being so dismissive of other editor's views. Is this part of his first year project at college? If so, enough brownie points should have already been gained on the featured article success without trying to supress someone elses valid ideas.

Now ask yourself, are Cedars actions those of a good Wikipedian or not? I think they are underhand and designed to bully a lone objector (me) into submission by using spurious arguments and so called votes from people who only crawl out of the woodwork at such times, but are otherwise nowhere to be seen and have never actually contributed to the article they're blindly voting on. --Light current 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we're all tired of debating this issue and we'd like to move on. Just think of how good the electronics engineering article would be right now if we had devoted all the time we have spent discussing this article name to actually reading sources and adding content. At the same time though, to prevent future debate, we should try to settle the matter now. I haven't been extremely involved for the entire debate, but I'm hoping that I can be around for the end of it.

It seems like the fundamental misunderstanding is the scope of the issue. You seem to be arguing from the theoretical perspective of what exactly is what. From that standpoint, I certainly agree that "Electrical and electronics engineering" is more precise and accurate than just "electrical engineering". But this is Wikipedia, and ultimately, this is a naming convention issue, not an argument over which term should be used by Americans, Canadians and Australians. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (has this been referred to previously?):

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

In my view, "electrical engineering" wins on the first (majority use) and third (ease of linking), while "electrical and electronics engineering" wins on the second (ambiguity). I think that there's a reason for that ordering (most important to least important), so I think we need to go with EE rather than E&EE. Does this argument make sense?

As for Cedar's behavior, he has used the typical methods of getting comments from others. When he first approached me, he didn't know which side I would fall on and as I recall he didn't say that I should vote one way or the other, but just that he wanted extra input. Unfortunately, asking for other people's opinions necessarily results in getting the opinions of people who really don't care and really aren't informed, but that's the way it goes sometimes. I don't think that that has happened here to any great extent, but it might seem like it. I know how you feel—I got really agitated when I got outvoted on a featured list candidate a while ago because the nominator went around having his friends vote in support, even though they had no clue what the FLC guidelines were. However, like I said, while it might feel like it, I don't think that's what happened here.

As for his turning the content you wrote into a redirect, it seems to me that much of the material there is also on the EE page, and now, the terminology section is in its own article. There's room on Wikipedia for all of this stuff as far as I can tell, but the organization of it needs some work. Maybe some of it should be added to the Electrical Eng. article; maybe some of it should be moved into the Electronics Eng. article; etc. Let's make those judgments one at a time and for the moment remember that all the content is still in the article history and if anyone wants to suggest that it be added somewhere else, it can be done in a few seconds. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, if we were to have a sister article on electronics engineering giving the other side of the story, with the reciprocal disclaimer at the top (about the differences/terminology etc)) that, I think, might be a satisfactory solution to me. I would have to be assured, though, that the new article would not be obliterated by Cedars in his quest to subsume everything to electrical engineering.--Light current 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as it is not a copy of Electrical Engineering and is specific to Electronics. Get to it. VdSV9•♫ 11:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]