User talk:Skysmith/Missing topics about Technology
Appearance
Communications
[edit]Thanks for compiling this list. I scanned through the sublist of communications entries, and have created some redirects where appropriate. Here is a list of entries that should be removed from the list. Comments included. Cheers, Nageh (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Adaptive communication system - this is a very vague term; it may refer to adaptive modulation and coding
- AVS plugin effect - no need for separate article from Advanced Visualization Studio (AVS)
- Cardioid pattern - explained in cardioid
- Communication patterns - too general a term
- Communications modulation - this refers to modulation, and is usually referred to using this single term
- Morse code receiver - no need for this separate article from Morse code
- Telecom software - too vague on one hand, ambigous on the other (there is a company called Telecom)
- Telecommunications devise - typo (remove)
Communication terms:
- Antenna subsystem - not a technical specification
- Barrier signal - are you sure this is not Carrier signal?
- Low-frequency - no need, have frequency
- Radio-frequency amplifier - too specific, have electronic amplifier
- Radio-frequency impedance measurements - much too specific
- Raging bull message - this sounds like a spammy entry; any idea?
- Receiver incremental tuning - no need, have tuner (radio)
- Reception station - not a technical specification
Radio:
- Multiplex operation - no need, have multiplexing and multiplex as a dab; multiplexing is the term commonly used
- Single-sidebound transmission? - shouldn't this be single-sideband transmission?
- Transmission loss - no need, nothing specific here
- Video frequency - frequency of the video signal, no need for separate article
Television:
- Digital television technology - no need, have digital television
- Video-disc - don't see why anybody would write that with a dash; we don't have compact-disc as well
PS: How old was the reference book for these terms? An amateur radio handbook, maybe? ;)
- Actually, the sources included latest McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Engineering and number of similar offline books. I tried to avoid typos but there obviously are those. - Skysmith (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. I think those sources always lag behind a little bit. Anyway, it's awesome enough that you have compiled this list. Nageh (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Robotics missing articles
[edit]Hi
Nice list - it may be that the spellings are relevent
For example you searched for Cartesian-coordinate robot but the article is at [[Cartesian coordinate robot]. The same is true for some others such as Spherical robot
If you are still actively pursuing these topics let me know and I will go through them more thoroughly :¬)