Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 6

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

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)
Oh, ok. I'll give it a shot then. --Cp99-NJITWILL (talk) 14:57, 2 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 ([[1]]). 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)

Started as WP:WikiProject Electrical engineering -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 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)

Positive feedback

I'm going to add the project template to Positive feedback. The discusstion there could benefit from more people who understand this stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of electronic memory types

We ought to have a comparison of electronic memory types article. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Common-mode-choke.png

file:Common-mode-choke.png is in cleanup categories for missing source and missing author information. I don't suppose someone knows, would they? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Only the uploader can answer that - have you asked them? Anyway, it is easily replaceable, even if it has to be redrawn from scratch. I made a similar diagram (File:Phantom flux.svg) for phantom circuit. Will that do, what do you need it for? SpinningSpark 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The uploader hasn't edited since May, so I didn't ask yet, there's already a query on his talk page. I figured a quicker response might come from the project. As for what it might be used for, it's currently illustrating Choke (electronics) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AZUSA radar schematics

File:AZUSA-transponder.png and File:AZUSA-MarkII.png have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle

There is a discussion and request for input regarding retaining or merging the above article at WP:PM. Input from this project is appreciated on the comment page. --  :- ) Don 21:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Flowing flow of charge

Hi. In the article Transistor the text talks about current as a thing that flows. (For example in the third sentence: "...changes the current flowing through another pair of terminals"). But this is incorrect off course. Electric current is moving/flowing charge. So the current itself can't really flow. I know this mistake is really common(It is included in books in electronics and physics), so I'm in doubt whether you people(the ones involved in maintaining and creating articles about electronics) would thing it's OK for me to "fix" these mistakes. For example, the quoted sentence would become "...changes the current through another pair of terminals". I can understand if people think it's better to just leave it as it is, to prevent confusion and/or inconsistency. -- defusix (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2012 (GMT+1)

Microhip and IC Category merge proposal at Commons

Hi there,

Apologies if this is slightly offtopic at Wikipedia, but I'd be grateful if some of you could contribute your thoughts to the proposed merge of the "Microchips" and "Integrated circuits" categories on the discussion at Wikimedia Commons]. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible.

Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your participation --Jesus Presley (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Crystal oscillator

There's a page move proposal on Talk:Crystal oscillator that could benefit from some advice. The terms used in electronics for a piezoelectric resonator, "crystal" or "quartz crystal", have other meanings in general usage, so the Crystal oscillator page has become a "quartz crystal" page. However the term "crystal oscillator" refers to the circuit, not the resonator crystal itself. Should content on quartz and other electronic crystals be move to a new Piezoelectric resonator page? Anyone that wants to drop by and express an opinion is welcome. --ChetvornoTALK 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Electronics terminology

Category:Electronics terminology has been nominated for deletion by merger into Category:Electronics -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Integrated circuit inventor

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Patents as source for invention claims about whether patents are suitable reliable sources to support claims that a particular person invented the process used to fabricate integrated circuits. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Amplifier organization

Is being discussed at Talk:Amplifier#Amplifier_topic_organization. -—Kvng 14:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is another proposal in there. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Development of Electric double-layer capacitor to Supercapacitor

After more than half a year composing for a new edition of the article Electric double-layer capacitor I am now close for inserting my draft into the Wiki, please see User:Elcap/Supercapacitor. But I have a problem. Writing the new text for the article I found out, that the existing article (without the introduction) is an accumulation of single arguments without reasonable context. (The introduction I insert some moth ago). And I found out, that a real double-layer capacitor doesn’t exist.

Electric double-layer capacitors (EDLCs), invented 1957, have seen a dramatic change in understanding of their capacitive charge storage from a pure physical function between Helmholtz double-layers to an additional pseudocapacitive chemical charge storage with redox reactions, electrosorption and intercalation processes. This change of understanding has lead to a split of the electrochemical capacitors into three families:

  • Double-layer capacitors – with carbon electrodes or derivates with much higher static double-layer capacitance than the faradaic pseudocapacitance
  • Pseudocapacitors – with electrodes out of metal oxides or conducting polymers with a high amount of faradaic pseudocapacitance
  • Hybrid capacitors – capacitors with special electrodes that exhibit both significant double-layer capacitance and pseudocapacitance, such as lithium-ion capacitors
Hierarchical classification of supercapacitors and related types

But in no case double-layer and pseudocapacitance exist alone, even the older double-layer capacitors do have a little amount of pseudocapacitance. And the pseudocapacitors and hybrid capacitors do have a lot of double-layer capacitance. So it is nearly impossible to write three single articles to describe the new developments. This leads to the question how to name this very special capacitors.

Generally in science publications all the different developments of the last years are united under the term “electrochemical capacitors”. But if a development gets a discrete component, the names are manifold. Supercap, Ultracap, Goldcap, Greencap, a lot of manufacturer related names exist.

A look through the science literature shows, that roughly 70 to 80 % of the authors uses the term “Supercapacitor” (see: A Bibliometric Analysis of the International Literature in Supercapacitors, Francesco Lufrano* and Pietro Staiti, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 4 (2009) 173 – 186 PDF)

A google research gives 730,000 results for Supercapacitor, for Ultracapacitor only 363,000 (Date: 2013-05-07)

As of 2013 the term supercapacitor has prevailed as the alternative term instead of EDLC or ultracapacitor. One of the reason is surely the respect for B. E. Conway who coined the term supercapacitor. The term “ultracapacitor” also often to be found is used like a trade name for the capacitors from Maxwell, the market leader, and that seems for me like advertising.

By the way, most of the European countries are using the translated version of the term Supercapacitor.

So I am asking the Wikis how it can go on? I propose to insert my draft under “Electric double-layer capacitor”, and than move the article to the term “Supercapacitor”. Can I count with support? --Elcap (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

SpinningSpark wrote me, that the move of the article Electric double-layer capacitor to Supercapacitor has been reverted by different editors in the past. So I leave the present article Electric double-layer capacitor, copy my new draft supercapacitor from my user page to “Supercapacitor” shortly, and start a new discussion on the new discussion page of supercapacitor. --Elcap (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Official ASTEP logo.jpg

file:Official ASTEP logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?

Could someone take a look at this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes by the same editor to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51 in general? It looks to me like he is confusing the bit addressing instructions ("Boolean processor") here with the actual 8051 architecture, which is of course 8-bit. Before I respond to this, I would like a second opinion. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. n-bit architecture refers to the size of the data path and the size of the data path for the MCS-51 is definitely 8 bits. Being able to set, reset and test bits in a byte are computations that have nothing to do with the size of the data bus. But beyond my own understanding, a search for 'mcs-51 "1-bit architecture"' on Google nets 6 results, of which 2 are WP pages and the other 4 are not relevant. I know of no evidence that Intel or anybody else has declared the 8051 a 1-bit architecture. This looks like (mistaken) OR. --Mark viking (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Tagremover#8031/8051: 1-bit architecture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Preparing a reply. Please wait. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Same problem with related edits such as this one that equates 1-bit archicture with Boolean processor. Note that the Boolean processors that he's concerned with have 8-bit instruction paths even when doing one-bit Boolean ops on 1-bit locations. I've never seen these concepts used interchangeably this way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yup. It will be interesting to see the response. I remember that when I was just starting out in engineering (and the computers ran on steam) being told that I was wrong felt like an attack on my worth, but now finding out that I was wrong actually makes me happy -- it means that I have fixed an area where my mental model of the world does not match reality. I have noticed that those who still treat any technical disagreement as an attack tend to be wrong more often. I figure that this is because they are basically ineducable.
Our Boolean data type article details how a boolean variable is often implemented with 8, 16, 32, or even 64 bits, with zero as false and any non-zero value as true. That's how the 8051 does it; instructions like JZ and JNZ work on bytes. Even JB and JNB, which work with bits, start with a byte and select the bit within the byte, which is why JB and JNB are three bytes long instead of two bytes long like JZ and JNZ. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


(Related content moved from user talk, where it does not belong. Tagremover (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC))

I would liken to talk to you about this edit in particular and other edits you have recently made to to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51.

First, could you please use the preview button instead of saving multiple times?[2]

Second, please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your edit, it was improper to re-revert me. Please don't do that again.

Third, you appear to be confused about the difference between bit addressing instructions and 1-bit architecture. The 8031/8051 has an 8-bit architecture. I have no idea what you think http://www.sfprime.net/i8031/ has to do with this, but it certainly does not say that the 8031/8051 has an 1-bit architecture.

I asked for a second opinion on this, and so far I have received the following responses:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics#8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?

User talk:Andy Dingley#8031: 1-bit architecture?

Given the above, I am going to ask you to voluntarily undo any edits that you have made that are based upon your original research concerning what a 1-bit architecture is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply

@Guy Macon: First, your tone is not really friendly, and that you are wrong, doesn't make it better. I programmed the 8051 for several projects since end of 1980s, so i know what i am talking about. And, in contrary to you (although i do respect self-trained engineers/scientists, i know some who are better than masters or professors), i am an highly educated engineer and scientist and worked several years in a microelectronic company (not Intel) in research and design of microcontrollers.

Second: Obviously you are unable to follow the rules you think they are important: Please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your revert with the comment: "Of course it has 1-bit boolean processor: http://www.sfprime.net/i8031/", according to the rules listed by yourself it is not the recommended, best solution, to call others if they support your WRONG opinion, but to ask your question on the article talk first.

In fact, i am no too surprised, that there is a highly lack of knowledge about the "Boolean processor" in, of course (what else?), 1-bit architecture. The WRONG statements of 4, in Wikipedia language, "experienced editors" or even "experts" is a proof, that it is highly needed to highlight the Boolean processor and its function.[3][4][5][6]

Because everything is already listed or linked in the article MCS-51, especially in the section Intel_MCS-51#Important_features_and_applications and the here most important ref: [7], i repeat the facts clearly marked.

Facts

  1. The Boolean processor is existing: See article refs and: [8]
    1. Obviously it uses some special hardware: 8 to 1-bit read/write masking and some instruction hardware for 17 instructions. This is a FULL 1-BIT INSTRUCTION SET: The variants to manipulate a bit are limited. Result: Existence of Boolean processor proofed.
  2. Any processor has an architecture, and any existing processor architecture belongs to a processor. Result: Existence of Boolean architecture inside the 8051 proofed.
  3. The ALU operand width in the Boolean architecture is clearly 1-bit wide: 1-bit ALU, 1-bit accu, 1-bit register and memory, and if you STUDY this [9] carefully, you see the bitwide "BUS" which is NOT a bus, but simply a wire/line. It leads to the accu. That many parts of the architecture are ADDITIONALLY usable in 8-bit processing, is NOT important: This is also the case in many other multiprocessor chips. Understand that a 1-bit processor hardware is really SMALL: See figures in booleanproc.pdf. Result: Existence of 1-bit architecture inside the 8051 proofed.
  4. Data bus width determines processor width: Clearly wrong. But: no absolutely exact definition possible. BEST: a) Most important/most used processor (ALU) in b) its highest OPERAND width, in which most (ALU) operations can performed.
    1. See Pentium 3: Internal/external 64bit data-bus, 32-bit ALUs, 80-bit copro, 128-bit SSE: Result: 32-bit
    2. 8051 variants in your credit card: 1-bit (serial) external, 8-bit internal: Result: 8-bit
    3. Many other examples with different external/internal data-bus widths, search yourself.
Result: external/internal Data-bus width is no proof at all for determining processor width.

Disputed

a) There is some confusion about the data-bus width, with some WRONGLY state to be 8-bit wide: See its an ADDITIONAL 1-bit processor using its bit-line (if you like: "bus") and reuses some hardware, which is EXCELLENT (carry-bit = accu spares sometimes a move), but outside the 1-bit architecture it uses the 8-bit bus.

b) Obviously it is called "boolean processor" because it is an processor: It will be confusing if someone describes: We added an xx-bit architecture, but nearly always: ...includes XYZ processor.[10]

c) Its a full instruction set, a full boolean, 1-bit operand wide processor, not only bit addressing

d) Instruction length (opcode) determines processor width: Clearly wrong: otherwise for example the 8051 would be an up to 24-bit processor, see also other examples.

e) Address bus width is notable, but clearly not the the most important width: otherwise the 8051 would be a 16-bit.

Results + Discussion

I hope to pointed clearly the facts. Otherwise it is all in WIkipedia listed and linked.

Before you revert my edits because you think, external and/or internal data-bus width determines a processor (architecture) width, YOU should consequently change the Pentium 3 to 64-bit, or the 8051 in your credit-card to 1-bit. Remember: All buses have a protocol with an operand width: THATS independent from physical bus width and PROCESSED by the PROCESSOR in its (input) OPERAND-WIDTH ARCHITECTURE. See also all the others facts and faults.

Of course you can ignore my effort; 4 editors can easily revert me: Remember yours faults will be in the history. Otherwise you can thank me for highlighting a often misunderstood feature: THE BOOLEAN PROCESSOR built obviously with (mostly) 1-bit architecture by partly reusing 8-bit parts: BUT MUST INCLUDE masking to 1-bit: The 1-bit architecture. Tagremover (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You failed to address my first and second points.
First, could you please use the preview button instead of saving multiple times?[11]
Second, please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your edit, it was improper to re-revert me. Please don't do that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Now, first, this seems intolerant to other, highly experienced editors and their style, and could be seen as unfriendly. You found the preview button, too? Should i explain other functions of the editor to you?
Second: Read carefully, i addressed that point: You were factually wrong and your revert improper, my revert was reasonable with sufficient explanation: Do you understand that? Please read the reason again. Please read also WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, and best my whole reasons above and the article. Please don't do that again.
I mention your tone a second time, i think it could be improved. Tagremover (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we please keep issues of editor behaviour off this page, the electronics project is not the appropriate place and will not help to resolve the electronic problem. Tagremover, you do not need to post these long harangues. Just a simple link to one reliable source describing the MCS-51 as a one-bit processor is all you need to do to settle the matter.
This book would appear to have the description we need: "Arithmetic and logic unit of 8051 performs arithmetic and logical operations on 8-bit operands." And later "there is a separate Boolean Processor integrated within the 8051 microcontroller. It has its own instruction set, accumulator and bit addressable RAM." If I understand this correctly, it is saying that there is a 1-bit architecture processor embedded within an 8-bit architecture microcontroller. So essentially the 8051 is 8-bit architecture, but has a component within it which is 1-bit architecture. The Intel data sheet provided by Tagremover seems to bear this out: "The instructions in figure 3b can operate directly upon 144 general purpose bits forming the Boolean processor 'RAM'." With the clear implication that it cannot operate directly on the general purpose data RAM. SpinningSpark 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If the above link gives you a restricted page error, Google "there is a separate Boolean Processor integrated within the 8051 microcontroller" (with the quotes) and click on the result. Sometimes Google books has a problem if you didn't get there from Google search. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The 8051's "Boolean processor" (as named on Intel's datasheet) has an 8 bit data bus. It not only offers bit operations, it offers those bit operations across any chosen bit of the 8 bit register. This is a "Boolean processor", but it's not a "1-bit processor" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and it certainly isn't a "1-bit architecture". The 8051 boolean processor is there so that you can atomically set or clear a single bit, but saying that that means the 8051 has a 1-bit architecture is rather like saying that the ARM Cortex has a 1-bit architecture because it has bit banding instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To expand on the above, when we speak of a "32-bit architecture" or a "1-bit architecture", we are talking about Computer architecture. An 8-bit processor looks different to the programmer than a 32-bit processor does. A 32-bit processor can store the integer 1000 in a couple of registers or memory locations, directly and atomically add them together, and store the resulting integer 2000 in a register or memory location. an 8-bit processor can do that with 100+100=200, but not with 1000+1000=2000. If the 32-bit processor has the ability to load and store bytes, that doesn't mean that it has an "8/32-bit architecture". It means that it has a 32-bit architecture and has the ability to directly manipulate bytes. It's not a different archetecture but rather an added feature. Likewise, an 8031/8051 has an 8-bit architecture and has the ability to directly manipulate bits. See [ http://www.zmitac.aei.polsl.pl/Electronics_Firm_Docs/mcs51/applnots/20383001.pdf ].
As I pointed out before, the ARM Cortex can also manipulate individual bits. See [ http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ddi0337i/Behcjiic.html ] and [ http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dai0179b/CHDJHIDF.html ]. Try doing a Google or Bing search on [ ARM Cortex "1-bit architecture" ] and see how many sources call it that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should propose a course of action. SpinningSpark 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
My preferred course of action when several editors agree on something and one disagrees is to look very carefully at the dissenting editor's arguments and especially at any citations she or he provides. This helps to avoid groupthink. Tagremover chose a different path and was blocked for two weeks for edit warring. I for one very much hope that when he returns he decides to discuss his theories in a calm, rational manner, and that we all follow the sources and the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I know this discussion was a while ago but I think it's still worth voicing my opinion. @Tagremover: frankly, everything you said is absolutely right. @Andy Dingley: you are wrong, actually. The document Tagremover linked to should have been enough to back up his argument. Here is one sentence:

For such control situations the most significant aspect of the MCS -51 architecture is its complete hardware support for one-bit or Boolean variables (named in honor of Mathematician George Boole) as a separate data type

— MCS-51 Boolean Processing Capabilities, April 1980, Intel
It's not a "it offers those bit operations across any chosen bit of the 8 bit register" as you said. It's IS a hardware single wire (I.E. 1-bit register). Looks like some people are confusing a boolean processor with normal instructions that allow you to manipulate/access single bits such as bt, bts, btr, and btc. The two are completely orthogonal concepts. --CyberXReftalk 14:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support for one-bit variables is not the same as having one-bit architecture. The processor has 8-bit architecture. Within the 8051 is a separate boolean procesor which may well have a one-bit architecture but the basic architecture of the device as a whole remains 8-bit with 8-bit buses. If you had read on a bit further in the same document you would have found "their true power comes when they are used in conjunction with the microcomputer's byte-processing and numerical capabilities." SpinningSpark 17:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This is crazy, everyone knows the 8031/8051 are 8-bit processors even though they have bit access instructions. They should not be called 1-bit processors without RS saying that they are. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
As anyone who has worked in engineering knows, the field attracts a fair number of arrogant and ineducable jerks, and once they latch on to some batshit insane theory like "support for bit operations equals one-bit architecture" and start the usual "you are an idiot for daring to disagree with my infallible self" song and dance, there is no reasoning with them. Just treat them like anyone else who is pushing pseudoscientific fringe theories and calmly but firmly require citations to reliable secondary sources that directly support their claims without synthesis or original research. This is, of course, the same standard that we hold ourselves to. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Consumer electronics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theopolisme at 03:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG

image:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pentagrid converter

Pentagrid converter has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Pentagrid converter -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cue sheet"

The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

IXI.jpg

image:IXI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:IXI sketch 2.jpg

File:IXI sketch 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Compact Cassette Logo.svg

image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC

Someone who understands the subject is requested to help with reviewing WT:Articles for creation/Coupling coefficient of resonators. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

LED Tube lights

LED Tube lights is a brand new article and I am unable to determine notability of the subject. Besides being written almost like an advertisement, the article has no references at this time. I am wondering if this project considers this topic worthy of inclusion per WP:GNG or other criteria. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the copyvio and the obvious advertising, the proposed speedy delete looks reasonable. But there has been some scholarly work looking into LED replacements for traditional lighting installations, such as fluorescent tubes, for example, A Driving Technology for Retrofit LED Lamp for Fluorescent Lighting Fixtures With Electronic Ballasts and LED replacement for fluorescent tube lighting. An article, or an expansion of the LED lamp#LED tube lights section, could probably be written on these replacement technologies. --Mark viking (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Motorola-A1600.jpg

File:Motorola-A1600.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cellular devices

Hello, WikiProject Electronics. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Cellular devices#Make this a taskforce of WP:Telecommunications.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg

image:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Waveguide filter

The article waveguide filter has been nominated for FA. Your comments and opinion on whether this article should be promoted to featured status are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waveguide filter/archive1. SpinningSpark 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My missing topics pages

I have updated Missing topics about Eletricity and Electronics - Skysmith (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Waveguide filter again

The previous FA nomination of Waveguide filter was archived without promotion due to a lack of supporters on the nomination page. Would editors interested please take a look and if you think the article is FA material please support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waveguide filter/archive2. SpinningSpark 17:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested Articles

Hi, Requested Articles is encouraging WikiProjects to have a look at their relevant section at RA; and either remove requests that won't be made, or leaving (preferably adding sources as well) the ones which may be created. For this WikiProject, that is here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Usage of {{Semiconductor packages}} on articles unrelated to packaging

User:Sbmeirow is apparently intent on adding this template to a number of pages about specialized semiconductor component types, such as Avalanche diode, Schottky diode, Zener diode, Transient-voltage-suppression diode, etc., even though these articles are not at all concerned with particular package formats, and most of them never even mention packaging. In particular, it would clearly not be appropriate to add them to Category:Semiconductor packages, so why should they include a navbox for that category?

As described in WP:NAVBOX, and specifically WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, a navbox should normally include backlinks to all the articles into which it is transcluded. Thus, it makes perfect sense to have the {{Semiconductor packages}} navbox in articles like DO-204 or TO-3, but not on every article about some particular variety of diode, if that article is not itself listed in the navbox. Rather than discussing this on the individual article pages, I suppose this is the right place to get a rough consensus on appropriate usage of navboxes within the WikiProject; does anyone else think this is a good idea? Hqb (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. If you are going to discuss this over here, then you need to put links in the talk section for the template and those articles pointing back to this discussion.
  2. Diode article has 4 photos of diodes in packages, Schottky diode article has 3 photos of diodes in packages, Zener diode article has 2 photos of diodes in packages, Transient-voltage-suppression diode has 1 photo of diodes in packages, thus its obvious there are package related "things" in those articles.
  3. Schottky_diode#Designation clearly lists diode part numbers, thus ties them to a package. Those part numbers can't exist without being in a package.
  4. Schottky_diode#Construction is lacking because it shows a photo yet doesn't say anything about putting the diode in packaging. This would be similar to talking about IC chip internals without talking about packaging.
  5. Typical end users can't buy any diodes without being in a package. Go to DigiKey or Mouser and try to buy a diode without being in a package.
  6. Capacitor, Resistor, Operational amplifier, and numerous other electronic articles don't exclude talk about packages, so a similar rule doesn't apply to these diode articles either.
  7. Just because these diode articles don't have a section about packaging, doesn't mean it should be excluded, instead it means these articles are flawed for the lack of talk about common packaging! Seriously, an article about diodes isn't complete unless it talks about packaging.
  8. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Hqb, we don't need a packages navbox in all those articles. Yes for articles about packages and maybe for component articles that have an in depth discussion of packaging, but not for everything across the board. I don't think just having pictures of packages in a component article is enough to justify a navbox; after all we don't have an automobile navbox in the Kylie Minogue article just because she is photographed with a car. Linking to the package article is enough; anyone interested will follow the link and find the navbox there. SpinningSpark 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Kylie Minogue isn't a part in my vehicle; but a diode is inside of a package. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I was only being picturesque with the Kylie Minogue example of course. Here is one more down-to earth: Your car might not have a Kylie but it certainly has a gearbox, yet the Ford Fiesta article does not have the navbox {{Gears}}. SpinningSpark 07:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Hqb. If it's true that the Schottky diode article ought to talk about the packaging of Schottky diodes (for example), well then the Schottky article ought to talk about the packaging of Schottky diodes. Putting a packaging navbox does not help that goal in any significant way. A navbox can't effectively "talk about" anything, because the navbox has no sentences. (The navbox might have a few links to articles that talk about the packaging of Schottky diodes, mixed in with 25 other links that have nothing to do with packaging of Schottky diodes. Those 25 other links have no reason to be in the article at all. As for the links that are specifically relevant, if any, they could potentially be "see also"s.)
At a more basic level: If the article about X has 300 links, then those should be (more or less) the 300 articles that are most important for understanding X, out of all the articles on wikipedia. That's why it is problematic for the Schottky diode article to have a link to Zig-zag in-line package (ZIP), via the navbox. I'm not arguing that ZIP has nothing whatsoever to do with Schottky diodes - of course they have some relationship. But ZIP has less relationship to Schottky diodes than do tens of thousands of other articles -- articles like Metal-induced gap states, Czochralski process, Electronic design automation, phosphorus, etc. etc. etc. Therefore it is a very poor use of the reader's time to show them a link to ZIP when they are trying to learn about Schottky diodes. --Steve (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this NavBox is overused. Of its current uses, I believe that only the following are desirable. ~KvnG 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I support that list. SpinningSpark 00:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I also support this. I created this template with the intention to only include articles that describe package standards, and let the template link back to them. Anonimski (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think integrated circuit should be on the list. It already has a link to Integrated circuit packaging as a main article and that should be good enough. SpinningSpark 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I think we can leave it there, since it's such a closely related topic. That way we'll always have the articles linked together, even if they get re-written and re-structured. Anonimski (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed the template from 19 articles. ~KvnG 22:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Review request

Earlier this month, I have created a few stub-length articles on packages that I thought were necessary to include links to in the Semiconductor Packages template:

The articles are new and thus they need to be reviewed by a second person. Can anyone go through them and then remove the tag? The PDF source documents mention the components' existence and some variants, so it shouldn't take too much work to verify the info that I've written. Anonimski (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the contributions. ~KvnG 22:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice and any initiative would be considered helpful: Fault current limiter

A 'low interest' rated article in Project Physics that could deserve better, perhaps if viewed from one or another of the subbranches in WP:TECH. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Advice please: (Solid State) Fault Current Limiters and Superconducting Fault Current limiters. Perhaps relating the subject to Category:supraconductivity only is misleading. Thank you. --Askedonty (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Passing along some info

Hi all. Just wanted to add this here after reading up on the project regarding drawing circuits. Has anyone investigated CircuitLab.com? I took an electronics course where we had to use it, and it was very thorough in my opinion (but I'm sure it pales in comparison to everyone's here). Anyways, just wanted to let y'all know about it if it could help you. Cheers! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I notice it exports SVG, our preferred format. Looks promising. --Mark viking (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Hope it can be use to you in this project! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veroboard. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Notifying of relevant FAR

I have nominated Electrical engineering for a featured article review here. The reason for this is a serious lack of citations: much of the article is completely unreferenced. It would be great if someone knowledgeable in this area could improve the article and help it remain an FA. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnetic coil

See talk:Electromagnetic coil about a proposed rewrite -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wave Modulation (WAM)

This is a brand new article. The article's title, Wave Modulation (WAM), does not seem to fit the references provided. One source pertains to a United States patent [12] but I don't see how this relates to the article's subject. Also, I think a patent is not considered a reliable source if there is supposed to be a demonstration of notability. Yet, as I said, it doesn't seem related to the subject.

The link is broken for another source. And a third source, an academic journal article, does not seem related to the subject. Does anyone know anything about this topic?

From a Google search, here is one related article: [13].

Personally, I think this topic is too new to merit inclusion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now, it looks like a good bit of hype, with pretty strong claims: Netowrk World and TN Technology. Patents and press releases do not a reliable source make, and I could not find any papers on the topic in GScholar. --Mark viking (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that Magnacom are being deliberately secretive about what the technique actually is. Under those circumstances it is impossible to have a technical article about the subject. The current article is a mixture of truisms ("using spectral compression to improve spectral efficiency"), already well known principles ("diversity of time and frequency domains", "non linear signal shaping") and uninterpretable analogy ("1,000 dots on a piece of paper"). In its current state, I would support a nomination for deletion. It might be possible to have instead an article on Magnacom and/or its products if it meets WP:ORG but the current article isn't that. SpinningSpark 11:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Mark and Spinning Spark - I agree with both of you. And thanks for pointing out the mixture of truisms (certainly nothing special about this article). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Anybody object to copying this discussion into an AFD? SpinningSpark 08:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That is fine with me. --Mark viking (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge Wireless signal jammer into Radio jamming

It has been suggested that Wireless signal jammer be merged into Radio jamming, see discussion here. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)

AC/DC (electricity) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:AC/DC (electricity) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: The page "AC/DC (electricity)" has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
And now it redirects to War of Currents. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus was not to merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC needs outside comment. `

See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC which needs outside comment. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. --Jayron32 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think the Electronics Wikiproject can help with this issue? The article has not been put within the scope of the wikiproject and the dispute does not involve any electronics issues. Please explain what you want from the project. SpinningSpark 10:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I want people who care to comment. I want people who don't care to ignore it. --Jayron32 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As of Sunday, 17 November 2024, 17:59 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,278,122 registered users who have made 1,253,259,908 edits and created 6,912,055 articles. If even a small percentage of them are allowed to solicit in uninvolved areas of Wikipedia we will be swamped with the solicitations. "Just ignore it if you don't like it" is the same logic the spammers use. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Electronics At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 11/06

Draft:Electrostatic-Pneumatic. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Electronics At Wikimania 2014(updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC Submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SilhouetteFX --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

no cross-wiring article?

  • Why does cross-wiring work better? Why is there no cross-wiring article in Wikipedia? • Serviceable†Villain 23:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Cross-wiring usually refers to a mistake. Do you by any chance mean transposition of conductors? SpinningSpark 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. I'm not an EE, know nothing about electronics, etc. I was told many, many years ago that many electronic devices/machines (even as simple as soda-can dispensers) have cross-wring, similar to the way the left side of the brain controls the right hand and vice-versa. I thought it was common knowledge and a common process. • Serviceable†Villain 06:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      The term is certainly widely used in neurology as an analogy, but in electrical engineering I don't think it has a specific enough sense to be able to write a meaningful Wikipedia article. Just in case I was wrong on that, I checked the IEEXplore database which came up with only three papers. All of them seem to use the phrase in an everyday non-specific way. Two are talking of "cross wiring capacitance", meaning the capacitance between two traces passing at right angles, and one is talking about transposing address bus digits. I also got one result for "cross wired", which is a paper discussing cross-coupled resonators. I don't think that all these disparate things can be shoe-horned into a single coherent article. Wiktionary could probably be improved with some dicdefs on this though. SpinningSpark 13:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Better than what?
Like Spinningspark, I agree that whatever it is you are thinking about, Wikipedia probably does need an article on that topic.
However, from the very brief description you've given here, Wikipedia already has articles on a dozen different things that seem to match that description. It is frustrating on both sides to keep going back and forth with "Hey, that sounds like A". "Nope, that's not it." "Well, are you maybe thinking of B?" "Nope, try again." "Perhaps C?" "Sorry, go fish!"
For example:
crossbar switch, crossover switch, nonblocking minimal spanning switch, Clos network
RF switch matrix, short circuit, audio crossover, Ethernet crossover cable
Cross-wiring between two controllers in a dual modular redundancy system so that a failure in either one may be detected, and the other one can take over reading the sensor and driving the actuators[14]
the kind of cross wiring done by string soldering machines[15][16] in solar panel fabrication
The kind of cross wiring in a marshalling cabinet that can sometimes be replaced with electronic marshalling[17][18][19]
The kind of cross wiring used in fieldbus systems[20]
The kind of cross wiring used with 3 phase motors and other high-power systems[21][22]
When you have a sufficient number of things connected to each other in a wiring harness or printed wiring board, you will inevitably end up with some wire going over (crossing over) some other wire.
Could you give us the URL of a web page or upload a photo to give more detail on the specific kind of cross-wiring you are thinking about? --DavidCary (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

4:3 ?

We have a 16:9 article (and 21:9 aspect ratio), but there's no 4:3 aspect ratio article. Seems like a very big hole in our coverage, considering how common it is and how much more so it was. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Diode logic

Drawing attention of project members to a discussion at Diode logic. Would any project member with an understanding of this topic care to contribute?: Noyster (talk), 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much of a discussion going on there. Are you referring to this insertion and its subsequent revert? SpinningSpark 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Consumer electronics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Jack Wayman

Jack Wayman, who founded the first elecronics show and was responsible for the success of the VCR just died if anyone cares to create an article. See this New York Times article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Wireless power

There is a disagreement on the Wireless power article about the section dealing with Nikola Tesla's contributions. Additional opinions would be appreciated. See Talk:Wireless power#Way too much Tesla. Thanks --ChetvornoTALK 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to ask for editors' opinions to resolve this conflict, only a few would be required to achieve consensus. Whichever side you come down on, I feel this is an important issue which involves the confrontation of science and pseudoscience. See Talk:Wireless power#Way too much Tesla and the sections following it. Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 16:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boxcar Averagers

Hello electronics experts. Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been accepted by Spinningspark. I have made some additional improvements. ~KvnG 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Great!—Anne Delong (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs help.

Please take a look at Draft:Chirp spectrum and if it is a notable topic help the author get it into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Made some basic improvements and accepted submission. Linked from Chirp. Integration could be improved. ~KvnG 14:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pull-up resistor

The lede of pull-up resistor has seemingly intractable problems that might benefit from the attention of experienced editors. Please see this discussion for details. Thanks in advance, Lambtron (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Electronics industry in the United States}}

template:Electronics industry in the United States has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Pulsed field magnet

FYI, there is a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Draft:Pulsed field magnet -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Crosstalk"

The usage and primary topic of Crosstalk and cross-talk is under discussion, see talk:crosstalk (disambiguation) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Gain listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gain to be moved to Gain (electronics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Crocodile clip listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Crocodile clip to be moved to Alligator clip. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Misleading definition: reconvergent fan-out

The article on Reconvergent_fan-out has a highly misleading definition of the term ("Reconvergent fan-out is a technique to make VLSI logic simulation less pessimistic."). Reconvergent fan-out is a property of a circuit (or graph) - the fact that multiple paths exist from the output of a circuit element (or graph node) to another point in the circuit or graph. It is not an optimization technique as stated by the definition, although many optimization techniques exist that take advantage of reconvergent fan-out in the underlying circuit or graph. One or more of these may be colloquially referred to as "reconvergent fan-out" as a shorthand for "optimization for circuits containing reconvergent fan-out," or "technique for more accurate results on circuits containing reconvergent fan-out," which appears to be where the current definition comes from.

I'm a first-time editor here, so I'm not ready to just dive in and fix this yet, but would appreciate other suggestions for how to improve that page. This mis-definition of an important term in my field was so flagrant that I couldn't just pass it by. I don't have an official reference at hand to cite for the correct definition, but it should be obvious from context in most of the other references that come up with this as a search term. Dewtellit (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dewtellit: There does not seem to be any shortage of book sources readable on Google books from which something can be written. I would not worry about being a first-time editor. That article is currently entirely unsourced, so anything you write from a source is bound to be an improvement. SpinningSpark 23:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nexus 7 (2012 version) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nexus 7 (2012 version) to be moved to Nexus 7 (2012). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ThinkPad 10 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ThinkPad 10 to be moved to ThinkPad 10 (first generation). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Are crystal oscillators fixed-frequency oscillators?

There is a dispute going on at Talk:Electronic oscillator over whether crystal oscillators are used as fixed-frequency oscillators. Outside opinions are needed. Please drop by and express your opinion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Request for Comment: Additional wording on crystal oscillators as fixed-frequency oscillators. Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of digital signal article

A small number of editors are planning to remove (technically "merge") the digital signal article and replace it with a disambiguation page. The discussion is at Talk:digital signal.GliderMaven (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is now a Digital signal (disambiguation). I don't think there was ever a proposal to remove Digital signal. There were edits, reverts and at one point I advocated moving it to Digital signal (electronics). We need help improving Digital signal (signal processing). ~Kvng (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Help with Talk:Roku#RfC: Should the Feature comparison table be restored?

I am looking for help or advice from an experienced "techie" editor. I (among others) have been dabbling with small maintenance updates to the Roku streaming video player article during the last 4 years, so i care - but I am also inexperienced with wiki jargon, things like "consensus" and the procedures of RfC... i am just a simple country Wiki-chicken.

In mid-August a drive-by editor with no domain knowledge boldly "massacred" 80% of the article and while multiple editors tried to revert the change, he perseveres re-reverting to his version (initially 4 times in a day, more later). Now there is an RfC to restore the useful model comparison table, akin to IPad#Model comparison, Comparison of Google Nexus smartphones and Apple TV#Technical specifications. Said table was the most popular feature of the Roku article (try google search for link:/wikipedia.org/wiki/Roku#Feature_comparison to see) and while its usefulness seems obvious to me, i have hard time convincing some of the editors, one of which insists only prose should be used on Wikipedia, not tables.

So can i interest somebody in dropping by on our mess, to explain the value of tech.spec tables - or how to proceed further? EnTerr (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That conversation didn't seem to be going anywhere. I have boldly created Comparison of Roku boxes. I think it works well as a stand-alone article. If someone takes offense and nominates it for deletion, perhaps we will have a more productive discussion at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for help at wikiprojects is certainly not canvassing. It is a recognised way of getting more editors involved in a specific page. It's only canvassing if individual editors invited to take part in a discussion are selected for their known views on the issue. SpinningSpark 22:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And on an interesting note I didn't imply that this was canvassing because he was asking for help at a wikiproject. Here's a convenient link to the canvassing policy WP:CANVASS. That whole part about the appropriate notification being neutral and all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a neutral notice by EnTerr but not unusual or unexpected given the circumstances. The post is a request to improve the quality of discussion by broadening participation. It is canvassing and this type of canvassing is encouraged. ~Kvng (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This type of canvassing is discouraged not encouraged. This is not a request to improve the discussion. This is a request for you to help them get something in the article because they really want it. This is an attempt to campaign other editors to their side.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying it was wrong for EnTerr to post here or are you just upset about how the post was worded and what was requested? ~Kvng (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well since I have made issue of the improper canvassing that has taken place, what do you think?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lightbulb socket

Lightbulb socket has been proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:Lightbulb socket. As lightbulbs have been used as a type of variable resistance in circuits, I thought you'd like to know. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightbulb socket listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lightbulb socket to be moved to Lamp base. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Radio (receiver) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Radio (receiver) to be moved to radio receiver. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Radio receiver listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Radio receiver to be moved to radio receiver. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject Optics

FYI, I have nominated WPOptics for merger as a taskforce of WP:Physics, for the proposal, see WT:WikiProject Optics; as electro-optics and opto-electronics are related to electronics, I though you'd like to know -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics to be moved to WP:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Optics. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Casio fx-991ES listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Casio fx-991ES to be moved to Casio Natural Textbook Display calculators. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Peer review for Light-emitting diode

I have requested a peer review for the Light-emitting diode article. Apparently, my issue is that the article makes little to no distinction on green vs. pure green LEDs, even though the former has existed since the 1970s while the latter wasn't introduced until the 1990s. The article seems to consider both to be one in the same, even though they are not. ANDROS1337TALK 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not really what peer review is for, I doubt that you'll get anywhere there. Why don't you just fix the article yourself - I see that you have already made some edits. SpinningSpark 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Andros 1337:. SpinningSpark 23:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is my first ever peer review, however, I would prefer that such sources with any statement that I add are verified to ensure reliability. ANDROS1337TALK 02:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it's difficult to verify the reliability of the sources you used since you did not cite any sources when you edited the article. SpinningSpark 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Thermal Management"

The usage and topic of Thermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thermal management of electronic devices and systems listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Thermal management of electronic devices and systems to be moved to Thermal Management. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Welcome new user

@GreenOctopus: is a new user on Wikipedia. This person just edited the British telephone sockets article and was asking if everything is in order. They originally wrote in by email to WP:OTRS, and I suggested that they edit Wikipedia instead of only asking for changes by email. They did a great job making the edits they wanted.

I am writing here to ask if anyone else would say hello to them. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

X (incubator) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for X (incubator) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Article alerts

@Kvng: Why have you created the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Alerts? There is nothing in it. If bots are being directed there, that is kind of pointing them to a black hole that will never get visisted. Better to direct them to the main talk page. SpinningSpark 07:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I set up Wikipedia:Article alerts for the project and it doesn't populate immediately. Check it again now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Most projects transclude the article alert to either the WikiProject page or the talk page of the Wikiproject. Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried to follow the different precedent already set on our project page. I'm not opposed to anyone changing this though. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Optical devices and Category:Optical instruments

Category:Optical devices has been proposed to be merged into Category:Optical instruments; for the discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_21#Category:Optical_devices -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignition systems

Hi. I'd like some eyes at the Ignition system article. See Talk:Ignition system#Poorly sourced recent changes. The basic issue is the function of the capacitor across the breaker points. Some sources explain it is to prevent a break arc, but other editors use sources that emphase resonance/damped sinewaves. There was also a similar issue at Induction coil / Talk:Induction coil#Dubious. Glrx (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Photodetector, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

S-Bus

Can someone review this article? Someone recently rewrote the article and deleted a bunch of things, but now the article no only conforms to what a Wikipedia article should look like, and the putative name of the subject does not match the pagename. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Until someone contributes some usable references, I guess anything goes here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. I'm not turning up anything much in the way of sources. It doesn't help that there are several things called S-Bus and BusPro. I suspect the name change is an attempt to promote a product, but in any case, we can't tolerate a page that has a subject different from its title. So even if kept, the recent changes need to be reverted, or else the page renamed. SpinningSpark 01:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Test engineer needs review and content editing

Please see Talk:Test engineer# Gibberish. Thnidu (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be the wrong title for such an article, since there are many types of test engineers, such as found in aeronautics, software, automotive industry, etc -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of CAD

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Möbius resistor

More eyes are needed on the recent major expansion of Möbius resistor. The article now claims that this component is, or has been, in use. See my comments at Talk:Möbius resistor#Factual accuracy. SpinningSpark 10:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources on Hakko

Hello fellow Wikipedians

I'm looking to write an article on Hakko, the Japanese company that makes the famous soldering equipment. I need independent sources to meet the criteria of notability, as I can't find anything reliable. And if anyone wants to collaborate on it, they're welcome. (I'm also posting to WP:WikiProject Japan to ask for sources in Japanese). —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 16:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics related to electicity is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ElCompLib - guide

Thre is a guide to ElCompLib that suggests using 1mm or 2mm grid and 1mm connections. However, the SVG uses pixels, not millimeters. To make it worse pins were no longer aligned to the grid for some time.

I’ve re-aligned everything to the closest available grid (7px, with 3.5px thickness for connections), but this invalidates the guide. What would be the best way to solve the situation? --Wikimpan (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics/Archive_6&oldid=1146513700"