Analogue filter has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 11, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in designing a new
analogue filter,
Sidney Darlington found tables of the exact
elliptic functions required in an 1829 Latin paper by
Carl Jacobi in the
New York City Library? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved from Analog to Analogue (as in analogous filter) - Rehnn83 19th June 06
An analog filter need not be described by a differential equation. In fact, an analog signal need not be a continuous-time signal. All that is required is that the values ("range") of the signal come from a continuum, just like quantities in the physical world. Discrete-time signals are still analog signals. They only become "digital" signals after they are quantized (i.e., "coded"). This page content (or its name) should be updated as to not mislead people to think "analog" has anything to do with continuous time. In fact, perhaps it should be removed entirely. — TedPavlic ( talk/ contrib/ @) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone besides User:Spinningspark who condemns the use of citation templates in this article? -- bender235 ( talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to support User:Spinningspark in this specific case (see GA review): usage of templates is not obligatory up to GA level, it indeed scares novice WP editors, but the major argument is historical - old sources of this article can't be checked by bots, thus no need for templates. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This page was recently renamed to make it four words long. It went from "analogue filter" to "passive analogue filter development." Going back to my old comment and its responses:
— TedPavlic ( talk/ contrib/ @) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the article's subject should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface.
The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity.
The article's subject is usually the same as the page title, but not always. In lists (including outlines, indexes, and glossaries), the subject is generally preceded by the article type (such as "List of"). The article type should not be presented as the subject of the article, only the part after it should. For example, in Outline of Africa, the first sentence of the lead should describe Africa, and present it in bold – not Outline of Africa (the article is not about outlines of Africa, it is presenting an article on Africa in outline form).
If the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.
If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does.
i think when people say 'analog filter' now they very likely mean an active one with lots of op-amps and thrifty on the 'passive' parts (capacitors and inductors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.24.148 ( talk) 00:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is a cut above the usual Wikipedia article. It concentrates on historical development, which distinguishes it from most of the electrical engineering articles. The writing is well-paced, erudite. 84.227.254.143 ( talk) 12:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This article and Analogue electronics is pretty much the only place it's spelled this way. Even within the article, the infobox, the books/articles in the references and bibliography and the category box spells it "analog". Are there actually electronics books/publications which spell it this way or is this a case of pushing a british variant in a context where it doesn't belong (ie, "computer programme")? 30103db ( talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Analogue filter has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 11, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in designing a new
analogue filter,
Sidney Darlington found tables of the exact
elliptic functions required in an 1829 Latin paper by
Carl Jacobi in the
New York City Library? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved from Analog to Analogue (as in analogous filter) - Rehnn83 19th June 06
An analog filter need not be described by a differential equation. In fact, an analog signal need not be a continuous-time signal. All that is required is that the values ("range") of the signal come from a continuum, just like quantities in the physical world. Discrete-time signals are still analog signals. They only become "digital" signals after they are quantized (i.e., "coded"). This page content (or its name) should be updated as to not mislead people to think "analog" has anything to do with continuous time. In fact, perhaps it should be removed entirely. — TedPavlic ( talk/ contrib/ @) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone besides User:Spinningspark who condemns the use of citation templates in this article? -- bender235 ( talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to support User:Spinningspark in this specific case (see GA review): usage of templates is not obligatory up to GA level, it indeed scares novice WP editors, but the major argument is historical - old sources of this article can't be checked by bots, thus no need for templates. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This page was recently renamed to make it four words long. It went from "analogue filter" to "passive analogue filter development." Going back to my old comment and its responses:
— TedPavlic ( talk/ contrib/ @) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the article's subject should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface.
The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity.
The article's subject is usually the same as the page title, but not always. In lists (including outlines, indexes, and glossaries), the subject is generally preceded by the article type (such as "List of"). The article type should not be presented as the subject of the article, only the part after it should. For example, in Outline of Africa, the first sentence of the lead should describe Africa, and present it in bold – not Outline of Africa (the article is not about outlines of Africa, it is presenting an article on Africa in outline form).
If the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.
If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does.
i think when people say 'analog filter' now they very likely mean an active one with lots of op-amps and thrifty on the 'passive' parts (capacitors and inductors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.24.148 ( talk) 00:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is a cut above the usual Wikipedia article. It concentrates on historical development, which distinguishes it from most of the electrical engineering articles. The writing is well-paced, erudite. 84.227.254.143 ( talk) 12:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This article and Analogue electronics is pretty much the only place it's spelled this way. Even within the article, the infobox, the books/articles in the references and bibliography and the category box spells it "analog". Are there actually electronics books/publications which spell it this way or is this a case of pushing a british variant in a context where it doesn't belong (ie, "computer programme")? 30103db ( talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)