![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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 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. Spinning Spark 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
See Electronics industry and Category:Electronics industry. Could do with some work. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
We ought to have a comparison of electronic memory types article. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Chetvorno TALK 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Electronics terminology has been nominated for deletion by merger into Category:Electronics -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Is being discussed at Talk:Amplifier#Amplifier_topic_organization. -— Kvng 14:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
file:Official ASTEP logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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
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)
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
![]() Hello, |
image:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Pentagrid converter has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Pentagrid converter -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
image:IXI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:IXI sketch 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
File:Motorola-A1600.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 10:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Eletricity and Electronics - Skysmith ( talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 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)
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, Mat ty. 007 19:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veroboard. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
See talk:Electromagnetic coil about a proposed rewrite -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:AC/DC (electricity) -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Jayron 32 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Draft:Electrostatic-Pneumatic. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SilhouetteFX -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)( Support) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() Hello, |
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)
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)
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 -- Chetvorno TALK 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
template:Electronics industry in the United States has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 11:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Draft:Pulsed field magnet -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Chetvorno TALK 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is canvassing. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 21:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.
My best regards, Geraldshields11 ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ANDROS1337 TALK 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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. Spinning Spark 07:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() Hello, |
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)
Please see Talk:Test engineer# Gibberish. Thnidu ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 10:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
My list of missing topics related to electicity is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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 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. Spinning Spark 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
See Electronics industry and Category:Electronics industry. Could do with some work. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
We ought to have a comparison of electronic memory types article. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Chetvorno TALK 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Electronics terminology has been nominated for deletion by merger into Category:Electronics -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Is being discussed at Talk:Amplifier#Amplifier_topic_organization. -— Kvng 14:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
file:Official ASTEP logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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
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)
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
![]() Hello, |
image:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Pentagrid converter has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Pentagrid converter -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
image:IXI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:IXI sketch 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
File:Motorola-A1600.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 10:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Eletricity and Electronics - Skysmith ( talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 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)
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, Mat ty. 007 19:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veroboard. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
See talk:Electromagnetic coil about a proposed rewrite -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:AC/DC (electricity) -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Jayron 32 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Draft:Electrostatic-Pneumatic. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SilhouetteFX -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)( Support) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() Hello, |
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)
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)
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 -- Chetvorno TALK 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
template:Electronics industry in the United States has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 11:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Draft:Pulsed field magnet -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Chetvorno TALK 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is canvassing. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 21:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.
My best regards, Geraldshields11 ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ANDROS1337 TALK 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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. Spinning Spark 07:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() Hello, |
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)
Please see Talk:Test engineer# Gibberish. Thnidu ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 10:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
My list of missing topics related to electicity is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
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)