Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics

Active discussions
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Project-class)
This page is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Electrical telegraphy in the United KingdomEdit

I have started a Peer Review of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom with a view to getting this to Featured Article status. The review page is here. I would be very grateful if editors would leave comments there. I would be even more grateful if you come along and support the article when it gets put up for FA. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Phoebus cartelEdit

The article isn't very well written and it's commonly cited as definitive proof that the cartel engaged in planned obsoletence to limit lightbulb lifespans from 2,500 hours to just 1,000 hours. There are sources that affirm this, including NPR. However my feeling is that this is a total myth. A UK report from 1953 (page 98 section 283) addresses this claim and says it's baseless and that 1,000 hours is a reasonable lifespan goal set before and after the cartel based on the technology of the day. There's been discussion of this since 2013 on the talk page. I would like to see the opinions of others who are more versed in technological history. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Harizotoh9: More common, toned-down version of the same bloodycapitalistconspiracy states that "Phoebus and in the United States GE systematically changed bulbs to allow them to produce more light per unit of electricity. This also cut average life span of bulbs by 20 percent, forcing consumers to purchase more. The cartel did not advertize the change..." page 21. Not 2.5 times, nothing close to the recent FL and LED scam, but still a respectable cut. Methinks that in the end it's simply a matter of accents and emphasis. We won't know exactly what they said to each other in Switzerland, but the end result speaks against Phoebus. Retired electrician (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Paper electronics and the paper transistorEdit

The article on Elvira Fortunato states that she invented the paper transistor. We should have either an article on it, or at least a redirect from that title to an article that mentions paper electronics. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Project scopeEdit

Ever since the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering it has been unclear in a lot of cases which project a page belongs to. Ohm's law, for instance, is in both. Arguably, it doesn't belong here at all because it is not about any kind of electronic device or component, but it would be quite confusing to remove it. On top of that, the original conception of the electronics project was for articles about circuits and components. That can be seen from the earliest version of the project page which was heavily biased to information about drawing circuit diagrams. It came as a great surprise to me that people were adding pages on electronic consumer products to the project scope.

I've thought for some time that it might be better to move the electronic engineering, electrical science, and basic component articles to the electrical engineering wikiproject, perhaps creating an electronics task force for explicitly electronic articles, and repurposing this project for electronic products only. The increasing use of solid-state electronics in power engineering makes the two fields more and more indistinguishable as the power handling capabilities of devices creep upwards year after year. What do other participants think? SpinningSpark 09:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • May a non-participant humbly dare to speak? Both projects are almost dormant, so... no big deal. That said, exclusion of "electronic engineering ... and basic components" leaves a miserable and poorly defined rump, so an upmerge will make more sense. Retired electrician (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Posting here makes you a member. Sorry, once in, you cannot leave :-) SpinningSpark 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • While we could discuss semantic distinctions, I think your point is compelling--both projects could benefit from a merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering to create a less dormant union. Molecular biology and genetics projects have merged recently and most participants have seen it as a positive move, even if they are nominally different topics. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the merge. Projects need a minimum critical mass of participants to be viable. Constant314 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A combined project would work. This has been the trend for WP:COMPUTING and it appears to have made the project stronger (or at least slowed its decline). Task forces can be established if participants want to segregate subtopics for some reason.
I also don't see a downside to leaving things as they are. There's not a serious practical problem with articles belonging to multiple projects or with project scopes changing over time. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved editor. Most WikiProjects now have little activity. Many are effectively inactive. As @Constant314 notes, there is a minimum critical mass below which projects are unviable.
So I have long thought that Wikipedia needs far fewer projects. The current sprawl is a legacy of the rapid growth phase of Wikipedia in ~2005–08, when new editors turned to topical projects for help and to establish guidelines. Now that most broad principles have been agreed, and a high proportion of editors have a lot of experience, there simply isn't so much need for project collaboration ... so narrow projects wither.
Editors would be much better served by broader scope projects where a post attracted the attention of other editors, than by a choice of empty halls where nobody is listening, so I would love to see lots of project merges. It's absurd to have so many talk pages cluttered with the banners of WikiProjects which are no longer active; much better to have one broader project.
I don't know about these topics to opine on whether this particular merger is a good fit. But if the fit is good, please do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Binary logicEdit

Expert eyes needed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_25#Category:Binary_logic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinions needed at Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuitsEdit

Fresh opinions are needed and welcome at Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits. Thanks, Lambtron talk 18:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ping) Please help! Expert input is needed at Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits.
In a nutshell, there is disagreement about the template caption. Originally "Part of a series on the ALU", I renamed it "Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits" per the proposal and reasons given at the top of the talk page. The proposal seemed uncontroversial at the time and objections were not raised for more than a year. This seems like it should be a straightforward matter, but the conversation has moved sideways and evolved into a giant wall of text. The discussion is in desperate need of input from independent experts to get things back on track and reach a satisfactory resolution. Lambtron talk 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Elecom discussionEdit

Please come participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elecom (2nd nomination). Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Featured ArticlesEdit

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom has been nominated for Featured Article. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1. Support is needed from more editors before it can be promoted. SpinningSpark 17:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger target discussion for Atari Punk ConsoleEdit

I AfD'd [Atari Punk Console] after I found it lacked adequate notability to merit its own article. The AfD concluded with consensus to merge, but consensus hasn't been established where it should be merged and redirected to.

Three options are Forrest Mims, tone generator, and 555 timer IC. The AfD closer selected Mims. Several reliable sources connects this design by the name and connect it to Mims, including Mims himself.

MIMS himself refers to it by the name Atari Punk Console

In contract, it's just an example of many uses of 555 timer IC, so I don't feel that would be quite an appropriate target. Please provide input on merger target selection. Graywalls (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you complained about what I did in the 555 timer IC article, then to be FAIR you need to remove the new subsection from Forrest Mims and restore Atari Punk Console, until a final location is determined, otherwise you are now trying to game the system towards your advantage by putting the content in the Forrest Mims article, then asking this question! • SbmeirowTalk • 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
You merged the contents while the AfD was still ongoing. That shouldn't influence where the contents are to go. There was a clear consensus Atari Punk Console did not merit its own article, but lack of definitive merger target isn't a reason to favor keep & restore. The decision to redirect to Forrest Mims was read by the AfD closer. @Mark viking:, as a participant in that AfD. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My opinion was that the content of the article, or a subset, was verifiable and worth preserving. I think the Mims article is a slightly better fit from an WP:UNDUE point of view, but both the Mims and 555 articles seem reasonable targets. Tone generator is an interesting suggestion. But looking at the article, it is almost entirely about tone generators as scientific and engineering instruments and synthesizers in general only merit a sentence. I think the tone generator article as it stands would not be the best target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Mims? Probably, but merely mentioning. Strong oppose merging to either tone generator or 555 timer IC. There were many thousands of various 555 apps published; a detailed chapter on one of them (not a "standard issue" textbook solution but a DIY contraption) will be a prime example of undue weight. Even more so in a broader-scope article like tone generator. Sorry, it's either a standalone article (sources, notability addressed) or nothing at all. Retired electrician (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Good analysis. I support that. SpinningSpark 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark and Retired electrician:, I support trimming it down even further, especially the images. Please see how it is now Forrest_Mims#Stepped-tone_generator_(Atari_Punk_Console) Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspectiveEdit

  FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering#Missing section or article: (extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective.

Mentioning it here since it involves things like VDV (voice, data, and video) cabling, home theater cabling, and internal electronics wiring (and where to put information about these subjects).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

forgotten article of Analog sampled filterEdit

The article Analog sampled filter hasnt been edited since over 8 years, and doesnt have any sources. From one talkpage comment, I think the article may have a technical inaccuracy as well. Would somebody please look at it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the technical issue was resolved at some point. We could consider a merge to Switched capacitor if we don't think Analog sampled filter merits an article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment of ElgatoEdit

Elgato, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requested at TRIACEdit

Can someone from this project please have a look at this edit of 02:53, January 4, 2019 at TRIAC by S wilkosz (talk · contribs)? I believe it should be reverted. Please ping me if you do so. Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it was better the old way. I'll revert it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: undone. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Heaviside conditionEdit

I would greatly appreciate anyone who can add to the discussion on the new talk section on Talk:Heaviside condition. Basically, I am looking for examples of transmission lines that actually meet the Heaviside condition. Constant314 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Smart card vs. Draft:Complex CardsEdit

Need your thoughts on whether a separate article should be created for Complex smart cards. Please discuss at Talk:Smart card AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 14:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Electronics".