Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Request to add total sales to Huawei Honor 8 article

Resolved

Hello, WikiProject Electronics. On behalf of Honor, I've submitted an edit request at Talk:Huawei Honor 8 to add the total sales volume to the article. I cannot edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but hope there is a project member here who may be willing to review and implement this simple request. I've suggested specific language, sourcing, and markup. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. I've posted two additional requests on the article's talk page, if anyone is willing to help. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Cannonlake#Requested move 10 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 04:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Multi-function display

FYI, the MFD article at Multi-function display is up for deletion -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete semiconductors/ICs

I thought it would be interesting to cover techniques for dealing with obsolete semiconductors/ICs, as this does not seem to be mentioned on any existing pages. I think it would merit its own article, as others tend to focus on technical information or history, rather than practical methodology/solutions to problems which are common in many industries today. I thought it would be best to structure the article around various techniques available. Any thoughts? Gmseow (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

An article about general techniques for working around device obsolescence would probably be considered a WP:HOWTO. However, it is permissible to discuss a devices's obsolescence (and workarounds) in its article -- if there is one. Lambtron (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that talking about general techniques runs afoul of WP:HOWTO. Giving advice on replacing obsolete transistor X with transistor Y would be HOWTO, but not a general article. Big electronics companies supplying fields that need to keep equipment in service for decades (military, aerospace) usually have a post-design support department. The lack of a post-design support page (redlink) leads me to conclude that user:Gmseow has found a gap in our coverage and an article would be welcome. SpinningSpark 20:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Spinningspark that such an article could be written in a descriptive summary style. We have Legacy system for computer systems and software, but no comparable article for electronics hardware. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's true that one of the many functions of a production support group (which BTW is not mentioned in that software-centric article) is to develop workarounds for obsolete components (not just semiconductors). It probably makes sense to at least mention this function there and, if there's enough sourced material to to support it, to create a section that expands on that mention. As for creating a full-blown article specifically about replacing obsolete semiconductor devices, I wonder what sort of RS-supported, general techniques would be discussed there? Lambtron (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback everyone. What I was thinking about falls in between the extremes of: very specific practical HOWTO solutions and the much more abstract management systems of the production support article. It would cover concepts such as:

• upscreening die to a higher specification
• extracting die for repackaging
• emulating functionality

I was also considering a short section on counterfeit ICs as this is closely related to obsolescence problems and considered important by the industry. In other words, similar to the Legacy system article, but with a bit more detail as the subject is more clearly defined. How would this affect your thoughts about where it would belong? Gmseow (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that WP:HOWTO is not necessarily an issue here. I don't think that Production support is a good place to try and add this material. There are better (but not great) options including Semiconductor device fabrication, Integrated circuit, Integrated circuit design, Integrated circuit packaging, Electronics manufacturing services. I would support a new article on the topic as a starting point. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to more concisely define the topic before choosing a title and creating an article. Of the three concepts proposed for discussion (upscreening/extracting die and emulating functionality), only the latter is relevant if an IC is truly obsolete (and it's not clear to me how emulating functionality could not be WP:HOWTO). Also, for obvious reasons, it's impossible to upscreen or extract die of obsolete devices. Discretes are another matter entirely (substitution is a viable technique), but this article is attempting to provide blanket coverage for all semiconductor devices. Conterfeit devices are an industry problem, not a technique for dealing with obsolete semiconductors/ICs -- which is what this article is about, right? Lambtron (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are being too narrow in your interpretation of HOWTO. For a start, the article could explain the techniques of upscreening and die extraction (both of which are currently redlinks), as well as other options such as using higher spec components. Even a few choice examples would not be against HOWTO as long as they aided understanding and it did not grow into an uncontrolled list. I think you are wrong that die extraction is impossible for an obsolete component. I recall one case of a ceramic packaged transistor used in military aircraft VHF oscillators going obsolete. The same die was still available in a tin-can style package so die extraction was very much an option. Grey market components are often an issue for PDS. These are not necessarily counterfeit, but may be rejects sold off cheap by a legitimate supplier to a third party distributor. I have experienced purchasing managers falling into this trap on more than one product line where they have tried to solve a supply problem themselves instead of passing it to PDS (or else they were just trying to save money). SpinningSpark 17:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I never said these subjects can't be discussed in a non-HOWTO way. However, I did say that IMO the main topic needs more rigorous definition. As things stand now, a suitable title would be List of techniques and issues related to replacement of obsolete semiconductor devices. Lambtron (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a more professional way forward is to incorporate those ideas in a PDS article. Of course, that would be a broader topic than mere device replacement, linking in to its relationship to project management and product life cycle. SpinningSpark 22:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll start work on something and post again when it's near completion.Gmseow (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Electronics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Electronics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Huawei Honor 8 Pro

Resolved

Over the past few weeks, I've been working with Honor to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article. I've submitted an edit request with a suggested infobox and "Specifications" section. I'm looking for a neutral editor to review this simple edit request, which can be found on the article's talk page (I won't edit the article directly because of my COI), and I'm hoping a WikiProject Electronics participant may be willing to help. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

3N170

3N170 has been nominated for deletion. SpinningSpark 08:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Audio converter RfC

Please consider weighing in on this RfC about Audio converter. ~Kvng (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability for electronic devices (including mobiles)

Hi
Since almost a month now, I have been having discussions about a notability guideline for electronic devices, which resulted in an essay.

Recently, the situation that I was describing came in effect, when an editor created 16 articles for cameras, all of which are being considered for deletion 3 PRoD, and 13 AfD.

The essay is almost finished, but I would like more opinions/suggestions on it. Maybe it will not become an official guideline/policy, but I think it should be treated at the least as an essay. The essay is currently in userspace, if consensus is achieved theb it can be moved in mainspace.

I have posted this same request to a few other talkpages of related WikiProjects, so I request all the editors to put their comments on the talkpage of the essay to keep everything in one place. Here is the essay: User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices).

Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed update for the Honor 8 Pro article

Resolved

As I mentioned above, I've been working with Honor to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article. My requests to add an infobox as well as "Specifications" and "Release" sections have been answered. However, the editor who helped with these requests is less comfortable handling the request to add a "Reception" section, which can be seen at the bottom of Talk:Huawei Honor 8 Pro. Is there a project member who is willing to review the proposed text and copy over appropriately? I've proposed two paragraphs of specific text and provided markup to make reviewing and updating the article as easy as possible. Thank you! (I've also posted an edit request for the Honor brand article here, if interested.) Inkian Jason (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2017

FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#World_Science_Photo_Competition_2017--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Linear circuits and linear integrated circuits?

Do we have appropriate and consistent definitions and category inclusion criteria for these?

What is a "linear circuit"? Our definition is based on the idea of a linear transfer function, which seems to be precise and accurate.

For "linear integrated circuits" though, and Category:Linear integrated circuits, there is a long history of using this as a synonym for "analogue integrated circuits".

Should WP continue this? Or should WP be more rigid in its definitions? Is the LM3914 "linear" or not? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that LM3914 is not a linear device. At most, it is a mixed signal device. There seems to be some basis in sources for treating linear integrated circuits and analogue integrated circuits as synonyms. Looking through the first few gbook results of books titled Linear integrated circuits they frequently include things like voltage regulators and waveform generators. Clearly, these are not linear in terms of their transfer functions. I could not find anybody giving a firm definition for the term, but everyone seems to agree that the basic building block of linear ICs is the differetial amplifier. SpinningSpark 02:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We might consider renaming:

1. Linear integrated circuit to Analog integrated circuit and
2. Category:Linear integrated circuits to Category:Analog integrated circuits

It is going to be a but fuzzy as to what qualifies as an analog integrated circuit as all digital circuits eventually have an analog interface and many larger ICs now have analog sections (e.g. DACs, ADCs and PLLs). I'm OK with fuzzy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I have trouble characterizing a comparator as a "linear circuit" or an "analog integrated circuit"; I also don't want to think of it as a one-bit ADC. The rename to "analog integrated circuit" doesn't quite do it. I agree also with Spinningspark about synonyms. IIRC, one found op amps and comparators in the "Linear" databooks, but I think one manufacturer called its databook "Linear and Interface". Even the linear world is more complicated. A phase-locked loop often has a (nonlinear) multiplier as a phase detector, but it is a quasi-linear circuit in the phase domain. Glrx (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Project Tinkertoy

This system, a manufacturing method doomed by disruptive technology, looks like a nice topic for an article. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed draft for Huawei Honor 9 article

Resolved

On behalf of Honor, I'd like to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 9 article, which is currently underdeveloped and inappropriately sourced. The draft I've proposed here very closely resembles the Huawei Honor 8 and Huawei Honor 8 Pro articles, and offers an overview of the model's specifications, release, and reception.

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review the draft for accuracy and neutrality, and copy over content appropriately. The draft is not very long and should not take much time to review. You can read more about the proposed updates within the edit request on the article's talk page. Thanks again for your consideration and help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Lattice and bridged-T equalizers

Please assist AFC with reviewing this draft. Please also see Talk:Zobel network#Draft:Lattice and bridged-T equalizers where a possible merge of the draft is also being discussed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it should be in mainspace to me. It has some problems, but nothing that should keep it in draft. SpinningSpark 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) I intend to push it into mainspace tonight, if nobody has any objections. Thats is 3 days I have been looking at it, and seems be ok. scope_creep (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Accepted to mainspace at Lattice and bridged-T equalizers, so it's now up to topic specialist to improve it. It reads a bit like a college textbook chapter so probably needs some style improvement, and it's an orphan too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Electronics

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Power, field, root

There is a kerfuffle going on over field, power, and root-power quantities. There's a lenghty and apparently unproductive conversation between Quondum, Dondervogel 2 and Dicklyon here. Rp2006 has nominated the Field, power, and root-power quantities article for deletion and has made some related changes to Decibel.

Can someone summarize what's going on here? ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not much going on at the discussion you linked here, as it stopped over 3 months ago. Basically, sources are not very clear about whether or when a "field quantity" can be complex, and whether a "level" can be complex. Dondervogel applies logic to definitions to conclude that a level can be complex. The logic may be OK, but it's equally clear that nobody has ever interpreted level that way, and neither should we. Some sources explicitly discuss the complex log of a complex field quantity ratio, but then separate that log into a real part, a level in nepers, and an imaginary part, a phase in radians. In Dondervogel's approach, the imaginary part, the phase, would just be kept as the imaginary part of the level; units of the imaginary part being nepers, presumably, or decibels if you wanted to go that way. To me, a phase in decibels or nepers is nonsense, not something suggested by any source, except via Dondervogel's logical synthesis. I had not seen the deletion proposal on the other article; will look. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the phase comes out not nepers (and certainly not decibels), but in radians, and that is not just my interpretation but pretty much a universal one. The issue is not the unit of phase, but of whether the phase can be considered the imaginary part of a complex level. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I sort of agree; certainly the phase is the imaginary part of the complex logarithm; but the level is the real part, not the complex thing itself. If nepers measure level, then what sense does it make to have the imaginary part use a different unit? I just added another comment to your summary of what the standards say, and I think the key point there is that if you allow root-power quantities to be complex you get into more contradictions in the definitions than if you don't, because then you end up with complex power quantities, and their square roots are ambiguous by pi in phase, so the power and root-power "levels" you'd get that way are no longer equivalent. Anyway, no source has ever mentioned a complex level, even though they routinely use complex logs of complex field quantities in sinusoidal analysis. I resonate more with your previous position that root-power is real and field can be complex, even though the standards don't admit such a distinction. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The real problem is that the standards open the door to complex quantities without explaining how they should be interpreted in that case. Just applying their formulae leads to contradictions: things they say are equal being no longer necessarily equal. What does "proportional" even mean for complex values and their squares? Is this well defined? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is also the risk to the logic associated with conflating related concepts, specifically the complex vector that defines a single attenuated sinusoidal wave and a level, which may be derived from any waveform in a (linear) medium, given a suitable averaging window. —Quondum 00:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep the discussion centralized where it first started? I mean Talk:Level_(logarithmic_quantity)#Discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode

See Talk:7400 series#Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode Especially helpfull would be someone who speaks German. --Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Blu-ray

Portal:Blu-ray is tagged as being relevant to this WikiProject. That portal has been (individually) nominated for deletion. I'm wondering whether anyone here wants to try to improve that portal, as the main justification for the deletion nomination is that it's out of date (along with the Blu-ray article). - dcljr (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

XNOR ?

It puzzles me why XNOR gate isn't called NXOR gate, which is also the line that is used in the explanation in the first sentence of that article! For 'NXOR' there is a clear explanation available. But what would be an 'eXclusive NOT OR'?? Also see Talk:XNOR gate. - Bob.v.R (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I commented at the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units

Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units has been put up for deletion. SpinningSpark 16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review of Planar transmission line

I've put this article up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Planar transmission line/archive1 with a view to taking it on to Featured Article status. All comments from project members would be very welcome. SpinningSpark 10:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone heard of an Overbeck counter?

See Talk:Ring counter#Overbeck?. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have got split over two pages, so I've moved the comments from here to the article talk page. Hope nobody minds, just trying to make it easier to follow. SpinningSpark 08:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, nobody has ever heard of an Overbeck counter. I reworked Ring counter and stubbed in Wilcox P. Overbeck and Robert Royce Johnson, and could use more eyes and help on any or all of those. Join the linked discussion or otherwise help if you care. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio in Texas Instruments

Thought I'd bring this up as large sections of the page are lifted off TI's product or about pages when I ran it through Earwig's tool. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Google Pixel Merger Discussion

The articles Pixel (smartphone) and Pixel 2 could potentially be merged onto the Google Pixel article. Any feedback is welcome and encouraged. The area for discussion can be found here. Plantduets (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stubbed in 2N696

I had not heard of this device that is memorialized in the sidewalk sculpture at the site of the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, so I started to look into it, and it seems notable as the first silicon transistor made in Silicon Valley, and the first product of Fairchild Semiconductor. I've got a good copy of their original August 1958 ad (60 years ago!) from a magazine scan at americanradiohistory.com. If I made a lower-res crop of a portion of that ad to show the device specs, would that be fair use? Or is it possibly that case that we can show the copyright, if any, was not renewed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded a copy of the ad; it appears to be public domain since it was before 1977 and without a copyright notice. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

KosherSwitch

As I discussed at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent, I am having a bit of trouble figuring out [ https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/4f/8c/b1df4e115e8359/US7872576.pdf ]. In particular, I am having trouble with

"FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having one pair consisting of one transmitter positioned opposite one receiver. FIG. 5 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having two pairs, each pair consisting of a transmitter positioned opposite a receiver."

What is the point of the two transmitters and receivers (which anyone else would call light sources and light detectors)? Figure 7 shows one or the other being blocked. Why?

Because I can't conceive of an engineer who isn't also interested in the religious aspects (and because the religious aspects may be the reason for the two sets of light sources and light detectors), I discuss them at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent. I would like to keep all discussion on this centralized there. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

acwwqq and my page Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini Prime

Hi. I'd love for my page Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini Prime to be included in this Wikiproject. Do you think that it meets the guidelines? I'd really appreciate being included, and having peer review from this project base. Thanks! --Acwwqq (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Acwwqq: You can add the project template to the article talk page yourself (but don't fill in the rating or importance parameters yourself). To get an assessment, add a request to this list. It may be some time before anyone responds. SpinningSpark 08:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

FiiO Electronics Technology

Could someone from this WikiProject assess this for notability per WP:NCORP? The only citation provided is to the company's own website, but that does nothing per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article's been around for a bit, but never seems to have gotten properly assessed because (1) it wasn't submitted to AfC and (2) nobody bothered to create a talk page for it and add WikiProject banners for it until I just did. There are a few stand-alone articles about some of the companies products; so, maybe the sources used in them can also be added to the main company article. I was considering WP:PROD, but figured I'd ask here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles in this state. This one at least is associated with some presumably notable products so is in a better state that many of the others. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Planar transmission line FA nomination

Planar transmission line has been nominated as a Featured Article. Comments can be left on the nomination page. SpinningSpark 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This still needs more support from editors to get it through to FA. I would be grateful to any project members who can take the time to have a look. SpinningSpark 23:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Optical interconnect

There's a discussion relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Optical interconnect#This article's topic and mergers. 99Electrons (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A bridge too far

This millstone was in the foundations of a bridge. Is that the famous wheatstone bridge? SpinningSpark 05:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Or just a run-of-the-mill whetstone bridge? Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer review of Distributed element circuit

I've put this article up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Distributed element circuit/archive1 with a view to taking it on to Featured Article. Comments would be very welcome, and many thanks to all those who reviewed my last submission, Planar transmission line, which was successful and will appear on the main page on 15 March. SpinningSpark 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Digital systems

There's a Category:Digital systems that says its main article is Digital systems, a redirect to Digital electronics. I'm not sure why there's a category for "digital systems" when it looks like that Wikipedia's coverage of digital electronics isn't structured along the logic of this category. From the category's contents, my feeling is that it's a superfluous level in the category tree and that everything in it could belong (if it doesn't already) in Category:Digital electronics or one of its subcategories. Is there a reason for this category that I'm not seeing? 99Electrons (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think all that needs doing is removing the main article hatnote. It appears to have always been a redirect. Not all categories have, or need, a main article. Category:Digital electronics is already a subcategory. Another subcategory is Category:Digital signal processing. DSP is, in principle, independent of the electronic hardware on which it runs. It's a computing subject – or at least firmware programming. There is no requirement that the category system mirrors article organisation. Very often, categories can cut across article groupings. This flexibility is one of the reasons we have them. If article structure was entirely tree-like there would not be much need for them. SpinningSpark 14:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Delta-sigma modulation

It would be useful to have more knowledgeable eyes on Talk:Delta-sigma modulation#Re Analysis. Anybody know enough to help, or willing to read and learn? Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puffingbilly and Dicklyon: I've been working on Delta-sigma modulation. That discussion hard to work through. Does anyone want to hazard a WP:RFC-style summary? ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puffingbilly and Dicklyon: Kvng, pings don't work if you edit an old post. You have to create an entirely new one (and sign it). SpinningSpark 16:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Most recently the specific question is over whether a clockless design can be called delta-sigma modulation. Puffingbilly says yes, I say no, not without any source that does so; though I have found it can be called (by a few sources) "asynchronous delta-sigma modulation". Without a clock, it's not an A-to-D converter, but rather an analog modulation, as one of the sources I added explains. Puffingbilly has many years of contributions to this one article, but no other Wikipedia experience, so his approach and methods may seem a little strange, and has left the article somewhat odd seeming (like with the figures with figure numbers in them). Kvng did a few things on it, but I feel like it needs more attention than he and I can give it. It's an important topics, with whole books written on it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Clockless delta-sigma modulation! You guys are going a bit deep for an encyclopedia article, don't you think? I don't have the patience or expertise to help at that level but I will continue to work to move some of the more esoteric material out of the article or at least into footnotes. ~Kvng (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I went to the article in question and found that it had a more basic problem. Much of the material isn't based upon any source at all but instead on the original research of electronics engineers. I get the frustration some have with Wikipedia. You see something in a technical article that isn't quite right, is poorly explained, etc. You write up something that you believe to be correct (and it often is) and add it to the article. Then some party pooper comes along and says that all claims in the article need to be directly supported by reliable sources and that your original research isn't welcome here.

I have tagged every section that is totally unsourced and have encouraged Puffingbilly to get with the program[1] and follow rules such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will, so I will most likely end up doing a complete rewrite starting with good sources and reporting what is in those sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem. I was working to make his tutorial prose more correct, to at least not be contrary to sources, but making it sourced would be even better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a complete rewrite will be necessary here. With research, my guess is that half of the existing material can be supported by sources. The other half is not necessary to include in an encyclopedia article. In any case, I don't think we need to apply urgency to this situation. The material does not comply with all WP policies but it is not incompetent. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The main contentious issue has been whether an asynchronous circuit may be regarded as truly delta sigma modulation. To that effect I have today added the following comment to the dlelta sigma modulation talk page.

"The difficulty, as I see it, is that various digital signal processing methods have been lumped with delta sigma modulation as if it were the same topic. Then clocking becomes important for the purposes of digital signal processing but is irrelevant to the topic of sigma delta modulation. If you can explain why clocking is important to delta sigma modulation, as narrowly defined independent of digital signal processing, and provide suitable references, I will be greatly appreciative and I am certain you will be doing the average reader a great service."Puffingbilly (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Passive sign convention

Can someone with a good background in electric networks please check the voltage arrows? See the talk page. -- Anastasius zwerg (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidate Distributed element circuit

This article is up for FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element circuit/archive1. For this to become a featured article and appear on the main page, it is vital that several editors review it and leave comments. SpinningSpark 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Technical standards

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinions needed on Lobe switching radar article

At Talk:Lobe switching#Lobe On Receive Only we have a simple capitalization question up for discussion. Opinions welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

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 cartel

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 transistor

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)

Category:Binary logic

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

Project scope

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)

Opinions needed at Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits

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 discussion

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 Articles

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 Console

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. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cambridge_Companion_to_Electronic_Mu/MRs3DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22atari+punk+console%22+mims&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover

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! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 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 perspective

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 filter

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 Elgato

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 TRIAC

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 condition

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 Cards

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

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

Hello, Please note that Desktop computer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Scope, organization, and naming of pages related to Wide dynamic range

This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Standardization for A/AA/AAA battery lead section.

There has been a lot of edits and changes on the A/AA/AAA (+ a few other battery types) battery introduction phrasing. For example: in AA battery, the following openings have all been used and altered in the past 7 days:

• The AA battery is a
• The AA battery or double-A battery is a
• The AA battery, double-A battery, or AA cell is a

Which one of these would be preferable to use as a standard for the other battery articles, or are there any better alternative methods of presenting this information? WikiRavaen (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no need to include all aliases. Readers just need confidence that the article covers the topic they're looking for. So the question is, would a reader recognize AA and double-A as being the same? Arguable actually. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi! I am here to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many countries and territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goals are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for the USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photos, infographics or videos to Wikimedia Commons, please consider submitting them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Voltage rail and friends

Voltage rail, Power rail, Power supply rails and Voltage rails redirect to Power supply unit (computer)#Power supply rail. Rails aren't just a computer concept; Audio power amplifiers have them too. I would thing redirecting to Power supply would be better but there is no mention of rail in that article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps convert one of those redirects to a stub that wikilinks to Power supply and then redirect the others to the new stub? Constant314 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Simpler to write something directly in power supply and retarget there. Not likely to ever be a substantial article by itself. Also, power rail needs disambiguating from the railway meaning. SpinningSpark 22:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I agree and will add this to my todo list. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that the subject qualifies for its own entry - these are just conductors. The power busbar stands alone as a very bulky, costly and hazardous thing - but not a power rail carrying one mA of current. Retired electrician (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is definitely more to say than a simple dicdef and it's not entirely out of the question that this could grow to a standalone article. In some applications the width of the trace (or more to the point, its csa) needs attention paying to it because of the current carried. Rail voltage may be high enough to require a minimum separation distance from other traces. Plus, there is the graphic symbols used for +ve, -ve and 0V rails. Taken together, that makes for a substantial article section at least. SpinningSpark 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Dicdef is the starting problem - is there a reliable written definition? seems like the term is self-explanatory and no one cared to elaborate. There's plenty on power rail routing, rail-induced interference, rail-induced distortion etc. - but what is the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retired electrician (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have taken a look at incoming links to these redirects. All links into Power rail had to do with trains and rollercoasters so I retargeted that to Third rail. The others don't have any incoming links so can stay as they are for now. I still think it would be good to add a mention of supply rail in Power supply and will try to get to that someday. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:High-dynamic-range video#Requested move 18 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:High-dynamic-range video#Requested move 18 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Panasonic COI edit requests

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Panasonic, regarding adding coverage of Panasonic's solar energy business to the article. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RF

I've just noticed that RF, which used to be a redirect to Radio frequency has now become a disambiguation page as a result of a discussion at Talk:RF#Requested move 21 July 2022. Does anyone feel it is worth challenging this? SpinningSpark 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The closer has now undone the move and reopened the discussion if anyone here is interested in contributing. SpinningSpark 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits for Devialet article

I proposed edits to fix numerous problems on the Devialet article on the Talk page: Talk:Devialet#Devialet Request Edits for July 2022. I’m an employee of the company and can’t edit the page due to WP:COI - anyone from this project able to review the requests? Thank you. Beautreillis6698 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Making a Samsung Galaxy Task Force

Since this wikiproject is active, i think its a good time to make a Samsung Galaxy task force. There is a TON of articles for improvement, like the Samsung Galaxy Tab series. i also think a task force will help organize articles related to Samsung Galaxy. SMBMovieFan (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for Synaptics requests

Hi editors! I am looking for help with a requested edit for software and hardware developer Synaptics. The company was one of the early pioneers in touchpad technology. I've shared a new draft for the page's Products information to replace material that is largely sourced just to Synaptics and provide what is (hopefully) a more encyclopedic overview of the company's products. As well, I've asked about removal of an "Industry alliances" section that is not well sourced and very confusing. I'm an employee of the company and have a conflict of interest so I shouldn't make the edits myself and have posted a request instead. Can anyone here give feedback on my draft or point me to any other helpful venues? Thanks, Sheryl at Synaptics (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Still hoping for help updating this information. Looking through the members list for this project, a lot seem to not be active, but I see User:Omegatron and User:Jw21 have edited fairly recently. Do either of you have some time available to review my request? Thanks. Sheryl at Synaptics (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)