Talk:NOT gate

Merge with logic gate

This shouldn't be a separate article. Fresheneesz 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? I disagree. p agree that in its present state it probably should not be (there currently isn't much information that the logic gate article doesn't give), but it definitely has the potential to be a valid article. There is definite confusion about what a not gate is (see the talk page on logic gate) and with its own page, a section on different implementations could take place, something that couldn't happen in the logic gate article. Epachamo 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good argument, my main reason for posting that ^, is that AND gate and NOR gate and NAND gate don't have their own pages. They probably should, especially nor and nand. I agree with you, but the others deserve their place more than NOT does. Fresheneesz 07:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. I don't have time right now to make the other gates(Its finals week), but if you give me a week, I can make them. If you want to before that would be great Epachamo 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, I probably won't have time to get to that. I'll definately edit and add to your work if I can. Fresheneesz 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Inverter (logic gate)

These articles have the same goal and cover the same device they should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.85.194 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I had placed a tag. Logically they are the same. In terms of transistor, however, they are different – and circuit builds like me had been usign NOT gates as amplifiers in distortion box. Thus, merge instead of mere redirect. George Leung (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Dspark76 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.68.63 (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)