Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon 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.

Huawei Honor 8 Pro[edit]


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

Audio converter RfC[edit]

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

Notability for electronic devices (including mobiles)[edit]

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[edit]


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[edit]

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

Linear circuits and linear integrated circuits?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]


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)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

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

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)

Draft:Lattice and bridged-T equalizers[edit]

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)

Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode[edit]

See Talk:7400 series#Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode Especially helpfull would be someone who speaks German. --~~

Power, field, root[edit]

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)


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 ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

CFD Notice: Electronics terminology[edit]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

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.


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?[edit]

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)