Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several old discussions that are not active at present have been moved to

Contents

[edit] We are definitely ready

There were no major changes on the main page for quite a long time: so I think we are ready for the "official" version of the project. We might move the tables of standard symbols on their own page and remove the "draft" comment at the beginning. Anything to say about it?? Alessio Damato 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are we going to have on the main page?--Light current 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
whatever you think that could be useful. We'll keep all the other parts plus, just like we did for the part about circuits, we'll move the tables of standard symbols on another page, keeping a clear link on the main one. Whatever you want to change or improve, just do it! Alessio Damato 10:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If we move the tables of symbols, there will not be much left. But I suppose it doesnt matter-- leaves room for other things--Light current 03:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
or we could leave just one of the tables, the most important one, with a clear link at the end saying "more": this would leave more things on the main page, still keeping it tidy. Alessio Damato 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes good idea for a start.--Light current 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image templete

It will be good if the images of Electronics project are tagged with a new template like {{electronic-img}} inntead of the project page template. --Electron KidTalk

[edit] Stubs...

Most things in Category:Australian_electronics_retailers are stubs. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(link adjusted by The Photon)

[edit] Proposed mergers on Semiconductor

This group may be interested in two mergers I proposed to move into the Semiconductor article. Please discuss at Talk:Semiconductor if any concerns/suggestions/objections. -- The Photon 06:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QUESTION:

ISThere a guideline about LISTS in these articles? I found several articles in which lists had been simply alphabetized. I suggest that lists of examples should instead be organized to lead the reader through the relevant concepts, rather than being blindly alphabetized. For example, ANTENNAS (or ANTENNAE) might have the list in order of complexity and functional development, like:

and so forth. Many users have no idea of the relationship of the items in such a list. Comments?? Terry King Terry King 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about overall organisation of articles, please see my post above below.--Light current 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Those should probably all be removed and replaced by a link to Category:Antennas or something — Omegatron 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Category or one summary style page with Main page links to all the different sorts of antennas?--Light current 10:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation and navigation of electronics pages

The Organisation and linking of electronics pages is a very important subject that has so far been neglected.

Having had some independent involvment in trying to work out and organise all the pages on electronics into a simple easily navigable whole, my experiences on Hub page and Root page have shown that this is a large and not so simple task.

I suggest all project members consider the problem of organisation of topics and leave their thoughts here. I have a few ideas but will not publish them here yet until we get a feel for the opinions of other project members.(if anyone is still alive!)--Light current 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

  • I don't like the Hub/Root idea. But I do think we need a sort of tree-structure "site map" that can exist as a List article or in the Project namespace. - mako 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mako, Light Current, how do Categories fall short of your needs as an organizing mechanism? -- The Photon 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I have only just discovered categories myself after being here about 6 months. Categories are a bit like having to go back to the index of a book to see where you want ot go next, rather than flipping directly to the next page that interests you. They are not the ideal tool for navigation and they are not ideal for organisation in that any subject can probably fit into 2 or more categories.--Light current 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Im not ruling out categories as an organising mechanism- its just that Im wondering if theyre the best idea to fit the requirements.--Light current 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not arranged hierarchically. Categories are, though. Linking is important, but organizing it into a hierarchy and progression is a job for Wikibooks — Omegatron 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
LC, you are correct in saying that any subject can fit into 2 or more categories. But that is fine. There is nothing about the category approach that prevents you from placing a single article in as many categories as you think makes sense. That is one of the advantages that the category technique provides. And, as Omegron has pointed out, you can create whatever hierarchies you want within the category/sub-category arrangements that you set-up. -- Metacomet 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Im not suggesting having a strict heirarchy that everyone is railroaded into or a fixed progression of subjects but one where the subjects are presented to the reader in his desired order (ie by his navigational choices on any one page).
What I envisage is some sort of 'overlay' structure or 'map' that can be used to guide the 'electronics interested' user quickly and easily to subjects of his/her interest and allows completely free roaming around the topic of electronics.
The question of how to organise the articles using the formal structures of WP may or may not need to be dealt with separately. The last attempt at lumping the two ideas together was shown to be impractical and ill thought out. It needs a lot of input from experienced users to get a workable satisfactory system.
--Light current 11:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The promblem with a visible overlay or map etc is that it is visible even to those who dont want to see it. I think this was one onf the main objecxtions to Root page-- people thought it was diastracting etc. So how to get map/overlay thats invisible/visible at the same time. Popups?????--Light current 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The overlay structure that you are looking for already exists – hyperlinks. That is the whole beauty of hypertext, it allows the reader to explore the topic in a natural and unguided fashion by providing links embedded in the text itself to related information. -- Metacomet 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is not structured enough because it requires the reader to hunt for the right link to take him where he wants to go within a mass of text. Remember, not only topic related terms will be linked but all sorts of other stuff. Your suggestion appears, in effect, to suggest having no system at all beyond the normal linking. Or am I misinterpresting you?--Light current 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good writing is the key. If the article is well-written, the reader won't have to hunt -- the text will naturally direct attention to the related articles, and the reader will follow the links to the ones that capture her interest. If you see irrelevant terms being hyperlinked in an article, it's recommended to de-link them, per the style guide at WP:CONTEXT.-- The Photon 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agee with your exhortation to good writing, but I fear this may not be enough for novice readers. I think a more presescriptive approach may be necessary.--Light current 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For readers who want or need to be led through a field, Wikibooks look like an excellent solution. In fact Electronics already has a special highlighted box in the "External links" section to help readers find the relevant Wikibook. The big problem with this is that the Electronics Wikibook is pretty poor quality, compared to many articles in Wikipedia. -- The Photon 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of 'Topic' pages

Suggestions for what the main page of a series of articles should be called. Please add more!--Light current 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Topic page
  2. Front page
  3. Topic main page
  4. Series main page
  5. Series front page
  6. Series index page
  7. Topic index page
  8. Main series page
  9. Main topic page

[edit] Root page proposal

  • I feel that we have arrived at the answer on Root page, but that people are just saying the same things over and over again, like 'why not use categories', and, 'use navigational templates'. I now believe the answer is to use 'Root page', but generally restricted to two levels with 10-20 Branch articles per page, thus giving access to 400 articles by navigating between two levels. We should not 'backlink' Electronics to Electrical Engineering as this just annoys. We should label pages that have branches with the {{Rootpage}} template, to attract the attention of editors in particular to the concept. And ideally we should present the List of Branch pages on each Root page in a box on the top RHS. I am currently exploring this, but finding templates complicated and off-putting and not ideally suited to this use. Currently every template has to exist as a page, and be edited at that page, which is not conducive to meticulous use by editors. What I really want is a magic template (just one, using parameters, applied to all articles) that automatically creates a box on the Root page, listing all branch pages that have the {{Backlink template}} on them; automatically filling in the names. This seems to take templates beyond what they can currently do, but is probably not hard to include in the MediaWiki software. If implemented it would take all the effort out of listing links. Just put {{Branchlist}} on Electronics for example and a box would magically appear listing all the pages that nominated Electronics as their Root page, by having in them just {{Backlink}}. In the short term we should do the above, but using the 'Branch Pages' section to list branches, ready for quick conversion using a software 'bot' when finally automated. --Lindosland 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, people seem to have taken a dislike to the term Root page and I think it will be difficult to get anything agreed upon with that name. Another name for the idea should be be chosen to give it max chance of success.--Light current 17:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I too have noted that fact. I like Root because it leads to branch. 'Daughter pages' have 'fathers'. Problem with hub pages is that they have 'spokes'! --Lindosland 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 'Trunk' leads to branch as root leads to trunk! Do you twig it?--Light current 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. Im not suggesting hubs. Im taking the liberty of copying a paraphrased and refactored post from User:The Photon on this subject here because I feel it succinctly outlines all most of the presently available organising methods of which some editors may be unaware.

Tools are already available : We already have several good tools to use to tie a group of articles together.

  • The first is just good writing, and the use of explicit crossreferences.
For example, the Diode article might begin, "In Electronics, a diode is a...". This achieves everything that a backlink template does, without distracting from the article in front of the reader. Since it doesn't create categories, this isn't exactly the same for editors. But for readers, the experience is the same. Whether the main article in Summary style must summarize the detail articles is just a matter of style. If there are really hundreds of detail articles (as in Electronics), the summary could naturally be reduced to a single sentence, or membership in a list. A well-designed template could tie a group of articles together for its editors, even create a category for those articles; and it wouldn't distract readers.
  • A fourth tool is list articles.
A central hub list could be created to allow editors to keep track of all the articles relevant to their area. If it is really just for editors, it could go in the User Talk namespace.
  • A fifth tool is Project pages.
Use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics page as a hub for all the electronics articles.
  • A sixth tool is "What links here?".
If you, as an editor, want an overview of the articles related to electronics, just click on "what links here". Articles are the main organizing structure of Wikipedia:One of the most enjoyable things about reading Wikipedia is the interconnectedness of the articles. By following links, you can explore a dense mesh of related articles. The proper place for a larger document, that leads a reader along a particular path to understanding a broad field, is Wikibooks. Good writing is the best solution for readers: If the article is well-written and well-linked, it should be clear without any props where to go next for more information about a broad topic. So if in doubt, just write the articles clearly. The Photon 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just put up a template on Electronics and Noise to demonstrate how the Root page concept would look if automated. The branches of this page should also have similar templates, also automated, as they would be root pages, giving quick navigation of 400 pages with lists just 20 long. I think it looks good, but currently every template has to be edited at its template page. I want to see one generic template page {{Branchlist}}, which takes of everything. It's easily possible, either by software mod to MediaWiki or even possibly by a roaming software bot that generates and constantly updates the templates. --Lindosland 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Lindosland, I took a look at what you put up. I'm not opposed to having a box like what you put at Electronics to guide readers to related content. But when I follow through to Optoelectronic component, I find you are running right into the problem of hierarchy again. The box on that page seems to declare optoelectronic components to be a subfield of electronics only. But really optoelectronic components are equally a sub-field of electronics and optics, and maybe others (illumination, communications, ...). The category system captures this, but the root/branch idea doesn't.
A navigation box, functionally like Template:ArtificialLightSources, (but not so large or ugly) found at the end of the Laser article, is what I hope you will come around to building for your navigation tool. I prefer the simpler look of what you did on Electronics to the artificial light sources one.
If an article has an image in the lead section, will your navigation box come before or after the image?
Also, imagine if Laser had a box to associate it with all the other fields its relevant to, like electronics, optics, quantum mechanics, etc., as well as artificial light sources. How could all those boxes be fit together in the article without creating an awful mess? Please try to keep the layout as simple as possible -- don't create a monster like ArtificialLightSources.
As an aside, the optoelectronic component article has at present no content, and hasn't even been declared a stub. Given the short length of the Optoelectronics article right now, I'd suggest there's no need to split out the optoelectronic component article at this time. If you created optoelectronic component just to illustrate your boxes, be aware that making a point is frowned upon.
-- The Photon 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't improve on the "seven tools" argument against this proposal, but I want to add my vote anyway. Wikipedia is a Wiki, which means that it organises itself and can be reorganised by anybody at any time. If it doesn't organise itself in the way that you like, then that's tough. It doesn't always turn out the way I like either, but I accept that. I like the way it grows organically, and sometimes I learn from having to see things through other people's eyes. I don't want anybody telling me which articles are hubs, roots, or whatever you want to call them, or which other articles "belong to" them, or which other articles they "belong to". All of that can be established much less obtrusively by Wikilinks.
I think the little box of related pages looks OK, although it almost duplicates the "See also" section. Actually, if you get the body of the article right, you shouldn't need a "See also" section. Don't you see that your organising schemes are arbitrary and personal, and likely to annoy other users? You don't seem to have answered the objection that all these templates add clutter to articles, and the clutter dilutes the content and distracts the reader. If you must add another layer, make it one that I can switch off, please. --Heron 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speed menu

Heron, If it could be done, how would you feel about a 'speed menu' (series listing) at the top RH corner of the page that could be turned off or on by the reader for whizzing around the topics in Electronics?--Light current 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It might work, if the content were carefully chosen and limited to a few links, if every article were free to have one or not have one depending on the consensus of editors of that article, and if the boxes were easy to change without editors having to study advanced template theory or edit other meta-pages. They could replace, or partially replace, the 'see also' section, so that there would be no net increase in clutter, and then they might be a good thing. I would still be very cautious about it, and suggest trying it with one or two articles first. --Heron 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The options

I did not put up Photons list for people to use as a big hammer on Lindoslands head. I put it there to show everyone what options are avaiable and top promote discussion between editors on the best way forward. Lindoslands enthusiasm has, im afraid, rather run away wih him and I have asked him to discuss things before changing any more articles. What we need are positve comments on how to solve the problem and not an editorial war.--Light current 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything, but then these boxes started popping up everywhere. Wah. Navboxes can be useful when sparingly and judiciously placed; when they are institutionalized they become annoying clutter.
I also echo Heron's comments about Wikipedia being a Wiki. - mako 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you say thet the existing institutionalised Nav boxes on other pages are 'annoying clutter' or actually helful to the nav? You cant have nav aids if theyre invisible!--Light current 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't 'institutionalized'. Those have to be created individually. What you are proposing is wholesale, even automatic, linking at every level of the tree. That goes far beyond what currently exists. - mako 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought Lidoslands templates were created individually. They certainly are at the moment. Or is he proposing automatic generation of them? Im not sure from what he's said. BTW its Lindoslands proposal, Im just asking questions at th moment.--Light current 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From his comments, he is clearly proposing to automate them somehow. Not sure what he has in mind or how likely it is to actually ever be indicated.--Srleffler 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project page archives

Does anyone know whats happened to these. They seem to have disappeared!--Light current 02:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hellooooooo!

Is anyone else still working on this project?--Light current 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey, how do you join a wikiproject? Please answer on my talk page.

I would if I knew who you are!--Light current 22:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad publicity? "Secret" project?

I just stumbled across this page during a Google search. What's it about? --Wjbeaty 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

well Bill, as it says on the project page:
This WikiProject aims to provide a standard style for writing articles about electronics. The field of electronics is the study and use of electronic devices that operate by controlling the flow of electrons or other electrically charged particles in devices such as thermionic valves and semiconductors. Many subjects are closely related to electronics: telecommunications, biomedical, design and construction of electric and electronic circuits, hardware design, etc.

The project started with great enthusiasm, and a number of articles have been created, tidied etc. However, since the great discussion on organising a nav system for electronics petered out, interest in the project seems to have waned also. I found that none of the project members was actually doing anything anymore and most of the early members just seem to do thier own thing now I don't know whether this means the project has been a success or a failure, but in the abscence of a common grand goal, it just seems to have died a death! We need something to fight for! Any ideas? I really like your pages at amasci BTW 8-) Very thought provoking!--Light current 07:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

since I started the project I think I have to answer to this... according to me, the main aim of this project is to provide a reference for us when we have to make a choice creating an article about Electronics and similar topics. I mean: it provides general guidelines to be followed when creating a new article, tables of standard symbols to achieve a consistent terminology, suggestions about creating circuit layouts, that's exactly what we need!
another aim could be coordinating our work and focus on the most important topics, but I don't use it that much because I prefer working and what I want (and what I know!) that hardly matches with what is planned.
whenever one of us will have to take a decision that might influence more than one article, it will be better to discuss it here, or at least propose a standard formatting and if somebody disagrees it will be modified soon. If we are working only on small modifications of articles, then we don't need to write anything on the project page, just use what we have done. Anyway don't forget to add the template to the pages you modify according to the guidelines of the project, so more people might help us! Alessio Damato 09:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer

Hey folks, we're trying to get a big reorganization of the Computer article underway with the ultimate goal of getting it to featured article status. Our current proposal is to make it a large hub article in the same spirit as Physics. Since topics relating to computers are diverse and numerous, We'd appreciate all the insights and help we can get from participants of the electronics WikiProject. So if you have a few moments, drop by the talk page and throw in your two cents. Thanks! -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-19 21:47Z

[edit] Domestic AC power plugs and sockets

Domestic AC power plugs and sockets is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Electronics_5c00.html"