Talk:Electronic engineering

message: Does anyone have access to the sources for this section? I'm particularly interested as to whether they directly support this list of topics as "typical" (or similar) for undergraduate studies. The section seems... unusual for an article of this type (for example; we should probably make it a list of significant fields). --Errant (chat!) 12:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more than likely OR, but the sources all seem to be books available in gbooks limited preview (although the isbn search in google failed for this this one for some reason).  It's just a matter of wading through them for anyone who cares that much. SpinningSpark 14:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undergraduate Syllabus 

message: In this beta version search bar cannot show properly, when I search anything.  49.201.240.48 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested correction 

message: why have you marked the Education and training section as possible OR?  It looks pretty bland and uncontroversial to me.  It is the sort of thing required in just about any branch of engineering. SpinningSpark 14:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a more interesting complaint than . It is bland, not particularly useful and somewhat redundant. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that makes it original research. SpinningSpark 22:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The template does say "possibly"; given that the section has no references this is no unlikely. It's a reasonable tag highlighting a section needed work. --Errant (chat!) 07:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No references is a different issue.  No one can deal with possible OR if there is no clear statement of what the OR might be.  If you just want the section gone, then make the case for doing that instead of irrelevant tagging that might achieve that purpose in a roundabout way. SpinningSpark 14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to improve the section, change the tag, or even delete the tag if you think the section is fine. I was just trying to give myself and other editors a clue where to start when attempting to improve this article. ETA:  might have been a better tag. ~Kvng (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR section? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Electronic engineering's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Moskowitz":
From History of electronic engineering: 
From Computer: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Electronic engineering]] 

message: The mass noun "electronics" is used here, with other forms being rare and possibly ungrammatical, as in "physics", "mathematics", or "statistics". "Electronic" in this context is also goofy/misleading. 62.253.69.202 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's "electronics", not "electronic". Title should be changed.