Talk:Electrical and electronics engineering

message: I intend to make a separate page for each of the subfields mentioned in this article without further referring to the differences between electrical and electronics eng as I dont believe its now necessary. Any comments welcome here--Light current 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A neutral page on  electrical/electronics eng 

message: Electronics engineering is an independent stand alone field of engineering that has some overlaps with electrical engineering and physics
Electrical engineering is an independent stand alone field of engineering that has some overlaps with electronic and mechanical engineering
--Light current 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, suppose an evil genius wants to shoot all the electronics engineers.  What instructions does he program into his simple-minded army of evil killer robots (though to be strictly fair, not all evil robots are killers)? How do you tell an electronics engineer from an electrical engineer?  They *both* know that E=IR, and think that the square root of -1 is j.  So what's the litmus test?  And what's an "independant stand alone field of engineering"? EE or EE does not exist independant of other fields!  --Wtshymanski 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My working definitions 

message: This is intended to be what I call a hub page on electrical/electronics engineering from which each of the specialist fields of electrical/electronics eng can be reached. It is intended to have a description of the common features of the two disciplines but no more than that. All further info on subfields mentioned here will be provided on the relevant page(s) as per disc on talk:electrical engineering--Light current 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub page 

message: I intend to make a separate page for each of the subfields mentioned in this article without further referring to the differences between electrical and electronics eng as I dont believe its now necessary. Any comments welcome here--Light current 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with sub-fields of electrical/electronics eng 

message: I would really like to see this page redirected to electrical engineering after the merge is complete. That article already has the term "electrical and electronics engineering" highlighted and explained in its first sentence. Cedars 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sure you would . but leave it alone please.--Light current 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to electrical engineering 

message: Hub page has merged with Root page and some new idea are now being tried which should help in the reorganisation of this and associated pages.
A brief look at this page tells me that perhaps the sections on training etc warrant a separate page called Electronics as a career with appropriate redirects. --Lindosland 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is a good idea and Im sure I would have thought of it eventually!--Light current 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root page principles now being tried 

message: Hi all,
I thought I would list the reasons for redirecting this page to electrical engineering.
# The electrical engineering article thoroughly covers the subject of electrical and electronics engineering
# The electrical engineering article mentions the term "electrical and electronics engineering" in its first sentence and the term is bold as suggested by the manual of style
# The electrical engineering article is both a featured and peer reviewed article
# The electrical engineering article has substantial contributions from a range of editors
# The electrical and electronics engineering article has faults not present in the electrical engineering article (e.g. it does not have a proper lead, proper formatting and working citations)
# Much of the content of this page is from an outdated version of the electrical engineering article
# Some of the other content is copied without attribution from this page
# Even after the redirect any content from this page will still be available through the page's history
# At the time of writing, no major changes have been made to this article since December 2005
# Multiple articles with similar content can confuse readers and editors
I hope this gives some insight into why I have redirected this article again. If you undo the redirect please explain why.
Cedars 11:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensUs. electrical and electronic engineering is a work in progress and is evolving. If you would like to try and improve it please do so. Otherwise please do not disrupt other editors work. Thanks.--Light current 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment Light current, I will post a survey to try and guage whether there is a consensus for the redirect. Cedars 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for redirect to electrical engineering 

message: :This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys.
This statement is misleading. It isn't a vote that bindingly determines what will be done, but if it shows that clear consensus (or more practically, a supermajority) exists, acting against that consensus is editing in bad faith. --Christopher Thomas 06:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THis is a statement that was added by an admin to the recent vote on Root page. I assume he knew what he was doing in adding it to this sort of vote thing. However I tend to agree with your sentiments that acting against consensus is in bad faith.--Light current 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with this is that there are two articles that have great overlap of content.  If you'd like to discuss the names, an article like Distinctions between electrical and electronic engineering would be better.  Also, I think it's important to know what other countries in the world primarily use E&EE rather than EE.  If it's just the UK, then I'd say that America, Canada and Australia constitute a more international viewpoint than just the UK. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. Making unilateral statements such as this is the wrong approach, because it's not you who decides, it's the community. Anyway, are you also adamantly opposed to an article being called "Electrical and electronics engineering" and covering both? —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Cburnett, this was rather a rash action on my part entered into at the height of an edit war between me and User:Cedars.  I regret this action as it was totally inappropriate. I offer my apologies to you and all editors offended. BTW thanks for your above comments.--Light current 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Apart from extreme nationalist points of view!--Light current 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: # Redirect. I believe that a redirect would benefit the subject for the ten reasons listed above. I also believe multiple articles with similar content will confuse readers. Cedars 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For redirect 

message: Against There is far more development of electrical and electronics engineering to be done. Since the effective freezing of electrical engineering by virtue of its featured article status I and many others have refrained from editing it as a matter of politeness. 
However, there should still be a page on which to develop a more balanced picture of electrical and electronics engineering and the relationship/differences between them. Also please note that there are combined degrees that go under the name electrical and electronic engineering especially in the UK.
I really cant see why Ceadas has sought to effecitvely destroy this page when it is patently doing no one any harm whatsoever. It is reasonably accurate and presents a balanced point of view whereas electrical engineering still  presents (tho not as much as it used to) mainly an American, Canadian and Australian viewpoint (ie US oriented).--Light current 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that there are two articles that have great overlap of content.  If you'd like to discuss the names, an article like Distinctions between electrical and electronic engineering would be better.  Also, I think it's important to know what other countries in the world primarily use E&EE rather than EE.  If it's just the UK, then I'd say that America, Canada and Australia constitute a more international viewpoint than just the UK. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. Making unilateral statements such as this is the wrong approach, because it's not you who decides, it's the community. Anyway, are you also adamantly opposed to an article being called "Electrical and electronics engineering" and covering both? —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against redirect 

message: First, I find it disturbing that electrical engineering was put for deletion by Light current (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical engineering) especially considering the poor state of Electrical and electronics engineering.  Such an article is not worth sacrificing a featured article.
The root of the problem appears to me as:
* the US uses electrical eng as the broad field description; electronics is a subfield of electrical
* the UK uses electrical for large scale and electronics as small scale
I think the similarities of electrical in the US & UK and the similarities of electronic in the US & UK drastically outweigh their differences.  Suffiently enough that I don't see warrant for breaking the status quo.  I see sufficient discussion on electrical engineering to be satisfied with the status quo as well.  The ultimate destination of accuracy would be to make electrical engineering a dab for electrical engineering (United States) and electrical engineering (United Kingdom) but I don't see sufficient dichotomy between them to sacrifice readability (you now have to read two articles on the subject because of minor differences) in favor of accuracy. Cburnett 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Cburnett, this was rather a rash action on my part entered into at the height of an edit war between me and User:Cedars.  I regret this action as it was totally inappropriate. I offer my apologies to you and all editors offended. BTW thanks for your above comments.--Light current 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Apart from extreme nationalist points of view!--Light current 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither strictly for nor against redirect

message: I think it could be Redirected to Electronic engineering instead!--Light current 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Electronic engineering 

message: Electrical Engineering and Electronics Engineering are slightly different fields, although they are usually taught by the same department at universities.  They need to be kept as separate articles.
One commenter stated that Computer Engineering is a subset of Electrical Engineering.  This is not ture.  In some cases both may be taught by the same department, but they are separate fields.  Computer Engineering deals with the design and development of computers, both hardware and software.  Electrical Engineering deals with the electrical aspects.
147.240.236.9 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but how do you define electrical aspects?--Light current 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep as separate 

message: Cedars, A straw poll is NOT a survey and cannot be used to force an issue. You have acted in an illegal manner in this redirect by ingnoring the legitimate concerns of a fellow editor. Consensus means that everyone agrees -- not that the majority has it. Why dont you read the policies more carefully? If you want a proper survey, then set one up.
Can you read? If so tell me what this means.
...a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
Why are you blatantly ignoring WP policy and guidelines?
--Light current 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A straw poll is NOT a survey 

message: LC, I've created a new article at Electrical engineering (terminology) that comes from the E&EE article, and I've linked to it with an explanation on Electrical engineering.  I feel that that is sufficient notice for people who might be confused about what the terms mean, and I hope that you feel that while it isn't exactly what you want, that it's good enough so that we don't have to have a revert war. I know what it's like to have one's ideas shot down, and I realize it isn't a great experience, but I hope you see the reasoning behind these changes. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now, if we were to have a sister article on electronics engineering giving the other side of the story, with the reciprocal disclaimer at the top (about the differences/terminology etc)) that, I think, might be a satisfactory solution to me. I would have to be assured, though, that the new article would not be obliterated by Cedars in his quest to subsume everything to electrical engineering.--Light current 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article