Talk:Electrical engineering/Archive 3

message: I am intending to change this page into a wikipedia:hub page like civil engineering. Any comments?--Light current 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub page 

message: === Changes to electrical engineering ===
Hi Light current,
I have read the discussion while I was away - I like the previous version of the page better. I am not satisfied that this new version has majority support. Please let us keep the previous version of the page until the electrical and electronics engineering page is up-to-scratch. Not even mentioning the content, particular things that could be improved include getting rid of bad formatting and the redundant "[edit]" text, fixing citations, fixing length, etc. The previous version was proof-read many, many times - I have a feeling this new version hasn't beeen proof-read much at all. I should also remind you that previous version has already been endorsed in this survey. I am going to revert to the previous version of the page shortly.
Sincerely,
Cedars 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cedars pathetic bleatings (part one) 

message: Hi Light current,
I have read the discussion while I was away - I like the previous version of the page better. I am not satisfied that this new version has majority support. Please let us keep the previous version of the page until the electrical and electronics engineering page is up-to-scratch. Not even mentioning the content, particular things that could be improved include getting rid of bad formatting and the redundant "[edit]" text, fixing citations, fixing length, etc. The previous version was proof-read many, many times - I have a feeling this new version hasn't beeen proof-read much at all. I should also remind you that previous version has already been endorsed in this survey. I am going to revert to the previous version of the page shortly.
Sincerely,
Cedars 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to [[electrical engineering]] 

message: Hi Light current,
There are three simple steps to nominate an article for deletion, you can read them here. If you follow the three steps your AfD tag will not be removed until the users of Wikipedia have reached a decision on the matter. Otherwise the tag will be removed as there is no point having an AfD tag that cannot be acted upon. If you want me to remove the tag, do nothing and I will remove the tag in a few hours. If you want to keep the tag, please follow the steps given here. If you need further assitance, please visit the helpdesk it is specifically designed to provide new users with help using Wikipedia.
Thanks for your time,
Cedars 05:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to nominate an article for deletion 

message: Hi Light current,
I noticed you tagged the electrical engineering article with a redirect for deletion notice. But the page is not a redirect and there is no entry for it on the redirects for deletion listings so I have removed the notice.
Sincerely,
Cedars 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfD of [[electrical engineering]] 

message: Hi Light current,
I have created a new article for you to add extra history on the profession to. It is important to keep the history in the main article concise but please feel free to expand the sub-article and once it reaches a stable point we can add a sub-article link to it from the article (not just a see also link).
Cedars 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of electrical engineering]] 

message: Light current,
Could we perhaps use this page to quickly discuss your changes? I really need to talk to you about the changes. I am sure if we work together we can reach a compromise and hopefully develop a better understanding of each other's approaches. If your up for it reply here. Otherwise I am just going to keep making changes to the article in the way I believe it should be changed and probably upsetting you (which I don't mean to do).
Cedars 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quickly discuss changes 

message: Hi Light current,
I realize we've had some difficulty creating a proper dialogue  but I really want to sort these changes out. So hopefully this helps you understand the reason for my changes:
* The reference to the "pneumatic tranducer circuit" is overly technical and is in contrast to the make technical articles accessible guideline so I am going to return to the tuner circuit.
* The history section is far too lengthy relative to other parts of the article so I am going to try to trim it down but please feel free to add a more in-depth discussion of the history to the history of electrical engineering article.
* The discussion of enigma and world war two is unnecessary in such a concise discussion of the history of electrical engineering.
* The radar and magnetron are relevant developments so I am going to keep them with references to their history.
I really hope this resolves our dispute. Please consider that these changes were not easy to make, I had to spend a fair 30 minutes looking for references on the magnetron and radar as well as reviewing all the changes and copying text from old versions, etc.
Cedars 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for my changes 

message: Light current,
I really want to resolve this dispute. But you keep deleting my talk page comments. If you don't talk to me I cannot understand why you are making the changes you are making. And I'll have to keep changing the artcle in a way that I feel best fits with my own opinion on how the article should be. You have complained about me not discussing changes before - well now I am willing to put in some time to discuss my changes (I can't guarentee much but I'll give you what I can).
Cedars 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THey are not being deleted but moved to talk:electrical engineering where I would ask you to post all further communication on this topic. Thank you--Light current 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well no!. Not when the page is skewed towards electrical engineering--Light current 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: Hi Light current,
If you want to play the 3RR rule then please make sure you don't revert the article more than 3 times yourself. Also please list the 3 reverts I have done. I don't believe I am even close to violating the 3RR rule?
Cedars 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, if you perform the first revert, then you will reach or exceed three reverts before I do! Do you understand that? Anyway why the hell are you reverting my perfectly acceptable added material instead of just modifying?--Light current 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your 3RR Warning 

message: I submit this request for suggestions from interested parties on how to totally restructure the pages on electrical and electronic engineering in all their forms and using a worldwide NPOV perspective. 
A number of other pages have been created during the course of the recent discussions, and I would ask interested parties to look at all these to see what can be salvaged from them to make a new page (or set of pages) relating to electrical and/or electronics engineering. 
Maybe the first question to ask ourselves is : can electrical and electronic exist and be discussed on the same page or do we need different pages for each but outlining the overlap, similarities and differences., Also, do we need to focus on the education and training of both sorts of engineer, of do we just talk about the sorts of work they do?
Pages to look at:
electronics engineering
electronics
electrical engineering
electrical and electronics engineering
There may also be sub pages created under electrical engineering. Please also take alook at these.
Could people please respond here in the first instance?
--Light current 03:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for suggestions 

message: Agreed I have stirred the soup somewhat, but with the intention of putting everything into the pot to see what weve got before trying to distill it into as many separate parts as needed. Now I think we are at the see what we've got stage. I welcome any more comments as to how to deal with it.--Light current 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I am an American electrical engineer. From my American experience, the term electronic engineer applies to a technology degree, and sometimes it is called an Electronic Engineering Technology degree. No one starts an Electrical Engineering degree by learning about semiconductors, but it always (to my knowledge) includes those classes even if eventually the degree is used for something fundamentally non-electronic. I don't know how this terminology works in other countries, but an Electrical Engineering degree in US involves semiconductor fundamentals. I don't think it would be possible to be strictly an electronic engineer. Perhaps the term Electrical Engineering refers to the work done by electrical engineers and not engineering that is inherently electrical, I don't know. Likewise Electronic Engineering is not engineering of things electronic, but work done by electronic engineers. Snafflekid 18:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, as an American "electrical engineer", the two terms are interchangeable here, though "electrical" has a connotation of power lines and big generators, while "electronic" has a connotation of little transistors and signal processing and such. — Omegatron 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I did a web search and I am more confused now. The definition of electronic engineering is fluid. This could use an expert opinion. Snafflekid 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Light, you asked me to come here and comment.  i'm a middle-aged American EE and i've always thought of Electrical Engineering to encompass, among other disciplines, that of electronics design (as well as semiconductor physics and design), computer engineering (even software engineering in some cases), communications engineering (and all that entails such as information theory), control systems engineering, power engineering including electromechancial energy coversion and power transmission as well as power electronics.  most schools in the U.S. call it "Electrical Engineering"  some call it the "Electrical and Computer Engineering" department and some call it "EEE" or "Electrical and Electronics Engineering" and even some "EECS" or "Electrical Engineering and Computer Science".  i have yet to see a school, other than DeVry or some other tech certificate school, call a department "Electronics Engineering".  i think some disambiguation is useful, but i would in no case, separate the discipline of Electronics design or Electronics Engineering from the overall discipline of Electrical Engineering.  dunno if this is what you wanted to hear or not, but you asked me to come over here and jump in. r b-j 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: they award a diploma of some kind.  if it's a two year program, i think it would be an A.S. (Associate of Science) degree.  these are all just words.  there are diploma mills that issue a Ph.D. in 6 weeks for about $8000.  of course those Ph.D.s are pretty worthless, but that's what they're called. r b-j 19:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Barberios proposed split 

message: Definitions from Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary
;electronics:the science and technology of the conduction of electricity (see below) in a vacuum, or a gas or a semiconductor and the devices based theron.
;electricity:the manifestation of a form of energy attributed to the separation or movement of electrons
;ectrical/electric:The branch of science that deals with this (electricity).
Definitions from Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM
#Main Entry: elec-tron-ics
Pronunciation: i-lek-trä-niks
Function: noun plural
Date: 1910
	1 singular in construction : a branch of physics that deals with the emission, behavior, and effects of electrons (as in electron tubes and transistors) and with electronic devices
	2 : electronic devices or equipment
#Main Entry: electric
Pronunciation: i-lek-trik
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin electricus produced from amber by friction,electric, from Medieval Latin, of amber, from Latin electrum amber, electrum, from Greek ektron; akin to Greek lekt‹r beaming sun
Date: 1675
1 or
elec-tri-cal  : of, relating to, or operated by electricity
2 : exciting as if by electric shock an electric performance an electric personality; also : charged with strong emotion the roomwas electric with tension
4 : very bright electric blue electric orange
Compiled by: --Electron Kid 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think these entries (esp the electronics one) are very useful in helping us decide on the difference! Thanks!--Light current 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final [[Solution]] 

message: I would like to see the photos of Edison and Tesla replaced in the new article's history  section if there is room, as I think its interesting to see what these people looked like. I had not seen a picture of Tesla before as Im sure many others havent.--Light current 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are photos of Edison, Tesla and others in their biographical articles. I wouldn't object to including them in this article, but the fact that they are available elsewhere should be considered. --C J Cowie 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of electrical heroes 

message: I'm seeing a few articles mentioning how an earth ground is used as a "return path" for a circuit. Admittedly, my understanding of electrical engineering is very limited, but I was under the impression that the idea of a literal "return path" through the ground was disproven, and an earth ground is now understood merely as a "source/sink". Reading the article about SWER and ones that link to it, I'm getting impression that there's an electrical path through the ground from a user back to the power plant, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Could this be clarified?
-- NewtN
:I will try to clarify this at Talk:Single_wire_earth_return -- C J Cowie 00:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of grounding 

message: Moved here from main page cos its not a subfield - its a major field  therfore should not be listed as a subfield.--Light current 01:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronics 

message: why was the history section removed? — Omegatron 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not fit within the scope of the page on present day electrical eng and would be better on its own page wher it will be expanded greatly.--Light current 01:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which more appropriate page did you move it to? — Omegatron 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  history removed? 

message: Electrical engineering is a very general term for an engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electricity, electromagnetism and electronics. Its practitioners are sometimes called electrical engineers. - the 13:38 of Dec. 11, 2005 lead paragraph. 
" very general"? "Sometimes" ? I've been taught that using so many qualifiers in such a short paragraph is very weak writing. 
Do we have more than one editor so very concerned with miniscule turf wars between one sect and another? --Wtshymanski 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The weak writing of the article after Light current's revisions deeply concern me. I would ask Light current to refrain from editing the article unless he can improve it. This idea that a temporary glut in the article should be left until it heals itself doesn't work for me - let's try and make every revision a winner. To be honest, I don't have a problem with the idea of an "electrical and electronics engineering" article if it is well written. Cedars 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And where were YOU when I was asking for comments. In your bunker no doubt! Blanket reversion of any change or changes I make without discussion is not helpful to anyone. There can only be one reason that you will not discuss and that is  that you must be scared of losing the argument. However, your actions are soon likely to have you blocked. Your obstructive actions will be reported to other ADMINS if you continue reverting everythin without discussions. THink on!--Light current 01:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak writing 

message: I think its very important to have this explanatory para as the lead para so everyone knows what to expect from the page and its many links to specialities. I also think its important to have the education of electrical engineers outlined to further illustrate the sort of work of which they are generally capable. However I have not included that again this time because I know User:Cedars will just keep reverting to his old version without any discussion on it. Wording of lead para is intended to illustrate the very broad nature (almost all encompassing it seems sometimes)of electrical and electronics engineering. Yes sometimes they are called electronics engineers, like over here. World wide (esp in North America it is a very general term- so I cant see what's weak about the writing-- its the title of the page that's causing the problem. BTW where were you when I was asking for comments on this?
:I shouldn't worry tho'-- User:Cedars has probably reverted to his out dated biased version by now.--Light current 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between electrical and electronics engineers/engineering 

message: I think this para could do with the syllabus that I included before a couple of times. I think its important to list the things that both engineers study so it can be seen why they can cover such a wide range of final specialites. I therfore propose to make this my next addition if there are no valid arguments against.--Light current 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, lists are frequently criticised in FA nominations especially when there is an alternative, such as the link previously included to the list of topics. I will reimplement this link shortly. As for the list you posted, it appeared to be a copied from  in which case you need specific permission to use it. Cedars 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Putting the copyright issue to one side, the list still extends an already lengthy article. Maybe it could be moved to a sub-article? Cedars 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who should be assumed to be included in the target audience? Is this material understandable to them? Are there or will there be links to articles which would explain difficult terms? Is there a way to explain the material to the target audience without refering elsewhere for clarification of difficult terms? It seems to me that the end result of engineering work is more understandable to most readers than the process. Perhaps the education could be more clearly described in terms of preparation for designing example products and systems that might be familiar to the user. --C J Cowie 18:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your thoughts that readers are probably more likely to identify engineering with its products rather than its processes. I tried to include the information on the products of engineering in the subfields section (hence every section at least has a photo of an application) but feel free to add your ideas (that said, be careful making the article too much longer as it already attracts a size warning as-is).
We are trying to show the similarities and differences between the 2 sorts of engineering here. Now, to my mind there are a number of things that need to be mentioned on a very broad subject such as electrical/electronics engineering. Some are, in no particular order:
#Education of EEs
#Training of EEs
#Professional aspects 
#Specialisations
#Product/system design
#History of electrical/electronics engineering
#What do engineers do day to day (ie working environment)
#etc
To include all these aspects on one page is not going to be possible if we are to keep it to a reasonable size.
To define and explain the main differences and similarities between the two aspects, in a way that is not dependent on National usages of the terms 'Electrical engineering' and 'electronic engineering', I felt it essential to include a typical syllabus. THis defines what engineers are trained to do and should be able to do. This syllabus may need to be modified/updated.
Bearing in mind the above posts I feel that the page does need to be split, but not just by hiving off one section. We need to decide what it is we mean to convey on this main page before linking to sub pages which can contain the bulk of the detailed information. I suggest that this page should be describing the training, education and professional aspects only and all other facets put on their own pages.
This page should be a hub page aimed at professional engineers and people who want to be one. Links to other aspects /details should be very obviously placed on the page. As I suggested before, this page should be a HUB page with spokes radiating into the different aspects. In this way I think this huge subject can be handled.
This problem will occur (if it hasnt already) again probably on Mechanical engineering and Civil engineering which are also huge topics.
--Light current 19:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to discuss further trimming of the article - however I'm not sold completely on the idea. I will remove the syllabus and create a red link for you to fill out with the content. I don't want to move the content myself because I am still not sure about it's validity in terms of copyright. Alternatively, feel free to move the content to another page yourself. Cedars 02:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay then, how are we going to split the article? I am quite content with it as-is but with the syllabus in a separate article. Cedars 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am going to remove syllabus because it has been up for three days now and is still incomplete. This isn't a bad article and it looks messy if it is incomplete. Cedars 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the demographics section should be revised (and trimmed), I think the syllabus should be removed from the article and I'm not even sure if it should be placed in another article. I think standardising the articles could be difficult but I'm happy to hear your ideas on the best points of the civil engineering article. Cedars 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The changes are made and the article is slimmer than ever - hopefully it will reach a plateau of stability and maybe even make it as a featured article. Cedars 15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education paragraph 

message: EEs design PCBs.  Why was this removed? — Omegatron 18:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No we dont (we can but we dont). Layout technicians design PCBs- a lower level, non professional, engineering activity--Light current 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Layout technicians may be supervised by EEs and EEs may be called upon to solve problems such as caused by unintended coupling introduced by layout but they don't design PCBs. Most electronic circuit designs are implemented by PCB construction, but it is not correct to say EEs design PCBs. It might also be said that people don't design PCBs, computers do. I believe that computer programs produce layouts from schematics. --C J Cowie 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCBs 

message: Cleared xs stuff from subfields to give sleeker looking page. All info is available merely by clicking links to main pages. we also need a link to education/ training where the syllabus for both electrical and electronics engineers can be displayed.--Light current 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article benefits from a bit more than a single sentence on each of the subfields so I may add them back but please do not add back the syllabus (even to a separate article). It has questionable copyright status, little utensil and its function can be almost completely replaced by the list of electrical engineering topics. Maybe it would be better to work on that article instead?
No definitely not. Do not add any thing back to subfields; theres enough there already. The links have adequate info. Youre trying to turn the page back to what it was -- completely unsatisfactory!--Light current 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: None of these changes improve the article. The point of trimming the article is to keep the article at a size that is readable not to strip it of content. The attitude that the list of electrical engineering topics is useless is extremely arrogant. I am going to revert these changes. Cedars 06:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. — Omegatron 06:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You keep linking the term hub page but there is no such article on the subject. You don't discuss changes. I think the idea of making it a hub page when there clearly is no reason that 90% of what most people will want to know about electrical engineering can fit in a single article is a ridiculous idea. Cedars 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to make the article like civil engineering. I like the article the way it is. There is no reason to break-up the article when in its completed state it is only around 32 kB. The civil engineering page is not a featured article and therefore there is no reason for its format to be emulated. Cedars 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hub page articles are disjointed, difficult to read and often link to excessive detail from my point-of-view. Cedars 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! I hope that means we can finally abandon this silly attempt to make a hub page. Cedars 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that you are not wanting to work with me or care about my opinions. Please consider leaving this article alone. Cedars 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearout 

message: All the material in the Terminology section belongs in the lead.  Below I have rearranged the lead to include that info, but it leaves a couple short paragraphs that should be developed further.  What do you think?
Electrical engineering  is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electricity and electromagnetism. A broad field, it encompasses many subfields including those that deal with power, control systems, electronics and telecommunications. Sometimes, electrical engineering is distinguished from electronics engineering, with electrical engineering dealing with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control, and electronics engineering dealing with the problems associated with small-scale electronic systems such as the design of integrated circuits.  For the purposes of this article electronics engineering is considered to be a subfield of electrical engineering (see note).
The field first came to prominence in the late nineteenth century with the installation of the first large-scale electrical supply networks. Since then the field has grown dramatically and today the products of electrical engineering can be found across the world. 
Its practitioners, called electrical engineers, generally hold an academic degree in their discipline and are responsible for the design and operation of a wide of range of technologies. Examples include the design of telecommunication systems, the operation of electric power stations and the design of electronic household appliances.
--Spangineeres (háblame) 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology section 

message: First sentence in lead para excludes anything to do with electronics or any of the other sub disciplines by saying electrical engineering is to do with electricity and electromagnetism (only). This cannot be allowed to remain like this if the lead is to give a fair representation of the subject.--Light current 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead para 

message: I feel this picture of a processor is not the right one to illustrate electronics. Its more to do with computer engineering. I recommend another picture for this sub field. Does anyone have any alternative picture suggestions?
:: How about this?  right | thumb | 100px
:: Got signed out and forgot to sign. -C J Cowie 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is another one. -C J Cowie 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture for 'electronics' subfield. 

message: Why has Teslas picture been removed?--Light current 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teslas picture 

message: What about having one right, one left, one right... etc to make it more visually interesting in the sub disciplines. good few Brownie points for the FAC!!--Light current 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are the two images in the lead not the same size?  It's rather jarring to have one be a mere 20 pixels larger than the other. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture locations 

message: I have just rewritten the 2nd paragraph of the lead. The lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I believe the lead now adequately covers the history, education, tools and work, and sub-disciplines sections, and that this is sufficient.  Before, there was little mention of the historical development, which is a key part of this article.  Any problems with this? --Spangineer (háblame) 05:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph of the lead 

message: Page now exceeding 32k. Suggest remove matl from sub disciplines and put it on their main pages.--Light current 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good portion of that is notes: the prose is pretty tight, so I don't think this needs to be split at the moment. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of page 

message: It is important to outline the parallel progression of electrical and electronics/radio in a combined article such as this if we are to avoid bias one way or the other--Light current 00:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Reading this article with an unbiased eye, one would believe that no advances at all took place in any branch of electrical enigneering during WW2. Is this the impression we want to give?--Light current 06:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second World War