This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
I took time-out because I felt there was no way I could productively contribute to discussion without getting unnecessarily upset. However, before I left I did outline my viewpoint very clearly here. I am honestly happy to compromise, but redirecting to an article which even by the most superficial standards is not up-to-scratch is not what I believe to be a satisfactory compromise. I honestly do not believe I am being any less pragmatic than you - although I really am willing to settle on the right compromise. I will copy these comments to the electrical engineering talk page so that other interested parties have an understanding of why I, like others, am reverting.
I really do not want to be banned, I really want to work this out. It is okay for you to place an AfD tag on the page just please do it in the correct manner (so I can oppose the deletion).
I have added an extended note on the issue to the page please feel free to edit it to present your viewpoint.
Together I am sure we can work things out (I will not be editing for the next 5 hours).
P.S. Please add new comments to the bottom of my talk page.
How to nominate an article for deletion
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.
Your last edit to the electrical engineering page here destroyed the formatting of the page. Please make sure to preview your changes before you apply them.
I don't disagree that the lead picture in the article is dark. I may be able to tinker with it to change the look. However if you have an alternative picture (and caption) please feel free replace the current picture with it. Ideally I think the article needs something that looks good, is relevant to the subject and is not used elsewhere in the article.
Light current, if you don't agree with the feature article nomination, please say why using the "leave comments" link. I would really appreciate your support on this however there is no need for more than one person to nominate an article for featured status. Cedars 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I really dont feel this article is upto scratch yet for FAC nom. It needs a great deal more work to make it interesting enough to the general readership. I feel that one of the sub fields may be more of a suitable candidate where the presentation can be made more punchy and glamorous. After all, electrical engineering as such is not really that appealing to the general public unfortunately.!
Hi Light current,
Since you are now formally objecting to the FA nomination, would you mind leaving the electrical engineering article alone at least until the nomination is complete. If you want you can further escalate tensions between us, but I fail to see what purpose it would serve.
Yes I BW would! Are you going to ban everyone else who objected from editing the page? Grow up!
Hi Light current,
Would it be possible to stick with just one picture for the lead of electrical engineering? I believe otherwise the pictures start to distract from the content.
No I would like to have two to show the wide scope of electrical engineering since people have insisted that the term Electrical enginering does in fact cover electronics as well as all things electrical. I belive balance is whats needed in the article if we are to come to any compromise. Anyway, nice pictures are always preferred for featuresd articles!!
really don't want two images in the lead, it makes the article look cluttered. Also please check the articles after you edit them, right now there is a huge space between the first two paragraphs. Why did you add this when no other article has such spacing? Cedars 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well if you can close the gap I would be grateful. But please leave both images. They are needed to preserve NPOV
done it now!
There is nothing in the NPOV policy here about keeping two images in the lead. I am sorry but I really feel strongly that only one image should be kept for the lead. Maybe we can select a better single picture for the article? Cedars 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No.User C.J cowie has gone to the trouble of taking that extra pic specially at my request and I think it adds balance to the page. I would like it kept please.
Comments on recent reverts
These are comments I posted to Light current regarding my recent reverts
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.
I took time-out because I felt there was no way I could productively contribute to discussion without getting unnecessarily upset. However, before I left I did outline my viewpoint very clearly here. I am honestly happy to compromise, but redirecting to an article which even by the most superficial standards is not up-to-scratch is not what I believe to be a satisfactory compromise. I honestly do not believe I am being any less pragmatic than you - although I really am willing to settle on the right compromise. I will copy thses comments to the electrical engineering talk page so that other interested parties have an understanding of why I, like others, am reverting.
My replies to Cedars constant reversion without agreement or proper discussion--Light current 14:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on electrical engineering and note the consensus for change.--Light current 13:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Let us please try to work togther and reach consensus. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page before changing things. THe new pages are in the process of recreation. THis is not the final situation, so lets hammer out a compromise to statisfy a worldwide view. Please read the discussions you have missed whilst you have been away and respond to those before getting into edit wars. We are prepared to listen to well reasoned argument!--Light current 13:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You have no consensus for your version since the poll was a sham as many editors agree. Please do not revert the page. Others have been discussing the problem while you were away and we are coming to a common understanding. Its a pity you were not prepared to contribute to these early suggestions, but you didnt. Please do not NOW upset the apple cart uneccesarily. But please feel free to comment contructively on the proposed changes. Saying you dont like the new page or you prefer the old page without giving reasons is not helpful.--Light current 13:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Constant reversion without discussion and agreement is not the Wiki way and could lead you to being blocked!! Please think on this--Light current 14:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Cedars. I just do not understand why you cannot enter in to a rational discussion about /electrical and electronics engineering. Why do you think the POV page should be kept when it is clearly against WP policy and inaccurate to boot. Your obsession with this page is not healthy, and I suggest you go edit some other pages for a while then come back, see what weve done and comment/argue with us. Your present actions are not helpful to anyone. Please think about this. There is more to life than WP! (like your studies for instance)--Light current 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
To answer the first question, the article acknowledges both viewpoints on how the term electrical engineering is interpreted and therefore reflects the spirit of the NPOV policy. I did leave this page for several days and I am prepared to take things slow again if need be, but I don't want to see this article deteriorate. Cedars 09:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not perform illegal actions on tags legitimately placed.
There is no point having an AfD without an AfD entry because it makes the AfD inactionable (see here for further discussion). Cedars 09:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved from LC Talk
Please discuss why you are undoing my changes before you undo them. Otherwise I am just going to undo your changes (like I already have). The improved lead section is necessary if the article is to have any chance at featured status. Also regarding the terminology, I find it awkward to have the discussion in a separate section. In short, if the terminology is so important it should be noted in the lead. Cedars 09:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I fear you are more concerned with making this a featured article than an accurate one.--Light current 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive. What exactly is inaccurate about the current article because accuracy is something I seriously value and if there is something inaccurate we should fix it? Cedars 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have your own agenda on WP which is the editing of one page to your own particular requirements. You have no overall appreciation of what WP is and how it is supposed to operate. If you edited some other pages and got some more editing experience, it might open your mind to what others are trying to do.--Light current 00:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have edited many pages, I have worked with many people on Wikipedia. Not a single one has been as difficult to work with as you. Exactly how is WP supposed to operate? Cedars 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I echo your sentiments! However, you may notice that I have edited far more pages than you i.e. 10x no of edits on 6 x no of pages) and I have had very little trouble with other editors. At least they have been open to argument and discussion. It seems you are not.
Nevertheless, this argument is not going to move us forward with editing the article. I don't have the time to edit a whole heap of articles and I would rather make the electrical engineering article a good one than anything else. I have also been a Wikipedia longer than you so this claim that I don't know how it works is a really strange one. But putting that to one side, what needs to be done to get the electrical engineering article to a satisfactory point for you? Cedars 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Watch and learn look at your ratio of article edits to talk edits and compare with others. Does that tell you anything?
Yeah, I am more of a doer than a thinker and my edits probably cause far less disruption than yours.
Yes I feel you do too much editing without thinking or discussing before hand. Remember many editors have actually had 40 yr careers in electrical /electronics engineering. You havent even started yet!--Light current 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Evidence on my disruption per edit? Define disruption--Light current 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
However, if we can find a way to move forward that would be great. I suggested on the talk page of EE, maybe since you have stated you don't want to work with me or care about my opinions you might leave the electrical engineering article alone. I have left the electrical and electronics engineering article alone thus far. Otherwise please tell me what needs to be done to bring the EE article up to your level of satisfaction. Cedars 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have stated at length and many times that I think this article us unsatisfactory from the point of view of a global view point and from the point of view of giving enough importance to the so called sub fields. I have suggested an eminently satisfactory way of resolving these deficiencies in the article by making it into a so called hub page that has a minimum of clutter, directs the reader to the respective information, and does not put any one sub filed above any other.. The page will still be called electrical engineering as that seems to be the most widely used term for the host of disciples which are covered. However, a very clear exposition of the terminology should be included early on in the article to dispel any doubts and calm any fears about the fact there are (sometimes subtle) differences between the two sorts of engineering and engineer.
Education and training are important topics to be dealt with, as these, to a large extent. delineate the differences between those calling themselves electrical engineers and those in some parts of the world calling themselves electronics engineers. This can be a sub page (already exists).
In this manner, I feel the subject of the actual diffrerences can, to some extent, be sidestepped by referring immediately to the sub disciplines without saying under what sort of engineering each sub discipline comes.
In this way the reader himself can decide on his own definition of electronics and electrical engineering.--Light current 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
P.S. Please add new notes to the bottom of my talk page, cheers.
Hi Light current,
I noticed you tagged the electrical engineering article with an article for deletion notice but did not create an article for deletion page. I have therefore removed the AfD notice.
Please stop reverting electrical engineering. CJ's picture is now prominently featured in the article. I am happy to replace the current lead picture with a better lead picture. I really don't understand what more you want. Cedars 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am happy to go to a vote if necessary but votes take such long time. It is better if we can resolve this without a vote. Cedars 01:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That is not CJs picture. That is my picture. I want the other picture (of the cct board) to be included as well for the reasons I have stated earlier.
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).
You recently reverted my work on the electrical engineering page without discussing it here. I created a sub-page for you in the hope we would avoid an edit war. Why isn't a sub-page sufficient to discuss your ideas?
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).
I realize we've had some difficulty creating a proper dialogue [1] 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.
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).
P.S. Feel free to post your thoughts to my talk page that way I can quickly access them.
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)
You haven't really replied to them though. Could we perhaps conduct a discussion on my talk page, if your talk page is inappropriate? My real concern is that with your changes the history section (which was originally very brief) is becomming excessively large. Surely there is a way we could move your changes to a sub-article thus keeping the history section (and whole article) at a reasonable size? Cedars 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well no!. Not when the page is skewed towards electrical engineering--Light current 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ill talk about it tomorrow
-- DEEP breaths now!
Your 3RR Warning
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?
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)
I compromise on electrical and electronic engineering in lead--Light current 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Request for suggestions
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?
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)
OK, so as I see it, the issue is that in one part of the world electrical engineering is the main field and electronics engineering is a subfield, and in another part of the world it's reversed. In this case, here is what should, by the rules and convention, be done.
One article on the topic should exist - not three (Electronics engineering, Electrical engineering, Electrical and electronics engineering). The article name is flexible, but the other two should redirect to it. If electrical engineering is the term in the US and Australia, I would consider that enough to make it the dominant term, but I'm really not invested in that catfight.
The article should, fairly early on, discuss the naming difference and why it arose.
That is it. It's very simple.
I've put merge tags on the three articles Electrical says to merge to electronics, and visa versa, and the electrical and electronics article has two merge tags. Somebody should consider fixing the goddamn problem instead of expending time edit warring over the tags. Phil Sandifer 16:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Now we are starting to fix the problem. Glad youre helping!--Light current 03:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Not quite correct about the issue. The north american view is that Electrical engineering is a wide field, and includes Electronic engineering as a sub field. Much of the rest of the world, including Australia, considers Electronics and Electrical engineering to be seperate fields with some overlap between them.
Also, rather than merge in, this article is already large enougth to warrent being seperated out into multiple articles even without this issue.
In my opinion, it is much easier to represent Electronics and Electrical engineering as seperated fields, and make it clear that the North American use combines the two. This is because if we present them as a combined field, we either leave the splitting of Electronic and Electrical to the reader causing confusion, or spend much of the article saying which would be considered electronic and which electrical.
I think Light's previous edits have been well intentioned, but have been muddying the waters a bit. I specificaly do not think there should be an 'Electronic and Electrical Engineering' article. There should be two interlinked articles, on Electronics and Electrical engineering. Both should link to each other, and maybe a Disambiguation page just for extra clarity on the particular issue itself.
Here is how I would summarise them.
Electrical engineering
For other uses, see Electrical and Electronic engineering (disambiguation).
Electrical engineering is an engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electricity and electromagnetism. Its practitioners are called electrical engineers. Electrical engineering is a broad field that encompasses many subfields including those that deal with power, instrumentation engineering, and telecommunications. Some common useages, particularly in North America, include the field of Electronics engineering. There is considerable overlap between both Electrical and Electronic engineering fields in practice, and in some instances the two phrases may be used interchangably.
Electronic engineering
For other uses, see Electrical and Electronic engineering (disambiguation).
Electronics engineering is an engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electronic devices, systems and electronic transport phenomena in semiconductors. Its practitioners are called electronics engineers. Electronic engineering is a broad field that encompasses many subfields including those that deal with control engineering, signal processing, and computer engineering. Some common useages, particularly in North America, include the field of Electronics engineering into that of Electrical engineering. There is considerable overlap between both Electrical and Electronic engineering fields in practice, and in some instances the two phrases may be used interchangably.
Electrical and Electronic engineering (disambiguation)
Electrical engineering, and Electronic engineering may refer to:
There is considerable overlap between both Electrical and Electronic engineering fields in practice, and in some instances the two phrases may be used interchangably.
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)
Barberio, Im just slightly uneasy with your definition of electrical engineering including telecomms and signal processing etc. I would have said these were firmly in the electronics eng area. Im interested to know where you see the dividing line between electrical eng and electronics eng at present so we can try to come to some initial compromise and make initial decisions on the splitting the material into the appropriate pages.--Light current 22:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
We're all capable of assessing the situation if we have enough contributions from around the world. There are no experts on this subject as you'll see if you look at the different university definitions of the two subjects. In fact, I think the WP editors are in a better poistion to define the differences than persons from a single country beacuse we have the advantage of communication and discussion with each other. I feel the discussion is going well and Barberio has presented an excellent starting point for discussion. I think we all ought to consider and discuss his proposals before moving on.--Light current 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
I thank you for your speedy reply here r b-j and for your comments. It does semm that there is a definite difference between the US terminology and that used in Europe and if youve read any of the above discussion youll know that were trying to make these articles global in appeal with no bias for or against any particular country. So I hope you will continue to comment here as the discussion progresses and we all try to hammer out some sort of accepatble compromise definitions. Forgive our ignorance over here in the UK but I assume that a tech certificate school does not award degrees? Is that right? THanks again.:-) --Light current 07:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
After some thoughts I have a proposal that maybe others could expand on (or knock down).We have a page called Electrical and electronics engineering that is mainly a dismab page explaining the different terminologies in different countries and then we link directly to different pages on all the sub fields of both sorts of engineering. This way I think we may be able to bypass some of the more contentious issues about who actually does what and it would also avoid duplication of material. On this main page we could indicate the overlap between disciplines and also include the common training and education requirements of engineers. We do not include any of the specialisms in detail on the page.
So basically we dont have pages on EITHER electrical eng OR electronics eng as such, (but the existing pages with these titles would be redirected to the new 'hub' page electrical and electronics engineering before the reader is pointed to the page of his choice. THe only problem here is what to do with the history stuff. I propose that it is put on a page called history of electricity or something. --Light current 16:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
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 blueelectric orange
Compiled by: --Electron Kid 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
Photographs of electrical heroes
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)
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)
Well thats OK. Maybe we can link to the existing articles/photos intead of taking up room here?--Light current 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Moved here from article page as advertised--Light current 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Electricity has been a subject of scientific interest since at least the seventeenth century. However it was not until the nineteenth century that research into the subject started to intensify. Notable developments in this century include the work of Georg Ohm who in 1827 quantified the relationship between the electric current and potential difference in a conductor and the work of Michael Faraday who in 1831 discovered electromagnetic induction.
During this period, work in the area increased dramatically. In 1882, Edison switched on the world's first large-scale electrical supply network that provided 110 volts direct current to fifty-nine customers in lower Manhattan. In 1887, Nikola Tesla filed a number of patents related to a competing form of power distribution known as alternating current. In the following years a bitter rivalry between Tesla and Edison, known as the "War of Currents", took place over the preferred method of distribution.
Tesla's work on induction motors and polyphase systems influenced electrical engineering for years to come. Edison's work on telegraphy and his development of the stock ticker proved lucrative for his company (which eventually became one of the world's largest companies, General Electric). As well as the contributions of Edison and Tesla, a number of other figures played an equally important role in the progress of electrical engineering at this time.
In 1942, Konrad Zuse presented the Z3, the world's first functional computer. In 1946, the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) of John Presper Eckert and John Mauchly followed, beginning the computing era. The arithmetic performance of these machines allowed engineers to develop completely new technologies and achieve new objectives. Early examples include the Apollo missions and the NASA moon landing.
The invention of the transistor in 1947 by William B. Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain opened the door for more compact devices and led to the development of the integrated circuit in 1959 by Jack Kilby and independently in 1961 by Robert Noyce. In 1958, G.C. Devol and J. Engelberger invented and built in the USA the world's first industrial robot. Such a robot was used for the first time in 1960 in industrial production by General Motors.
In 1968, Marcian Hoff at Intel invented the microprocessor and thus ignited the development of the personal computer. Hoff's invention was part of an order by a Japanese company for a desktop computer, which Hoff wanted to build as cheaply as possible. The first realization of the microprocessor was the Intel 4004, a 4-bit processor, in 1969, but only in 1973 did the Intel 8080, an 8-bit processor, make the building of the first personal computer, the Altair 8800, possible.
Clarification of grounding
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
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)
Before the invention of the integrated circuit in 1959, electronic circuits were constructed from discrete components that could be manipulated by humans. These non-integrated circuits consumed much space and power, were limited in speed although they are still common in some applications. By contrast, integrated circuits packed a large number - often millions - of tiny electrical components, mainly transistors, into a small chip around the size of a coin. This allowed for the powerful computers and other electronic devices we see today. Read more...
history removed?
why was the history section removed? — Omegatron 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Which more appropriate page did you move it to? — Omegatron 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved from my talk--Light current 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
The history section was frequently requested when the article underwent peer review. A history section is generally looked upon favourably when an article is nominated for feature status.
Hope that information is helpful.
Cedars 10:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thers no consensus for or against a history section in the so called 'Peer review'
Light current
Weak writing
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)
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)
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)
Distinction between electrical and electronics engineers/engineering
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)
Education paragraph
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)
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 [3] in which case you need specific permission to use it. Cedars 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It does appear to be copied but I dont think a list like this can really be subject to copyright restrictions. If it is, I'll just reorder it then it wont be. I reiterate that this syllabus is very important to the understanding of the capabilities and education of EEs and should therefore be explicitly stated and not just linked to.--Light current 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
I suggest all interested parties look at civil engineering page for ideas and to see how the problem has been dealt with there. Mechanical engineering is not in a good state I feel.--Light current 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Pleas do NOT remove the syllabus before we have decided on how to split the page properly. If you do it is just reverting to the previous version--Light current 02:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Well first of all I would ask you to take a look at civil engineering (as this has a lot of parallels to electrical eng.) and tell me what you think of it. I think its a good format even tho' I ve not been involved with it at all. If we can come to some agreement on the good and bad points of that page, then we have a starting point for electrical engineering.
I think it would be good to standardise the pages on all sorts of engineering, but I notice there is not, as yet, a wiki project on engineering. Im not going to start one but I may join a properly constituted one if someone else takes the lead on it.--Light current 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
You have not answered my previous question. So plese do so before taking unilateral action--Light current 10:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Yes I agree demographics section should be trimmed as a start.--Light current 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
I do not agree with the removal of the syllabus. But now I think we ought to move on and make the page into a hub as I suggested before with all the sub disciplines/specilaties fanning off as per civil eng page.--Light current 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
PCBs
EEs design PCBs. Why was this removed? — Omegatron 18:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Clearout
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)
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)
If I think a separate article is needed to explain training and education, I shall create one, putting a link from electrical engineering to it. Let me worry about the copyright status (which is no problem at all). List of electrical engineering topics I shall AfD as useless.--Light current 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Done it ;-))--Light current 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
There is no real point having a hub page which repeats stuff covered on the sub pages. However, in the interests of cooperation, I accept yor current reversion and will not change it back. I will however seek to improve the page still further-- I think it looks much better alreadY! :-))-Light current 02:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The attitude that the list of electrical engineering topics is useless is extremely arrogant.
OK in yet another gracious action, I shall alter my decision to AfD this page. I shall try to improve it insted. Happy?--Light current 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Your paragraph does not make grammatical sense. Civil engineering is a good example to follow. If you think its not - explain why not!--Light current 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
You must get the idea of every article you work on becoming a featured article out of your head. A featured article is not necessarily a good or useful/informative article from the point of view of the general readership.--Light current 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Yay! I hope that means we can finally abandon this silly attempt to make a hub page. Cedars 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think I care that you find things difficult?? Oh dear!--Light current 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please take a more mature attitude to WP.--Light current 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
=
Terminology section
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. [4] 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.
I feel another image representing the 'lighter' side of EE should be included. I thought the cct diag was quite good, but not perfect. Any one have any suggestions for an 'electronics' image to be included ing the lead para?--Light current 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No :-) I meant lighter as in low current/voltage stuff!--Light current 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Lead para
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)
Picture for 'electronics' subfield.
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?
Got signed out and forgot to sign. -C J Cowie 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that looks excellent!.Thanks. I'll introduce that to the page and see what people think--Light current 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I though this pic so good that I decided to put it at the top of the page.(THanks CJ) So now I need another one for electronics sub discipline.--Light current 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is another one. -C J Cowie 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that a pretty good one as well! Thank you for providing those pictures! They will liven up the electronics (oops-_ electrical pages a lot.
Teslas picture
Why has Teslas picture been removed?--Light current 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Picture locations
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)
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)
They are about the same area. I found it to be rather offputting if they are both sized at same no of pixels because the aspect ratio is not the same for both pictures.--Light current 03:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
Images
There seems to be some debate as to which images should be included. It seems that Light Current wants two images in the lead and two images in the history section, while Cedars wants one per section. With the longer TOC, I don't think it's unreasonable to have two images above and below each other in the lead. However, I'm not a fan of having two images in the first section of the history section—it just doesn't look that good to me. Could we compromise and leave the two images in the lead but only keep one in the history section? If there must be two images in the history section, I'd recommend putting the second in the second subsection, not in the first. What do you think? --Spangineer(háblame) 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the inclusion of appropriate images can be a great advantage to any encyclopeadia article. Most of the main critisism I have of engineering and scientific pages on WP is that they do not have enough pictures/diagrams: but I understand the work involved & problems in producing copyright free versions.
This Article is on a major subject and one that should be considered a hub page for accessing all the different aspects of the subject. In addition, some editors are trying to get trying to get it as a featured article (the two aims are not necessarily compatible in my view). In light of these considerations, I feel it is important to include as much relevant @eye candy@ (I hate the term) as we can in order to:
Make it a good attractive hub page article for reference purposes (ie we want to attract more young people into EE dont we?)
Make it visually attractive for the purposes of making it a featured article.
The pictures (such good ones too) of Tesla and Edison are so important to the history of the subject that I think they both deserve inclusion.
However, if it was, at some future date, decided to split off the history into a separate article, then they both should probaly go there. --Light current 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
We dont really have a problem with space, but if we really can have only one picture in the history section, I think it should be Tesla's as he seems, to me, to be more of a founding father than Edison. Inclusion of the other picture in the second subsection would be quite acceptable to me.--Light current 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with two images isn't space, but appearance. If the section was longer and one image could be used in the top left and the other in the bottom right without them overlapping, that'd be fine, but as it is, having both images there squishes the text for 800x600 screens and just doesn't look right to me. I don't have any preference for Tesla over Edison or vice versa, but I don't think that one of them should be put in the second half of the history section, because their work isn't discussed there. --Spangineer(háblame) 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
OK then. Lets discard one of them. Im content to try to see everyone happy on this. I must admit that I dont often consider readers looking at WP with low res screens!--Light current 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
2nd paragraph of the lead
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)
Size of page
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)
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)
History section
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)
This history section shows that there was in fact far more going on in radio engineering during the war than in electrical engineernig :-)--Light current 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Second World War
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)
