Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 29 October 2007

Drastic changes needed in Analog signal and Analog circuit

The structure of the Analog Circuit category is disorganized in genral and needs a look.

Category http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Analog_circuits lists a number of circuits, which is fine, but its lead-in article is named Analogue electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/Analogue_electronics. This article name definitely should be changed to Analog_electronics for consistency with the rest of Misplaced Pages articles and for agreement with international usage of this term as a technical designation (it is not a simple variation of spelling in an English adjective).

A topic in Analog_circuits is Analogue signals, which refers in turn to the main article Analog signal, changes in spelling that are confusing and inappropriate, as discussed above.

The article Analog device confuses the technical term "device" with the broad term "apparatus" and later confuses "device" with "circuit". I have made some changes, but find the whole thing a major mare's nest.Brews ohare 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/Electronics refers to "main article" Analog circuits, which is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/Analog_circuits which actually links to this page Analogue electronics, a mess, no? Brews ohare 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Analog signal and Analog circuit

After reading the articles on Analog signals and Analog circuits, there seems to be a lot of material in common. In fact they seem to have so much in common it seems to be a good idea to merge them all here, and treat what minor differences there are in separate sections within this article. Alf Boggis 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The conceptual analog signal is not the same as an analog circuit. If anything, the "Analogue signals" section should be dumped into analog signal. Cburnett 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying they were the same thing, merely that the articles had the same content, (practically word-for-word in some parts). Given that "Analogue Signals" and "Analogue Circuits" are the essence of analogue electronics I suggested they were merged, otherwise I'm not sure what the "Analogue Electronics" article would contain that wasn't in one of the other two...? Alf Boggis 08:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to the other articles and cut out the duplicated information. Analog electronics should not discuss analog signals: analog signal should do that. Cburnett 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak

Needs cleanup - windy generalizations such as "Analogue circuits are several times faster than their digital counterparts." are effectively meansingless - what's the analog counterpart of a ROM? On my to-do list, if no-one beats me to it. --Wtshymanski 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Analog VS Analogue

A search on www.Google.com gives over 85 Million results for "Analog", but only 27.2 Million results for "Analogue". Also, the page for Analog shows 16 entries with the spelling "Analog", and only two with "Analogue". Given that "Analog" is the more common spelling, and closer to the Greek (ana + logos) as well, can this page be moved to "Analog Electronics", and the spelling within its sub-sections be changed from "analogue" to "analog"? Mintchocolatebear 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by @modi 11:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC):

I agree with changing the spelling of the title from "analogue" to "analog". I have never seen it spelled "analogue" before, and I think this indicates that most people spell it "analog". If I remember to, I will try to move the article within a few days if that's okay with everybody.

NO, it's not OK. See WP:ENGVAR. The article was started in British English, so should be left that way. Dicklyon 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Between analog device and analogue electronics; The former seems to be a subset of the content (or should-be content) of the latter. Fourohfour 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support – There's no need for new analog device article. Just redirect it over here and advise the author to merge anything he feels this article is missing. Dicklyon 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be an excellent idea to merge analog device into analogue electronics. It doesn't make any sense to keep two related topics separate! Especially when one is a part of the other!Rthakur 03:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Circuits are, of course, combinations of devices, and circuit design is a separate discipline from device design. Separate articles are required for the two subjects of analog devices and analog circuits. In addtion, signals are separate again from circuits, which process signals. Brews ohare 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand separating devices, circuits, and signals. But then what is the role of "analog electronics"? Dicklyon 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Analog electronics refers to circuits containing transistors, while "analog circuits" refers to a somewhat more general subject that deals with all types of circuit that handle continuously variable signals, in contrast to "digital circuits" that deal with "0" and "1" voltage levels. The design approach to analog electronics is very different from that used for digital electronics, and so the two subjects deserve separate treatment.Brews ohare 18:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually for a good part of the 20th century analog electronic circuits contained no transistors or integrated circuits at all. See vacuum tube, for instance. --Wtshymanski 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Accurate statement: I am historically challenged. A better statement about electronic circuits is that they include nonlinear devices, that is, they include things other than resistors, capacitors and inductors. Transistors and vacuum tubes are such nonlinear devices.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I sort of get that; if there are no electronic devices in a circuit it can still be an analog circuit; but in that case, why not just call it a circuit?

Calling a circuit "analog" conveys some information about the type of signals it is intended to work with.

Similarly with devices. A device such as a transistor or a vacuum tube is not inherently analog or digital; it's a device that can be used in either analog or digital electronics.

It is true that some devices are ambidextrous. I'd vote with you on this one, and simply hope that articles on individual devices might point out their different modes of operation and differences in design design details that vary with the application.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So can someone spell out exactly what set of articles they are proposing, and roughly the scope of each?

The present analog device article is mostly about system-level things, not device-level things; does that make sense to keep, or merge it here? Dicklyon 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is certainly the bottom line. I'd suggest individual device articles (of which many already exist), and circuit articles. In the device category we have, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/Transistor which has links to many special articles. That is a good arrangement, and can cover the device aspects. From the circuit standpoint we have http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Analog_circuits that has links to many relevant articles. Unfortunately the lead article "Analogue electronics" is a very poor overview of this category, and one searching for guidance to the Category:Analog_circuits will not find it here, which in my view should be the role of this article.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about the organization of Misplaced Pages. There exists a "category" electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Electronics with a "Main Article" electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/Electronics which includes a section called "Analog Electronics" that refers to a "Main Article" called Analog Circuits, that links to this entry "Analogue Electronics". For consistency and clarity I'd suggest that the article "Analogue Electronics" be deleted in its entirety and replaced with an appropriate article "Analog Circuits" that would serve as an intro to the articles in the category http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Analog_circuits.Brews ohare 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In this connection, can someone explain the notion of "subcategory" and why "electronic amplifiers" http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Electronic_amplifiers fits in as a subcategory to analog electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Analog_circuits? And why is "amplifiers" a Category http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Electronic_amplifiers instead of a subcategory of http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Electronics?Brews ohare 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger ideas

There seems to be two discussions going on in this forum. Analog vs Analogue and device vs electronics. Analog is the more widely used term (e.g. analog devises, the IC chip manufacturer) and should be the main topic with a paragraph about the origin of the word. Also Analog circuits should be merged with Analog Devices they describe the same thing. I believe the title should be Analog Electronics which is the more accurate description and to not give free advertising to the manufacturer Analog Devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.112.140 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The spelling issue should be omitted here; it's taken care of by WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the view that "Analog is the more widely used term (e.g. analog devises, the IC chip manufacturer) and should be the main topic"Brews ohare 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine, the American spelling is more widely used than the British. But did you look at WP:ENGVAR? Dicklyon 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue transcends the notion of spelling variation among English users. For example, I have on my shelf "Analog Design Essentials" from Belgium, "Analog Design Centering and Sizing" from Germany,etc. Moreover, all technical meetings world wide use Analog. Thus, from the viewpoint of international usage "analog" is the common term, and amounts to a technical term rather than a common English adjective, regardless of its origin in USA.Brews ohare 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)