Timeline for What to do with the terminology reference question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 11, 2014 at 21:44 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | This is now a failed experiment. Too many people are now either deliberately abusing the question or don't get it and are adding every last silly abbreviation that pop into their little minds. I thought we could work together to make a useful reference, but there are too many vandals and morons for that to work. The fact that it has now been vadalized by a moderator is the last straw. As the question author, I tried to delete it, but the system won't let me. I have voted to close. Hopefully 4 people will join me and we can put this mess behind us. | |
| May 10, 2014 at 12:42 | comment | added | W5VO Mod | @NickT I expressly said I would count net vote counts so that people could express a preference for all 3 options. Even if I didn't, it wasn't really close. | |
| May 10, 2014 at 7:13 | comment | added | jippie | Concerning maintenance of the index: Everyone with sufficient rep to edit the question can do that now. There is a URL in the question that will create the index with correct markup to copy and paste. The URL will be updated once per day at max to prevent abuse. | |
| May 10, 2014 at 5:46 | comment | added | Nick T | @W5VO point of order for future "polls", you really should not count down-votes as it effectively gives everyone 2+ votes. | |
| May 9, 2014 at 15:33 | history | edited | W5VOMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 69 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 9, 2014 at 15:26 | vote | accept | W5VO | ||
| May 7, 2014 at 4:55 | comment | added | W5VO Mod | @AdamDavis Added this as a reason against. (Thanks) | |
| May 7, 2014 at 4:54 | history | edited | W5VOMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| May 7, 2014 at 4:44 | comment | added | Adam Davis | I guess for some people it's not enough that there are EE acronym lists all over the internet, and google is very helpful. allacronyms.com/tag/electrical_engineering ... ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/text/acronyms.html ... abbreviations.com/acronyms/ELECTRONICS ... digikey.com/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/GenCable_42/PDF/… ... allacronyms.com/tag/electronics ... Shoot, running out of room. Here, have a Google Search! | |
| May 7, 2014 at 4:40 | comment | added | Adam Davis | "It is not close to being complete" should be "There is no logical end" I wonder if those voting for the question to remain open have seen what these types of poll questions ended up like on other sites when the community allowed them. After 2 pages, no one bothers to go through and vote on all the good contributions, and after 20 pages the community finally realizes how utterly useless the whole exercise was. | |
| May 7, 2014 at 1:33 | history | edited | W5VOMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 254 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2014 at 20:21 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | Some of the cons are mitigated a bit by this being community wiki. In the end I think it serves a useful purpose, but locking it for now until someone can make a case for a abbreviation we really need sounds like a good idea. This has taken on a life of its own way beyond what I imagined at the beginning. I thought we'd have 30-50 abbreviations and then it would just sit in the back as a reference. That was very naive in hindsight. Too many people tried to dump every last abbreviation there they could think of. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 19:38 | comment | added | W5VO Mod | @ScottSeidman I think that's secondary to the question at hand: "Should it exist at all?" | |
| May 6, 2014 at 19:35 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | Isn't that how CW answers are designed to be maintained?? | |
| May 6, 2014 at 19:35 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | Why don't we let it go a bit, and then move the index with the definitions to a community wiki ANSWER instead of the question, delete all the other answers, and let the wiki EDITS maintain the answer form that point? That way nobody needs to run perl scripts to keep updating the index. One issue is that there are some defs missing because there are more than one abbreviation in many answers. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 15:32 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackElectronix/status/463702731929444352 | ||
| May 6, 2014 at 14:28 | history | edited | W5VOMod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 6, 2014 at 4:55 | answer | added | W5VOMod | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 6, 2014 at 4:53 | answer | added | W5VOMod | timeline score: 8 | |
| S May 6, 2014 at 4:52 | answer | added | W5VOMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| S May 6, 2014 at 4:52 | history | asked | W5VOMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |