19
\$\begingroup\$

Two fine questions were migrated today:

On the latter there's a comment:

I have deemed this is too noisy a thread for the main EE.SE . One could also argue that the question is off-topic and not about electronics design. After all, "Shield [in the Arduino context]" is a marketing word. p.s. The voting pattern was also more consistent with meta (or religion, if you would) than with the main site (at the time when I've migrated this to meta).

I don't recall 'noisy' being a migration reason. If a post generates many off topic comments, the solution is to protect or ultimately lock it.

May I suggest a slightly more tolerant attitude? It can't hurt to wait and let the community decide.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd agree that the millis() question is best in Arduino SE as the function involved is Arduino & 'Processing' specific. As a bonus it is more liable to be educational to other people if in Arduino. Obtaining mS resolution in ANSI C is hard and tends to be system specific. Arduino very logically and nicely solves this. While, as you note, the ACTUAL question involved mixing unsigned longs with other data types and not really millis() per se, USL will be relatively little used for other purposes. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Mar 6 '15 at 2:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related: millis() period calculations are nicely handled by saving a target value in another USL variable and subtracting them to get the difference. This can then usually be used as an INT if desired. This has the very great advantage of still giving the correct answers if the millis() counter wraps during the period concerns. People propose many lines of code for something which can be handled by a simple USL subtraction. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Mar 6 '15 at 2:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ When oh when are the arduinees finally going to learn not to come here!!? \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 6 '15 at 14:22
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I like them, they are nice. \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 6 '15 at 14:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Add this question electronics.stackexchange.com/posts/158962/revisions to the list of posts that were closed and moved as off topic while they were perfectly on topic here. Unless the comparison between the PDIP and TQFP versions of mega328 is somehow considered an Arduino specific question. In addition that move created a duplicate, since the question had already been asked there too by the same user. \$\endgroup\$ – alexan_e Mar 11 '15 at 18:50
8
\$\begingroup\$

The second question, which asks about the term "shield", should have stayed on the main site. This is basically a history of electronics question, and would have been a good place to explain what "shield" really means, how the term was hijacked by arduino marketing, and what such things are normally called.

The only reason I can see to move it is if it collected a lot of low quality answers, emotional diatribes, and the like. Perhaps it already did and that was why it was moved. In other words, the question itself was reasonable, but it if collected largely noise as answers, then it should have been outright deleted.

This is little different from asking about other terms in electronics, like "valve" versus "tube", how "ground" and "earth" are used today, how widely acceptable the abbreviation PCB is, etc.

We have had terminology questions or electronics history questions before, and they have been widely accepted as on-topic.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The answer(s) to the shield question wasn't all that noisy, but the comments below it were numerous. In some other SE sites, the solution in such cases is to move the comments to chat. \$\endgroup\$ – SX welcomes ageist gossip Mar 8 '15 at 0:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ I believe it would also be on topic for EL&U, if unlikely to be answered there. \$\endgroup\$ – Dan Sheppard Mar 17 '15 at 19:28
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ How is collecting low quality answers or emotional diatribes a reason for migrating to meta? Meta is for site management. Low quality answers and emotional diatribes should be dealt with by protection, moderation and moving chatty comment threads to chat. \$\endgroup\$ – David Richerby Mar 18 '15 at 9:23
-2
\$\begingroup\$

The first question is directly associated with the Arduino ecosystem, and should be there.

The second question doesn't really belong on Meta or the main site if you ask me.

This question sounds more like whining to me.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ So now any question associated with Arduino should be migrated? Since when? See meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/3737/… and meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/3421/… \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 6 '15 at 5:11
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Passerby That question is centered around an Arduino library function, wtf is so wrong with migrating it a place centered around that ecosystem? \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 6 '15 at 13:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Passerby and those two questions just reinforce my point... \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 6 '15 at 13:46
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Rhetorical question (on the Arduino question): what happened to the attitude of not migrating something when it's not strictly off topic? \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 6 '15 at 20:16
-5
\$\begingroup\$

re: arduino - millis()
Off-topic ≠ bad. No hard feelings. But it's still off-topic.
It is a fine question in a sense that there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It deals with inner workings of Arduino code. That's what Arduino.SE is best at.
Technically, millis() is not pure C, it's an Arduino library function.

re: Was the term “shield” in use [for daughterboards] before arduino became popular?
I have deemed this is too noisy a thread for the main EE.SE . One could also argue that the question is off-topic and not about electronics design. After all, "Shield [in the Arduino context]" is a marketing word.
The voting pattern was also more consistent with meta (or religion, if you would) than with the main site (at the time when I've migrated this to meta).
There is close-vote on the meta incarnation already. If there is enough initiative to reject this migration, then I will not object further. I will, however, move the noisy comments to chat in that case.

p.s.
Keelan, you forgot to mention another one, which I have also migrated today: Is this stack exchange suitable for questions concerning wireless communications?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I did not ask for an explanation for these migrations, but I appreciate it nevertheless. What I did ask is if it's possible to wait a bit longer and see what the community thinks first. Could you perhaps respond to that as well? \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 6 '15 at 7:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 because this generally makes sense, even if I could possibly quibble with the details regarding the second question. The third question was a clear meta question. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 6 '15 at 14:21
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't see how the third question is relevant here, to be honest. Responding to criticism on two actions with "but look, this one thing I did right!" is a bit thin. \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 6 '15 at 14:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @CamilStaps In a nutshell. The title of your original question: "Can we stop the random migrating? [emphasis mine N.A.]" My response: "These aren't random." \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Mar 7 '15 at 19:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NickAlexeev you lied! You closed it again! \$\endgroup\$ – hildred Mar 9 '15 at 19:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @hildred I did leave it be. Please (1) check dates of when it was closed (2) learn the details of how questions are closed, migrated, reopened on StackExchange. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Mar 9 '15 at 22:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ So, the 2nd question has been closed off topic here on meta, was locked by the Community user and there's a notice 'migration rejected from the main site'? We also lost the answer. Can this be fixed? I can't comment there because the post is locked. \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 10 '15 at 17:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @CamilStaps its back on the main site, but with worse answers, with meta answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 11 '15 at 2:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Passerby I don't see the answers you're talking about? \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 11 '15 at 19:28
-6
\$\begingroup\$

The first question about millis() was correctly migrated. It was a poster-case arduinee question that doesn't belong here.

When it matters that the microcontroller development board in use is specifically a arduino, then it most likely doesn't belong here. If you can replace "adrduino" with "microcontroller" or "microcontroller development board", then at least it doesn't fail the arduino smell test.

When "sketch" or "shield" are mentioned in the arduino context, then it really doesn't belong here. Those are annoying marketing terms invented for the arduino specifically to dumb down the look and feel. This site is for electrical engineering. If the asker isn't iterested in understanding electronics, then they don't belong here. Arduinos are intended to do exactly the opposite, which is to let people get things done with a microcontroller without having to know what it going on. That's perfectly fine, but not for here.

When you come here, you need to have graduated past this and actually want to know about the underlying electronics and details of the micro. But, the burden of proof is on you, and mentioning "arduino" is a strong clue you're not ready for real electronics yet. Mentioning "sketch" or "shield" in the arduino context proves the point, and also implicitly thumbs your nose at all the real electrical engineers here. Particularly "shield" already has a long-standing and specific meaning in electronics, and if you haven't learned that yet or aren't ready to respect that yet, then you're not ready for real electrical engineering yet.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 15
    \$\begingroup\$ This post is a good example of the strong exclusionary forces that exist on this site. A rhetorical question: what is the criteria for something to be considered "real" electrical engineering? \$\endgroup\$ – dext0rb Mar 6 '15 at 14:40
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @dext0rb If a question talks about shields or things directly associated with the Arduino ecosystem, it should be on the Arduino stack. Why does everyone have such a problem with what is a clear line in the sand? \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 6 '15 at 16:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MattYoung I am not against the migration of Arduino topics to the Arduino stack. \$\endgroup\$ – dext0rb Mar 6 '15 at 17:25

You must log in to answer this question.