Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Signal Processing

Tools
I would like to draw your attention to some tools for signal processing articles on wikipedia that we developed. In our results we identify some pages that need improvement. The software is also available for performing further analysis. Jay (User talk:Shantham11) 09:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Conventions
Wikipedia editors have some powerful advantages over the author of a hardcover book. But where he has a distinct advantage is his ability to choose his favorite conventions and adhere to them consistently throughout the book. Unfortunately, the next book a student reads is likely to have different "conventions", but that's just a harsh fact of engineering life... not for idealists.

"Signal processing", in Wikipedia, suffers from an identity crisis, because it overlaps the realms of both mathematicians and engineers. Thus, in one article frequency is represented by ω in units of radians/sec, and in another it is represented by f in units of cycles/sec (hertz), and in yet another f is replaced by $$\xi.$$  Where some articles would say $$x(t)\ \stackrel{\mathcal{F}}{\Longleftrightarrow}\ X(f),$$  others say  $$f(x)\ \stackrel{\mathcal{F}}{\Longleftrightarrow}\ \hat{f}(\xi).$$  And in some signal processing articles, $$\hat f$$ is a Fourier transform, but in others it is a Hilbert transform.

IMO, a "signal processing" project should aim for more consistency than general Wikipedia is able to provide. I don't even know if that is in the project's scope. But if it is, the engineering flavor, a là Oppenheim & Schafer, is my personal preference.

--Bob K (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, Bob, and I hope you'll help make it so. Not that the more mathematical stuff will be excluded or demoted, but it should be more in the depth dimension, not at the top level where concepts are introduced and breadth (of topic and audience) is important.  I hope we'll go with an engineer-friendly notation everywhere.   Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am happy to help. But I don't yet know what that means.  I've never been on a project before. --Bob K (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true that signal processing is a multidisciplinary subject and that engineers, mathematicians, physicists, and chemists all have their own notation conventions. A recent epic discussion in Talk:Convolution well illustrated to problem of editors of the different cultures talking past each other. My own two cents is that whatever notation is chosen for an article or set of articles, that notation should be explained and common alternative notations should be mentioned if warranted. While a textbook author can ignore any field of study they choose, I think we have a mandate at WP to the inclusive and descriptive of the different approaches, with due weight. For electrical engineering DSP notation, I agree, Oppenheim & Schafer is a classic. --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourier transform
I'd like to invite editors interested in signal processing to please have a look at the lead of Fourier transform, and consider whether the content, balance, level, etc. is appropriate for readers interested in learning about this important transform. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Signal Processing articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Waking Up This Project
Signal Processing is an area of engineering and computer science with a long history. The broad division is analog vs digital (meaning discrete time and/or discrete magnitude) Digital Signal Processing (DSP) using computer software and hardware is the modern form of this field. Let's get active. Codwiki (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Any interest in re-activating this project?
It's been a few year since there's any discussion in this project. There's still work to be done. Anyone interested in pushing things forward? Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm active in this area and happy to give a little push ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm more into wiki-gnoming these years, but could do more of this, too. I recently hacked on Steered-response power a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am learning about signal processing and compression in my free time. I will try to focus on improving coverage of the field. If anyone knows of articles that need creation or attention, feel free to tag me or add the page to the to-do list. Holzklöppel (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)