Talk:Phase-locked loop range

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Phase-locked loop

The multiple names and vague definitions for this concept make me question whether this is worth an article in its own right Derek Andrews (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on this article. Precise mathematical definitions will be added soon. Marat Yuldashev 14:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratyv (talk • contribs)

I've added links from Phase-locked_loop#Performance_parameters to this page --Marat Yuldashev 13:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratyv (talk • contribs)

Perhaps this is a valid sub-topic article, per WP:Summary style, if it goes into too much detail for the main Phase-locked loop article. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maratyv Marat Yuldashev 11:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the wrong merge tag was used -- you aren't proposing that Phase locked loop be merged into Phase-locked loop ranges, but rather the other way around, correct? Because Phase locked loop should be the main article. Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as an electrical engineer I agree with merging articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasi73.ra (talk • contribs) 09:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing given that no clear consensus for a merge over 2 years; while the last statement is in support, there is no argument presented for the merge other than a statement of expert opinion. Earlier commentators have objected. Klbrain (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]