Talk:7805 (integrated circuit)

Merger

Not in favor of merge. This is not a technical website, this is for beginners and improvers who appreciate things that are kept simple, I know I was a beginner once also!

Hi.

"This is not a technical website, this is for beginners and improvers...".

Actually I don't think that's true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, that does not exclude being technical.

In either case, the 7805 and the 7812 are basically the same except for a few specs. No point duplicating the content in two separate articles when they could easily be combined into one.

That said, I'm not even sure if those articles belong here in the first place. -Roger (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should be combined in something like 78xx with a table describing the differences between the members of the whole family. Moonkey (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes the most sense to have one article for the whole 78xx line (which should include the other common ICs in this family (7810, 7815, 7824, etc) too, IMHO). These are all basically the same device, just with different output voltage. There's nowhere near enough unique content to justify multiple articles (especially since this article is arguably a stub as it is). -- Foogod (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a new page as 78xx which covers the whole family, and also fleshes out the article a fair amount. If there are no objections, in a little bit I will switch 7805 and 7812 to redirect to 78xx instead. Let me know what you think. -- Foogod (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, great job. I say go ahead and redirect the old pages. One thing though, can we generalize the name of the page to account for both 78xx and 79xx devices? 7xxx sounds a bit too vague... -Roger (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that, but (a) couldn't come up with a great name (I'd be inclined to make it "78xx/79xx" except you can't put a slash in article names), and more importantly (b) the article really doesn't say much about 79xx devices currently except an off-hand comment, so it'd probably need to be fleshed out with some more 79xx information (such as how and why they're intended to be used) before it would be valid to label it as an article on 79xx stuff. I was figuring I'd leave all that as a task for another stage of things (one step at a time..). -- Foogod (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]