Talk:Pulse train
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by FaviFake in topic Merge proposal
 | The content of the Pulse train page was merged into Pulse wave on 18 October 2025, and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article, please see its history. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 8 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from PulseTrain to pulse train. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 8 April 2025
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
PulseTrain → pulse train – I assume that this article was intended as a replacement for the existing pulse train redirect — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why does this need a discussion? kbrose (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- It needs a discussion because this appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of the existing redirect target, pulse wave. Is "pulse train" distinct enough from "pulse wave" to support two separate articles, or should we have only one article, and if so which one? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I don't recall why I arrived at this page. There is no question that the current title cannot stand. It must be renamed to something else, as the title is non-conforming to the English standards and it is clearly not a proper name.
- On first glance, this article covers nothing different than the existing article and must be merged. Perhaps a merge will improve the existing artlcle and vice versa, as both seem equally bad in two opposing directions. kbrose (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- It needs a discussion because this appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of the existing redirect target, pulse wave. Is "pulse train" distinct enough from "pulse wave" to support two separate articles, or should we have only one article, and if so which one? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge proposal
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This issue hasn't been fully resolved, as there's the remaining issue of whether Pulse train should be merged into Pulse wave. I'm neutral on this, but it either needs to be addressed or removed from the active merge discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Good point; looking at the edit history, I can't follow what happened in terms of moving pages. However, looking at the current state, I agree that Pulse train and Pulse wave are describing the same thing, although taking different approaches - one more practical (Pulse train) and one more theoretical (Pulse wave). I would have gone with the more practical 'pulse train', as that is familiar to me, by ngram suggested that 'pulse wave' is more common. So, I support the merge, to Pulse wave (agreeing with the templates) as synonyms. Klbrain (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.