Talk:Printed circuit board

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Printed circuit board article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 180 days

Electronics High‑importance

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Through-hole technology was copied or moved into Printed circuit board with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Discussion regarding the opening paragraph + source

I added this section to the talk page to allow anyone to freely write an opinion regarding the opening paragraph + it's cited source correctness.

Here it is: A printed circuit board (PCB) is a laminated sandwich structure of conductive and insulating layers. The PCB has two complementary functions, the first is to affix electronic components in designated locations on the outer layers by means of soldering, and the second is to provide reliable electrical connections (and also reliable open circuits) between the component's terminals in a controlled manner often referred to as PCB design. Each of the conductive layers is designed with an artwork pattern of conductors (similar to wires on a flat surface) that provides electrical connections on that conductive layer, while another manufacturing process adds vias[1] - small and precisely located holes that are drilled through the laminate and then plated with copper. The vias are the electrical interconnection between layers that are otherwise insulated in the laminate structure and this allows a third dimension of connection between conductive layers in a controlled manner that is both reliable and cost-effective for mass production of electronic products.

The source cited: PCB via and PCB design in-depth guide

As far as my personal knowledge, this is a very detailed source with references to accepted IPC standards and has a reference section citing it's sources of information. Please feel free to have a look and see if any inaccuracies exist. SunnyG81 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits overall. However, the reference is clearly self published source WP:RSSELF. It is the product of one person, generated for commercial purposes, not subject to any editorial review or peer review. The fact the reference cites reliable sources is irrelevant. If those reliable sources actually establish the facts, then those sources should be cited. The webpage includes: “Please also check our electronic design services page.” Which pushes it into the promotional category. However, the facts being established are common knowledge in the industry and are unlikely to be challenged. Constant314 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you agree to my edited contents (as you just approved them), and acknowledged the source article as factual and "unlikely to be challenged". But unwilling to give credit for other's work. The source clearly is non-promotional, within a 6000-word document, there is only one single reference to the home page. Otherwise, the source is completely add-free, relevant, and informational. If you agree the information is relevant and instructive to wikipedia, why not give credit for other's efforts? SunnyG81 (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyG81, Constant314 is correct, we do not use self published sources on Wikipedia, even if we personally think they're correct. See WP:RS and WP:V for details. MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shemesh does not get any credit because he is just repeating common knowledge that was known and written long before he wrote it again. His only contribution is the particular choice and sequence of words. He is not the source of this knowledge. Constant314 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope you find it reasonable that a 6000-word technical article with only 3-word reference to the home page would not constitute it as 'promotional'. At the very least, you should compare this source to others that are on the main article, i'd dare say this is one of the least promotional pages I've seen.

Second, sorry to disagree again Constant314, to gather a 6000-word article is not an easy task and I would not call this common knowledge, rather, this knowledge and understanding has been gathered for years. Not only that, it is brought to the community on a silver plate, free of charge, add-free. In comparison, IPC standards cost money, in the hundred-of-dollars range, this is not what I refer to as common knowledge. It is more reasonably referred to as expert knowledge. And based on that the first clause of article was written by me, and then copied and pasted (with reference omitted) by yourself. I think it would be appropriate to acknowledge others work.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that both of you (Constant314 and MrOllie) have reasonably inspected to the article to trust it's contents (ref: unlikely to be challenged). I did not see something in the guidlines completely ruling out agaist it, I have looked into WP:RSSELF and WP:RS and WP:V. My question, wouldn't you think a reader coming into wikipedia can benefit from? if so you can cite it yourself.

For me, the entire process is very discouraging. As a young user to see my work reverted all the way back to June is no right, just hours and hours of pure work and there were no sources involved.

best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyG81, you seem to have some special insight into how the source was written. How do you know that 'this knowledge and understanding has been gathered for years.'? Are you associated with the referenced site or its author in some way? If you think we are misinterpreting the guidance on self-published sourcing in WP:RS you are welcome to seek additional input at the sourcing noticeboard, but I think you will be told exactly the same thing there. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie I was hoping that perhaps you or a fellow Wikipedian could help to judge the source's reliability purely based on the contents and his knowledge in the field of art to clarify any RS issues. SunnyG81 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyG81, As I said before, on Wikipedia sources aren't evaluated based on content. We use editorial standards and fact checking processes for that, and a self published source has neither. Also, if you're going to ask me to do things or ask questions, please do me the courtesy of not ignoring my own questions. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://bgpcba.com/what-is-pcb-printed-circuit-board/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]