Talk:Keyboard technology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yyl217.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lexmark inferiority?
There is no evidence to suggest the Lexmark buckling spring keyboards are of any lower quality than the original IBM designs...there is clearly a reduction in material quantity and therefore building cost, but there is no evidence I know of that the actual quality declined (for example if the melted plastic rivets that hold the keyboard together consisted of a more brittle plastic resulting in board "death" happening sooner, that would be a quality issue, but simply reducing the amount of plastic used to mold the case or metal used in the backplate is not an actual quality problem).

Would like to see someone with more "wikisperiance" make the appropriate edits to make that segment more neutral in tone. Note: I'm on a dynamic IP and so if I follow up to this will not have the same IP address. 75.119.254.100 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliability

 * Hall effect keyboards use magnets and "Hall Effect" sensors instead of an actual switch. When a key is depressed, it moves a magnet, which is detected by a solid-state Hall-effect sensor. These keyboards are extremely reliable, and are able to accept millions of keystrokes before failing.

This sounds impressive until you realize that dome-switch and buckling spring keyboards are also guaranteed to accept "millions of keystrokes" (see, e.g. ). Unless there's a factor involved converting "keystrokes" to "key switch life", the "millions" are not precise enough to illustrate that Hall effect keyboards are more reliable. Does someone have more precise figures or an explanation? 82.92.119.11 12:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Keyboard feet
How about a section on the proper name for the feet/stand that you flip out to stand your keyboard at an angel? You'd probably also include the other standard non-electronic parts of a keyboard in that section.

multiplexed keyboard matrix wiring
What is the appropriate Wikipedia article to discuss the pattern of how the electronics are wired to the keys?

The rollover (key) article briefly mentions "a matrix of key switches", but the matrix disambiguation page doesn't seem to mention this kind of matrix. I've heard people say "multiplexed keyboard" but the multiplexer and multiplexing articles seem to focus on "devices" that "do" multiplexing. There is no such device in a multiplexed keyboard -- the only thing between the keyboard CPU and the switches are some resistors. (Higher quality keyboards also have anti-phantom-key diodes). But, of course, resistor isn't going to help me understand how a multiplexed keyboard works.

Does an article already exist that does for multiplexed keyboard input what the multiplexed display and Charlieplexing articles do for multiplexed LED output? --75.37.227.177 18:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See the Keyboard matrix (music) article for info on matrix circuits. The same principle is used with alphanumeric keyboardsOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.206.129 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sun type 4 keyboard switch technology?
What kind of switch technology did the old Sun type 4 keyboards use? ISTR they were nearly as nice as the buckling spring switches, while not being quite as loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.148.165 (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken Links
The links under Membrane Keyboard for IntelliKeys and Discoverboard are broken, and I have no idea where to find references for these. Just a heads up. IchiroMihara (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Combos
I'm using (or was, until I spilt wine on it) a keyboard which uses dome switches for the key action, but a membrane for the actual circuit. The keyboard is a Microsoft Natrual 4000. A similar combination was used in a previous keyboard I used made by BenQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.245.224 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Illuminated keyboards
Perhaps someone knowledgeable could add some bits about illuminated keyboards. -- Ddxc (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Common failure modes
Mention common failure modes, "now the left and right shift keys send QQQ and ZZZ respectively", etc. and if there is a cure. Jidanni (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Might it be mentioned that the scissor-switch mechanism of laptop keyboards is, well, rather flimsy? Every laptop I've owned, the first damage suffered has been that a peg breaks off of the plastic scissor-switch under some key. I wouldn't think it appropriate, but then there is mention of the unpopularity of the old chicklet keyboards. Gregory Merchan (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? What brand of laptop are you using? I've been using this same Fujitsu Lifebook laptop for years coming now and there's been no trouble from it.Occasionality (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Laser Keyboard Section
It seems like this section has an overly critical tone compared to the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.187.242 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Membrane/dome keyboards? Reed sensor keyboards?
Hello,

The cheap and middle-priced keyboards which i have recently disassembled use technology not described in the article. They consist of standard membrane layout (contact foil, spacer foil with holes, another contact foil), above which there are separate latex dome elements or a single silicone bump layer covering the complete keyboard, similar to dome type keyboards. The major difference to dome switch type is that inner of the bumps or domes is not conductive. The purpose of the domes is to provide tactile feedback and travel, and to reliably activate the membrane type switches below.

I can see how this might be cheaper and simpler than pure dome type switches. So in fact this might be predominant technology for PC keyboards at the time, however i have no statistical data on it so i cannot be sure.

Another interesting keyboard type is based Reed switches. I had this in a self-built home computer in the beginning of 90ies. The keyboard is similar to Hall effect sensors in that it uses a magnet in the keycap, however the magnet in the keycap activates a Reed sensor, which is a small vacuum tube with spaced metal stripes. When a magnet comes near, it pulls the stripes together thus making a contact. The advantage of Reed sensor type is that one can reuse standard keyboard electronics used for mechanical switch based keyboards, the elements are durable, and are not affected by dirt or fluids, and the full travel is not required for activation. Also, the bounce is neglegible. Disadvantage is perhaps the increased price compared to mechanical switches.

I have heard rumors that Vivanco Whiteboard/Blackboard (probably also sold by other vendors under different names) uses Reed switches in conjunction with silicone dome layer for tactile feedback and scissor-type key supports, however i haven't owned one and had no chance of disassembling it. Also i don't have any data about what other keyboard types could be using Reed switch technology

--IlyaMinkov (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Is a Japanese-layout laptop keyboard really the best we can do for the lead picture on this article on the English Wikipedia? How about disassembling a run-of-the-mill Dell 104-key or something? &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 08:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It could perhaps be improved by a picture that showed the same as well as the keycap structure and key feedback mechanism but I don't see any reason to change it based purely on layout for this article. (It is in fact keyboard is a US layout keyboard already) Dyson&#39;s Dragon (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Capacitive keyboard
Capacitive switches are not a rare find in generic keyboards these days, they are impossible to find. The only company currently producing capacitive switches for consumer keyboards is Topre, well known for their RealForce keyboard. These same switches are also used in the Happy Hacking Keyboard Pro. The most widely known capacitive keyboards are probably the vintage IBM Model F keyboards, which are the keyboards used with the XT and AT computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.52.115 (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Scissor Switch Claims
I've edited the scissor switch sector and fixed some obvious errors but there were a couple of claims that I was dubious about but didn't want to delete entirely in case they only needed minor modification. Firstly:

"These stabilizing scissor-like devices extend the lifespan of the membrane to as much as 10 million keystrokes."

Given that dome-switch keyboards claim up to 20 million keystrokes (e.g. Cherry's Cymotion and G83 ranges) is this refering to membrane-only keyboards (it seems unlikely, and I thought they were hard wearing), does it need to be clarified or is it just plain wrong?

Secondly:

"Scissor-switch keyboards ... have a 'bouncier' feel to them"

I haven't used that many, but the ones I've tried have all been very light and while they may technically spring back faster they haven't felt very 'bouncy' due to the little force they exert. This sentence needs to clarify what type of switch they're bouncier than (presumably rubber dome from the context) and give references that a majority of users do feel that they're bouncier then that switch type.

I've also copied this section of the article across to the scissor switch page to replace the disastrous text that was there so could any corrections be checked against that page as well.

Dyson&#39;s Dragon (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links
Links under "Roll-up keyboard" are dead. 66.143.221.9 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"MOBBAL™ Technology keyboard"
I marked this section once again as an advert. While it might be novel to do away with the conventional key matrix, this is still a keyboard which uses optical sensors. I would thus rewrite the section as "Optical keyboard" where the MOBBAL is just one arrangement. For an example of another keyboard incorporating optical sensors, please see the Datahand "keyboard". --84.196.169.103 (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As patented technology MOBBAL is the only keyboard technology of its kind - it is not a keyboard - many keyboards may use this technology, but the technology is one. There is no optical keyboard or it does not fall in the scope of this technology - and MOBBAL, once again is not a keyboard, it is a technology, so it does not fit under other technologies... right? I would ask to re-consider, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.63.52.73 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Optical keyboard technology" section states that the MOBBAL Keyboard Technology is the only optical technology developed to a mass production stage. The only citation for this statement is a link to a primary source; a website that hasn't been updated since 2009. advert? - Soulkeeper (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

'Transparent keyboard'
The 'Transparent keyboard' section also looks a bit too much like an advertisement. Who decided that it's "the most innovative type of keyboard"? --Lumpio- (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, could this be copy pasted from an advert? Either way, I think it needs rewording. KS07 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. what about adding the (Template:News release) or   Template:Advert tag? I'm a little reluctant since I'm also rather new to this. Skuckem (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)\

Mechanical keyboards
Not mentioned are mechanical keyboards derived from typewriters or Teletype machines. These were notable for their mechanical interlocking - pressing multiple keys at the same time was prevented mechanically. Teletype-derived keyboards had zero-key rollover (only one key at a time), while IBM Selectric derived keyboards (IBM 2741) had mechanical one-key rollover (a second key, but not a third, could be pressed before the first was released).

There is a picture of a cherry MX switch, but Cherry MX is not listed in the sentence that details the types of mechanical keyboards...so I edited it to include the switch, along with a link to the Cherry OEM page for it and it got removed because it was deemed 'inappropriate'. How on earth is that inappropriate? I swear the people around here undo edits for no reason at all. "Eh, no one edits a wikipedia page and is serious about it, BETTER UNDO ALL OF 'EM." mad/10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.139.178 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You put a link to a product page in the middle of an article; that's spam. As far as I could tell, you were an employee trying to run up business, as the addition seemed to be completely out of nowhere - the picture and its caption weren't in the diff. If this is a legitimately common and well-known example of the technology, then it's fine, but a link to a commercial site in the middle of a wikipedia article is a big red flag on these sorts of things, and the complete lack of an edit summary made it very difficult to conclude that this was anything but a drive-by. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that perhaps a whole page is needed for mechanical keyboards, considering the difference between the different switch makers and the major differences between membrane keyboards. Others have any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historical.edu (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging?
Should this be merged with keyboard in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be optimal, given that this page describes the technology behind the device and many types of devices on a technical level, while the main page describes keyboards as a more general thing and from a more (accessible?) general perspective. Merging the two pages would make sense on some level, but frankly I think bringing any sort of removal to a page this big would practically be a crime, given how much work has already been put into it. Just a thought. ToxicReap (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Defining "mechanical"
In the mechanical-switch section of the article, there is a picture of a Blackberry keyboard which is claimed to be a mechanical switch type. To me it looks like a tactile dome switch keyboard using metal domes. Is the picture and caption correct? It seems not to fit the definition of a base, spring and stem given in the article.

More generally, what defines a particular switch design as being "mechanical"? Does the description in the article constitute a definition of this term? It is a bit unclear to me. 81.149.152.4 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that. I came here looking to find out what exactly a mechanical keyboard is. One thing's for sure, tactile dome keys are not what most would call "mechanical". Though its components may serve the same functions as components found in mechanical keys (metal dome being a spring, rubber membrane acting as a plunger, etc) to call the Blackberry's keyboard "mechanical" makes the term useless as it would mean that virtually all keyboards are "mechanical" by simply having moving keys. I'm removing that picture. Even if it wasn't wrong, it doesn't even contribute much to the article anyway. CrinklyCrunk (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This Article is About
Perhaps we should add "This article is about Keyboard Technology, for other purposes go to Keyboard (Disambig.)", or the same, but it refers to the main 'Computer Keyboard' page instead? Just a thought. (Also what's the point of custom signatures? I don't want to set mine to something dumb if the option is only there for professional reasons / uses.) ToxicReap (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Butterfly Keyboard switches
Hi everyone. I was wondering if it would make sense to talk about Apple's butterfly keyboard switches which are in all its portables currently(starting with the 2015 MacBook). This patent seems to be the original patent application for the butterfly hinges, although there have been several more modifications since. I don't know anything about keyboards, I was just reading up on them when I found this missing from the article. What do you all think?
 * Yes, definitely. I was surprised to see no coverage of the Macintosh butterfly keyboard.Bill (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a separate article for mechanical-switch keyboards?
With the recent resurgence of mechanical switch keyboards in the video game community. I think it might be prudent to have an article solely focused on mechanical keyboards including the different cherry mx switch variants, custom keyboards, lubing practices, etc. Would that be too specific to justify it's own article? I think the other difficulty might be defining what constitutes a mechanical keyboard but there is definitely a whole community that I think would be interested in an article like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousgoose (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Computer keyboard" article: intent to change to disambiguation
As it forks both this and Keyboard layout, I plan to delete the current content of Computer keyboard at the end of March and change it to a disambiguation article. Please join the discussion at talk:Computer keyboard if you have any concerns or suggestions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections, I went ahead with this at the end of March as advertised. It does not appear that there have been any complaints. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Apple keyboard technology
Hello! Sorry, would You think, the "Apple keyboards" paragraph - maybe, we need just a purge him? Because I don't see another logic of his placement. ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Apple keyboards began with quite a different connection technology. Nowadays they connect with usb like pc keyboards. I don't know anything about how they work internally. I would only support deleting that section if we had a reliable source that says that the only real difference today is in the layout and cosmetics. A formal proposal to delete would be needed at the article talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, what I think: the old keyboards with specific connections can be describes as "proprietary keyboards" with "proprietary hardware, firmware and standarts" (similar to industrial keyboards), but current USB-C and bluetooth models with signals and layout differences can be called as "proprietary" too - as with "proprietary firmware and standarts", as similar to chromebook\chromebox keyboards; and just as hardware that supports proprietary standarts (not a technology). If we keep Apple keyboards here, we also need to add a chromebox keyboards too, and after these describe - why they here. That's acceptable? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point. I have a Chromebook: the keyboard is technically the same as any commodity keyboard, except that the legends on some keys have been changed. The technology is the same. Apple has always claimed to be different: certainly in the past you couldn't plug a commodity keyboard into a Mac and expect it to work; nor could you plug an apple keyboard into Windows PC. Yes, the usb electronics work but the plug'n'play would not and no drivers would be available.
 * I was thinking that maybe I should leave a note on the talk page of an apple hardware article to say that the section will be deleted unless someone contributes some material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2021

 * 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: Not moved. Proposal is a nonstarter, as this would broaden the scope of this article. wbm1058 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Keyboard technology → Computer keyboard – Now that computer keyboard redirects here, I think this would be a better title for the article, since that is what this article is about. 24.228.128.119 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To keep the article tightly focused, I would prefer Computer keyboard technology. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "technology" certainly needs to be maintained for this content. Although the article 'as is' refers to mostly or completely computer keyboards not all keyboards are "computer" keyboards.  Remain unconvinced the redirect } here was a good choice (albeit the underlying article did not seem good and "April 1st" wasn't a good day to move it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (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.
 * This article needs cleanup, e.g. the intro is "computer keyboard technology"... to me the "technology" is redundant: any machine is "technology" from the wheel upwards, but we don't have wheel technology. Also, how are scissor switches etc not (electro-)mechanical switches? Having "keyboard" in the section titles goes against MOS:NOBACKREF. And so on... I'm tempted to reorganuse this so that descriptions of types of key/switch are distinct from communications hardware; software protocols etc). We do need "computer" or similar in the title to distinguish from a musical keyboard; I note that redirects to (musical) electronic keyboard. None is very WP:PRECISE 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Turn Computer Keyboard back into a dab page or summary style article. I agree with the initial rationale for the deletion of that article (it did just duplicate the two sub-articles) but I don't think this is a suitable redirect target or head article since it doesn't provide a comprehensive overview of computer keyboards and only covers one specific aspect. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More usefully, expand this article to improve the overview and to contain the aspects that you consider are missing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that would basically involve merging a large portion of Keyboard layout into this article, which I don't think would be feasible due to length. I would turn Computer Keyboard into a short stub introducing the two main articles we have on this topic. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An article that includes both the hardware and the software aspects of a keyboard would be intolerably long. So right now, each has a hatnote that declares its scope and tells visitors about the companion article. When I first began to clean up the mess of articles saying the same thing, I checked many other articles that linked here: when using the term 'computer keyboard', the large majority were referring to physical keyboards not their software personalities. We really do not want to reanimate the zombie. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"List of keys on a standard US 105-key computer keyboard" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of keys on a standard US 105-key computer keyboard and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —me_and 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like Razer is advertising here.
Correct me if I am wrong but "switches from Razer have a rated lifetime of 60 million clicks per switch" belongs on Razer's website not on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.8.49.17 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are not wrong. But I don't think it fair to charge Razer with advertising. The citation given was a wiki (which, like Wikipedia itself, fails our WP:reliable sources test) so it is not acceptable. The Cherry figure was supported by a citation from Cherry's own site – which fails the WP:Primary source test and there are no obviously extenuating circumstances to justify using it anyway. Consequently I have deleted both claims and requested a neutral third party source to support the statement being made. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. Why not become an editor yourself? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Model F keyboard [i/']s mechanical-key (spelling/typo)?
In: Types / / #Capacitive keyboard / the 3. paragraph reads:

"The IBM Model F keyboard is mechanical-key design consisted of a buckling spring over a capacitive PCB, similarly to the later Model M keyboard that used a membrane in place of the PCB."

I wonder whether this
 * "keyboard[ i]s mechanical-key" actually should be written with a genitive apostrophe instead of the "i", i.e.:
 * "keyboard[']s mechanical-key" (and no space before it), which would then read:
 * "keyboard's mechanical-key".

At least that is what it looks like according to the data e.g. in an older version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keyboard_technology&oldid=473247948#Capacitive_keyboard.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete re-re-re-directing
In: Keyboard technology there is a link: rollover. {But for test- and demonstration-purposes this one here does the same.}

This redirects to Rollover (key) which redirects to Rollover (keyboard) which ends there. But according to the sourcecode this should redirect to Key rollover. However it only does so manually.

I think this should be solved so it DOES redirect automatically to Key rollover.

I know, the problem is that the wikisoftware does not do more than two redirects. But I'm not sure how to decide in this case.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I fixed the double redirect. There's a bot that usually does this, not sure why it missed that one. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Durable
Should the word "durable" be in this sentence?

"Computer alphanumeric keyboards typically have 80 to 110 durable switches, generally one for each key." TheMaggster (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we have a separate section for switch "mods"?
I was looking at the discrete switches section and it mentions keyboard modifications. These are not the only types of keyboards which can benefit from user modifications, and a good example in recent times is the growing interest in modifying Topre keyboards. Should I add a separate section or would it be unimportant? Fdefect (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a major change
I have been working on a major change of pretty much the entire article in my sandbox and I saw on WP:EPTALK that I should address important changes and what they are before they go live. I would like to know what should or should not be changed.

Sandbox article can be see here

Title "Types" changed to "Keystroke sensing": Keystroke sensing is more accurate to what the information is and "Types" is quite vague.

Giving full-travel rubber dome keyboards a section of its own, and naming it "rubber dome over membrane"

Removing dome-switch: If you look on the internet and research metal dome and polydome switches, you will find that they are known as "membrane switches" and I have added some information about them to the flat-panel section of the article.

Renaming of discrete to metal contact: the large majority of metal contact switches are discrete, but there are other sensing types that use discrete modules

Creating a new section of "Notable switch mechanisms": The buckling spring mechanism is known to have a membrane and capacitive variation

I look forward to the feedback for these changes, and I would like to be let know when I can potentially publish them. Please let me know of any other problems with my sandbox article you see that need to be addressed. Fdefect (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It has been 10 days with no response from contributors, so I will follow the ways of WP:BOLD by publishing it now. Fdefect (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)