Talk:Printed circuit board

Why I am not adding this content with refernce?
www.pcbonline.com is a commercial website with product for sale. That makes it SPAM. Constant314 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Types of Gerber Format Files
=== File Extension of PCB Layer on Autodesk EAGLE ===

File Extension of PCB Layer on Altium Designer
Here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerber_format PoxVox (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)