Talk:Signal trace

Dictionary vs Encyclopedia
This seems like more of a dictionary defintion than an encyclopedia article. I think it should go on Wiktionary instead? (See What Wikipedia is not. Axlrosen 19:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that this article just needs more work. What about Trace widths? copper amount (1 oz, 2 oz, etc.)? I think this article has potential to be a real encyclopedia article. --Matejhowell 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have undone the redirect of this article. A quick look at IEEXplore gets numerous hits for "signal trace".  There are certainly many more under other search terms.  Many of these papers are explicitly on the subject of signal traces.  It is clear that there is great scope for expansion of this article.  Just in the first page of results I can see sources that would enable sections to be written on noise coupling, termination and radiation, multi-modes, dielectric and conductor losses, and multilayer issues.  That is just the directly relevant issues; we could also discuss vias and fencing in relation to traces, all just from that first page of results. We should certainly keep it while there is nothing in the pcb article on the subject.  Spinning  Spark  13:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

US vs. UK use
It seems that US use favours (sic!) "trace" while UK use prefers "track" (conductive track vs. conductive trace). Chip manufacturers seem to talk about "wiring". Can anyone out there shed some light on regional differences? (NB I am primarily interested in the terminology for computer chips rather than traditional PCBs) 2003:E4:2F1E:7200:74EB:90C3:C313:8661 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)