Talk:Printed circuit board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Printed circuit board article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Multiwire boards
The article says connections on multiwire boards are routed straight from the source to the destination. I've never seen a multiwire board like that. All multiwire boards I've are using some sort of "Manhattan routing"; the wires are thin and go either in the x or in the y direction. Never any other angle and if they change direction the turns are very sharp.
47.64.114.30 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the "Recent advances"
I noticed that a description of an invention patent I added to the "Recent advances" section was removed by Constant314, with the explanation "Not notable."
However, I would like to point out that, especially in technical articles on Wikipedia, verifiability and reproducibility should be the most important standards. The patent I added (CN111901961B) has passed substantive examination by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), and I believe it qualifies as a legitimate recent advancement.
Internationally, patent documents are generally considered part of the public domain of technical knowledge, and they often offer greater reproducibility than academic papers. Once a patent is granted, it is presumed that the invention is disclosed and understood globally. Therefore, including patent-based information in Wikipedia—especially in technical contexts—is entirely reasonable.
Furthermore, if "notability" is interpreted strictly based on media coverage, it creates an unfair advantage for those who control or influence media channels, which contradicts the spirit of academic neutrality and openness that Wikipedia aims to uphold. UEFI-code (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's job to fix fairness. Constant314 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Fine. It seems I’ll need help from Google Ads and Facebook to improve the “notability.” UEFI-code (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- You also need to consider WP:UNDUE. Constant314 (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Fine. It seems I’ll need help from Google Ads and Facebook to improve the “notability.” UEFI-code (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)