ODB++ has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2011. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ODB++ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please help by adding info about ODB++. In particular, does anyone know what ODB stands for? DB is database I guess. Is O objects? Woz2 ( talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I Googled that phrase and found a ref. Adding it now... Woz2 ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Woz2 ( talk). Self nom at 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Woz, If you want to include a list of companies that support ODB++ in and/or out, please list them all, not just a few or one in each category. Why one and not another? This smells of commercial bias. Furthermore, it does not contribute to understanding ODB++, it just opens controversy. If one wants to know of XYZ supports ODB++, one should check with XYZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Come on. I cannot provide a complete list. This is not a reason to have a partial list with commercial companies. This is biased, or may be biased. The article is fair without it, biased with it. But this is not the main point. The section does not contribute anything to understanding ODB++. It does not prove use of ODB++ in the market either, nor about its qualities and deficiencies. The article is IMHO better wihtout it. With it, you will always be suspected of a hidden commercial agenda. The articles about other formats in PCB, or elsewhere, also are without such lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC) One other thing. I feel that the accusation of vandalism is not fair. I feel I improve the article by making it more objective. You may be of another opinion, but this is what I think. Furthermore, I carefully argue my edit. Surely this is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Before throwing the rule book at me, could you please answer my arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Woz. I read this. However, I deny I am vandalizing. Vandalizing is wrecking for no purpose. I feel the article is better without the list. As a compromize, I wrote something that makes it clear that ODB++ is not something only relevant to Mentor, without throwing in commercial publicity. I am not vandalizing. I object to what you write, at least in a Wikipedia context. What should I do? Just let it pass because you call it vandalism? Again, instead of throwing the rulebook at me, and accusing me of vandalism - which is an insult - please answer my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. However, this does not answer my remarks. I am trying to discuss the issue, but you do not respond, but just re-add what I view as publicity. User talk:203.117.10.66 Dear Woz1. You keep re-adding what I view as publicity, without addressing my arguments. Furthermore, you accuse me of vandalism. (And I suspect you mobilized friends to mess up my edits. I apologize if I am wrong. I suggest you read the section What is not vandalism and Conflict resolution, before you remove my edit. You may not like my edit, but it is definitely neutral, and in no way derogatory to ODB++(X). I suggest we start from that. There is enough non-controversial work to improve this article. E.g. it misses a link to the spec. User talk:203.117.10.66
Dear Woz, I wrote this suspicion when I was upset, I apologize. User talk:203.117.10.66
Dear Woz, Wikipedia is an encyplodia, not a forum. Showing a list of companies that have ODB++ implementation is important in promoting ODB++ over the IPC-2581 standard, but is not part of en encyclopedia. A partial list, however made, is not neutral. The neutrality of the article must be above suspicion. This one is still full of advocacy. The article should clarify what ODB++ is, as such I do not understand why you removed my link to the spec. The spec is more important than subjective and commercial talk about how great ODB++ is. Facts please, not promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here in response to the wp:3o request, to offer a 3rd opinion. I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I've only barely heard of EDA, and haven't heard of ODB++ at all.
First, I would like to welcome the IP Editor to Wikipedia. As you know, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, but I would encourage you to create one. It does make communication with other editors easier. You seem to have a good start on the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, and you'll become more familiar with particular policies over time. Your edits were plainly not vandalism and I'm sorry that you were accused of that, but you were violating policy on edit warring, which I think you already know by now. I hope you continue to contribute.
Woz2, thank you for your contributions to the article. I pretty much agree with you regarding content, which I will address in a moment. I know this has already been addressed, but please be careful not to wp:bite the newbies. Also, it takes two to have an edit war, even if it's the other editor who crosses wp:3rr first.
It is my opinion that listing companies that support OBD++ is relevant to the article, and is not promotion of any company if done in a neutral way. I understand the IP editor's point about listing some and not others being inherently unfair, but no one is suggesting that we exclude a company from the list, and if we refused to make lists unless they were known to be 100% complete that would severely hamper our efforts here. I think it is reasonable to make the list as complete as we can at the time, and let it be added to later.
I believe that the list is relevant to the article, particularly because the criticism section right below it addresses whether ODB++ is open for other companies to use. The list seems to show that some other companies do indeed use ODB++. This kind of factual presentation should be encouraged rather than simply quoting statements from arguing factions. We also avoid weasel words in statements like "a few other companies also use ODB++". The list solves that problem.
I also found this article, Comparison of eda software, which is a rather extensive list that includes this information and much more. It seems to me that this kind of information would be extremely useful to someone who was trying to understand not just the technical specifications of ODB++, but what dimensions it has taken in the marketplace, what tools could be gotten that use this particular format, etc.
I would suggest placing a statement saying that the Comparison of eda software article shows which EDA products use this format. This would make the article clean, link to the information in a format that's already pretty thorough and professional, and keep us from having 2 lists to maintain with duplicate information. Also, the 2 lists don't seem to match up perfectly, so that is worth looking at. (Only a cursory comparison, and maybe the lists are referring to the same products by different names in some cases. I don't know.) If you choose to keep the list in this article, I would at least suggest breaking it up into a bulleted list. The paragraph is cumbersome to read in my opinion.
I hope this helps, and thank you both for putting the edit war down and seeking some form of dispute resolution. I'll be watching the article and this page for your thoughts. Mishlai ( talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Does somebody have a spec of ODB++ and ODB++(X)? This would be more useful than flyers from Mentor praising the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not make my intention clear. I propose to add a link to the specification. I did Google it, but I did not find it. Especially for ODB++(X) it seems hard to find anything.
User talk:203.117.10.66
And guess who is the judge if you are "bona fine"? Mentor...I do not know if this is still the case, but there were times when you were bona fide if you paid 10k$, but not otherwise. Actually, this is the ptoblem, there is no commitment from Mentor to make the current or future versions of the spec public. They want to use it as a competitive weapon. The IPC or Gerber spec can simply be downloaded. I know, this is irresponsible, if anon bona fine persone would get his hand on the spec, what horrors couldnt happen? As for ODB++X, where is the spec? Mentor is dragging its feet for years about this, because they would publish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.100.38 ( talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You are both edit warring. Rather than block both of you, I've protected the article until you hash things out here. I suggest asking for input from the relevant Wikiproject, or at [[WP:3O]. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that I blocked 203.117.10.66 ( talk · contribs) at the same time as the protection was applied. I have unblocked him/her to participate in the discussion here. Note that the expectation is that discussions occur and come to a consensus before futher contested edits occur. Kuru (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Now my opinion. Wikipedia should be strictly factual and neutral. It is not to be used to advocate or promote something. Its neutrality must be above suspicion. I feel too many references are really commercial promotion and flyers advocating ODB++. The aim of our friend Woz2 seems to be more to demontstrate the wide support for ODB++ rather than to explain what it is. This is not a forum to promote ODB++ over IPC-2581 or good old Gerber for that matter. The partial list of implementations does not contribute to the understanding of ODB++ and serves only to advocate the format. It is unfair to companies that are not listed. The article and references is long on promotion but short on facts about ODB++. No link to the specification, no explanation of structure or content. I would support edits by our friend Woz2, or whoever, that would address that weakness. I cannot do it myself, I lack the detailed knowledge needed to do this well. User talk:203.117.10.66 —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC).
I see a couple of things in the article that could stand to be removed and/or changed. One is "Mentor's fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders (and hence to compete against other vendors) is somewhat in conflict with its claim that..." This portion of the sentence is not supported by the reference. It may be true, it may logically follow, etc., but this is original research unless there is a reliable source stating that the claims made are in conflict with Mentor's responsibility to shareholders. It is not inherently obvious to me that opening a format to competitors is a disadvantage to a company, by the way. Mentor may benefit by having the industry adopt their standard. Or not. I have no opinion on the matter, I'm just saying this isn't a fact so obvious to the reader that it does not require support.
The most recent edit by IP Editor says "Access to the ODB++ and ODB++(X) specifications seems to be quite restricted." This reads like his/her personal impression, is vague, and simply links to the web page used to apply for access, which isn't a reliable source for a statement like that. I'd consider "seems" a weasel word, and "quite restricted" in this case appears to be the editor's opinion, based on the requirements listed on the application site. If there were an article discussing EDA development that stated that access to the ODB++/(X) specs is very restricted, then that would be something else. We do not, as editors, get to put our opinions and conclusions into the article, even if they are "true" or True.
Content like this can be in the article if it is properly sourced, relevant, not given undue weight, expressed from a neutral point of view, etc. It cannot stand as is. I think these lines should be deleted and/or rephrased or provided with a reference that supports them as-is. Anything that we say in the article should be clearly supported by the reference(s). Mishlai ( talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Too many of these references are nothing more than commercial documents from companies promoting their products. The referencing statements may well be true, but are their no more credible references? This may give the impression of commercial promotion instead of encyclopedic content.-- 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This actually is worse than that. Many of those references are now 404ing. This page requires some cleanup to connect the dots again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.123.72 ( talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4152298/Which-Data-Transfer-Format-is-Best-for-the-Industry- it says Valor was found in 1992. In http://www.pcbstandards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=595 it dates ODB as 1995, OBD++ as 1997, and OBD++(X) as 2000. All of these dates are long after Gerber (1980's) so I don't know why the adjectives "older" in references to Gerber were removed. Some articles even use the adjective "archaic Gerber format" Thoughts? Woz2 ( talk) 13:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Thanks! Maybe I should move the Ucamco PDF earlier to highlight the differences... Woz2 ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Done! Woz2 ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW most of the reference credit goes to Orlady who whipped Google up to a frenzy and got it to disgorge many gems. Woz2 ( talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This article http://pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8107-a-short-history-of-electronic-data-formats claims that ODB++(X) was discontinued in 2008. Can anyone confirm this? Woz2 ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The recent ODB++ specifications contain the sentence "Download of the ODB++ Specification does not grant a license to develop software interfaces based on the format specification." To get a license, you still need to demonstrate how that will be advantageous to Mentor Graphics. The format is therefore (in my opinion) not truly open. Thiadmer ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Ankit Maity (
talk ·
contribs)
08:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Please note that if the article is not improved within seven days the nomination will be rejected.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a comment from someone working on incorporating the links as references, so I thought I'd move it here so it doesn't get lost in cleanup: -- Ronz ( talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
ODB++ has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2011. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ODB++ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please help by adding info about ODB++. In particular, does anyone know what ODB stands for? DB is database I guess. Is O objects? Woz2 ( talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I Googled that phrase and found a ref. Adding it now... Woz2 ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Woz2 ( talk). Self nom at 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Woz, If you want to include a list of companies that support ODB++ in and/or out, please list them all, not just a few or one in each category. Why one and not another? This smells of commercial bias. Furthermore, it does not contribute to understanding ODB++, it just opens controversy. If one wants to know of XYZ supports ODB++, one should check with XYZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Come on. I cannot provide a complete list. This is not a reason to have a partial list with commercial companies. This is biased, or may be biased. The article is fair without it, biased with it. But this is not the main point. The section does not contribute anything to understanding ODB++. It does not prove use of ODB++ in the market either, nor about its qualities and deficiencies. The article is IMHO better wihtout it. With it, you will always be suspected of a hidden commercial agenda. The articles about other formats in PCB, or elsewhere, also are without such lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC) One other thing. I feel that the accusation of vandalism is not fair. I feel I improve the article by making it more objective. You may be of another opinion, but this is what I think. Furthermore, I carefully argue my edit. Surely this is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Before throwing the rule book at me, could you please answer my arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Woz. I read this. However, I deny I am vandalizing. Vandalizing is wrecking for no purpose. I feel the article is better without the list. As a compromize, I wrote something that makes it clear that ODB++ is not something only relevant to Mentor, without throwing in commercial publicity. I am not vandalizing. I object to what you write, at least in a Wikipedia context. What should I do? Just let it pass because you call it vandalism? Again, instead of throwing the rulebook at me, and accusing me of vandalism - which is an insult - please answer my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. However, this does not answer my remarks. I am trying to discuss the issue, but you do not respond, but just re-add what I view as publicity. User talk:203.117.10.66 Dear Woz1. You keep re-adding what I view as publicity, without addressing my arguments. Furthermore, you accuse me of vandalism. (And I suspect you mobilized friends to mess up my edits. I apologize if I am wrong. I suggest you read the section What is not vandalism and Conflict resolution, before you remove my edit. You may not like my edit, but it is definitely neutral, and in no way derogatory to ODB++(X). I suggest we start from that. There is enough non-controversial work to improve this article. E.g. it misses a link to the spec. User talk:203.117.10.66
Dear Woz, I wrote this suspicion when I was upset, I apologize. User talk:203.117.10.66
Dear Woz, Wikipedia is an encyplodia, not a forum. Showing a list of companies that have ODB++ implementation is important in promoting ODB++ over the IPC-2581 standard, but is not part of en encyclopedia. A partial list, however made, is not neutral. The neutrality of the article must be above suspicion. This one is still full of advocacy. The article should clarify what ODB++ is, as such I do not understand why you removed my link to the spec. The spec is more important than subjective and commercial talk about how great ODB++ is. Facts please, not promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here in response to the wp:3o request, to offer a 3rd opinion. I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I've only barely heard of EDA, and haven't heard of ODB++ at all.
First, I would like to welcome the IP Editor to Wikipedia. As you know, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, but I would encourage you to create one. It does make communication with other editors easier. You seem to have a good start on the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, and you'll become more familiar with particular policies over time. Your edits were plainly not vandalism and I'm sorry that you were accused of that, but you were violating policy on edit warring, which I think you already know by now. I hope you continue to contribute.
Woz2, thank you for your contributions to the article. I pretty much agree with you regarding content, which I will address in a moment. I know this has already been addressed, but please be careful not to wp:bite the newbies. Also, it takes two to have an edit war, even if it's the other editor who crosses wp:3rr first.
It is my opinion that listing companies that support OBD++ is relevant to the article, and is not promotion of any company if done in a neutral way. I understand the IP editor's point about listing some and not others being inherently unfair, but no one is suggesting that we exclude a company from the list, and if we refused to make lists unless they were known to be 100% complete that would severely hamper our efforts here. I think it is reasonable to make the list as complete as we can at the time, and let it be added to later.
I believe that the list is relevant to the article, particularly because the criticism section right below it addresses whether ODB++ is open for other companies to use. The list seems to show that some other companies do indeed use ODB++. This kind of factual presentation should be encouraged rather than simply quoting statements from arguing factions. We also avoid weasel words in statements like "a few other companies also use ODB++". The list solves that problem.
I also found this article, Comparison of eda software, which is a rather extensive list that includes this information and much more. It seems to me that this kind of information would be extremely useful to someone who was trying to understand not just the technical specifications of ODB++, but what dimensions it has taken in the marketplace, what tools could be gotten that use this particular format, etc.
I would suggest placing a statement saying that the Comparison of eda software article shows which EDA products use this format. This would make the article clean, link to the information in a format that's already pretty thorough and professional, and keep us from having 2 lists to maintain with duplicate information. Also, the 2 lists don't seem to match up perfectly, so that is worth looking at. (Only a cursory comparison, and maybe the lists are referring to the same products by different names in some cases. I don't know.) If you choose to keep the list in this article, I would at least suggest breaking it up into a bulleted list. The paragraph is cumbersome to read in my opinion.
I hope this helps, and thank you both for putting the edit war down and seeking some form of dispute resolution. I'll be watching the article and this page for your thoughts. Mishlai ( talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Does somebody have a spec of ODB++ and ODB++(X)? This would be more useful than flyers from Mentor praising the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not make my intention clear. I propose to add a link to the specification. I did Google it, but I did not find it. Especially for ODB++(X) it seems hard to find anything.
User talk:203.117.10.66
And guess who is the judge if you are "bona fine"? Mentor...I do not know if this is still the case, but there were times when you were bona fide if you paid 10k$, but not otherwise. Actually, this is the ptoblem, there is no commitment from Mentor to make the current or future versions of the spec public. They want to use it as a competitive weapon. The IPC or Gerber spec can simply be downloaded. I know, this is irresponsible, if anon bona fine persone would get his hand on the spec, what horrors couldnt happen? As for ODB++X, where is the spec? Mentor is dragging its feet for years about this, because they would publish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.100.38 ( talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You are both edit warring. Rather than block both of you, I've protected the article until you hash things out here. I suggest asking for input from the relevant Wikiproject, or at [[WP:3O]. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that I blocked 203.117.10.66 ( talk · contribs) at the same time as the protection was applied. I have unblocked him/her to participate in the discussion here. Note that the expectation is that discussions occur and come to a consensus before futher contested edits occur. Kuru (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Now my opinion. Wikipedia should be strictly factual and neutral. It is not to be used to advocate or promote something. Its neutrality must be above suspicion. I feel too many references are really commercial promotion and flyers advocating ODB++. The aim of our friend Woz2 seems to be more to demontstrate the wide support for ODB++ rather than to explain what it is. This is not a forum to promote ODB++ over IPC-2581 or good old Gerber for that matter. The partial list of implementations does not contribute to the understanding of ODB++ and serves only to advocate the format. It is unfair to companies that are not listed. The article and references is long on promotion but short on facts about ODB++. No link to the specification, no explanation of structure or content. I would support edits by our friend Woz2, or whoever, that would address that weakness. I cannot do it myself, I lack the detailed knowledge needed to do this well. User talk:203.117.10.66 —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC).
I see a couple of things in the article that could stand to be removed and/or changed. One is "Mentor's fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders (and hence to compete against other vendors) is somewhat in conflict with its claim that..." This portion of the sentence is not supported by the reference. It may be true, it may logically follow, etc., but this is original research unless there is a reliable source stating that the claims made are in conflict with Mentor's responsibility to shareholders. It is not inherently obvious to me that opening a format to competitors is a disadvantage to a company, by the way. Mentor may benefit by having the industry adopt their standard. Or not. I have no opinion on the matter, I'm just saying this isn't a fact so obvious to the reader that it does not require support.
The most recent edit by IP Editor says "Access to the ODB++ and ODB++(X) specifications seems to be quite restricted." This reads like his/her personal impression, is vague, and simply links to the web page used to apply for access, which isn't a reliable source for a statement like that. I'd consider "seems" a weasel word, and "quite restricted" in this case appears to be the editor's opinion, based on the requirements listed on the application site. If there were an article discussing EDA development that stated that access to the ODB++/(X) specs is very restricted, then that would be something else. We do not, as editors, get to put our opinions and conclusions into the article, even if they are "true" or True.
Content like this can be in the article if it is properly sourced, relevant, not given undue weight, expressed from a neutral point of view, etc. It cannot stand as is. I think these lines should be deleted and/or rephrased or provided with a reference that supports them as-is. Anything that we say in the article should be clearly supported by the reference(s). Mishlai ( talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Too many of these references are nothing more than commercial documents from companies promoting their products. The referencing statements may well be true, but are their no more credible references? This may give the impression of commercial promotion instead of encyclopedic content.-- 203.117.10.66 ( talk) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This actually is worse than that. Many of those references are now 404ing. This page requires some cleanup to connect the dots again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.123.72 ( talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4152298/Which-Data-Transfer-Format-is-Best-for-the-Industry- it says Valor was found in 1992. In http://www.pcbstandards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=595 it dates ODB as 1995, OBD++ as 1997, and OBD++(X) as 2000. All of these dates are long after Gerber (1980's) so I don't know why the adjectives "older" in references to Gerber were removed. Some articles even use the adjective "archaic Gerber format" Thoughts? Woz2 ( talk) 13:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Thanks! Maybe I should move the Ucamco PDF earlier to highlight the differences... Woz2 ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Done! Woz2 ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW most of the reference credit goes to Orlady who whipped Google up to a frenzy and got it to disgorge many gems. Woz2 ( talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This article http://pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8107-a-short-history-of-electronic-data-formats claims that ODB++(X) was discontinued in 2008. Can anyone confirm this? Woz2 ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The recent ODB++ specifications contain the sentence "Download of the ODB++ Specification does not grant a license to develop software interfaces based on the format specification." To get a license, you still need to demonstrate how that will be advantageous to Mentor Graphics. The format is therefore (in my opinion) not truly open. Thiadmer ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Ankit Maity (
talk ·
contribs)
08:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Please note that if the article is not improved within seven days the nomination will be rejected.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a comment from someone working on incorporating the links as references, so I thought I'd move it here so it doesn't get lost in cleanup: -- Ronz ( talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)