| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USB hardware 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of USB was copied or moved into USB hardware with [837995105 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 page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The first paragraph launches into discussion of sizes (standard, mini, micro) and speeds (Low Speed, Full Speed, High Speed, SuperSpeed & SuperSpeed+). Following that is the paragrgraph explaining topology (Unlike other data buses ...) with the upstream/downstream distinction. Logically the order of the two paragraphs should be reversed; topology should be explained before connector size and speed.
The explanation of upstream/downstream orientation is there and the explanation of A/B is there but the relationship between orientation and A/B is left implicit. For any reader who doesn't already understand the subject, explicit would be better than implicit.
Comments? Any objection to improvements? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @
PeterEasthope: Sorry this hasn't gotten any response in three years. You certainly make valid points and have my support. Can you tell whether these issues still need to be addressed? —
void
xor
23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just swapped the two paragraphs as suggested earlier. Let's see whether the change is tolerated before investing effort to explain the relationship of orientation to A/B. Thanks for the interest. ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks! You can wait if you like, but I get the sense from the history that there's not a lot of editors here. I would suggest appending, at minimum, something like "per talk" to your edit summaries so that anybody viewing your edits can find this discussion with your detailed reasoning. — void xor 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just swapped the two paragraphs as suggested earlier. Let's see whether the change is tolerated before investing effort to explain the relationship of orientation to A/B. Thanks for the interest. ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources for these colors, except for citation number 9 which is just an Amazon product page link. An Amazon link is not a legitimate source. Anyone can make one and put whatever they want there.
Can we get better sources for these colors and their purposes? 76.69.148.67 ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, that link is now dead. Looking back at an archived copy, nowhere in the product description did it explain the green port. Clearly somebody's original research, which I have now removed.
- Like you, I'm looking for a reference to support the alleged white=USB 1.x, black=USB 2.0 association that's shown in the illustrated table on USB. — void xor 00:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything about USB UC-E6 in the article. Are there other USB UC connectors? UC=Ultra Compact? -- 2A02:810A:1E40:A14:1826:696D:92DD:D906 ( talk) 10:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like another nonstandard connector to me. See any of the other discussions on this talk page. — void xor 00:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
They did exist here's a port and cable 172.116.113.102 ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- And your question or suggestion is...?
- Whatever that is, it's nonstandard. See § About extension cables -- the kind with Type A plug on one end, and a sort of Type A receptacle on the other and § 4-Pin Mini B above for similar discussions about how much coverage the nonstandard junk that comes out of China deserves. Seems like a rabbit hole to me. — void xor 00:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The Cabling section is a little terse. Can anybody tell me if the cable standards (e.g. wires, twists, shielding) changed at all from USB 1.x to USB 2.0, other than the slight change of the maximum allowed length? I realize that was 23 years ago. Even if there was no real change (in other words, a pre-2000 USB version 1 cable would be within spec for 480 Mbit/s USB version 2 connections), I think that would be worth mentioning. — void xor 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Throughout the article there are several statements to the tune of "USB does not allow extensions cables" (specifically at /info/en/?search=USB_hardware#Connectors under the image for a non-standard extension cable and the first image in the article). However, this statement is not cited or referenced at all. Without personally going through the USB specification to see if this is true or false, the only talk about this seems to be from @ Voidxor above referring to this archived discussion on the topic
It may prove beneficial to find an official source for this statement to reference, or failing that, append the good old [ citation needed ] to each mention of extension cables not being allowed. 61.69.232.98 ( talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- This took less time than I'd feared. In revision 2.0 of the USB standard dated April 27,2000 (available on the USB.org Web site), section 6.4.4 "Prohibited Cable Assemblies" says explicitly that extension cables are not allowed because they can create a cable that exceeds the allowed length. --
Wtshymanski (
talk)
17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the legwork, Wtshymanski. —
void
xor
23:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USB hardware 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of USB was copied or moved into USB hardware with [837995105 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 page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The first paragraph launches into discussion of sizes (standard, mini, micro) and speeds (Low Speed, Full Speed, High Speed, SuperSpeed & SuperSpeed+). Following that is the paragrgraph explaining topology (Unlike other data buses ...) with the upstream/downstream distinction. Logically the order of the two paragraphs should be reversed; topology should be explained before connector size and speed.
The explanation of upstream/downstream orientation is there and the explanation of A/B is there but the relationship between orientation and A/B is left implicit. For any reader who doesn't already understand the subject, explicit would be better than implicit.
Comments? Any objection to improvements? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @
PeterEasthope: Sorry this hasn't gotten any response in three years. You certainly make valid points and have my support. Can you tell whether these issues still need to be addressed? —
void
xor
23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just swapped the two paragraphs as suggested earlier. Let's see whether the change is tolerated before investing effort to explain the relationship of orientation to A/B. Thanks for the interest. ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks! You can wait if you like, but I get the sense from the history that there's not a lot of editors here. I would suggest appending, at minimum, something like "per talk" to your edit summaries so that anybody viewing your edits can find this discussion with your detailed reasoning. — void xor 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just swapped the two paragraphs as suggested earlier. Let's see whether the change is tolerated before investing effort to explain the relationship of orientation to A/B. Thanks for the interest. ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources for these colors, except for citation number 9 which is just an Amazon product page link. An Amazon link is not a legitimate source. Anyone can make one and put whatever they want there.
Can we get better sources for these colors and their purposes? 76.69.148.67 ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, that link is now dead. Looking back at an archived copy, nowhere in the product description did it explain the green port. Clearly somebody's original research, which I have now removed.
- Like you, I'm looking for a reference to support the alleged white=USB 1.x, black=USB 2.0 association that's shown in the illustrated table on USB. — void xor 00:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything about USB UC-E6 in the article. Are there other USB UC connectors? UC=Ultra Compact? -- 2A02:810A:1E40:A14:1826:696D:92DD:D906 ( talk) 10:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like another nonstandard connector to me. See any of the other discussions on this talk page. — void xor 00:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
They did exist here's a port and cable 172.116.113.102 ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- And your question or suggestion is...?
- Whatever that is, it's nonstandard. See § About extension cables -- the kind with Type A plug on one end, and a sort of Type A receptacle on the other and § 4-Pin Mini B above for similar discussions about how much coverage the nonstandard junk that comes out of China deserves. Seems like a rabbit hole to me. — void xor 00:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The Cabling section is a little terse. Can anybody tell me if the cable standards (e.g. wires, twists, shielding) changed at all from USB 1.x to USB 2.0, other than the slight change of the maximum allowed length? I realize that was 23 years ago. Even if there was no real change (in other words, a pre-2000 USB version 1 cable would be within spec for 480 Mbit/s USB version 2 connections), I think that would be worth mentioning. — void xor 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Throughout the article there are several statements to the tune of "USB does not allow extensions cables" (specifically at /info/en/?search=USB_hardware#Connectors under the image for a non-standard extension cable and the first image in the article). However, this statement is not cited or referenced at all. Without personally going through the USB specification to see if this is true or false, the only talk about this seems to be from @ Voidxor above referring to this archived discussion on the topic
It may prove beneficial to find an official source for this statement to reference, or failing that, append the good old [ citation needed ] to each mention of extension cables not being allowed. 61.69.232.98 ( talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- This took less time than I'd feared. In revision 2.0 of the USB standard dated April 27,2000 (available on the USB.org Web site), section 6.4.4 "Prohibited Cable Assemblies" says explicitly that extension cables are not allowed because they can create a cable that exceeds the allowed length. --
Wtshymanski (
talk)
17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the legwork, Wtshymanski. —
void
xor
23:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)