Talk:USB: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:20, 1 September 2023 editMinekPo1 (talk \| contribs)35 edits →"Backward compatibility" of the USB-C connector: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024 edit undoShaReeLi (talk \| contribs)13 edits →Micro - B
(22 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=Mid\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid}}
	{{Vital article\|topic=Technology\|level=5\|class=B}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid~~\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Electronics\|class=B\|importance=Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Technology}}
	{{WikiProject Technology\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{high traffic\|date=28 May 2015\|url=http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/15/05/28/1838208/android-m-to-embrace-usb-type-c-and-midi\|site=Slashdot}}		{{high traffic\|date=28 May 2015\|url=http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/15/05/28/1838208/android-m-to-embrace-usb-type-c-and-midi\|site=Slashdot}}
Line 28:		Line 27:
	}}		}}
	{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}		{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}

	== DEPRECATED ? Possible misuse of this word ==

	As a native US english speaker, I do not understand this use of "depricated". Perhaps there is some new definition becoming popular, but I think the dictionary definition should be used.
	] (]) 21:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

	:See ], which explains the use of the term with regard to computer hardware, software and programming. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

	::It's great to check the definition. Using the link supplied by ] I find: <br>"''3. Computers To mark (a component of a software standard) as obsolete to warn against its use in the future so that it may be phased out.''"
	::So I see no misuse (allowing that the definition be broadened to include also electronic hardware).
	::I also note from the same link: <br>"''Usage Note: Deprecate originally meant "to pray in order to ward off something, ward off by prayer." <nowiki></nowiki>, the word developed <nowiki></nowiki>.''"
	::Even though I am omitting the original context, the point is that the meaning of words is known to develop over time, and continues even now.
	::—DIV (] (]) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)) <br>''<small>Support ] ]: insist that Misplaced Pages's administrators adhere to Misplaced Pages's own policies on keeping ]s as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse ] effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as ], or blocking only ''mobile'' edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.</small>''
	:::All that said, I too think this term may be ''slightly'' misused, in that it shows, in the chart of connector types, that USB-A is "deprecated" for USB 3.2, instead of the red coloured connectors that exist and are common in reality. It's implying that there ''aren't'' any type A connectors for 3.2. I'm looking at one right now, but that's original research unless I'm allowed to cite the back of the board as a reference. ] (]) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
	:::I feel like the issue is nearing its conclusion, but in my opinion it's still got one thing to consider. The table still implies Type-C was introduced with USB 2.0, which is impossible as the connector itself was defined in 2014. The ] page itself says that the connector "was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification". Therefore the connector should be available from USB 3.1 onwards, with "Backward compatibility only" for all prior versions. ] (]) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

	::::{{ping\|Martin0499}} Hi, I had the same idea in the beginning, but the table do <u>not</u> show <u>when</u> a connector appeared, timewise, but <u>what technology</u>, i.e. to the physical layer (PHYS), it natively supports. The USB-C connector indeed has four <u>exclusively dedicated</u> wires/pins which implement the 2.0 specification. The 1.0/1.1-backward-compatibility is however "only" supported by this 2.0 implementation. -- ] (])

	== Color-coding, revisited ==

	I notice that in Archive 7 there is a brief discussion of color-coding between the different generations of USB (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc.), but that a decision was made to remove the existing mention in the article, as the editors believed that color-coding was ambiguous. But everything I have seen elsewhere suggests fairly clear-cut correlations between the generations, colors and speeds that I think should be included in the article. <br>USB 1.0 used white plastic inserts and has a maximum data transfer speed of 12Mbps. <br>USB 2.0 used black inserts and has a maximum speed of 480Mbps. <br>USB 3.0 uses blue inserts and can throughput at up to 5Gbps. <br>USB 3.1 uses teal inserts and can handle 10Gbps. <br>Yes, there are exceptions to these, but AFAICT, those only apply to motherboards and not to, for example, peripherals, which follow the aforementioned color conventions.
	<br>https://allthedifferences.com/blue-and-black-usb-ports-difference/<br>
	https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/usb-cable-guide<br>
	https://ourtechroom.com/tech/guide-usb-port-colors-red-blue-yellow-black-white-orange-teal/
	<br>
⚫	] (]) 10:36, 28 ~~March~~ 2023 (UTC)

	:White vs black for 1.0 vs 2.0 is a common convention, but plenty of things don't follow it and isn't part of the standard (the standard actually recommends white inserts for USB 1.0 and 2.0). If things that are contrary to the standard but are common convention should be included, then things like green ports often being QuickCharge or yellow ports providing power when the host is off should probably also be included.
	:It probably does warrant being mentioned in some way, but it's definitely not clear cut, especially when USB-IF certified hardware would be required to ''not'' follow some of the unofficial conventions. ] (]) 03:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

	== USB 8 pin digital camera cable ==

	It seems like there is little info on that one. Would be nice to have it. ]
	:This looks like a proprietary connector, so wouldn't be covered on this article. ] (]) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

	== Criticism ==

	I forget the details, but there was a LOT of criticism when they introduced one of the smaller USB connectors. They claimed it would only fit one way, but in the real world many were ruining their connectors by attempting to insert them upside down. It was a significant design failure. It's definitely notable and should be included here, imho.] (]) 13:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

	== Full speed and USB 1.0 ==

	The History section says that USB version 1.0 supported both 1.5 and 12 Mbit/s speeds, but the table in the Overview section lists only 1.5 under USB 1.0 and 12 under USB 1.1. As far as I understand, the History section is correct. I also checked the specification that is referenced from the History section (https://fl.hw.cz/docs/usb/usb10doc.pdf) and it mentions both 1.5 and 12 Mbps speed. So why the table says 12 Mbps speed appeared only in version 1.1? ] (]) 20:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	:Thanks for pointing that out – I've fixed the table accordingly. --] (]) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	::Thanks! ] (]) 07:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

	== File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg ==		== File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg ==
Line 84:		Line 39:
	] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)		] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

			{{reply to\|ZH8000}}
	:1. & 2. This table was made with consumers in mind, i.e. it tries to alleviate the confusion (for which simplifications have to be made) of previous marketing name schemes (often still being used, despite the newer recommendation for the names https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf and https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_integrators_list_marketing_name_guidance_january_2023.pdf) so that the consumer can understand what they are paying for (e.g., when comparing different smartphone models). It wasn't meant to be a detailed table, e.g., containing all operation modes for USB4, only meant to contain the names/logos that can often be seen in media/print. Maybe moving the table with the paragraph to another place in the article could make the designated use clearer.		:1. & 2. This table was made with consumers in mind, i.e. it tries to alleviate the confusion (for which simplifications have to be made) of previous marketing name schemes (often still being used, despite the newer recommendation for the names https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf and https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_integrators_list_marketing_name_guidance_january_2023.pdf) so that the consumer can understand what they are paying for (e.g., when comparing different smartphone models). It wasn't meant to be a detailed table, e.g., containing all operation modes for USB4, only meant to contain the names/logos that can often be seen in media/print. Maybe moving the table with the paragraph to another place in the article could make the designated use clearer.
	:3. If you search for USB4 20gbps, you will find some product descriptions mentioning it. Also, I got those marketing names from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final__0.pdf . That means I had to include somehow this certain name.		:3. If you search for USB4 20gbps, you will find some product descriptions mentioning it. Also, I got those marketing names from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final__0.pdf . That means I had to include somehow this certain name.
Line 89:		Line 45:
	:5. The logos used are packaging logos, from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_performance_logo_usage_guidelines_final_20230320.pdf . If there are any more up-to-date/correct logos, please link their high quality version in the reply to this comment (preferably from official source).		:5. The logos used are packaging logos, from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_performance_logo_usage_guidelines_final_20230320.pdf . If there are any more up-to-date/correct logos, please link their high quality version in the reply to this comment (preferably from official source).
	:If there are still some things needing to be changed, the best result that can arise from this discussion would be bullet points that describe where & what to change to what (with sources by which the need for the change is based on).		:If there are still some things needing to be changed, the best result that can arise from this discussion would be bullet points that describe where & what to change to what (with sources by which the need for the change is based on).
	:Cheers ^^ ] (]) 20:26, 10 ~~August~~ 2023 (UTC)		:Cheers ^^ ] (]) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

			{{Help me-helped}}
			Need advice whether I can now remove the disputed warning template from the table. I explained the reason for the table being as it is, but I am not getting any replies/counterarguments/tips on changing the table.
		⚫	] (]) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
			: Helpers alerted by the {{tl\|help me}} template are not going to weigh in on content issues. It's up to you to determine whether a sufficient consensus exists for what you wish to implement. If you are not getting enough response here on this talk page, the next place to go is usually to the talk page of one of the WikiProjects whose banners appear at the top of the page. After that , it might appropriate to open an ] - but sometimes it's best to go ahead and make the change and see if that smokes out some responses from other editors. You could even include a phrase like "seeing no objections on the talk page..." as part of your edit summary. ''']<sup><small>] ]</small></sup>''' 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Hubs and Respectively ==

			On 30 October, an edit was made (Revision as of 13:46, 30 October 2023) to insert "hubs" as an additional type of device to which USB connections can be made, making three types. Unfortunately the article now reads:

			... Type-A (upstream) and Type-B (downstream) connectors, found on <nowiki>''</nowiki>hosts<nowiki>''</nowiki><ins>, <nowiki>''hubs''</nowiki>,</ins> and <nowiki>''</nowiki><ins>peripheral </ins>devices<nowiki>''</nowiki>, respectively, ...

			So "respectively" is ambiguous. "hosts" goes with Type-A, and "peripheral devices" goes with Type-B. "hubs" goes with ??? Rather than fixing it myself, I would prefer that the edtitor do it. Frankly, I don't see any good reason for complicating the issue by introducing "hubs." ] (]) 19:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

			:No, all three kinds of devices are part of the specification, you can not remove one of them. I removed the 'respectively' term. -- ] (]) 20:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
			::That's definitely an improvement. According to USB 3.1 and 3.2, "USB device" covers both "hubs" and "peripheral devices," so it is still possible to remove "hubs," but the bigger problem is now gone so thanks for that and your other work. ] (]) 01:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Removed a broken source from article page. ==

			I just made an edit removing a broken source link. Hope that was good one? ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

			== "Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C" ==

			I have not seen "Fabrics" stated following USB-C in any of the cited articles. If I'm missing something, whoever entered or approved that insertion has to support it, because it makes no logical sense. User 194.230.148.168 has undone my deletion of that word in this context, stating "Read the Specs": which specs has not been cited that makes this at all clear?--] (]) 20:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
			:The citation contains "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through June 2023 - CLEAN.pdf" in the zip file (currently "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through September 2024- CLEAN.pdf" as the file has updated since then) both of which are official and contain "USB4 Fabric". Neither the article nor the source explain this usage of "fabric", and for readers of an encyclopedia (which is expected to be read by non-experts) should include an explanation or use more layman terms outside of the quotation taken from the standard. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Micro-A Remark ==
	== "Backward compatibility" of the USB-C connector ==

			On "Available connectors by USB standard", the 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 Micro-A connector should have a Remark explaining the image is reversed from the others. ] (]) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm confused by the "Backward compatibility" cell of the Connector type quick reference table, especialy as it refers to the implementation of USB 2.0, while spanning over USB 1.x. For now I'm only shifting the USB-C connector, to better reflect my timeline (ie being first used by USB 3.1, though created before that, see ], maybe an extra column could be used?), but I think the "backward compatibility" cell should be removed. Other connector types, which are backwards compatible in a similar fashion to the USB-C connector do not have such a cell. Alternatively, maybe this cell could be clarified?

			== Micro - B ==
	It seems like the cell was added in ] (]) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

			https://www.moddiy.com/pages/USB-2.0-USB-3.0-USB-3.1-USB-3.2-USB-4.0-Connectors-and-Pinouts.html ( near bottom ) seems to have a diagram for this COMMON type of connector. Unfortunately, I do not own the work. Also, no scale. ] (]) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) . . . the existing diagram under 2.0 Revised ( column ) seems to be nearly the same, but stuff around the edges obscures the shape.
	:Extra: the part I'm particularly confused about (ie the reference to USB 2.0 implementation) was added in ] (]) 16:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USB article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

On 28 May 2015, USB was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 22 June 2011, from Universal Serial Bus to USB, see discussion.
Moved, 14 January 2012, from USB to Universal Serial Bus, see discussion.
Moved, 25 June 2013, from Universal Serial Bus to USB, see discussion.

The contents of the Device Firmware Upgrade‎ page were merged into USB on September 8, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-usb-what-it-replaced-and-what-has-failed-to-replace-it/

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg

This graph has some faults and is misleading. For example for the following aspects:

Generally mismatches/simplifies operation modes with specification version
USB4 defines many more operation modes
'USB4 20Gbps' does not exist as an operation mode
USB4 2x2 is not interchangeable with USB 3.2 2x2 as indicated by the logo
logos for USB 3.x and USB4 are different

ZH8000 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZH8000:

1. & 2. This table was made with consumers in mind, i.e. it tries to alleviate the confusion (for which simplifications have to be made) of previous marketing name schemes (often still being used, despite the newer recommendation for the names https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf and https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_integrators_list_marketing_name_guidance_january_2023.pdf) so that the consumer can understand what they are paying for (e.g., when comparing different smartphone models). It wasn't meant to be a detailed table, e.g., containing all operation modes for USB4, only meant to contain the names/logos that can often be seen in media/print. Maybe moving the table with the paragraph to another place in the article could make the designated use clearer.

3. If you search for USB4 20gbps, you will find some product descriptions mentioning it. Also, I got those marketing names from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final__0.pdf . That means I had to include somehow this certain name.

4. As in the recommendation from https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf , it is stated that for reduced confusion, clear communication of the performance signaling that a product delivers is important. So I (perhaps wrongly) decided to use 1 logo, so that it would be the most up-to-date. By my understanding (might be wrong, but as this whole thing is a big mess without concise, clear and up-to-date info, it's all I can muster) USB4 2x2 and USB 3.2 2x2 won't have separate logos, but will be marked by the same logo.

5. The logos used are packaging logos, from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_performance_logo_usage_guidelines_final_20230320.pdf . If there are any more up-to-date/correct logos, please link their high quality version in the reply to this comment (preferably from official source).

If there are still some things needing to be changed, the best result that can arise from this discussion would be bullet points that describe where & what to change to what (with sources by which the need for the change is based on).

Cheers ^^ GravityCore (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Need advice whether I can now remove the disputed warning template from the table. I explained the reason for the table being as it is, but I am not getting any replies/counterarguments/tips on changing the table. GravityCore (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Helpers alerted by the {{help me}} template are not going to weigh in on content issues. It's up to you to determine whether a sufficient consensus exists for what you wish to implement. If you are not getting enough response here on this talk page, the next place to go is usually to the talk page of one of the WikiProjects whose banners appear at the top of the page. After that , it might appropriate to open an RFC - but sometimes it's best to go ahead and make the change and see if that smokes out some responses from other editors. You could even include a phrase like "seeing no objections on the talk page..." as part of your edit summary. — jmcgnh 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hubs and Respectively

On 30 October, an edit was made (Revision as of 13:46, 30 October 2023) to insert "hubs" as an additional type of device to which USB connections can be made, making three types. Unfortunately the article now reads:

... Type-A (upstream) and Type-B (downstream) connectors, found on ''hosts'', ''hubs'', and ''peripheral devices'', respectively, ...

So "respectively" is ambiguous. "hosts" goes with Type-A, and "peripheral devices" goes with Type-B. "hubs" goes with ??? Rather than fixing it myself, I would prefer that the edtitor do it. Frankly, I don't see any good reason for complicating the issue by introducing "hubs." 47.184.152.29 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, all three kinds of devices are part of the specification, you can not remove one of them. I removed the 'respectively' term. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. According to USB 3.1 and 3.2, "USB device" covers both "hubs" and "peripheral devices," so it is still possible to remove "hubs," but the bigger problem is now gone so thanks for that and your other work. 47.184.152.29 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed a broken source from article page.

I just made an edit removing a broken source link. Hope that was good one? Olivia Harry (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C"

I have not seen "Fabrics" stated following USB-C in any of the cited articles. If I'm missing something, whoever entered or approved that insertion has to support it, because it makes no logical sense. User 194.230.148.168 has undone my deletion of that word in this context, stating "Read the Specs": which specs has not been cited that makes this at all clear?--Toolnut (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The citation contains "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through June 2023 - CLEAN.pdf" in the zip file (currently "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through September 2024- CLEAN.pdf" as the file has updated since then) both of which are official and contain "USB4 Fabric". Neither the article nor the source explain this usage of "fabric", and for readers of an encyclopedia (which is expected to be read by non-experts) should include an explanation or use more layman terms outside of the quotation taken from the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2940:1DD0:0:0:0:2B (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Micro-A Remark

On "Available connectors by USB standard", the 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 Micro-A connector should have a Remark explaining the image is reversed from the others. 2600:1700:2940:1DD0:0:0:0:2B (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Micro - B

https://www.moddiy.com/pages/USB-2.0-USB-3.0-USB-3.1-USB-3.2-USB-4.0-Connectors-and-Pinouts.html ( near bottom ) seems to have a diagram for this *COMMON* type of connector. Unfortunately, I do not own the work. Also, no scale. ShaReeLi (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) . . . the existing diagram under 2.0 Revised ( column ) seems to be nearly the same, but stuff around the edges obscures the shape.

Categories: