Talk:USB: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:29, 16 February 2020 edit2600:8800:3709:cd00:fdb3:68da:5063:3c14 (talk) →Should the term "USB 3.0" be used instead of "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1"?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024 edit undoShaReeLi (talk \| contribs)13 edits →Micro - B
(99 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{Vital article\|topic=Technology\|level=5\|class=B}}
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=Mid\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Electronics\|class=B\|importance=High~~}}		{{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}}
	{{Old ~~moves\|list=~~		{{Old move
	*RM, Universal Serial Bus -> USB~~, '''~~Moved~~''',~~ 22 June 2011~~, ]~~		\|from1=Universal Serial Bus \|destination1=USB\|result1=Moved\|date1=22 June 2011\|link1=Talk:USB/Archive 7#Requested move 2011
	*RM, USB -> Universal Serial Bus~~, '''~~Moved~~''',~~ 14 January 2012~~, ]~~		\|from2=USB \|destination2=Universal Serial Bus\|result2=Moved\|date2=14 January 2012\|link2=Talk:USB/Archive 8#Requested move 2012
	*RM, Universal Serial Bus -> USB~~, '''~~Moved~~''',~~ 25 June 2013~~, ]~~		\|from3=Universal Serial Bus \|destination3=USB\|result3=Moved\|date3=25 June 2013\|link3=Talk:USB/Archive 7#Requested move 2013
	}}		}}
	{{Merged-from\|Device Firmware Upgrade‎\|date=September 8, 2014}}		{{Merged-from\|Device Firmware Upgrade‎\|date=September 8, 2014}}
Line 21:		Line 19:
	\| archiveheader = {{aan}}		\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\| maxarchivesize = 100K		\| maxarchivesize = 100K
	\| counter = 8		\| counter = 9
	\| algo = old(90d)		\| algo = old(90d)
	\| archive = Talk:USB/Archive %(counter)d		\| archive = Talk:USB/Archive %(counter)d
Line 30:		Line 28:
	{{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 }}

	== ~~There~~ ~~have~~ ~~been~~ no ~~renaming!~~ ==		== File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg ==
	Within USB there have not been any renaming. People who think there have been need to reed up on semantic versioning. USB 3.0 is NOT the same as USB 3.1 Gen 1 as USB 3.1 supports different kinds of connectors than USB 3.0. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== History with iMac ==

	This page claims that iMac was the first computer (or "mainstream product") with USB support, but the cited source does not make this claim. It makes the claim that iMac helped USB get more widespread support.

			This graph has some faults and is misleading. For example for the following aspects:
	<blockquote>The iMac’s sole reliance on the USB interface meant that Mac users had to throw out all their old mice, keyboards, scanners, printers, and external drives. The computer’s lack of SCSI ports particularly scared Mac pundits, who long relied on SCSI for external storage. But at the same time, the iMac provided the first kick start USB needed to really get off the ground. Thanks to the iMac, many peripheral manufacturers launched their first-ever round of USB computer accessories—it was no coincidence that most of them shipped in transparent blue-green housing.</blockquote>

			*Generally mismatches/simplifies operation modes with specification version
	<ref>https://www.macworld.com/article/1135017/imacanniversary.html</ref>
			*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
		⚫	] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

			{{reply to\|ZH8000}}
	Another source makes the claim that other computers had USB ports at the time, but iMac was the only one that dropped support for other connectors.
			: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 ^^ ] (]) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

			{{Help me-helped}}
	<blockquote>The original iMac was the first computer to ship exclusively with USB ports, as it did away with famed legacy ports like ADB and SCSI. At the time, computers that happened to ship with USB ports also came with other peripheral connections like serial and parallel ports.</blockquote>
			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 ==
	<ref>https://www.networkworld.com/article/2230092/five-technologies-in-the-mainstream--thanks-to-apple.html</ref>
	{{reflist-talk}}

			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:
⚫	] (]) 13:55, 25 ~~June~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)

			... 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, ...
	==deprecated?==
	the table implies that the only slot and plug left since 2017 is USB-C. This makes no sense as USB-C cables come with type A on the other end.] (]) 21:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
	:First, deprecated does not mean removed, second, as you can see with latest galaxy tab S6, galaxy note 10, etc., all functions (in particular USB Power delivery 3.0 with PPS) are only available with USB-C to USB-C with e marker cables. Also Thunderbolt 3 (and thus USB4 main alternate mode) will only (obviously) work with USB-C to USB-C COMPATIBLE with thunderbolt 3 (and PCI express) cables. ] (]) 20:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
	::Alternate mode is in the USB-C spec but not in the USB4 spec. USB4 is based on Thunderbolt 3 (but is not the same) and includes backward compatibility with Thunderbolt 3 as well as USB 3.2 and 2.0. USB-C is just a spec for cable and connection which allows the other end to have whatever other connector is available. The table here simply states that USB-C is the only cable/connector that is used for the given USB version thus both ends need to be USB-C. Whenever you connect a USB-C with USB-A on the other end it will simply use a different (read: older) USB version (in most cases that would be USB 2.0 or 3.0 since these are the most used ones). The reason for that is that the USB protocol has backwards compatibility with some of its older versions. ] (]) 15:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

			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)
	== Should the term "USB 3.0" be used instead of "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1"? ==

			: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)
	This concerns the caption for the image at the right.
			::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. ==
	The terms "USB 3.1 Gen 1" and "USB 3.2 Gen 1" can be very confusing for people who aren't part of the technology industry.<ref>{{cite web \|title=USB 3.2’s Naming Convention Is a Hot Mess \|url=https://tidbits.com/2019/03/04/usb-3-2s-naming-convention-is-a-hot-mess-usb4-announced/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=USB 3.2 standard gets new, even more confusing names ahead of its mainstream debu \|url=https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/27/18243425/usb-3-2-standard-names-connectivity-cables-innovators-forum \|website=The Verge}}</ref> I'm not sure whether this would be a good idea, but would it be better to use the older term "USB 3.0", one that is more familiar with the average reader, or use the newer terms (such as USB 3.2 Gen 1), which can be more confusing to the average reader, but is more up to date?

			I just made an edit removing a broken source link. Hope that was good one? ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}
⚫	] (]) 23:25, 7 ~~October~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)

			== "Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C" ==
	:Yes, the terms are confusing – but those are the official names. We'd confuse the readers even more if we came up with our own naming scheme (albeit a more logical one). --] (]) 06:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

			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)
	::''SuperSpeed'' is also an official name. It would be much less confusing to simply call them ''USB Type A ports capable of SuperSpeed''. The naming series such as ''USB 3.2 Gen 1'' refers to a data transmission mode, and a picture of this hub is not a picture of a data transmission mode. ] (]) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (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-->

	== ~~Serial~~ ~~or Parallel?~~ ==		== 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. ] (]) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	The infobox lists USB "Universal Serial Bus" as a '''serial''' connection. However when I look at the ] I can count no less than 3 data "differential pairs". This "serial bus" has 6 wires to transmit data! Doesn't that make it a parallel bus? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Micro - B ==
	:First, each pair is used for ], so each pair is two wires sending one bit. One pair is for backward compatibility with 2.0. The other two pairs send in different directions, to enable ] communication. A parallel bus would allow all the wires to be used for any purpose - that isn't the case for USB, where everything has a predefined role. - ] (]) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (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.
	:It's serial. The pinout for A/B can show up to three differential pairs: one in half-duplex for low/full/high speed (USB 1.x/2.0) and two in dual-simplex for SuperSpeed (USB 3.x). USB-C adds a second half-duplex low/full/high speed link and two in dual-simplex for the additional lane for SuperSpeed 20G. It's not a bus though, at least not electrically, just logically. --] (]) 18:20, 31 October 2019 (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: