Talk:Xilinx

What's the correct Wikipedia tag for 'an article that appeared to be written by the company and is full of marketing weasel-speak'? 203.14.156.195 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Revenue

Is their revenue really ~$1,600 billion/year201.238.87.156 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Yashiv

No, it's in the general vicinity of $1.6 billin/year, verified by press releases and trade journal articles. I've corrected it. --Brouhaha 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms

Acronyms should be expanded, like ACR (Acronym) or Acronym (ACR).
-Mardus 10:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Technology

The "Technology" section is misleading. According to the datasheets on the Xilinx website, there are no Virtex-6 models with a built-in PowerPC core. --129.132.102.71 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Xilinx

(discussing merge of Virtex4)

Agree to merge. I doubt there would ever be enough content for this article to justify standing by itself. The only alternative I can think of besides merging it directly to the Xilinx article is to make a "Xilinx family details" article which goes into as much technical detail on each family and contrasts them. This would allow the Xilinx article itself to focus more on the higher level summary without being overly long with extreme details that most readers would not understand. Mrand 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Should've put my vote when I slapped that merge tag on in the first place. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Agree it is greatly ripped from the brochures, and need not be; add some real-life testimonials (academic or industry articles) to explain their use. Peter Ellis 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge - I think the article already has enough content to justify standing by itself. Even if it requires some cleanup. It would look silly in a section on Product Families mentioning lots of details from a single family. --Romanski 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xilinx.gif

Image:Xilinx.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of company name

This page references http://www.xilinx.com/company/history.htm, yet I could not find the quoted information at this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.55.37 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What's the pronunciation? Chvsanchez (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually hear it pronounced zi-links --88.106.44.243 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

External link

Hello, I'm working for the So-logic company, located in Vienna, Austria, www.so-logic.net. We have developed the FPGA Database application, www.so-logic.net/en/fpga/table/producers. It is the directory of all FPGA families that have ever existed on the market. It is free of charge and available to everyone. We would like to add the link to our database in the Wikipedia external links on this page. We didn't want to do it before discussing it with you. Thank you for your time. --Maja Gordic (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)