Talk:Unified Power Format

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dead links

It seems to me that this IEEE standard is no longer free and most links are out of date. If that's the case this should be stated clearly and the links updated to point to the latest locations of the standards.Sorin Toma (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three way merge

So far there is an article on the group IEEE P1801 and one on the first edition of the standard, IEEE Standard 1801-2009 each of which have issues, pus this one. It would make much more sense to a read wthout context like me to have one unified article that discusses the whole process. W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have made a suggestion for unified categorization for the three articles. Isheden (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think the general WP reader will want and expect the content of these pages collected, as the information falls together as a natural topic, and a unified page would have a better length than those of the separate pages extant. ENeville (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there was not much content to merge, but I combined the sources that I could access. The middle part about the technical description still needs work to be cleaned up to use less jargon and wiki link. Also not sure about that 2009 follow-on effort; maybe some trade press might cover it, for example. W Nowicki (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]