Talk:OpenROAD Project

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this was assigned by DAC community to work on and also the OpenROAD Project is a notable and well-established academic and industrial endeavor in the field of electronic design automation (EDA); therefore, this article should not be removed hastily due to its lack of stated importance. Leading colleges, such as UC San Diego, are responsible for it, and DARPA is supporting it. Numerous academic and industrial publications have acknowledged the project, which has produced peer-reviewed research and received significant government financing. Furthermore, OpenROAD provides open-source tools that are frequently utilized in research, teaching, and commercial businesses related to semiconductor design. This demonstrates its notoriety and field relevance. I am working to improve the article's representation of these sources and their importance. --HadiJooshin (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --LouScheffer (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is associated with a wide variety of academic and commercial tools designed to help students (in particular) be able to complete design flows (a difficult task without this effort). It does not tout any specific commercial or academic tools to the detriment of others. LouScheffer (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Article was written by AI?

I've been working to improve this article, and have developed a strong suspicion it was written in whole or in part by AI. In particular, it uses synonyms that no one in the field would ever use, but which make sense in a general language processor. For example, the original refer to "worldwide routing" where what was meant was "global routing". Likewise it referred to a "labyrinth" in the context of maze routing, and used "cables" when talking of chip wiring.

Additionally, there was almost a complete lack of Wiki links, or Wiki section structure, or academic references, or explanations of acronyms that would be mysterious to any reader not in the field (e.g. LEF/DEF). In summary it looks like exactly what you would get if you asked an AI for a paragraph size summary of pieces of the OpenROAD documentation. LouScheffer (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Article truncation

Recently an editor, in good faith, removed the vast majority of the article as "wildly and inappropriately overly detailed for a general encyclopedia." I think this is mistaken on both the practical and academic level. From a practical point of view, all the edit did was remove details after the first few sections. If they are left in, the user simply stops reading when the details become more than they want. The reader who wants more details get them. There is no downside to explaining more.

From the academic point of view, "wildly and inappropriately overly detailed" seems like an (understandable) opinion from someone not in the field. The detail is there because the field is big, though obscure to those who are not a part of it. The technical organization CEDA is perhaps most relevant to this article, and consists of 12 member organizations and about 33,000 researchers. What may seem overly detailed to a casual reader is really an encyclopedic summary of a much larger research program. Almost each paragraph points to a full Wikipedia page on the topic (say Placement (electronic design automation) ), which is then further backed by a large peer-reviewed technical literature.

The concerns about the use of AI and lack of independence are plausible and not yours alone, as you can see from the previous comments. But the solution is to fix these issues, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Useful information should be re-written, or at least vetted, by a human, and good references added. I've done quite a bit of this already, though there is always more that could be done. LouScheffer (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a general encyclopedia for a broad audience, not a specialty reference for people "in the field." This level of detail is inappropriate and unwelcome. ElKevbo (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. For technical topics, from the exact reference you cited, "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." (bold face mine). It does not say detailed information should be omitted. For examples, look at almost any page on an advanced mathematical topic, such as Singular value decomposition or Group theory. These are, in my mind, almost exact parallels to what is proposed here. Wikipedia would be worse, in my opinion, if the details of these article were removed. LouScheffer (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)