Found in a Flickr comment by Jeri Ellsworth:


The Flickr image in question is one of the VIC II which Jeri reverse engineered for the FPGA in the C64DTV

I see the Wikipedia article mentioned in the comment (about the VICII) hasn't been updated, it still conflicts with that comment you sited and the quote from Bil Herd.

-Tor

Interesting. I wonder if Wikipedia is happy with adjustments based on Flickr comments. I know BDD has a track record as an editor, perhaps he'd be happy to make an edit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Techno ... nt_history

(User Nixdorf added the questionable info)

Edit: I gather BDD is dissatisfied with the Wikipedia process, so less likely to bother with this.

So I guess the question is about the statement pertaining to the VIC 6567/6569, not 65C02 as indicated by the subject line.

If the real question is (as I am trying to guess) about the indication that Applicon was used to layout it, and that information comes right out of Brian Bagnall's book "On The Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore" page 230, and I quote:

"Charpentier worked with two draftsmen and a CAD operator (Computer Aided Design). The CAD operator sat in front of a special purpose Applicon system and created a blueprint for the chip.The two draftsmen would then use his schematics to lay out the surface of the chip, hunched over large pieces of vellum paper."

If this is incorrect you need a published reference for Wikipedia, write an article on this 6502 website and research the issue with verifiable sources for example. Wikipedia itself shall not be used for original research.

Thanks Nixdorf, and thanks for the citation (I've read and enjoyed On the Edge but only a borrowed copy.) Indeed, this thread kicks off on the 65C02, but the referenced comments on Flickr are attributed to people who were there at the time and relate to the VIC II (or so I understand it.) You are suggesting, I think, that one would need those quotes on a static page in order to cite them and defend an edit to the page on Wikipedia. It's doubtful that anyone will do that, but a comment on the Talk page might be in order.
Cheers
Ed

Bagnalls information comes from interviews with, for example, Al Charpentier, so you need a real good and even more trustworthy source. What we do if two trusted named source indicate different things is list both pieces of information and state that the truth is unclear.

In historic research written sources as close to the described event are considered most trustworthy, so the best way to really find out is to browse e.g. CBM correspondance from the time.

The best (easiest) thing would perhaps be to get Bil Herd to write something up on his c128.com site and then cite that. He's quoted as saying the CAD program was not in use in the year in question. Better yet, cite the Flickr page.