Talk:History of the transistor

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


The problem with this article

[edit]

The problem with this article is that it does not say, right up top, what a transistor is and what it does. There needs to be a solid graf that answers the "what is it?" factor.

69.206.72.140 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC) dioxinfreak, not signed in[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the transistor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity on claims / who's socking where and why?

[edit]

Pinging @Constant314 (thought anyone who may know please advise) in case they have a firm sense of whether the material in this and related articles (CMOS, Field-effect transistor) has serious problems like is alleged by the unhelpful LTA, or if it's fine despite the cloud of suspicion from having been by another now-blocked user. It seems fine to me, but I would appreciate any insight from either subject experts or those who were there when issues were initially metabolized. Cheers Remsense ‥ 论 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak from my own "experience" trying to untangle a single knot of Jagged85/Maestro2016, on the article for Mohamed M. Atalla. I put 'experience' in quotes because I dropped the matter in exasperation. The Atalla article has north of 700 edits by Maestro2016. Others have made attempts at untangling that one article, but it's a significant effort, and that's just one of 87,000+ articles edited by the sock, introducing pure fiction (fictional content and fictional sources). I'm not sure if the damage will ever be entirely undone. It's on that basis that I think it's necessary for the warning to remain in place, since every article touched by them is suspect. But that's just one barely-involved editor's opinion. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not followed the history of editing on this article and so can't recognize the editors and their edits to which you are alluding. If you're referring to the edits regarding Frosch and Derick and MOSFETs, my understanding from the citations (with the caveat that I only had access to the summary of Frosch and Derick's paper) is that their research did not use the silicon dioxide layer as a dielectric, and so they did not create a field-effect transistor or a metal-oxide-semiconductor set of layers. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]