Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) at 09:14, 3 April 2011 (→Move proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Electronics Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Merge proposal

I propose we merge 1N540X to here, since these 3A and 1A diodes are sometimes treated together, and the 540X series are not likely to be independently notable. I merged some table info already and cited a source that has both together in one table. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

After the AfD is close, I suggest we move it 1N4001 series diodes or 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes or some such, with redirects from all the individual part numbers. Any other suggestions or comments? Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"And" in an article title is not a sign of a strongly-conceived, focussed article. Something a little more inclusive might be Silicon diodes where we could talk about their general properties, history, and limitations, and then give a table of the properties of our favorite parts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point, but (AIUI) there is some commonality between the 1N400x and the 1N540x series, one being a very similar scaled-up version, using the same technology and having the same development history. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Or even if they're not the same technology or development history, if they're treated together in sources due to being a logical family, we can treat them here that way. What we call it is not such a big deal. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the worst things we could do (and have already done with 2N7000). Just because a few externally measurable ratings look similar, that's no reason to merge. What could such an article usefully say about the components? In that case it really would have degenerated to being merely a parts list. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If they're treated together in sources, is that not a good reason to treat them together here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, only if they're treated that way in good sources, that are discussing the items in the same way that we are. There are a great many transistors around, with a lot of overlap. So second-source fabs (like Vishay) often make one part that meets the specs for several and sells those same dice (sometimes in different mounts) as being compatible with all of those parts. It's an error on our part to write about "first transistor using annular epitaxy (2N2222)" and back this up with sources that are describing a more modern compatible replacement that doesn't use the same geometry. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled to read something about the development history and similarities of these devices - that would make something more like an article and less like the NTE substitution guide. But are there any sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Why do you think it has a notable development history? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unassessed electronic articles
• Unknown-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles