Talk:2N2907

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too specific

There should be an article comparing popular transistors or specific types or even a prominent link in the main transistor article to an outside article that does the same. (Isn't there an electronics/IC wiki somewhere?) The main references I have are either printed and hard to get anymore, or are scattered among thousands of PDFs - one per device type. Fairfield seems to have some good information.24.167.39.41 (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wrong

We can't even monkey-copy the datasheets correctly. This important and notable transistor doesn't even have its breakdown voltage listed correctly, and using it at 100 MHz is a hallucination by someone who hasn't read Ft = 200 MHz. I'm so glad all these parts list entries have been rescued, because otherwise someone might be mislead on the capabilities of these transistors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how we carefully link volt and amp, because these are esoteric technical terms that a general encyclopedia reader might not recognize, but we sail past listing "Ft" as if we absorbed that knowledge from our mother's milk. This is now actively misleading, because the unwary bright 12-year-old reading this article might think that a 2N2907 is somehow *useful* at 200 MHZ. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So did it. Or tried to, anyway. Now we get to explain the whole theory of transistors for every random part number listed. What fun. And such an efficient use of the reader's time. You see, someone consulting the NTE cross reference guide is pretty much self-selected to already have a background that include knowledge of "volt", "amp", "Ft", "Hie" and "Hfe" and "Hib" and so on. But an *encyclopedia article* has to be accessible to a reader who is not necessarily abuzz with this jargon in his ears and needs some context. So, instead of ONE article that would give someone a reasonable orientation to the subject, we either list jargon and data sheet numbers at randomm and hope the reader will magically absorb the knowledge, or we explain the sum total of transistor theory again and again in each "article". Notice how the consensus to save the articles has stopped well short of the point of effort that turns these parts list entries into real articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't just use wikilinks? That's a mechanism we use so that we don't have to do everything many times, nor everything all together in one article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A forest of blue links makes for an unreadable article. If you have to link every significant term in such a short entry, perhaps it indicates a poorly-factored article. You don't think it's a little comical carefully linking "volt" and "amp" but not linking "Vrrm" or "Ft" or what have you? We only give Napoleon's hat size, but at least we link hat. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, transistors like these generally do have useful gain at VHF frequencies, and will work well enough as mixer oscillators in domestic FM radios for example, but I agree that the Ft frequency can be misleading to a novice and should be explained. --Ef80 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't think this topic is notable enough to be worth an encyclopedia article by itself. It's a parts list entry, not an encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]