Talk:Transistor

Highlighting the use of transistors as electronic neuron and synapse

Hi all, I recently added a sentence that reads like this:

In 2025, it was discovered that a single MOSFET can produce synaptic and neural electrical response.

This change was reverted with the comment that it was promotional. I’d like to clarify that the addition was made in good faith, with a neutral tone and based on a reliable source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08742-4), which was also cited. I don’t believe it violates Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality or promotion. I’d appreciate feedback and a discussion about whether it can be reinstated with any necessary adjustments.

Thank you very much. Siliconexpert2025 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I will accept your word that it was not promotional. Constant314 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I read the article. My conclusion is that it is not noticeable at this time. To be noticeable, it should be mentioned in multiple secondary sources. That article is a primary source. I do not doubt that it is reliable. However, it takes several years before it percolates down to the secondary sources. Please see WP:NOTE. If, in five to ten years, this discovery is mentioned in several secondary sources, then it might be suitable for inclusion. These are encyclopedia articles. We do not have room for every bit of minor minutia about the subject. Please see WP:COATRACK.

By the way, with your repeated insertion of the material, you are on the verge of edit warring. It would be best if you removed the material yourself until a consensus can be established here on the talk page. Constant314 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I fixed the removal by Constant314 since it really shouldn't be in the lede without some support in the article. Interesting application of transistors, not sure if it is WP:Undue or without an RS so I'm looking forward to a discussion here. Tom94022 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The paper jus came out in March. It hasn't been cited by anyone. Definity not notable. Constant314 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

How many times should the article be cited to qualify for being included? I would like to understand the criteria used so that later you/others do not come with other excuses. Thank you very much. Siliconexpert2025 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no simple number or amount of time. Constant314 (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest the reference is far more suitable for inclusion in the Synapse or Neural circuit articles deserving at most a link somewhere within this article and not in the lede Tom94022 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Layout

KV11oh reverted my layout changes claiming the new layout was awkward. I don't fully disagree; There can be a lot of extra whitespace if you are reading in a wide window. The changes, however, keep images in the sections where they are being discussed, improving WP:PERTINENCE. Does anyone have a suggestion for an alternate improvement that solves this problem without so much whitespace? ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Alumin(i)um

Aluminium is preferred over aluminum according to MOS:IUPAC. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

An anonymous editor has changed the label of this article's infobox from Transistor to Bipolar junction transistor, correctly noting that all the other information in the box pertains to the BJT. Of course, we already have a similar infobox at Bipolar junction transistor. I think we should remove or relocate this infobox. I'm not sure it is desirable or possible to create an infobox about Transistors as a class of devices. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)