Talk:Wafer (electronics)

message: I think the Wafer prober article could best be merged into Wafer testing.Lisamh 22:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote for merge. DFH 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. A prober is a distinct piece of equipment, like an electron microscope, and fully deserves its own article. -- Atlant 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Wafer probing and wafer testing would be better suited under microfabrication or Semiconductor_manufacturing.  The wafers article is about the wafers themselves, not about all the processes used to make circuits.   Wafer probing/testing is a bit of a misnomer because its not the wafers being probed/tested but the circuits that were built from the wafers. Dspark76 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merges

message: The article mentions the following:
"This wafermap is then sent by a network or floppy disk to the die attachment process"
Is that current? because I can't imagine floppies being used.
Perhaps someone that has more recent familiarity to production could correct this if needed. Wwhat (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly dated information 

message: Many modern fabs have moved to 300mm wafers; this should be added to the list of wafer sizes. Many of the smaller sizes shown may not be considered standard anymore! -- Gretchenpatti (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Wafer Sizes 

message: The "in the future" citation is ambiguous and unknowingly dated. Why add a comment like this? The reference offers no further information, except a 2008 copyright. A better citation for this standard is needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.56.189 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the future" 

message: The article Wafer dicing has been unreferenced since December 2007. It has received almost no non-automated changes in the past year.  My recommendation is that we move over some of that information here and redirect that article.  This article is not so long and it already has a brief section on wafer dicing.  More importantly, my hope is that since this page is a little more active, people here will be more motivated to get it referenced.  Should a merge not be approved, I will have to nominate Wafer dicing for deletion, as it has been unsourced for too long, and I personally have no idea how to find relevant sources (as I'm guessing the relevant sources will be in print, not on the internet).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --ANDROBETA 15:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is more appropriate to merge Wafer dicing into Semiconductor device fabrication  --GianniG46 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...I totally forgot about my merger proposal.  If either of you would like to perform the merge, feel free to do so.  I personally don't really have enough knowledge of the subject itself to determine what the better merge target is.  GianniG46, do you think you can merge the relevant info into Semiconductor device fabrication?  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I just know that wafer dicing is a necessary step in IC fabrication, but have no idea of its technology, so I cannot help. Perhaps one can simply copy the material into "Semiconductor device fabrication", leave on "Wafer dicing" just a few words to explain what is it and to redirect to the main article, and hope that other editors will be able to review and quote it. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing merger of [[Wafer dicing]] into this article 

message: Here are thousands of sources for epi wafers aka epitaxial wafers, in addition to the source(s) in the Epiwafer article: , , , , , , , , , , , .
:I'm pretty familiar with epi wafers, just not "epiwafers".  I moved the article.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epi wafers 

message: 450mm is dead, at least for the next 5 to 10 years, if not forever. The G450C has shut down and disbanded. The article should be updated to reflect this. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: good, the next generation needs to be 500 mm.  Keep it in 100 mm increments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:8501:26A0:886:95CB:B014:36F7 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  450 mm is dead 

message: Die (integrated circuit) is essentially a one paragraph definition, and could easily and profitably be merged here.  This merge proposal came out of a suggestion at Talk:Integrated circuit#April_2017_merge_proposal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge January 2018

message: 1. "The size of wafers for photovoltaics is 100–200 mm square and the thickness is 200–300 μm. In the future, 160 μm will be the standard.[8]"
This sentence seems to claim that the standard, nowadays, would be 1 and 2 inches wafers when we know they are much bigger than that. Also, reference [8] is a dead link. This sentence should be revised.
2. "However, this was not without significant problems for the industry."
This is a vague claim. If you look at a single die, there is no difference if it's fabricated with a larger or a smaller wafer after the wafer is diced. The sentence should provide clarification.
3. "Nikon planned to deliver 450-mm lithography equipment in 2015, with volume production in 2017.[19][20] In November 2013 ASML paused development of 450-mm lithography equipment, citing uncertain timing of chipmaker demand.[21]".
These sentences need to be updated and/or revised.
4. "On the ramp up to 450 mm are that the crystal ingots will be 3 times heavier (total weight a metric ton) and take 2–4 times longer to cool, and the process time will be double.[25]"
Reference [25] is dead (as noted).
5. "Wafers of 200 mm diameter and above use a single small notch to convey wafer orientation, with no visual indication of doping type."
If that's the case then how can you tell the doping?
6. In terms of compound semiconductors, GaN is not the only option. This article does not list SiC which is equally important and promising. It should be listed.
ICE77 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the article