Jump to content

Talk:Optical unit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A minor thing, yet slightly annoying: I don't think it's in good form to introduce an acronym without first using its full nomenclature. I propose that "FWHM" be changed to " Full Width-Half Maximum (FWHM)" or some such. I believe the convention is that subsequent incidences can then correctly use only the acronymic expression. Wdwrx (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do with this article?

[edit]

I've cleaned it up about as fer as it'll go, which isn't that great. It's still mostly sourced to one appendix in one book. I do see these units getting used, but not much discussion OF the units. So the question is, should we:

PianoDan (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it can't remain as a small article. We have a reliable source establishing notability, and no dispute about the existence of these units. Not every article has to be large; there is nothing wrong with a small article on a small but notable topic. --Srleffler (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems legit. I'll give it a few days, and absent any other discussion, will clear the tags and post a note over at talk:numerical aperture. PianoDan (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed request. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]