Talk:Optical unit

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)

What should we do with this article?

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:

• Merge the article to numerical aperture as suggested?
• Merge the article to diffraction limited system as suggested on the numerical aperture talk page?
• Nominate it for deletion as not notable?

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

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)

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)

Closed request. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)