Talk:Laser acronyms

Removed reference
I removed this reference: Laser Acronyms and Laser Abbreviations because it is user-generated content, so it would not be considered a reliable source under WP:UGC. Inverted Hourglass (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced template
I disagree with this edit by User:ReyHahn. I am fine with the assertion that lists have the same sourcing requirements as articles. I am not fine with drive-by tagging of an entire list as unreferenced, where it is not clear that any references are required at all. The only statement in this list is the lede: "This is a list of acronyms and other initialisms used in laser physics and laser applications." The only sourcing necessary or possible would be sourcing to establish that an acronym is actually used in laser physics or laser applications. Note that WP:LISTVERIFY says "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation." If the list contains any entries that are not obviously appropriate, ReyHahn could certainly tag those as citation needed. Tagging the whole list as "unreferenced" is inappropriate. -- Srleffler (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think that this is about referencing the acronyms in the article. Apple is a well known concepts for everybody. Laser physics acronyms are not. It would just suffice to add a reference (example of use) for each use to each term in the list. If not anybody can just drop by any acronyms that they see fit, even if false or misabbreviated.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of these acronyms are well known to editors of this list, and we do keep an eye on it and remove inappropriate entries. Even if the terms are not familiar to you, nearly all of the entries on this list are blue links. It is certainly within your capability to follow the link and verify the acronym. The fact that "acousto-optic modulator" is a laser physics term and that it has the acronym AOM is obvious. Most of the other entries on the list are similarly obvious.
 * If you had slapped "cite needed" tags on some of the red-link entries, I would not have objected. Drive-by tagging the entire list as "unreferenced" accomplishes nothing useful, however. --Srleffler (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, anybody can just check the blue links. However the list article should also work as a standalone entry and cannot keep up with changes in the other articles. I will check with the Wikiproject WP:PHYSICS anyway.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just that there are blue links. My point was also that most of the entries in this list are as obvious in the context of this list as "apple" is in a list of fruits. Most of the ones you have just tagged cite needed are more obscure terms, though. I am fine with nearly all of those tags. --Srleffler (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)