Editing Talk:Particle (section)

== Proposed merge of [[Massive particle]] into [[Particle]] ==
{{atopg
| status = Merge

| result = The result of the discussion was '''merge'''. Any editor is welcome to [[WP:M5|perform the merge]]. Noting that it was proposed to also merge [[Massless particle]], however, since that page wasn't tagged and the consensus for this isn't clear, that would have to be a new proposal (or BOLD merge). [[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]] ([[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon|talk]]) 16:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
}}
The concept of "massive particle" has no meaning other than a particle with mass. The modifier "massive" is used in discussions of "particles" and explaining "massive particle" is clearest in the full context of [[Particle]]. Conversely the massive/massless issue needs to be covered in the "particle" article. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

:Well, I don't quite agree. The same thing could be said for [[massless particle]]. Currently the article clearly isn't very good. Yes, a massive particle is a particle with mass. And a massless particle is a particle without mass. But what these articles should focus on is the features and properties of such particles. Off the top of my head example this article can cover the following: 
:* Discuss properties of massive particles, their dynamics, etc.
:* Discuss various types of massive particles (I guess that'll mainly deal with representation theory, Wigner's classification, etc).
:* Discuss various mass generation mechanisms.
:* Discuss the massive particles within the SM.
:* Definitely there is more than this.
:The massless article page similarly needs a spruce up. I definitely think there is enough here to get these to be full articles in their own right. For the massless particle page at least the page views definitely seem to be calling for an imporvement on that page. And I don't think one should have a massless particle page without a corresponding massive particle page.
:Additionally merging this in the [[particle]] page has the disadvantage of burying the particle physics nature of massive particle/massless particle into a discussion on the more generic (generally point) particle concept in physics. [[User:OpenScience709|OpenScience709]] ([[User talk:OpenScience709|talk]]) 11:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::I challenge you to find a source that find significant coverage of the top "massive particle" as such. Your outline above presupposes an article on the topic "massive particle" with information "massive particle properties". I've never seen such a presentation. Rather, what I see are sources on [[particles]] or [[representation theory]] or [[mass generation]], etc. Thus the encyclopedia should discuss "massive particle" in those places. I'm not claiming that "massive particle" is not used but rather that we should not invert the order of concepts we see in sources. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Again, I don't feel too strongly about this topic. And I agree that you generally won't find articles, books, or chapters specifically just discussing "massive particle" as their sole focus. 
:::Although as far as I see it, thats not what the notability criteria for Wikipedia are. A topic has to have significant coverage in the literature to be notable. Whether this coverage is usually within the context of something else or not is not mentioned in the guidelines. More importantly, there are numerous Wikipedia articles on topics that are widely used in the literature, but are not usually discussed in and of themselves. Say [[Feynman slash notation]], [[correlation function (quantum field theory)]], [[On shell and off shell]], [[Metric signature]], etc. You won't find many (or sometimes any) chapters/articles explicitly dedicated to these topics, yet I would definitely say they are notable. 
:::Same goes for massive and massless particles. They are things widely discussed in the literautre, but generally always in the context of something else. 
:::Although I can see that massive particle may be less notable. But I do have to disagree (ik youre not arguing it currently(?)) with arguing the same thing for [[massless particle]] which I do think is explicitly notable. They have properties that are explicitly discussed in standard textbooks. Plenty of representation theory discussions on it, say chapter 10 "Massless Particles" in Theory and Applications of the Poincaré Group by Baskal et al. But other things too, say Schwartz (Chapter 8) on gauge invariance of massless spin 1 particles, on soft theorems, or Srednicki's chapter 50 ("Massless particles and spinor helicity") on it the spinor helicity formalism for massless particles. [[User:OpenScience709|OpenScience709]] ([[User talk:OpenScience709|talk]]) 18:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
::::But basically I'm not too fussed about merging massive article into particle. Against doing the same for massless particle. [[User:OpenScience709|OpenScience709]] ([[User talk:OpenScience709|talk]]) 18:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
:'''Merge''' [[Massive particle]] and also [[Massless particle]] – The first is [[WP:MERGE|very short]] and the second is very poorly sourced, no [[WP:N]] in sight. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:@[[User:Johnjbarton]] are you still interested in performing the merge? Let me know if you need any help! [[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]] ([[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon|talk]]) 16:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{merge done}}: If someone wants to start a new discussion about [[massless particle]] they can. [[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]] ([[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon|talk]]) 23:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)