Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Technical requests

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Administrator needed

Edit this section if a request requires an administrator (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place the request in another section if it only requires a page mover's permissions.

Contested technical requests

• – officially his name is just Chandrashekhar according to his official election affidavit 2409:4063:6C85:81B1:4430:82D1:7A47:5DA6 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Contesting. Looking at the article's sources, I don't think there's enough evidence that he just goes by a mononym, and the present titles also satisfies WP:NATURALDIS. The common name is probably actually "Chandrashekhar Azad" or "Chandra Shekhar Azad" (possibly with Aazad instead), but we have to decide how to disambiguate with the revolutionary Chandra Shekhar Azad.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• – "Theta vacuum" is the main relevant topic of the page while "Vacuum angle" is a much less common name for what is being described as it is merely the parameter that indexes the various theta vacua. Most common textbooks and papers usually refer to the theta vacuum rather than vacuum angle as well. I cannot make the move myself as Theta vacuum is already a redirect on the page. OpenScience709 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • But see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Theta vacuum. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I've closed that as wrong venue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Contesting - a simple ngram suggests that "vacuum angle" is more commonly used than "theta angle". I don't really know much about this topic, but I think this needs a discussion and maybe some attention from those who know about the matter and to determine the proper WP:COMMONNAME at least.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, however I suspect that there might be a number of reasons for that while theta vacuum is the main topic, one may often want to refer to the vacuum angle more often when discussing it (although even more often it is referred to as the theta angle/θ angle, yet that would be a terrible name for the article due the the commonality of that term). The page itself focuses on the theta vacuum since that is the main topic, while the vacuum angle is just the parameter that describes it. Also I suspect that maybe vacuum angle may clash in ngram with other word combinations while theta vacuum is more specific, but that's pure conjecture and I may be wrong. Anyway. I would point out that theta vacuum/θ-vacuum comes up more often on arXiv titles (30/22 times for a total of 52 times) while vacuum angle only 12 (two of which are theta-vacuum angle). So at least in 1992+ academic papers the former is referred much more often in titles. Up to date textbooks also much more often list theta-vacuum over vacuum angle in the index (such as Weinberg, Schwartz, the other textbooks listed in the Vacuum angle page as references). It's what I found at least while browsing random QFT textbooks when researching for the article (so technically not an objective statement, but the most popular textbooks do use theta vacuum more often). OpenScience709 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)