Talk:Fixed-field alternating gradient accelerator

is it Symon or Simon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.227.250 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

its K. R. Symon in the papers.--81.97.59.215 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Fixed-field alternating gradient accelerator. The page was first moved to "Fixed-Field alternating gradient Accelerator" after consensus was reached, then moved again to regularize the capitalization. Kronhjorten (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Requested move 16 April 2019

FFAG accelerator → Fixed Field Accelerator – The naming convention for these accelerators has been changed from FFAG to FFA. The wikipedia page name should reflect this. See https://twitter.com/davidkelliher/status/1113746714328956928 for a reference in a recent accelerator physics textbook reflecting this new convention. Boazhsan (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To add weight to the above move request, it should be noted that the workshop for the field, which previously went by the nomenclature FFAG<year> is, since last year, FFA<year> (FFAG18 website).--Davidkelliher (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The change in acronym has been taken up by the recent ICFA Beam Dynamics newsletter, #76, [1]. On page 10, they state: "Finally, the change of acronym to FFA (referring to Fixed-Field alternating gradient Accelerators). The original acronym brought to mind a perjorative term used against members of the LGBT+ community. We have acknowledged this and followed organisations at SLAC and CERN and possibly elsewhere, that have changed their acronyms. Our Japanese colleagues have led the way in the accelerator world by labelling last year’s workshop FFA’18. I have accordingly tried to use “FFA” only throughout this Newsletter; of course, there should be no attempt to re-write history, so references to published works containing the old acronym remain unaltered. We have found it quite easy to make the change and if we can avoid causing offence at little or no cost to ourselves, there is no reason why we should not do it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazhsan (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose . I absolutely agree that the page should be moved to reflect the new acronym (FFA), but I don't think that "Fixed Field Accelerator" is the right destination page. As such I support a move but not this move. The sources listed above all seem to agree that they are called Fixed Field alternating gradient accelerator[s], so perhaps that should be the new page name, with FFA listed as the correct acronym on the page. Another option would be renaming the page to FFA (particle accelerator), or similar. In fact a redirect from one of those to the other would probably make sense too. It doesn't seem like they are anywhere referred to as simply "Fixed Field Accelerators" (although if they are, in sources I haven't seen, I'd reverse my position and support this move). Kronhjorten (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Move to Fixed-field alternating gradient accelerator, per reasons as above (and below) -- Kronhjorten (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Kronhjorten, thanks for your comment. I can agree that my original suggestion wasn't ideal. A fixed field accelerator could refer to cyclotrons as well, and we want to capture the concept of an accelerator that uses quadrupoles for focussing. What do you think about Fixed Field alternating gradient Accelerator (FFA)? I would also agree with your suggestion of Fixed Field alternating gradient accelerator, and then changing the acronym in the article (which will need to be done in any case. I'm not very familiar with this move process, so I appreciate the help in this. Boazhsan (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Since there are no further comments, and it has been over a week, I will attempt to close and move this. The opposition by Kronhjorten requested another name for the page. I will take a closely related choice for new page name which is used in the beam dynamics newsletter 76: Fixed-Field alternating gradient Accelerator. The acronym FFA will be used in the article. Because this was the only discussion and opposition, I will assume we have reached resolution and go ahead and close and move the page. Boazhsan (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to mention that I agree with the move that was made -- thanks Boazhsan. Would it be worth mentioning that they were formerly known as FFAGs in the lead section? This may be useful to people looking to learn more, especially from older sources. Also in the spirit of consistency, having moved this page we should probably try to replace FFAG -> FFA in other places on Wikipedia (Search FFAG or FFAGA and there are lots of results). I have done a few, but would appreciate help. --Kronhjorten (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this move, Kronhjorten. I was confused on how to remove the move statement at the top of the article. I removed it, but a bot keeps reinstating it. Yes, I agree that some kind of note should be made that people in the field have decided to change acronyms. I've also been continuing with changing the acronym where I see its appropriate. Its true that a lot of the literature still uses FFAG, so we can't change names of pre-existing publications.Boazhsan (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a statement about the change of acronym at the end of the first section of the article. Boazhsan (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Fixed-field alternating gradient accelerator: Please note the lowercase letters. The article has been moved to "Fixed-Field alternating gradient Accelerator". That is not a good name. Wikipedia does not use capitalization for hinting at abbreviations. How is this referred to in independent reliable sources? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I support the move to all lowercase (after the first word), as is wikipedia custom. Sorry for the initial mixed-case suggestion. BarrelProof I think much of the original move rationale is based on the links above. Not sure what more you're looking for in terms of "independent reliable sources"; in this case the current usage of practitioners in the field (such as the workshop and newsletter linked above) seem like the most relevant factor. -- Kronhjorten (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.