Talk:Impulse

Proposal to swap the disamb page with "impulse" article

The current impulse article is devoted to the technical meaning in mechanics. However, for the global WP readership, other meanings such as impulse (psychology) may be just as important, or more. Shouldn't it be the case to let [[impulse]] be this disamb page, and rename the current [[impulse]] article to [[impulse (mechanics)]]? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse (disambiguation) → Impulse

The previous "Impulse" article was already moved to Mechanical impulse and is now a redirect. Completing the move of this dab page was contested on the grounds of being potentially controversial. Per the previous comment above, the word "impulse" is used as a title for many different subjects, and there is no demonstration of any primary topic. Hence, in lieu of any actual objections, I am requesting that this page be moved. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer Impulse (physics) to Mechanical impulse. (Actually, I like Impulse better as the title for the physics article.) I notice that, if the move is made now, a lot of pages that were pointing to the physics article will be left pointing to a disambiguation page. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name of that page is not really the issue -- editors can rename it as they wish and I have no preference. The issue is that even in the field of science, the term "impulse" can refer to multiple subjects, as listed on the dab page. Hence, a name like Impulse (physics) would still be ambiguous -- are you looking for the concept in mechanics or electromagnetism? Are either one of these used more commonly than impulse in psychology? This is why no viable primary topic exists and why I consider it appropriate for Impulse to be the dab page. Wikilinks can be corrected as always. This is not a barrier to renaming. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - do we even have an article on impulses in electromagnetism? If we did, what would it say? Cardamon (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not move; restore to original naming Mechanical impulse garnishes far more links than impulse (psychology); 255 vs 60 to be precise. Therefore I think mechanical impulse should be restored to impulse. FYI, there is no such thing as electromechanical impulse. Wizard191 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should either be restored to impulse or impulse (physics).Chhe (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If both impulse (physics) and Mechanical impulse are being considered then there is no primary use and the dab page should be here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it should be moved based on naming discussions. I believe what others are saying is that if the page is moved it should be something other than mechanical impulse, because that's just a bad name (of which I definitely agree with those people). However, I don't think there's any consensus to move the pages, because I and Cardamon stated that we would like the article restored to impulse, you and ham pastrami think it should be moved, chhe supports both, and 242 just commented on the move to article naming. Wizard191 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think Mechanical impulse should have been renamed without a discussion. At the very least, it might have been better named as impulse (classical mechanics) or something. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In reading the above, I don't see an objection to the move but questions on better names for other impulse related topics. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support it, although I might not have been clear before, so I've modified my previous comment to reflect my opinion. Wizard191 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at Talk:Mechanical impulse there are objections to the initial page move, saying that "mechanical impulse" is a neologism, and that the page move should be reversed... 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

This has left several dozen wiki-links that should point at the Impulse (physics) article, and used to point at that article, but now point at the disambiguation page. Cardamon (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]