"Archived Nov. 7, 2007.  Shortly before archiving, various sections mentioning an author involved in a conflict of interest were removed by the wikipedia general councel on request of that author, leaving some of the talk sections uninterpretable; see the original talk page history if you need to know more.   

  
 ==Move proposal== 

 I propose that Vaníček analysis be moved to Least-squares spectral analysis, a more descriptive, neutral, and widely used and known term for the topic.  The article has a lot of good well-sourced information on a notable topic, but is written in a biased way aimed apparently at making sure that Vaníček is the main name associated with the method, and that the contributions of others are denied or minimized.  It written by a WP:SPA who has not denied that he is Vaníček's ex-student who wrote the thesis that's used as a source to verify such POV statements as that the ""method has been mistakenly called by some the Lomb-Scargle or simply the Lomb method.""    
 :I am rather surprised by these allegations. First of, you first call me an expert and then YOU arbitrarily pick (out of at least five names for the same method) the one that YOU deem to be ""a more descriptive, neutral, and widely used and known term"". Here is a perfectly logical explanation for my way of presenting the method's name by using just two references (while stating that the name you selected has many references but without stating those specifically  this doens't mean that the name you picked has more references than the name as I stated it  don't mix apples and oranges!): the reason why I included only the first known (from 1970-ies) and the last known (from 2006) reference that cited the method as Vanicek's, was that I hoped this would have been sufficient for an encyclopedia type of article. If you insist, and if you are some kind of authority as you seem to be, I can provide a reference that calls the method ""Vanicek's"" for every single year between 1970 and 2007! But why flood the article like that?  Second, why are you assuming that not admitting to be some person means you are actually that person? This makes no sense to me.  Last  before accusing me of making up the word ""mistakenly"", please do read the reference first, before passing accusations like these. I am not here to be insulted like that. 
 :I appreciate the comment you made on the method authors' biography (I just included the biography source in there, so you should check it). But it seems to me like your contributions to the method article are made not in good faith (not to mention you are not an expert, as you indicated yourself), but in order to say just about anything that comes across your mind. It doesn't seem to me like improvements can be made like that. Please use your powers sparingly. I am here to improve the Wikipedia in the aspect of geodesy, not to waste time and energy fighting you. You should also read the link on biographies that you stated to me: see in there what the Wikipedia inventor says about the Wikipedia rules that obstruct improvements to Wikipedia: he says  IGNORE THEM.   

 ::I have no power, just trying to help wikipedia be the best it can be, and to learn new stuff along the way; I assume that you would want the attention to your article that you brought by linking it from a whole bunch of signal processing articles.  You, on the other hand, seem to be a WP:SPA, and you'll written an article that's very slanted.  I'm proposing we fix that; I don't see why you would question my good faith here; check my contribs history.    

 ::But let's talk about the article, instead of making it personal.  Don't you think the widely-used generic name would be more appropriate?  Here are some book refs you can check to see how frequently it is called what; compare these and these and these.   

 :::Indeed let's. By the way, the links you provided list mostly articles, not books. Now to the point: when you don't use dash, the number of returns increases hundredfold or more (I counted in hundreds). So one gets this and this, returning the number of papers that properly credit Vanicek for his method. 
 :::So now it turns out that not only you pretend to be an expert on something you are not, but you also use biased Google searches to make a point. I have