Talk:Radionuclide therapy

Name change
Would there be any objection to renaming this article? While the current name is descriptive, I am not convinced it is a common name. I have come across molecular radiotherapy and radionuclide therapy more often, and the article itself uses RNT more often. Some of these are offered as alternative names in this article (and in the relevant section in radiation therapy, to which this discussion probably also applies). I've included a comparison of the number of results for some of the relevant names and variations in PubMed and Google (web). My instinct would be to go for molecular radiotherapy or radionuclide therapy, but don't have any strong opinions. I am partly just interested if "unsealed source radiotherapy" is a common term in any particular areas. My guess is that it may have been chosen to explicitly differentiate from brachytherapy, but I think the suggested terms are understood as distinct from brachytherapy, even if the literal meaning could be argued. The article itself does clarify the difference so I don't think this would be an issue. It's worth noting that molecular radiotherapy is perhaps the more fashionable at the moment, while radionuclide therapy has been used for decades, as demonstrated in the PubMed results histogram, and the explosion in web results for MRT. Beevil (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2021

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure)  EN  - Jungwon  17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsealed source radiotherapy → Radionuclide therapy – Please see rationale in section above. Although no comments have been made, I can see potential for disagreement. Beevil (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support nom. I agree that the proposed title is the common name, and it is also more easy to understand. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)