Talk:Disc herniation/Archive 4
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bobby Cohn in topic Requested move 13 November 2024
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Disc herniation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Requested move 13 November 2024
- 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Spinal disc herniation → Disc herniation – WP:CONCISE, already mostly mentioned as simply "disc herniation" throughout the article, most common term out of a few others, while "spinal disc herniation" is rarest, "spinal" seems redundant here –Tobias (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. When one searches, the more words that are included, the rarer that constellation will be found in relation to shorter constellations of words, so that comparison really has no meaning for us here. We use "spinal" to signal this is a medical topic. Imagine someone who is totally ignorant of the topic and just sees the isolated title "Disc herniation". They will have to click the link to find out it's a medical topic. That's not good. They should know, just by looking at the isolated title, that it's a medical topic. Therefore, I oppose the move. I don't see it as an improvement. It's more like a solution in search of a problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The term "disc herniation" is solely used in a medical context, so it’s nearly impossible to find unrelated results when searching for it and vice versa. Even if it were, adding "spinal" wouldn’t provide much additional clarity if "herniation" alone isn’t understood. Besides, most search engines display a text preview, allowing readers to see the first few words of a webpage, making it unnecessary to click the link. –Tobias (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- You cite WP:CONCISE, but it only applies to "a person familiar with the general subject area": "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." I take a broader view. One more/less word isn't worth such a change, one that leaves those unfamiliar with the topic without a necessary bit of information. The briefer mentions in the article are allowed because we mention "spinal" in the title. That is the only place we'd save ONE word. If we remove it from the title, then we'd have to add it several places in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Valjean I have to disagree on that, the clarification that this is a spinal problem occurs directly in the lead and is not relevant to the title. And that, again, has nothing to do with the body text. This is why almost no other scientific articles on this topic include "spinal" in the title and why "spinal disc herniation" is that rarely used. –Tobias (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Medical sources don't need to mention some form of "spinal/spine" in the title because they will mention it in their article. The very medium, whose audience is made up of "persons familiar with the general subject area", and already being a strictly medical source, obviates the need to mention the anatomical term in the title when "a person familiar with the general subject area" will already understand the context.
- @Valjean I have to disagree on that, the clarification that this is a spinal problem occurs directly in the lead and is not relevant to the title. And that, again, has nothing to do with the body text. This is why almost no other scientific articles on this topic include "spinal" in the title and why "spinal disc herniation" is that rarely used. –Tobias (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- You cite WP:CONCISE, but it only applies to "a person familiar with the general subject area": "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." I take a broader view. One more/less word isn't worth such a change, one that leaves those unfamiliar with the topic without a necessary bit of information. The briefer mentions in the article are allowed because we mention "spinal" in the title. That is the only place we'd save ONE word. If we remove it from the title, then we'd have to add it several places in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The term "disc herniation" is solely used in a medical context, so it’s nearly impossible to find unrelated results when searching for it and vice versa. Even if it were, adding "spinal" wouldn’t provide much additional clarity if "herniation" alone isn’t understood. Besides, most search engines display a text preview, allowing readers to see the first few words of a webpage, making it unnecessary to click the link. –Tobias (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an exclusively medical source, and many of our readers are not "persons familiar with the general subject area", so titles should usually indicate their basic topic area.
- We need other people's input here if we are going to change the long-standing status quo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and WP:CONCISE actually supports my point. I’m not sure if you fully understood what you read there, but it states that the title needs to be identifiable to someone with background knowledge about the subject area, not to someone unfamiliar with it. My request meets this criterion, everything else is a matter for the body text. –Tobias (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! Good point about "concise". I still wonder if you're being "too precise" and unnecessarily precise, so will wait for others' input. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, that's still a matter of perspective. –Tobias (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! Good point about "concise". I still wonder if you're being "too precise" and unnecessarily precise, so will wait for others' input. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and WP:CONCISE actually supports my point. I’m not sure if you fully understood what you read there, but it states that the title needs to be identifiable to someone with background knowledge about the subject area, not to someone unfamiliar with it. My request meets this criterion, everything else is a matter for the body text. –Tobias (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I find the nominator's argument convincing—"disc herniation" is self-evidently more WP:CONCISE, and I think "herniation" makes clear that the article is on a medical topic, even in the absence of "spinal." Although Valjean's criticism of the Ngrams is sound in the general case, the particular set of Ngrams here shows such a vast gulf in usage that it's clear the phrase "spinal disc herniation" is not contributing significantly to the usage of "disc herniation" more broadly. Thus, I feel that the WP:COMMONNAME argument favors just "disc herniation" as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- support per ModernDayTrilobite--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2024 (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.