Talk:Healthcare industry: Difference between revisions
Erich gasboy (talk | contribs) starting talk |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Hi. I agree it's not a fantastic page, and in reply: 1) I've seen it as a pretty common enough term in any interdisciplinary forum or effort. 2) aggree completely!! 3) yes it will invite content - which is exactly why I think it is best to move it off page - otherwise all these issues get re-debated on multiple pages |
Hi. I agree it's not a fantastic page, and in reply: 1) I've seen it as a pretty common enough term in any interdisciplinary forum or effort. 2) aggree completely!! 3) yes it will invite content - which is exactly why I think it is best to move it off page - otherwise all these issues get re-debated on multiple pages |
||
# what is a profesional? |
# what is a profesional? |
||
# who are they? |
# who are they?jkhjkhkjhklhjklh |
||
# what is the ''hierarchy''? (or how are they classified?). |
# what is the ''hierarchy''? (or how are they classified?). |
||
do you see what I mean? I actually dont think this is 'over' normalised at all. I see this is moving a debate that would be repeated at least 5 times elsewhere to a single page (for examples, have a look at how poorly [[health]] and [[Health science]] handle this!) hey and thanks for fixing my broken link!! e --[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich gasboy]] 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
do you see what I mean? I actually dont think this is 'over' normalised at all. I see this is moving a debate that would be repeated at least 5 times elsewhere to a single page (for examples, have a look at how poorly [[health]] and [[Health science]] handle this!) hey and thanks for fixing my broken link!! e --[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich gasboy]] 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 09:38, 27 July 2004
why have this page
this debate copied from talk:medicine by --Erich gasboy 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't like it. While the term seems reasonable, I don't think that it is legitimate to make a subject out of it. I don't know that 1) the term has actually been accepted in common usage; 2) the definition given is unsatisfying; 3) it seems to invite content that would better be in other places. Sort of like the problem with an overnormalized database. Kd4ttc 22:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I agree it's not a fantastic page, and in reply: 1) I've seen it as a pretty common enough term in any interdisciplinary forum or effort. 2) aggree completely!! 3) yes it will invite content - which is exactly why I think it is best to move it off page - otherwise all these issues get re-debated on multiple pages
- what is a profesional?
- who are they?jkhjkhkjhklhjklh
- what is the hierarchy? (or how are they classified?).
do you see what I mean? I actually dont think this is 'over' normalised at all. I see this is moving a debate that would be repeated at least 5 times elsewhere to a single page (for examples, have a look at how poorly health and Health science handle this!) hey and thanks for fixing my broken link!! e --Erich gasboy 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)