Talk:Health care (disambiguation)

Entries

The disambiguation page is a navigational aid for readers who have entered "health care" into the search box and landed on Health care when they intended to land somewhere else. It is not a quality assessment of the topics, nor the forum to deal with possibly spurious or trivial topics covered on Wikipedia. See in particular WP:PTM for the advice against including related topics just because they include the ambiguous title as part of their title, but are in no danger of every being titled (or expected to be titled) with the ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the current page is a good result. The top redirects are those where the term 'health care' is most likely used. --KarlB (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't. The top redirects are not the most likely topics sought by someone entering simply "health care" in the search box, reaching Health care, and then clicking through to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide some sort of evidence that the TV show is what they are most commonly looking for, then we should list it on top.--KarlB (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

But I don't suppose you're prepared to provide some sort of evidence for your claim, right? In the absence of any evidence that they are looking for your partial title matches, we'd fall back on the guidelines, WP:PTM and MOS:DABORDER. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's one [1]; they use the word 'health care' when what they really mean is 'french health care system' - there are lots of these but I really don't think it's worth the fight. Why do you care so much? Look at this: Moss_(disambiguation) - that is one of the examples give by WP, so presumably lots of eds look at that page - and the bands/etc show up lower... --KarlB (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Another one: [2] "Q: How big a part of the economy is health care? A: It accounts for about one-sixth of the entire economy — more than any other industry." etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 May 2012‎ (UTC)

I didn't not see any evidence of likelihood, only examples of the existence of ambiguity of system and industry (a la this version). Yes, the moss page is longer and so it uses groupings, and still the geography entries are actually ambiguous (not WP:PTM). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the burden of proof must now fall to you. Any evidence you can dig up that people frequently refer to "health care" when they mean the office episode (for example, it shows up on the first 100 hits of google when searching for "health care") would aid your cause.--KarlB (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that in the absence of any evidence that they are looking for your partial title matches as in your "most likely used" claim, we'd fall back on the guidelines, WP:PTM and MOS:DABORDER. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've provided evidence, which you reject. You've provided none. There is a more important policy - ignore all rules, if it helps the user. I think that one applies here pretty clearly.--KarlB (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of use, not evidence of likelihood. Yes, ignore the rules if it makes a better encyclopedia, not ignore the rules because you find articles on TV episodes spurious. It is far from clear that adding partial title matches here above an actually ambiguous entry helps anything. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

healthcare

• Healthcare as "healthcare provider" - used frequently with terms like "access to healthcare" or "accessing healthcare" or "healthcare-seeknig behavior" or "proximity of healthcare", etc. What is meant is often seeking providers, seeking services, seeking hospitals/clinics, proximity of these services. ex: [3]
• Healthcare as "healthcare system": [4]
• Healthcare as "Healthcare industry": [5]

Please cease your edit warring. The page is clean and doesn't need additional clean-up. As for which should go first, WP:IAR - it makes sense to group the similar (and cited) meanings of healthcare with the main definition. There are plenty of other hatnote templates in need of your able assistance. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please cease your edit warring. That was the point of the clean up tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I've organized it based on common usage, and because it makes sense to have all of the healthcare definitions together with the main definition. --KarlB (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not common usage of the the title "health care". You're welcome to the clean up. If you insist on reverting it, please restore the clean up tag so that another editor will review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A few examples from the literature: Healthcare as synonym for "healthcare provider": 'proximity to healthcare" [6], [7]; accessing healthcare: [8]. Sometimes this is listed as "proximity to healthcare facilities", but often in the literature (grey and published) the word "facilities" is left out; the user is expected to understand the context. Having all 3 common uses at the top is easier for the user, and there is no difficult in accessing the office episode. see also "barriers to health care" (another common phrase where, in certain useages, access to health care providers is implied with just the word health care) [[9]] The guidelines are just that, guidelines, and the ordering of links on the page can be modified if it is in the best interest of the users and the usability of the encyclopedia - in this case, having all 3 major disambigs for healthcare together makes eminent sense. --KarlB (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)