Talk:Cosmetic surgery: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD
No edit summary
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


:I think you've answered it, but the issue would then be if one is describing surgery that is done to achieve a cosmetic effect, or whether one is giving an overview of the speciality named (Reconstructive and) Cosmetic Surgery. Since you in the first sentence define the article as being about the field, I'd be comfortable with the capitals. We are going to have the same problem with all the speciality fields of medicine, so at some time one would have to decide about a policy. On the other hand, if it makes no difference to a search for a subject, then it is probably of minor importance - the CZ engine does not seem to mind much, it picks up this article as a first hit for "cosmetic surgery". There is a Plastic Surgeon on board who might wish to wade in: [[User:Andy Wongworawat]]. That picture of Jackie looks like a Victorian ghost photograph on my screen, but the comment is right on. I like the outline/sections at this stage. --[[User:Christo_Muller|Christo Muller]] [[User_talk:Christo_Muller|(Talk)]] 09:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:I think you've answered it, but the issue would then be if one is describing surgery that is done to achieve a cosmetic effect, or whether one is giving an overview of the speciality named (Reconstructive and) Cosmetic Surgery. Since you in the first sentence define the article as being about the field, I'd be comfortable with the capitals. We are going to have the same problem with all the speciality fields of medicine, so at some time one would have to decide about a policy. On the other hand, if it makes no difference to a search for a subject, then it is probably of minor importance - the CZ engine does not seem to mind much, it picks up this article as a first hit for "cosmetic surgery". There is a Plastic Surgeon on board who might wish to wade in: [[User:Andy Wongworawat]]. That picture of Jackie looks like a Victorian ghost photograph on my screen, but the comment is right on. I like the outline/sections at this stage. --[[User:Christo_Muller|Christo Muller]] [[User_talk:Christo_Muller|(Talk)]] 09:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
::Let us suppose that we are using the ''Chicago Manual of Style.''  My copy is packed away in a box...  Anyway, the question here is whether names of disciplines are properly capitalized, in general.  CMS might shed some light anyway.  Often one does see Philosophy, particularly when one is speaking of the field as something formally studied (so, we usually say "Ph.D. Philosophy" rather than "Ph.D. philosophy").  But of speaking of the body of problems and literature about them, and about particular philosophies, we use "philosophy."
::If this is correct, then the question is whether, when giving a title to a topic that can be either capitalized (when naming a discipline) or not (when naming what the discipline studies), which should we give it?  Well, we may take the [[Biology]] article as an excellent example.  I think we can agree that its first focus is on what Biology studies, but it nevertheless is organized around what the article calls a "formal science."  (By the way, Biology is ''not'' a formal science; formal sciences include logic, mathematics, and parts of statistics and computer science.  The better phrase in that case would be "scientific discipline.")  So, as long as we make it a general habit of focusing articles on these topics at least nominally on the discipline, rather than on what the discipline studies, then we could use the upper case. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:40, 22 February 2007 (CST)


I went shopping at Wikipedia Commons to find pictures, and I liked that portrait because the artist emphasized the square angle of her jaw. But maybe the quality is too poor to use? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:39, 22 February 2007 (CST)
I went shopping at Wikipedia Commons to find pictures, and I liked that portrait because the artist emphasized the square angle of her jaw. But maybe the quality is too poor to use? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:39, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Revision as of 09:40, 22 February 2007

This article is in progress. I'm putting some references in the outline of the article that I plan to come back to very shortly. The overall idea is to not only present an accurate narrative introduction to this field of surgery, but to do so while presenting the idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"- with references!. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:57, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Should be at cosmetic surgery, right? It's not usually capitalized, is it? --Larry Sanger 08:47, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I don't know how to answer that. The field of Cosmetic Surgery is capitalized, but if a person was to undergo cosmetic surgery procedure it is not capitalised. That is true of Plastic Surgery, the field, the residency program-and Surgery, the field (discipline) as well. The field of medicine, Surgery etc are always capitalized. If I am looking up one of those topics on a search engine, I always capitalize it.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:00, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I think you've answered it, but the issue would then be if one is describing surgery that is done to achieve a cosmetic effect, or whether one is giving an overview of the speciality named (Reconstructive and) Cosmetic Surgery. Since you in the first sentence define the article as being about the field, I'd be comfortable with the capitals. We are going to have the same problem with all the speciality fields of medicine, so at some time one would have to decide about a policy. On the other hand, if it makes no difference to a search for a subject, then it is probably of minor importance - the CZ engine does not seem to mind much, it picks up this article as a first hit for "cosmetic surgery". There is a Plastic Surgeon on board who might wish to wade in: User:Andy Wongworawat. That picture of Jackie looks like a Victorian ghost photograph on my screen, but the comment is right on. I like the outline/sections at this stage. --Christo Muller (Talk) 09:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Let us suppose that we are using the Chicago Manual of Style. My copy is packed away in a box... Anyway, the question here is whether names of disciplines are properly capitalized, in general. CMS might shed some light anyway. Often one does see Philosophy, particularly when one is speaking of the field as something formally studied (so, we usually say "Ph.D. Philosophy" rather than "Ph.D. philosophy"). But of speaking of the body of problems and literature about them, and about particular philosophies, we use "philosophy."
If this is correct, then the question is whether, when giving a title to a topic that can be either capitalized (when naming a discipline) or not (when naming what the discipline studies), which should we give it? Well, we may take the Biology article as an excellent example. I think we can agree that its first focus is on what Biology studies, but it nevertheless is organized around what the article calls a "formal science." (By the way, Biology is not a formal science; formal sciences include logic, mathematics, and parts of statistics and computer science. The better phrase in that case would be "scientific discipline.") So, as long as we make it a general habit of focusing articles on these topics at least nominally on the discipline, rather than on what the discipline studies, then we could use the upper case. --Larry Sanger 09:40, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I went shopping at Wikipedia Commons to find pictures, and I liked that portrait because the artist emphasized the square angle of her jaw. But maybe the quality is too poor to use? Nancy Sculerati MD 09:39, 22 February 2007 (CST)