Talk:Clinical commissioning group

Capitalisation and title

Clinical Commissioning Groups are statutory NHS bodies, better known by the abbreviation CCGs, and the name should be capitalised. Anyone object? If nobody gives a reasoned argument against, I propose moving the information on this page to the redirect page that already exist - Clinical Commissioning Groups. RuthLivingstone 08:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How about a reasoned argument in favour of capitalising something that is not a proper name? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because CCGs are institutions. Although you could also argue CCG is a generic term for a group of institutions. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Institutions. I don't feel strongly about it and as I see you have changed the text in the article to be consistent with the title of the article, am happy to leave alone. RuthLivingstone 07:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuthLivingstone (talk • contribs)

coterminosity

CCG boundaries are not allowed to cross LA boundaries. To that extent they are coterminous.Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruth. If an organisation is primarily known by its acronym, then it makes sense to use capitalisation. - for example American Broadcasting Company - alternatively you could go for the approach of the BBC where just the acronym is given, but this is less helpful in sharing knowledge, in my opinion.

Jpmaytum (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But ABC and BBC are proper names, i.e. the names of particlular organisations. "Clinical commissioning group" is a generic name, so is not capitalised. See the sources cited in the article, including those from the NHS itself, for confirmation. A particular clinical commissioning group, such as Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group, would of course be capitalised as a proper name. This is pretty basic primary-school level English orthography, so I'm rather surprised that anyone qualified to edit an encyclopedia is disputing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's good form to cite Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:CAPSACRS - rather than questioning people's education level or suitability to edit a an encyclopedia. Have a read of Wikipedia:Civility which details civility as one of the key pillars of Wikipedia. We're all still learning here and should help each other along the process.

Jpmaytum (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of CCG & city council

I've added detail about the announcement of Brighton & Hove CCG's planned merger with the city council: however, while this source has a history of truthful reporting, it's a glorified WordPress account and probably doesn't constitute a reliable source. If anyone can find a more reputable source, it would really benefit the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article move (Clinical commissioning group > NHS England clinical commissioning groups)

I think this was a bad move, and should have been discussed first. The reasoning in the edit summary is "group -> groups to reflect lede name, and adding NHS England as this clearly does not apply or discuss the rest of the UK NHS's". I'm not bothered about the pluralisation, but adding NHS England is getting further from the wp:commonname (I find no web results using this specific phrase) and discussion of other UK NHSs would be meaningless as they do not have CCGs... Beevil (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first Google search result matches this name albeit in a different order: "NHS Clinical Commissioning Group Constitution - NHS England" https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/nhs-clinical-commissioning-group-consitution/ Llemiles (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't match the name? Beevil (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, as that is the NHS England site. As far as I know there have never been any CCGs outside England. The literature never calls them "NHS England clinical commissioning groups". Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bad move. Please undo it. The term "NHS England clinical commissioning group" is not used in the legislation or anywhere else. Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP MOS requires titles to be concise. This is unnecessary disambiguation - there are not other clinical commissioning groups to cause confusion with. Mauls (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2020

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: Speedy close; revert to status quo ante. When an article is moved without discussion it can be very confusing when an RM is launched to move it back. The articles will be returned to their original titles and anyone wishing to change them should propose a Requested Move. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NHS England clinical commissioning group → Clinical commissioning group – WP:PRECISE - Clinical commissioning groups only exist in NHS England. It is not necessary to artificially extend the name to disambiguate the article. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Title was also incorrectly moved to a plural form violating WP:SINGULAR (this element now fixed). Mauls (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.