Jump to content

Talk:Chief scientific officer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Chief Scientific Officer"

[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Chief Scientific Officer is under discussion, see talk: Chief Scientific Officer (England) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Chief science officer and Chief Scientific Officer (England) be merged into Chief Scientific Officer. The first move is per COMMONNAME, because the latter name seems to be more widely used. A search of "chief scientific officer" turns up more sites than "chief science officer". In addition, a search on "CSO chief officer" (after eliminating strategy, security, sustainability, sales, services, and surfing) seems to favor "scientific". Even the citations in Chief science officer are for "chief scientific officer". Secondly, Chief Scientific Officer (England) is only one very specific example of chief scientific officer, and by no means the only such post in England, so it would make more sense to include this as a section in Chief Scientific Officer. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an obvious merger that should be performed. I'm not sure exactly how to do this, does anybody have a good tutorial? (or is willing to do it themselves?). --Odedrim (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to merge chief scientific officer with chief science officer. I may have bungled it. This is my first attempt at merging articles.Eragonscout (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eragonscout, thanks for giving it a try. Unfortunately, it wasn't done right and I'm going to revert your edit and start over. Everything you need to know about merging can be found in Wikipedia:Merging; I have done many mergers, but I still consult it every time to make sure I remember all the steps. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE - As per the the previous discussion where RockMagnetist looked at moving the page (which was Opposed on a technicality) - this specific post is one of the 'big six' professional roles in England's National Health Service. It therefore has specific notability in its own right. It is worth making the analogy with Chief Medical Officer (United Kingdom), which sets out the parallel roles for doctors.

It's also worth noting that WP:MERGEPROP says that mergers should not take place until a 30 day period has elapsed. I've reverted the merger until this period has elapsed. Also as per WP:MERGEPROP it would have been good to flag up these changes with some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service to help get an informed consensus on this suggestion.

Thanks for your interest in this article - I hope you feel this is an appropriate way forwards

Jpmaytum (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies RockMagnetist - I've just re-read the dates and realised you proposed this a year ago (not a few weeks). I still think it's worth enlisting other wikipedia editors knowledgable in the NHS. Having done all the reverting, I hope you don't mind if I leave it for a little.

Jpmaytum (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpmaytum: I don't think the revert was a good idea - partly because it was done after a more than adequate time for discussion, but mainly because merging is a multi-step process that also involved tagging talk pages like this one. I am going to undo your revert for now, without prejudice against later undoing the merge properly. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per my note above, I'd done a good chunck of the reverting when I realised that I'd misread the date as it was almost exactly a year earlier.... let's have the discussion about notability when we've had time to garner our sources. Jpmaytum (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpmaytum: Take your time. Take a year if you like! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) RockMagnetist(talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE I agree. It is a major role in the UK, always in the news. It can standalone as it's own article. scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Chief Scientific Officer is a generic (and not very good) article about the general idea, with and American, corporate slant. Chief Scientific Officer (England) is about a very specific post in the NHS which has a significant history. Not true to say there is more than one such post in England. Nothing is to be gained by merging them.Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support "Chief Scientific Officer in England" is a misnomer- it is only a post in the NHS that is simply referred to as Chief Scientific Officer. It's not at all clear that it is notable enough for a stand-alone article - all the citations are in-house (and two are dead links). It would help if the opposers would produce some evidence that this post is actually notable. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references will be to the current occupant of the post, but it is the post which is important:

  • Life Sciences Index: [1]

Centre for Science and Policy:[2]

References

  1. ^ "Life Sciences Index". Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  2. ^ "Centre for Science and Policy". Retrieved 3 March 2017.

Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chief Scientific Officer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chief_scientific_officer&oldid=1206656263"