Merge withEdit

one way or the other, this is the same thing as tennis elbow --Alan 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the concept of a merge, though I think tennis elbow should be merged with this article, as it is a medical term. But either way is OK with me.--31dot 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Tennis elbow merged into Epicondylitis. Better to go with the medical term IMO.– Cleanse 23:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Then again, WP uses tennis elbow...This can be moved if anyone feels strongly about it.– Cleanse 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Which term was used in Star Trek. That should be what we use. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My impression from the series of events was that the two terms were used in one episode each. I at least remember "tennis elbow" from "Suspicions", and I'm guessing they used epicondylitis in "Eye of the Needle" otherwise a page wouldn't have been created there.– Cleanse 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, and in actuality, my thoughts were originally more-so in favor of moving this to 'common term'-title "tennis elbow", versus the 'medical term'-title, as suggested by the placement of the merge template. The reason here being 1) that is the convention used by wikipedia, and very likely was based on an educated decision made by someone who is more versed in these matter than us, and 2) on the note of consistency, "cat" is still at cat and "rose" is still at rose, even though the technical, er scientific names of "felis catus" and "rosa rubifolia" were verbally referenced as well. --Alan 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you did say "One way or the other" ;-)
Then again, Wikipedia has a page for Bill Clinton, whereas we have him at William J. Clinton. I personally think our approach is better when it comes to people. Redirects solve "common name" issues. But yeah, in this particular situation I see the logic of using the "common name". – Cleanse 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)