User talk:Rathfelder/Archive 1

interesting work
Hi thanks for doing some interesting work on Julie Bailey etc. I dont know if I can tempt you into doing a few other articles in the health field such as Will Powell, Care Quality Commission member Kay Sheldon, and prominent NHS whistleblowers such as Gary Walker, Kim Holt, and David Drew. I would help myself where possible.--Penbat (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I might do Will Powell, but I don't want to be seen to do Gary or David as I am too closely involved. But if you would like to start the articles off I am happy to contribute.Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks im trying to keep a low profile on Wiki these days and not do very much. However it wouldnt take much to get articles done for the above mentioned to a similar length to Julie Bailey. I'll try and meet you half way on average, either you kick something off (maybe in a sandbox) & i'll embellish it or vice versa in each case.--Penbat (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hospitals vs NHS Trusts
Hi,

I happened to see a couple of moves of yours come up on my watch list (specifically James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for example). I wondered what the rationale was for the move of the hospital to the Trust? I'm interested more than anything else - particularly if it was discussed somewhere? In the case of the JPH, for example, I have some concerns that we're assuming that the Trust *is* the hospital. To my mind this is not necessarily the case - in this case you may not be aware that the Trust runs both the JPH and Lowestoft Hospital. As the articles stand we still have an article on Lowestoft Hospital and the article on the Trust now seems to try to talk about both the Trust and the JPH - to my mind leading to some confusions.

Perhaps you can shed some light on the rationale? I'm not suggesting at all that we might not want an article on the Trust or that every hospital is in a similar position. My gut feeling, however, is that it might be more sensible to have articles on the physical hospital - as much as anything it's much more likely that someone will search for Ipswich Hospital than they will for Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust.

But anyway, I'm sure there's a clear rationale for this stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering what to do about this for some time. The NHS is in a state of flux and we can expect even more reorganising over the next few years.  Wikipedia has found it hard to keep up anyway.  Foundation Trusts seem likely to survive, and probably take over other services and buildings.  Quite a few hospital trusts now run all sorts of services away from their main site.   All official reports and evaluations, and most journalism, relates to trusts, not hospitals.  So, for example mortality figures, financial information etc is only available at Trust level.  Wikipedia's treatment of hospitals is variable, but often concentrates on the actual building more than the services provided.  Some Trusts run several hospitals, and so it makes sense to have an article about the trust and another about each hospital.  For those like James Paget where there is very clearly a main site it seems more sensible to combine the Trust entry with that of the main hospital.  It is difficult see how to use the Official names policy - because different people will use different names for what is fundamentally the same organisation.  We clearly need an article about the Trust. We also need an article about the hospital. The question is, do they need to be two separate articles?


 * I was planning to go back to the JPH article and tidy it up. But if you think there should be two articles perhaps I should try and do that instead. I'd be grateful for your opinion.  Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I'd argue that the physical hospital is more likely to outlive the Trust - especially in these bold days of Trusts being replaced or allows to be bankrupt and so on. For that reason more than any other I'd argue articles on hospitals are a better choice as the base article - they may change their names, but the physical building remains (or is closed in which case the article is a historical one). It's a bit like railway stations for example - some closed, some renamed, lots changed operator, but the physical building is a key reference point that's difficult to move. It's also a little like schools for many of the same reasons.


 * But then I do tend to think spatially. But that'd be my preference - stick with whatever the hospital is (commonly?) called (I would argue in just about every case). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the physical building is likely to survive longer than the organisational form. But the information which needs to be in the article is about the organisation, not the building. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it needs be one or the other. It could be both. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Information about the performance, management, finance and activity of individual hospitals is not available. Information is only published in respect of Trusts.Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's all sorts of interesting information about individual hospitals available however. History, for example, or the number of wards or beds or perhaps things such as infection outbreaks, specialist services and so on. The JPH/Lowestoft example highlights this well - clearly there is lots of information available about Lowestoft hospital, very much the smaller facility. Just because a bunch of statistics are currently published at another level doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about hospitals as well.


 * Can I ask if any consensus about this has been reached at either of the relevant wiki projects?


 * Btw, you might find it handy to indent response on talk pages. I think that's in the talk page guidance, I can't remember. It really helps,with readability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sadly the NHS wiki project seems to have died.
 * I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't have articles about hospitals. The problem comes when the Trust and the Hospital are pretty much one thing.  The Lowestoft article is actually clearer when it relates to the article about the JPH Trust.  Quite  a lot of the information on the JPH article is not about the hospital.  It's about the Trust. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - Please can I add to this debate. I think it is a great pity to lose a good article on the Great Western Hospital. I don't think people are really interested in the Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Please can we move it back? Dormskirk (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should move it back. If you think the hospital as such needs an article we should split it.  All the official information is about the Trust, which is not the same as the hospital.Rathfelder (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough with me to split into two articles. That said the article about the hospital really should not have been moved without prior debate on its talk page. Will you do the splitting: most of the info seems to relate to the hospital? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OkRathfelder (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good job. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Emptying categories
Hi. Please don't empty established categories which have existed for several years. The proper venue to propose deletion (or recategorisation) is WP:Categories for Discussion. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There comes a point when a category becomes useless.Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True. But when you believe that time has come, please start a discussion to check whether others agree with you. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 65.94.43.89. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Category:Hospitals by country and city without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your massive-scale emptying out of categories tends to constitute WP:Vandalism, as you are experienced enough to know that you have to nominate a category if you deem it useless. Please stop ths immediately! It might already be an incredibly large amount of work to find and revert all of these disruptive edits. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement does not define vandalism: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I'm trying to make the categorisation of health articles more rational. I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Are you planning to categorise all the thousands of articles about hospitals into cities? I fail to understand what benefit this category produces, other than a random collection of subcategories.Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, you are right in that even misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, yet good-faith efforts are not vandalism, and we can't read your mind. But even then, edits may still be misguided, willfully against consensus, and disruptive. Please take a break and think again. Even if it doesn't look like, some of your thoughts might be even helpful, who knows? Unless you share and discuss them with the community, we however can only go by what it looks like, and it rather looks detrimental besides being unilateral. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to wait. I was clearly a bit too bold.  But there is clearly a lot of very poor categorisation in health articles.  Rathfelder (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If for example you deem the hospitals-by-city categories not satisfactory, then why don't you just help establishing per first-level-administrative-region categories as they already exist for many fields? You don't have to destroy per-city categorization to establish a better one. Or, if you think there's too much lumped together in Category:Health stubs – why don't you place articles into more specific subcategories such as Category:Medical organization stubs‎, Category:Medical treatment stubs‎ or whatever? Also note that WP:Stub sorting isn't a list of most requested or most important articles to be expanded. A stub might well remain a stub forever, which in some cases is okay or unavoidable. The fact that there hasn't been a substantial amount of expansion within x years doesn't mean anything – it still remains a stub until expanded. --PanchoS (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is. However after having seen your last few hundred edits (and unfortunately had to revert many of them), from what I can see you gradually engaged into large-scale removing rather than improving categorization.


 * "there are some subjects about which very little can be written". That doesn't mean they have to stay as stubs.  Stub implies that more can be written.  A matter of judgement  Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Listen, this is not about my judgement or your judgement. In the last two or three days, you have made hundreds of edits that have been disputed and reverted by a number of community members. When you agreed that you have been too bold in a number of cases, I hoped you would refrain from provoking even more controversy. But you keep continuing as if you're wild about getting blocked earlier or later. While it looks like you want to emerge victorious, you will rather earn respect by returning to the table and acknowledge that you don't know it all. Even if you may know quite much about medicine, you're certainly not the only one and certainly won't impose your ideas over the community rules and practices. Restoring hundreds of articles from your disruptive edits has already cost me too much of my time which I intended to spend for other work. I will clearly escalate this rather than engaging in a cat-and-mouse game with you. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am trying to reduce the list of health stubs to a task which might be attempted. Many articles were clearly marked as stubs many years ago because they were short.  Being short is not the definition of a stub.  I agree I was too radical in attacking menu structures and I have stopped.  But I am reviewing all the health stubs, and I intend to continue to do so.  If they don't appear to fit the definition of a stub I'll remove it.  Why shouldn't I?   My judgement about what constitutes a stub is as valid as yours.  If you think I am wrong please explain why. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Now, if WP:DESTUB says "Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable." that doesn't mean you can just go forward destubbing whatever you deem not worth improving within the next months or so. "Being short", compared to what would be expected to constitute an acceptable article, is the definition of a stub. For example, Natural history of disease, Basti (Hatha Yoga), Ministry of Public Health (Uzbekistan), Inner Mongolia Medical University or International Classification of Sleep Disorders clearly are stubs. They fall short of giving more than a minimum amount of information. They are assessed as stubs on their respective talk pages. In some cases you didn't even remove stub badges other than the health-stub badge. Why did you do this? Let me guess: Because they don't fit into what you'd like to use Category:Health stubs for. But it's not your personal category. If you'd like to have a list of articles to work on, create your own in your userspace. Or maybe do so in WP:WikiProject Medicine, if they are fine with it. But don't repurpose Stub sorting for your personally defined purposes. How about laying down arms and returning to cooperation? --PanchoS (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "trying to reduce the list of health stubs to a task which might be attempted" is based on a misconception as Mindmatrix already told you and as I told you again. WP:Stub sorting is not a list of articles that will probably soon receive expansion, neither it is your personal list of articles you'd like to expand, or something. It is about identifying and categorizing stubs, some of which will be expanded soon, others maybe in five years, and again others will never be expanded. Still they remain stubs and should remain categorized as such. Is it really that hard to understand?


 * Your advice to recategorise into more specific subcategories of stub is helpful, and I will follow it for the more medical articles. I am not a clinician, and this may bring them to the attention of people better qualified to review them than I.  I am happy to discuss the best way of tackling the problem.  But simply reverting my edits without discussion is not conducive to the resolution of our different approaches.Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thumbs up! :) --PanchoS (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know why the appears as a health stub  but medicine stubs don't?Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at the page for Category:Health stubs you see the template health-book-stub because there is no Category: Health book stubs (that template places an article into two parent categories: Category:Self-help book stubs and Category:Health stubs). There is a separate category Category:Medicine stubs, which is shown as one of the subdivisions of Category:Health stubs on that page. If you look at that category, you see the tag med-stub displayed. Does that help explain?


 * And, although I haven't followed the whole of this discussion, I'd support those who say that you shouldn't remove a stub tag just because it's been stub tagged for x years and you think it unlikely to be expanded: that's not how the long-established system of stub tags and categories works.


 * And I see there's a suggestion above to "place articles into more specific subcategories such as Category:Medical organization stubs‎,...". Please don't do that directly, but only by changing the stub template to a more specific one: stub categories should never be assigned directly, only via the templates - in that case med-org-stub or even the narrower UK-med-org-stub. Thanks. Pam  D  19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I think I understand what it does now.Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How on earth can you honestly remove stub tags from articles that contain only 4 or 5 full sentences? Please, you really need to step back and become more familiar with the definition of "Stub-class" and probably the entire classification system, before you go on another "destubbing" marathon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written." My opinion of what constitutes a stub is as valid as yours. One of the considerations is surely whether there is any prospect of anyone adding to the article.  But the fact that an article could, or should, be expanded does not determine that its a stub.  The official [policy is "Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable."  I'm not on a destubbing marathon.  I'm trying to improve coverage of health topics.  I think disability issues are relevant. Working through the stubs has been helpful because I've found quite a lot of articles that were either over or under categorised.  And some which were really poor.  My knowledge of disability issues is very UK centric, so I would be happy with your advice and assistance.  But I can't see that any damage is done by removing the stub category prematurely - is there?Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I am writing to you to ask you to start including edit summaries. Please take a look at Help:Edit summary. I sent you a thanks for reverting my edit, and re-doing your removal of categories from the Nursing article. The article is on my watchlist, so when I saw categories which seemed appropriate removed, with no explanation, I reverted to the version with the categories. You removed the categories again, but the second time you included an explanation. I am not a category expert, so I'm unsure as to the correctness of your removal of seemingly appropriate categories from article, and I will defer to others on that question. I note in your contribution history that your last 50 edits show no edit summaries. Editing without adding any edit summaries is disruptive. It leaves other editors in the dark as to the purpose of an edit, making it hard to distinguish good-faith Wikignoming from unhelpful edits, when all they see is some unexplained change to an article they are watching. Edit summaries are also very helpful when one is looking at the editing history of an article. If you are doing a series of related edits, you can write an appropriate edit summary once, when when you type in the first few letters of it in the edit summary box, it will autocomplete. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Edit summaries are time consuming.  Especially as they aren't all the same.  There is a lot of poor categorisation of stubs - understandably because most of the stub authors are not experienced.  Most of my last 50 edits were of uncategorised stubs, so I think I can assume that what I did was a) obvious and b) uncontentious.Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You can just add "stub-sort" or "stub-sort etc", as a fairly standard edit summary. It may be obvious to you, and to anyone looking through your list of contribs, but not so to someone scanning the edit history of an article. Edit summaries really are helpful and a courtesy to other editors. Pam  D  22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As I explained, they need not be "time consuming." Type the first letter and it will autocomplete. It looks like you sometimes do a long series of similar edits, so this will not delay your work appreciably, and will save other editors wasting their time later when they see unexplained edits in the edit history, or in recent changes patrol, or in their watchlist. Clearly your edit was neither "obvious" nor "noncontroversial" since I reverted it initially. Three editors have recently asked you to include edit summaries, two here and one in a thread above. Anyone will sometimes forget to include an edit summary, but an ongoing pattern of refusing to use edit summaries would be considered disruptive editing.  Regards. Edison (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm trying.  But there are clearly lots of people who don't include summaries with their edits. The guidance isn't terribly insistent.Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We all forget sometimes. But it really is a help to others. Edison (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Manchester meetup
Hi Rathfelder. Hopefully you'll be able to make it to the meetup in Manchester today. Not many people have signed up, so please let me know if you won't be able to come. I don't know where we're going to sit, but it might be in the room right at the back of the pub, past the staircase. Bazonka (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll see you this afternoon.Rathfelder (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm here. Second room on the right from the front entrance. Bazonka (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Hayes (doctor)


A tag has been placed on Mark Hayes (doctor), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EMIS
You reinserted verbatim text that was added by the PR rep of the company. That's not cool. Especially since it serves to big the firm up. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the only content that is directly from their press release is the fact that they changed their name. The rest of the content you removed was from external sources. And most of it is about the principle of electronic records. It's a fact that EMIS are the biggest provider of these systems to the NHS so they get most of the coverage. What "verbatim text" do you object to?Rathfelder (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Argus retinal prosthesis and Macular degeneration and Visual prosthesis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

So where is the discussion? You reverted my edits on grounds which appear to me to be unwarranted. I am happy to have a discussion. There is widespread evidence that this is a significant development and you have not refuted it. Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you went and looked on the Talk pages and found the discussion. good. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Second Sight Medical Products
Hello Rathfelder,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Second Sight Medical Products for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've seen worse than this but it needs some work.
 * More of the text is about the indubitably notable Argus product than the company itself, which looks as if you're promoting that product. I assume from your text that is the only thing they make?
 * The tone is slightly obsequious, Mr. Alfred Mann, Dr. Sam Williams, which looks as if you an employee, whether or not that is the case
 * you mostly link items linked to the company, and both multi-link and capitalise visual prosthesis, but don't bother with Lausanne, retina etc.
 * Don't use shouty caps in refs, even if they were in the original


 * I'll post a slightly tweaked version of your text here shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What's MD+DI? I've no idea if it's significant or even what it stands for Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * its a trade paper

There is an article about the Argus product, but I only found it after I'd written this. Mr and Dr come from the sources - but in this context they may be significant. There are also articles about some of the founders. I have no connection with the company. Until yesterday I didn't know it existed. If you give me an opportunity I am happy to improve the article, but I don't think the points you make are sufficient to establish that it is unambiguous promotion.Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I made some minor tweaks. It looks better now, although I have some concern that the direct quote glowing endorsement at the end isn't balanced by any mention of any limitations or drawbacks of the device. You might want to get Jytdog to take a look before you go live too. He is very  experienced on medical articles, and might pick up something I've missed Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical dictionary definition articles
Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with move to wiktionary instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that.  Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOE