Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid/Archive 1

Open Discussions
I'm excited about this project! I edited defibrillator today. JamieJones talk 00:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! Feel free to advertise, add to work I've already started etc. --John24601 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. A little bit of advice for you; you may wish to read the WikiProject article, which offers help to get you started on a Wikiproject. You may also want to transfer this page to a formal WikiProject page instead of a User page as you will be more likely to attract assistance from others. Road Wizard 22:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiya - have read that article, and am following its recomendation by starting it off in user space, and generating a bit of support before I create a proper wikiproject. Thanks for the heads up though :-d --John24601 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any parentage for this project?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave up on it...seems I was the only one using the list and documenting changes! JamieJones  talk 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting the word out (moved from project page)
Each page I edit, I've added this tag in italics to the top of the page:

You can help maintain this page by joining Wikipedia First Aid Project.

I think it'll help get volunteers. You can cut and paste the above too! JamieJones talk 12:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Notices for formal WikiProjects should only be left on article talk pages. The fact that this is currently an unofficial WikiProject and that you have left notices in the main article space may aggravate some editors and cause the opposite reaction to the one you intended. You may wish to consider moving the notices to the article talk pages instead :). Road Wizard 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, move them to talk pages please --John24601 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad. Apologies.  JamieJones  talk 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)  Is anyone else logging there changes here as i am doing?  Am I missing something?

Why are all these first aid articles so awful?? And why do they all have bad grammer howto sections? -- St.isaac 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's the reason I started the project a while back, although have recently been sidetracked by a whole mountain of real-life work! Thanks for getting the ball rolling properly, and hopefully now I'm a bit less busy IRL I can offer some help! --John24601 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe take advantage of the "other side"? (moved from project page)
Noticed a lot of these articles have how-to info on them, and thought I might point out that there's a wikibook on first aid that could certainly use some attention as well. I'd be happy to help you with the transwiki process, as it's often incorrectly done. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (wikibooks userpage)
 * I think that's a good idea, as the first aid article will almost certainly need to be completely rewritten anyway. St.isaac 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent idea - let me know what I can do to help with it. I've already written a little bit on the wikibook a loooooooong time ago, but it struck me that really the whole thing needs grasping by the horns, so to speak, to give it a good edit. --John24601 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. One thing you should keep in mind when improving the articles listed on the project page is that the how-to sections can be brought over to the book as well, and merged in. If you need stubs deleted to make room for new transwikis, let me know on my talk page at wikibooks (I'm an admin there). I'd love to see the book greatly improved, since it would be nice to have a solid first-aid training manual under the GFDL. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some editing of it, but there's still massive room for improvement. I seem to be the only one editing it, so any help from you folks would be awesome. Mike.lifeguard 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pressure Points
I say leave in, they are within the scope of first aid. I presume Jamie's viewpoint comes from the fact that the major voluntary aid societies are not teaching it on their basic first aid courses (at least that's the case in the UK). Other awarding bodies are, however, doing so; and there is widespread acceptance of pressure points as part of "advanced" first aid measures. Furthermore, first aid is the only setting in which they would be used (whether by "first aiders" or people who are more "highly trained"). In addition, even if Jamie (or anybody else) is able to argue that they shouldn't be used, the fact remains that they were core to first aid practice for a long, long time, and so surely deserve mention? Finally, I think that an encyclopaedia exists in order to explain procedures (amongst other things), not to pass judgement on whether or not they should be used. --John24601 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was taught to use pressure points if direct pressure and elevation didn't work.  Pressure points are a common emergency medicine technique, albeit only when some distance from the hospital (because you typically try pressure and elevation for 10 minutes).  St.isaac 23:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wasn't trying to say the article should be removed, but imho it wasn't a part of this project because it isn't a part of first aid, to me.  My worry is someone will think it is part of standard first aid.  But I'm flexible, and willing to include it if the group thinks it should be.  JamieJones  talk 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AVPU merge?
Whilst browsing the project page, I see that we have infact got two articles on the AVPU system - the one I (and others) have inadvertently marketed as an example of a good article (AVPU), and the one I intended to highlight (AVPU system). Obviously some kind of merge needs to take place, but I don't know how to do this, can anybody help? If we're deciding which one to keep, I prefer AVPU system. --John24601 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like AVPU system better too, but I think the title should be AVPU. We could get an admin to delete AVPU and then we could move AVPU system to AVPU...  St.isaac 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!
The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First aid in myocardial infarction
Myocardial_infarction: This section needs referencing, but I don't have any authorative first aid manuals: could someone have a look, maybe remove some bits where necessary and add references? Thank you!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and Choking
Hi all,

I would like TO an opinion from anyone on the project who can help. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:
 * Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
 * With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
 * It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
 * It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
 * It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! - Thanks to everyone who supported it. Owain.davies 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would appear this has been undone - I've placed proposed merge tags on both the affected articles: any comments anybody could give on this subject at Talk:Abdominal_thrusts would be most welcome. --John24601 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-done With support from User:Sarah (an admin), the merge has been enforced. We now need to work on improving the abdominal thrusts section in the Choking article --John24601 09:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tourniquet
Atm. I see (particially) good explanation in three different articles: Tourniquet, Surgical tourniquet, Emergency bleeding control, I think those (at least parts) should be merged together. --87.178.227.213 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (de Mike 333 from the German Wikipedia project, but since we don't have them here in Germany I'd leave the edit up to one of you guys)

Change of project name and scope
There is currently a proposal to create a new WikiProject for EMS at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Since this project would be entirely encompassed by an EMS project, I suggested renaming this project to WikiProject Emergency medical services and expanding the scope to all EMS-related articles. If anyone is still active in this project, do you have any comments? --Scott Alter 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a name change would have to be carefully concieved, as the problem is if we name it as what you are suggesting it sounds like a lot of the articles related to this project are going to overlap with Wikiproject Medicine whom also covers the majority of these articles. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:MED, they already consider this wikiproject a descendent, so I'm not sure what would change. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, try to WP:GOODFAITH your tone, as it reads quite aggressive. I was just replying to your message if you dont like what I type, fine you dont have to. Just dont be aggressive to me like in your edit summary, you read as if someone has put you out of doing something incredibly good and are so upset about it. On Wikipedia if someone does not agree with you please do not take it personally. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for WP:AGFing--it is appropriate, since I wasn't trying to be aggressive, just ask a direct question. However, your reply didn't answer that question:  Given that First Aid is already a subproject of Medicine, and has been for some time, what overlap problem are you hoping to avoid?  Have there been any problems to date?  If not, what sorts of problems do you envision, and how do you see us best avoiding them? Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe any editor who believes in the Wikipedia motto "Be bold with your edits" etc is going to come into edit wars. And obviously people who have joined WP: Medicine and this one are interested in the subject and lots of people who are highly interested in a subject all editing a page can lead to plenty of edit wars. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough concern. I've seen articles about "borderline" topics written from both perspectives--SAMPLE history was originally written from a very clinical perspective before I added an EMS slant to balance it.  However, the problem that I have seen more over the last several months is more neglect than edit warring: since First Aid is two groups' responsibility, neither focuses much energy on it. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jclemens. I would much rather see occasional edit warring with progress being made on articles, rather than them sit neglected.  Most first aid articles have not been worked on in a long time, and I think converting this to an EMS WikiProject will draw in more interested editors.  Many articles are tagged with multiple projects' tags.  In fact, many first aid articles are also tagged with WPMED.  I would also argue that most first aid-related items are entirely within the scope of WPMED and that first aid can be seen as a subset of medicine.  I think it is good to have multiple points of view on an article, rather than one project claiming ownership.  Overlap is not a bad thing.  If you look at other descendants of WPMED (or any other project with descendants), the child projects are often entirely encompassed by the parent.  --Scott Alter 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell, I have renamed this project. I also set up the banner template to accept the class and importance parameters so there can be assessments. WikiProject Emergency medical services/Assessment will contain the stats table once in a few days when WikiProject Emergency medical services updates its transclusions and the bot is run again. At first, all the articles will be unassessed-class and unknown-importance, but we will have to assess the articles. Some have already been assessed on WikiProject Emergency medical services, but these need to be transitioned to the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment scheme. --Scott Alter 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with name change - you have now confined this project to Articles about a Service, the (main Article) First Aid does not belong within the scope of a Project about a Service. Many other Articles will now have to be dropped from this Project because they no longer conform to relating to the Service. I think it should remain as WP:First Aid. I would have thought a conversation about a Project name change should have been mentioned on the Main Article of the Project it would have affected, unfortunately it was not, and should not be done without further consensus building outside of this group of 3 Editors. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Emergency Medicine would be a better title? Sorry that you didn't see the change, but there was no intent to exclude folks from the process.  I think everyone in favor of the changes would have preferred more interaction.  I don't see a particular need to drop First Aid from the project, even given the new title.  In my jurisdiction, the lines between 'services' and bystander-rendered aid is pretty fuzzy--they explicitly include early 911 access and bystander CPR in the chain of survival for cardiac arrest, for example.  At any rate, even assuming for the sake of discussion that the First Aid article had to be dropped from the Wikiproject, what harm would result? Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What harm would result? How would you feel if someone 'hijacked' a project you were involved with, completely changed the scope of the project and started dropping articles from it? I'm sure that you wouldn't be just fine with it. As far as Emergency Medicine, I would have to completely disagree as it would completely overlap with medicine. Things like emergency physician (currently ranked mid, although it probably should be changed regardless of the name to a level or two higher) would have to be rated as a top priority. The only suggestion I can give besides reverting the entire group and starting a new EMS group would be to rename the group "Prehospital medical care," which would also encompass first aid.


 * As far as the 'hijack' is concerned, how long should someone wait before acting? There was no real opposition for 2 weeks, should we have waited longer? If so, how long? 3 weeks? Month? 2 months? JPINFV (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should have sought input (ala WP:RFC). A scope/namechange is no small matter. Emergency Medical Services is very exclusionary when you consider that it is an actual paid trade. It brings in its own symbols, training methods/courses, has its own set of standards and evolutionary history. I can see how street medic fell into WP:First Aid ... but now, it is nowhere in the realm of WP:EMS. I feel that WP:First Aid was just fine. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with second paragraph above) I'm still scratching my head here. To be clear, I was neither the editor who proposed the change, nor the one who executed it.  Scottalter did both.  To be a bit rhetorical, what's in a name?  The general direction of Wikipedia has been to condense Wikiprojects, especially inactive ones.  A name is a brief description of what's covered by a Wikiproject, not the sum total of its scope.  A scope statement can be written for any of the names we've just brought up which all include the same things and have the same scoring criteria.  I regret that editors who had an interest missed the discussion, but I didn't make the change, and Scottalter waited two weeks past the last discussion to conduct the move.   If that turns out to have been premature, as it sounds like at least two editors feel it to be, then let's have the full discussion now that should have transpired earlier, and settle on a name AND scope that everyone involved can agree to.  There was never any intent to 'hijack' this Wikiproject, and any perception that that was what happened is very regrettable. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm neutral about it. That said, I wouldn't be sitting here and telling someone who's involved in a group that a name and scope change is 'no big deal' nor asking "what harm would result" from delisting articles as. JPINFV (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to preface my comment by saying that I have been busy in real life. I haven't had much time to contribute recently, but I still try to follow current discussions.  I don't want you to think that I made a big change and then ran away.  However, I resent you saying that this project was hijacked.  I am not here to do any harm.  For the record, here's the order things took place:
 * 11 March 2008 - JPINFV created a proposal for an EMS WikiProject at WikiProject Council/Proposals
 * 15 June 2008 - I noticed the proposal and suggested converting WP:First aid to WP:EMS, since WP:First aid was relatively inactive. I left notices on this talk page and on the WikiProject proposal page.
 * 30 June 2008 - I renamed the project. There was little discussion, as WP:First aid was basically inactive.  I figured that anyone actively involved in the project would have at least visited this page within these 2 weeks.  Renaming the project seemed to be a non-issue.
 * 1 July 2008 - Exit2DOS2000 posts on the moved talk page (here), indicating that you were aware of the change on that date.
 * not exactly, but we'll allow it for continuity. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 15 July 2008 - Exit2DOS2000 objects to the project rename.


 * I don't want to sound harsh, but why wouldn't you have mentioned your concerns earlier? As I stated previously, and to address you specific concerns, first aid is provided by emergency medical services.  Therefore, everything related to first aid (and within the scope of WP:First aid) should also be encompassed by this project.  Even if this project is about the service, the service provides first aid - so the skills provided by the service (including splinting, tourniquet application, bandaging, CPR, and all other first aid-related skills) would be included in this project as well.  Could you provide an example of an article that would not fall within this stated scope?  The only types of articles I can think of (which do not exist) would be about lay responders...but I could argue that lay people participate in the first link of the chain of survival - which relates to EMS and could therefore fit within the scope of the project.


 * I think we would all agree that having two separate projects for WP:First aid and WP:EMS would be silly. If they were to coexist as two separate projects, all of the WP:First aid articles would also be encompassed by WP:EMS.  EMS could be considered a superset of first aid.  Since there was a desire to create WP:EMS, my logical conclusion was to expand the scope of WP:First aid.


 * I would not object to calling this project "Emergency medicine." First aid is a subset of EMS, which is a subset of emergency medicine, which is a subset of medicine.  The scope of WP:First aid was extremely limited (contained <30 articles), and the scope of EMS (currently 325 tagged articles) or emergency medicine (probably adds a bunch more articles) seems more appropriate for a project.  If this project were called "Emergency medicine," all EMS- and first aid-related articles would still be within its scope.  A larger, but still manageable scope draws in more interested editors.  To JPINFV, it is okay for a WikiProject to be a complete subset of another.  These are called descendant projects.  (If this were not okay, how would you explain the relationship between WP:Science, WP:Biology, WP:Medicine, and WP:Pathology, for example?  All WikiProjects roughly fit in a hierarchy that is somewhat visible at the WikiProject directory.)  There are already many projects for medicine specialties, that are descendants of WP:MED.  There are now also task forces for medical specialties at WP:MED.  I also wouldn't mind if this becomes the "Emergency medicine task force" of WP:MED.  This reduces some administrative overhead, and prevents the need to double tag article talk pages with both WPEMS and WPMED.


 * So what are the downsides to the renaming of this project? It has attracted new editors.  The project has become better organized.  It now participates in WP:1.0's assessment scheme.  Articles are conveniently organized and categorized by rating and importance.  If this project were to become a task force of WP:MED, it would only get more attention from more people, while retaining all of the aforementioned items.  --Scott Alter 23:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment about 'hijacking' (I will continue to use "'" when ever I use that) is simply an acknowledgment of how someone who was active in a group would feel after taking a break from Wikipedia to find one of their projects having a completely different direction. This is in direct response to comments like "Well, who does delisting articles hurt?" Well, I imagine the people who were active before the change wouldn't be too happy about that turn of events and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for them to feel like their group was hijacked by outsiders. As I said earlier, though, 2 weeks of discussion and not even a peep? Well, there was a chance and it's ambiguous at best on how long a proposal should wait.
 * As far as the hierarchy of projects, I think you're slightly off. The problem with comparing first aid->EMS->Emergency Medicine->Medicine is that everything in an emergency medicine group should be tagged by medicine. An EM project should really be a taskforce under medicine, not its own standalone project. This is the difference between being a specialty of something (EM->specialty of medicine) and being an applied science (medicine is an applied science of biology). Not everything in biology or pathology (for example, techniques, theories, other human medicine related diseases and disorders) falls into the scope of medicine. That said, you could argue that most, if not all, of the EMS articles could fall under medicine. If even the Emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state list has been accepted into the medicine project, I doubt that they would deny most of the other EMS articles. JPINFV (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So if we forget about the technicalities of an applied science vs. a specialty, would you agree that the hierarchy of specialties is First aid->EMS->EM->Medicine? (I want to make it clear that I am not implying that this is the only way to categorize first aid, but the most logical way related to medicine.  EMS could also be considered a subset of Emergency services, but there is no WikiProject for this.)  If this is a direct specialty-based hierarchy, shouldn't this project be a task force of WPMED?  You just stated that "most, if not all, of the EMS articles could fall under medicine," and I agree with this statement.  Everyone involved in emergency medical care (whether EMS or first aid) is practicing some sort of medicine.  Now, what if someone on behalf of WPMED went ahead and tagged all EMS-related articles with WPMED (not that I would do this, but some people occasionally go on tagging sprees).  Wouldn't we be better off with a combined banner with WPMED to avoid this (which would effectively make this into a sort of task force)?  If this project/task force were further expanded from EMS to EM, there really wouldn't be too many more articles to be added, since the major interventions performed in the ED can also be performed in the field and should already be included in the current scope.  Maybe the task force could be called the "Emergency medicine and EMS task force" - just to make it clear that EMS is included.  The more that I think about it, the more I like this task force and include all EM idea.  If an "Emergency services" WikiProject ever develops, this task force could also share parentage with it.  --Scott Alter 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "first aid is provided by emergency medical services" ... let me guess, your a Paramedic. That would only be said by a paramedic because it shows an extreme amount of bias. First Aid is also preformed by the first person on scene. Paramedics are usually the third person on scene and they actually perform Advanced Life Support. The project should remain named after the First step in the entire process... WP:First Aid. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Among other things, yes, I am a paramedic. Sometimes, I am paid to perform ALS with fellow paramedics.  At other times, I volunteer to perform BLS with EMTs.  I still stand by my statement: "first aid is provided by emergency medical services."  But notice that I did not use the word only, nor did I intend to imply that only EMS provides first aid.  Let me add on to/clarify my statement by saying "first aid is provided by emergency medical services," 'but emergency medical services are not the only people who provide first aid.  In the area I work in, there may be anywhere from one to three separate agencies responding to a medical call, depending on the acuity of the patient.  Their order of response varies depending on their distance to the patient.  At times, the paramedics (ALS) are first on scene.  At other times, EMTs (BLS) are on scene first.  Sometimes, the police or fire department are the first on scene.  Why limit the scope of the project to just the first step in the process?  I think it is better to be inclusive and involve the entire team of responders who assist each other in providing first aid (and subsequent BLS/ALS).  If paramedics or EMTs are the first people to render aid to a patient, they are truly providing first aid.  If EMTs (BLS) get to the scene first, followed by police (first responders) and paramedics (ALS), and all the providers work together to provide first aid, are the police not really providing first aid - even though that is all they are trained in?  Even if they are the second (or third) responders, they would continue and assist in the first aid provided by the initial responders.  Since the order of who provides aid is always variable, we cannot and should not artificially delineate some responders as first aiders while others are second (or third) aiders.  You could also throw in lifeguards, ski patrol, street medics, etc.  These people can be trained to any level (FR/BLS/ALS).  They may be the first people to provide medical care, and as such, they are part of the EMS system.  From a patient's point of view, they are the first professional providers of emergency care, who should not be excluded them from this project.  --Scott Alter 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I was very amazed at the heated discussion that is going on. I joined this projected almost 3 weeks ago, and was fairly excited that there was a project right up my ally.  I had several discussion with, what seemed at the time the only "few" active people in the project.  Many of the pages need work, in EMS and First aide and the initial discussion was about how 1st aide is a sub-set of EMS and expanding the scope of the project, would give some new life.  Scott is correct, there were less than 30 articles tagged in first aide.  When we expanded the scope this added 300+ more articles.  I was the one who added 95% of those articles and went through all of the which took me a little under a week to do.  I want to state that NO articles were de-listed or removed and on the contrary most of the 1st aide articles in the project already received a bump in importance because in my eyes most of the articles listed were of the utmost importance.  I think we were all acting in WP:goodfaith trying to resuscitate what seemed to be a dead project.  No one was trying to high-jack your project just trying to improve it, as what most of the people on here seemed to be doing.  I can understand your frustration at what has happened, but don't understand the angry at how the project was moving.  A period of time was given for the purposed change, there was no objections and the change took place.  We are now going on more than 2 weeks after the change and things seemed to moving smoothly until today.  I have been involved in EMS for well over 10 years now and providing 1st aide as a volunteer, and now paid, and with that said I don't think expanding the scope was a bad thing and actually breathed some life, and allowed the project to move forward.  I'm new to wiki, and as I get more involved I do believe that there was no malicious intent on anyones part, and everyone was acting in the spirit of wikipedia.  I support the name change, but of course with follow what seems to be the consensus  Medicellis (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for what may seem anger, it is not. I only feel that the intent of keeping with First Aid allows "non-professionals" to be part of the project. You have to admit, everyone knows and refers to EMS as "the guys that get paid to do it". It feels as though, without seeking input, 1or2 well meaning Editors have implemented a rather drastic change, that affected us "volunteers". How many "volunteers" will now be intimidated away from WP:EMS based solely on its name? How many "professionals" should now stay away from Articles based solely on the their being "to close to the subject"? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I described the US use of "professional" below in the "Project page Pic proposal" section. In a good portion of the US (maybe even the majority), your statement "everyone knows and refers to EMS as 'the guys that get paid to do it' is simply not true.  In many areas, there is a hometown pride where people who provide EMS are your neighbors (just like volunteer fire departments...I wouldn't call them non-professionals either).  Most volunteer EMS providers are proud to volunteer and they provide excellent care - just like their paid colleagues.  No volunteer EMS providers in the US would be scared away because this project is called WP:EMS.  In fact, I (seemingly along with Medicellis, JPINFV, and Jclemens) were drawn to this project only after the prospect of making it inclusive of all EMS.  EMTs and paramedics are proud to provide more than just first aid.  Based on my experience and personal bias, I would say that most EMTs and paramedics in the US would be more drawn to a project about EMS than first aid.  I'm not sure what lay people would be drawn to, but you'd probably get more EMTs/paramedics with a project called EMS than lay people with a project called first aid.  Also, you will get more "experts" in the area with a greater draw of EMS professionals (paid or volunteer), who would hopefully be able to improve articles better than lay people.  This is another reason why I like WP:EMS better than WP:First aid.  In Canada or in other countries, does EMS scare people away?  I would find that hard to believe, as people tend to be more interested in the next advanced level in a hierarchy, rather one that may be considered to be beneath them.  --Scott Alter 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree with you, if we confine this disagreement to within US borders. Outside of that realm, EMS takes on the term of a paid service (according to the Article). How was WP:First Aid exclusionary ? It described its scope quite well, yes, but it was never stopping anyone from expanding it. Proposed Compromise: I would agree to WP:First Aid being a sub project/task force of WP:EMS, because it is the step prior to the Services arrival. Would that work for you ? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a decent compromise. As I stated before I'm new to all the wiki language and project lingo so I'm not sure what that would include.  could you expand? thanks Medicellis (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert this WP to what it was (the person whom made the changes has an Undo option in their watchlist and thus can do this easiest).
 * Place a notice on WikiProject_Council/Proposals stating that a compromise has been reached and a new project is the result. State the name of the new project. (Don't propose 1 thing and create something else.) State the scope of the new WP, as well, where it fits in in the organization of Wikipedia.
 * WikiProject has further references (near the bottom)
 * Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * okay my newbiness might show through here, but wouldn't it be easier to create a WP:First aide as the WP just above to this project. By changing this project you would be delisting roughly 300+ pages.  I really don't want to go spend 2 days going through and re-tag all the pages that are now "EMS". Medicellis (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you change them if you are going to be creatinmg a WP that they will be pointing to? The only corrections would be to Articles that would fall under the WP:First Aid's scope. The other reason to revert this WP is to restore the relevent history back to whence it came, and allow the new WP to start a new history. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:First aid and WP:EMS should coexist, since their scopes would be too similar. I think the scope of WP:First aid did exclude ALS care, and even you stated that paramedics provide more than just first aid. However, I would agree to creating an "Emergency medicine and EMS task force" of WPMED and reverting this project to its state before the rename. This page would be moved back to WP:First aid, and it could exist as a descendant of the new task force. (I know it's unusual for a project to descend from a task force, but Medicine->EM->EMS->First aid is the hierarchy.) The articles tagged with WikiProject Emergency medical services would be converted to WPMED with a task force parameter for proper categorization. WikiProject First aid would be restored to its prior version and the 30 or so articles formerly listed at WP:First aid would be re-tagged with this banner. The user banner would also be reverted back. Anyone who originally used User First aid would then get the first aid template back, while anyone who added User Emergency medical services would be converted to the new task force userbox. How does this sound? --Scott Alter 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * agree I think Scott makes alot of sense it would be very confusing to have Med->EM->firstaide->EMS and think that Med->EM->EMS->first aid would make sense. Also for congruity sake this also makes alot of sense. Medicellis (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just created a proposal for a new WPMED task force at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. If those people who are participating here are interested, please add your name to the "Interested Wikipedians" list - so we can quickly move forward (if this compromise is agreed upon by all).  The parentage of projects would then be Medicine → Emergency medicine and EMS → First aid.  --Scott Alter 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Project page Pic proposal
I do like the first aid symbol but I feel we should use the EMS star of life. I think this is the standard international sign of EMS. Medicellis (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I initially just changed the text, but all the first aid crosses should be changed to the star of life.  I don't see a problem with you going ahead and making the changes.  --Scott Alter 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * very good I will go ahead with the changes, Im fairly new to wiki, but I would love to help out with the admin of the wiki project as EMS and medicine is my life and right up my ally. thanks! Medicellis (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make whatever additions you see fit to the wikiproject. It previously was pretty dead as WikiProject First aid, so any input is welcomed.  If it is something that may be controversial, just leave a note about it here.  Also, FYI, discussions are normally not bulletted (so you shouldn't preface items with "*").  Just use ":" to indent when replying to something above.  Welcome to the project and Wikipedia.  --Scott Alter 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, and I will try my best to help sort this project out! Medicellis (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this also, based on the fact that only an actual paid trade group use this symbol. Volunteers do not. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm really trying to take a WP:NPOV here but, I really want to impress that the EMS star of life stands for many aspect of emergency services/first aide/responders. You seem to imply that the EMS star of life, which stands for all emergency first aide response is a "paid" symbol which is highly prejudice in itself.  I have been a "volunteer" EMT and Medic, and at no time did I get compensated for any of my medical services.  On the contrary I work for Union Volunteer Emergecny Squad, which has a volunteer base of over 80 people, and only 20 paid full-time employees.  Along those same line, within my district we have not only 1 but 3 volunteer emergency squads, (Broome Volunteer Emergency Squad , Vestal Volunteer Emergency Squad ).  Also as you can see from this page , 90% of those first response/first aide teams are 100% volunteer.  All of us wear the EMS star of life with pride and associate with both sides of life.  To impart that the EMS symbol plays no role in first aide seems a bit hasty. Medicellis (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just referring to it as the "EMS star of life" introduces a "professionals-only-please" bias. I to am a Volunteer, but I will not press for the our symbol to be used. How do we gauge which of the following has a more Global understanding rather than just a North American understanding? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do agree that the EMS star of life is predominantly a North American symbol and is used almost 100% exclusively on emergency squad vehicles and first responders in NA. I think the EMS star of life stands for first responders ("An EMS exists to fulfill the basic principles of First Aid, which are to Preserve Life, Prevent Further Injury and Promote Recovery" see Emergency Medical Services) and vice versa. In my thinking, even globally, the star of life stands for emergency help. The standard or the international symbol for a hospital is the star of life with the Rod of Asclepius in the middle. To me the historical nature of the Rod of Asclepius stand for medicine and helping those that are injured in any language. I do see your POV that there are many symbols standing for first aide, and or medical help and coming up with a consensus might be a interesting debate. I do apologize if I seem to be centered on EMS in NA, as this is my area of expertise, and we all tend to have a bias towards what we know. I would be interested what others have to say on this matter. Medicellis (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will admit to having a North American bias, since I do live in the US and I have not had that much exposure to health care in other countries. I do not know what symbols are used in other countries, but if you could educate us, it would be appreciated.  I think we should avoid the Red Cross/Red Crescent logos, since I believe they are copyrighted and should only be used by associations actually affiliated with this international organization.  In the US, the Star of Life is used on all medical vehicles, ambulances and fly cars, volunteer or paid, which is why Medicellis suggested this change.  Would the Rod of Asclepius (also used by WPMED) be a more appropriate symbol?  What is used in Canada or other countries you are familiar with?


 * Also in the US, volunteer is not the opposite of professional. It's probably just regional differences in how the words are defined and used in context.  Volunteer means you do not get paid for a job.  Professional typically means someone with special training/certification.  What you describe as "professional" is more appropriately described in the US as "career" or "paid."  Depending on the area, EMS may be provided by paid or volunteer providers.  In some places, one agency may have both paid and volunteer providers working side-by-side.  In other areas, two different agencies may work together, with one volunteer and the other paid (such as volunteer BLS and paid ALS).  Whether responders are paid, volunteer, or a mixture, they all have similar EMS training and perform the same job (BLS/ALS aside).  All EMS providers with a duty to act are considered professionals.  Many areas only have volunteer EMS.  Volunteers usually get mad (and rightly so) if you contrast them with "professionals."  If they are compensated, they are paid.  If not, they are volunteer.  Unprofessional EMS providers (that is people who do not act professionally while performing their duties), whether volunteer or paid, make the entire system look bad and should not be working in EMS.  --Scott Alter 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well the bot took care of 2 of the choices for us...lol Medicellis (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to educate yourselves of what other countries use on their vehicles... Ambulance Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page, I was looking for something like this in wikipedia but was no go, I guess I need to expand myself and start looking at other areas of wiki.

From looking at that page you posted out of the 23 international ambulance I see, 12 of them us the star of life as a identifying symbol. Runner up with 6 is the traditional "red cross". and 6 with there own agency or country specific symbols. 12/6/5. Would that constitute a consensus? Medicellis (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus would be a symbol that would be inclusive of Eastern culture. (Those not based around the Greek mythos). This decision would be moot if the proposed compromise in the WP:EMS dispute is agreed to. Should this WP return to WP:First Aid, the original symbol would be used (a clear cross on a green field). I would not take part in the discussion on what the new WP:EMS would use. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment and talk page tagging
I just went through all of the articles previously tagged with WikiProject First aid (now renamed to WikiProject Emergency medical services) and assessed them all. I also went through the list of articles that was at WikiProject Emergency medical services, and made sure they were all tagged with WikiProject Emergency medical services. There are many other articles that are not tagged, which should be. Probably all articles within Category:Emergency medical services and its sub-categories should be part of this project. I created WikiProject Emergency medical services/Assessment to provide guidance for performing assessments. That page and the main project page also display the table of class by importance. --Scott Alter 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * very nice!, I will help with going through Category:Emergency medical services and helping with article assessment and tagging Medicellis (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know how I have been prioritizing things, I generally ask, "how important is this article to the field of EMS?" Any individual ambulance services (all in Category:Ambulance services) are low-importance, since their applicability to EMS is extremely geographically-limited.  (Their priority would most likely be higher in a wikiproject relevant to the geographic area it serves.)  Likewise, any articles that are only about EMS in a specific country should be no higher than high-importance.  I rated all mnemonic articles as low-importance, since the mnemonic itself is largely irrelevant to EMS.  The only exception to this (that I came across) is SOAP note, since this is a physical thing, rather than a memory aid.  If anyone has objections or questions about my scheme, feel free to ask.  --Scott Alter 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No sounds like a good plan, and as I go through the articles I think I'm rating about the same way Medicellis (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure that a standard scheme is being used for assessments. It makes zero sense for one "Paramedics in ___" to be assessed as being high importance while the rest are being assessed as low importance. I've taken the liberty of changing all of them to high. In addition, Paramedics in Canada was assessed as being a stub class. While it definitely needs more in-line citations, it definitely is not a stub. JPINFV (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD for street medic
I have purposed street medic for speedy deletion. As most of you know most paramedic's consider themselves street medics or refer to themselves as "ditch doctors" this is slang in the EMS field. The author of this page tries to note that this is a actual group of people that provide 1st aid at demonstrations. I for one think this article is very biased and only based on one persons opinion without a WP:NPOV and specifically does not meet WP:V and WP:N guidelines. I for one like to keep the EMS community as professional as possible and this seems almost a joke to me Medicellis (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Before coming across this article, I too did not know about this usage of "street medic." I thought they were just medics who worked on the street (aka line medics), as opposed to supervisors and administrators.  However, it appears that the usage of street medic in this article is valid.  The links in the article do show that there are organizations of people calling themselves "street medics" (who may or may not be paramedics), and these organizations provide first aid at protests.  The topic is verifiable, but I am not sure if it is notable - so I am not sure if it should be deleted.  I don't think an admin would speedy delete the article, since it has been around for a while and contains valid information.  Maybe a better way to deal with the article is to rename it to "Street medic (protests)" or something like that, redirect Street medic to Medic, and add a link on Medic to the street medic article.  Alternatively, a hatnote could be added to Street medic, saying something like "This article is about people who provide first aid at protests.  Street medic is also a slang term for medic."  --Scott Alter 15:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Street medics are in no way Paramedics. They are in no way limited to working at Protests so I dont think that should be amended to the Article title either. They are a wholly different group and do deserve their own Article. By re-directing/hatnoting "Street medic" to "Medic" you would be creating circular links. I would suggest simply stating the slang term exists and leave it at that. Just because you may feel these people are a "joke" does nothing to diminish the value of their work in areas where your so called "professional EMS" fear to tread, nor does it diminish they value of the Article about these people. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Scott's idea, re-naming to Street Medics (protests) Medicellis (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there's another sort of street medic with an article from which this article needs to be disambiguated, the name change is pointless--especially since a move will leave a redirect in place. Just because the article says "medic" in the title, and it ain't us, doesn't mean we have to go to war with it. If they're called street medics, let 'em be called street medics in their article, and we're free to add information about how they aren't associated or affiliated with formal EMS organizations. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I just have a problem with this informal association with EMS. Most all EMT's are now formally educated and spend a good amount of time to earn the title EMT or Medic.  To think that someone during a 'anitwar' protest slaps a green cross on there arm and calls themselves a 'street medic' becuase they will tend to those that will get hurt, to me seems barbaric and derogatory. I do agree about the war tho, what ever the majority wants...... Medicellis (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation required is separating the street medics who work at demonstrations from the slang term for paramedics who work on the street. In my neck of the woods, street medic refers to the latter.  That biases me to believe that the primary usage of street medic is a medic who works on the street.  What do others think is the most common usage of "street medic?"  Is there any objective way to determine the more common usage?  Street medic should point to the most common usage of the term, with appropriate hatnotes to link to the other usage of the term.  --Scott Alter 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If we have WP:RS for both, then a disambiguation is appropriate. If street medic means urban paramedic most of the time, then we can have disambiguation links between the street medic article as it stands, and a current or new section of the main paramedic article. If we don't get RS documentation for your usage, though, we've got no basis to put that disambiguation page in there. I suspect it's out there somewhere, waiting to be found. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have come across 'street medics' in the usage of protests - they are not necessarily formally trained, and those who are do not often declare it, due to the risk of any professsional licences etc. beign withdrawn, so i think it probably deserves its own article. I've never heard street medic used to decribe a normal EMT/Para, but in either case a DAB page wouldn't be appropriate, at best a note at the top of the page to say 'see emt or paramedic', because i don't suspect anyone looking for paramedic would search for street medic. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Management
who would want these emergency management pages in our project I wasnt sure???? Medicellis (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Disaster management is much more appropriate for articles in Category:Disaster preparedness and Category:Disaster preparedness by country. I don't think these should be within the project's scope, since they are not directly related to the practice of medicine.  --Scott Alter 04:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

medical dispatching
Seems to me there is some problems with Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) vs advanced medical priority dispatch system (AMPD). Seems to be that EMD page was deleted and AMPD has survived without any re-direct. In most US EMS systems EMD and CAD assisted EMD (with enhanced 911) is the standard of all US 911 call centers. EMD Disambiguation Not sure what happened???
 * mabe a redirect or create a new page? Medicellis (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * here are some links, EMD is MUCH MUCH more prevalient than AMPD EMD WEBSITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicellis (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ED-Q Certification Courses (Medical, Fire, Police)is the most common certification followed by each disipline, EMD (medical) EFD (fire), and EPD (police) Medicellis (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * my conclusion would be AfD advanced medical priority dispatch system for violation of WP:V and recreate a page with EMD Medicellis (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be too hasty with AfD's. There's plenty of opportunity to create EMD.  I'd recommend we do that first.  I've tagged the AMPD article as needing references, which is certainly needed no matter what happens. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to rain on peoples' parade here, but there is a reference on that article and a simple google search does bring up references to that system. As such, I've replaced the template message to the more appropriate "onsource" and "no footnotes" templates. Also, does it matter which ones is used most often? The fact that one may be used more often in one country does not mean that the other one is not used. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. You CAN have 2 articles and considering the amount of research done about AMPD (based off of the few I opened up), it is very noteworthy, even if the article is largely about associated problems. JPINFV (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the AMPD is probably notable and doesn't need to be deleted. The article as it stands, however, is rightly tagged as unreferenced, because the reference that exists doesn't have enough information for another editor to go look it up or request it from a library.  If you have a more complete citation for that reference, please change the references and then the tag.  A reference that no one can find who doesn't already have a copy isn't much of a reference, agreed? Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haing created it in the first place, the difficulty is that most references are paper based, so you might actually have to look for a physical copy - not everything comes in handy web format, which is one place that Wikipedia excels in placing this information in the public domain. As for EMD/AMPDS, at the risk of being unpopular, the US is not the only country in the world!  The UK predominantly uses AMPDS, as do many other countries.  I don't see any reason not to create an article about EMD, but suggesting that AMPDS is deleted is ridiculous!  I will try and find a few more references though. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

After doing some more research it looks like AMPDS is popular in the UK as well as many other states, I did a quick google search and found little on this or the certifications needed. Didn't mean to raise feathers it just seemed at the start that the majority of CAD assisted 911 centers use EMD and there certifcations. On the AMPDS page there is little to explain this. But the EMD page needs to be created ASAP Medicellis (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this is the google search for AMPDS
 * google search.
 * abbr AMPD google search Medicellis (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see there is little documentation on this form of dispatch system, who funds the program, who takes the program, what does the program include, what certfications do they have? Just a few questions on AMPDS Medicellis (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Dispatcher

 * Developed and started page, please help add to this page! Medicellis (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
why does our article assessment table state 268 articles and when you look on it states 327?? Medicellis (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's normal. The assessment table is only updated by a bot every couple of days.  If you can't wait a few days and you really want to see an updated table, the bot can also be run on demand through a specific website.  See Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot for details.  --Scott Alter 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Scott for the info! Medicellis (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Change ... WTF???
You know, if you want to make a emergency medical services project, and make our a subproject of that, nobody would have stopped you. But the new project is immense, and our old one was small and directed. So great work, buddy, keep it up. Way to listen to the consensus here before you bludgeoned our organization.

Isaac (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is out of line, and please keep your tone to WP:GOODFAITH, and your opinion the consensus 4 weeks ago would have been appreacitated instead of comments like this post facto. Medicellis (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I ever became involved with and tried to revive this inactive project that you seem to WP:OWN. I reverted everything back, just as you like it.  Once I finish retagging articles with WikiProject First aid (the ones that were previously tagged), you won't hear from me anymore.  --Scott Alter 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It is unclear whether a first aid task force would be useful to WP:MED, and as such a task force need not be a continuation of this WikiProject, a simple redirect to WP:MED should suffice if the aim is to direct the odd visitor to an active WikiProject without hassle. Alakzi (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid → WP:WikiProject Medicine/First Aid task force – I propose that this inactive Wikiproject be merged into WP:WikiProject Medicine as a task force, and the projectbanner WikiProject First aid be merged into WPMED's as a taskforce switch |firstaid= and the category Category:WikiProject First aid be merged into Category:WikiProject Medicine ; as similar to how many other inactive projects are merged as taskforces into the greater overarching wikiproject. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support I am the nominator -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Sure, why not? Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you look at the sections above ( and ) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces/Archive 1, I tried this in 2008 and got extreme backlash from the early members of this project. This project is dead, and I don't think there would be any benefit (to WPMED or at all) by having this as a taskforce. The Emergency Medicine and EMS task force already covers almost everything in this project. There really is nothing here of substance or worth saving. --Scott Alter (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support it seems to be a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is little purpose in having an inactive taskforce as in an inactive WikiProject. Either this is left to rot or we archive all the talk pages and delete it with a complete redirect. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We cover all this content at WTMED. Having it as a taskforce may reduce confusion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Almost all first aid will be given for medical problems (rather than anything else, like losing your glasses). As such, it is probably better served by being a taskforce of WPMED. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What is the point of converting a dead WikiProject to a dead taskforce. Just mark it as historical and be done. Moving WikiProjects is always a lot of hassle and I see no benefit in doing it here. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Question for the supporters: Besides "seems like a good idea," are there any valid arguments or reasons to do this? The Emergency Medicine and EMS task force already encompasses all of the (only) 36 articles in this project's scope. There is nothing of value in this project worth saving or merging into WPMED. There was never any modern assessment system or subpages set up here - what you see at WP:WikiProject First aid is it. While yes, first aid does fit under the scope of WPMED, a first aid task force would be entirely a duplicate of the EM/EMS task force. WPMED does not need to have both EM/EMS and first aid task forces. There has been no activity at this project for years; the last activity was the previous attempt to move this to WPMED. Also, the EM/EMS is not that active either. Having 2 similar/overlapping inactive task forces does no good at all. It would likely cause more confusion and further fragment discussion/progress. Both of these task forces are not needed. Since EM/EMS is already in place and covers all of first aid, this project should just be left alone in its current state, or possibly redirected to the EM/EMS task force. WP:First aid is already marked as defunct, so I don't see what the current confusion is. --Scott Alter (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artificial respiration listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Artificial respiration to be moved to Mouth to mouth resuscitation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mouth to mouth resuscitation listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mouth to mouth resuscitation to be moved to Mouth to mouth resuscitation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Automated external defibrillator listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Automated external defibrillator to be moved to AED. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.