Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nursing/Archive 1

Setup
I think the idea of a nursing wikiproject is a good idea. These normally have a mission, list of aims, resources, members etc. see WikiProject Council/Guide and it needs to be proposed at WikiProject/List of proposed projects. Has this project gone through this without me noticing?&mdash; Rod talk 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For the number of nurses in the world, there seems to be not too much interest. However, the only way to gauge the interest is to get started. The initial creation of a portal was intended to build interest in nursing as a Wikipedia topic. -THB 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree & wiling to help where I can. It might be useful to contact all those listed at Category:Wikipedian nurses as a starting point.&mdash; Rod talk 20:35, 10 October 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 00:12, 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) 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

COTM
Nurse has now been the "Collaboration of the Month" for a few weeks - but nobody has suggested a diffrerent page for next month - should we leave it the same for November or does anyone have any suggestions for a different page as our COTM?&mdash; Rod talk 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Icon
I think that we need an icon other than the (very nice) portrait of Florence Nightingale, one that better represents modern nursing as a profession. -THB 18:59, 31 October 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 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Inviting editors to join this WikiProject
There doesn't seem to be much activity of late in the Nursing wikiproject. I've recently seen an ineresting idea on a couple of other wikiprojects which enables a standardised message to be posted on the talk page of anyone editing a relevant page. Whenever anyone edits a page related to Munich, Template:WP Munich Invitation is posted to their user talk page informing them of the existence of the WikiProject & this approach has just been adopted by WikiProject Bristol with the template Template:WP Bristol invite.

I've made a version of that template for our purposes, which is in User:Rodw/Sandbox at the moment, but can be moved to Template:WP Nursing invite, that can be posted on the talk page of anyone that edits a Nursing-related page. You would either be able to use for the generic version, or you could use, for example,  to include the line "Thank you for editing the article International Nurses Day" What does everyone else think?&mdash; Rod talk 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea, and whatever article you want as COTM for January is fine by me. -THB 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of interest?
Nurses are a varied bunch of people. I have been a nurse since 1986 and I am constantly amazed by the disparate nature of the people in this profession. Still less than 15% of the profession are men and its anyone's guess as to why but it no doubt affects the group as a whole and how it is viewed. I was recently invited to join the project and I am please to do this but it is a daunting task which will require time and patience from all. I have edited and tweaked a few articles so far and I look forward to doing more. I also look forward to more discussion and suggestions on how we will proceed. Canticle 11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Men as nurses. Me too. When NANDA included "Therapeutic Touch," nurses lost more credibility. Nursing Diagnosis is a vague concept to begin with. I can't support any profession that adds a "diagnoses" so silly. Thus, my lack of interest. Sorry girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Me too" again. I was punched by a patient yesterday, pretty hard, hurt my "gun hand" and left a big, aching bruise. I've just been over the "nursing shortage" wikipage and feel it would be very appropriate to address nursing workplace violence and the overall "tolerance" of the violence. Only recently has it become a felony to attack a health-care worker, but there is still a gray area regarding fault, prosecution, and customer service. The old man that hit me was out of his gourd, probably renal/bun elevation. Today, he started out with "Do I owe anybody an apology today?" and was clear as a bell, seeking my acceptance. I have been programmed to accept the assaults of my patients, and over the years have witnessed managements position in such matters. They take the side of the patient or the family.

I digress, but attempt to point out the futility of calling nursing as a "profession" when you are chronically understaffed, subjected to daily abuse by your patients, families, and co-workers, and have very little time to solve the problems. You're DEAD at the end of the day. Thanks for listening Canticle. I remain a phantom without a handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Some missing topics
I wonder if any professionals could help me with my list of missing topics related to medicine? - Skysmith 12:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS
Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment project?
Hi - I keep running into nursing related articles (like South African Democratic Nurses' Union) while working at WP:UNION, and I was wondering if the editors here were interested in establishing an assessment department. If you're not familiar with the idea, it's run out of Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects, and rates articles both for this project, and for the Version team. We set up the Organized labour assessment department a bit ago, and found that it has the added benefit of raising awareness about the project itself.

If you're interested, I would be able to set up the framework of the department for you (based on the Org lab model), although it would require people here to fill in the actual rating requirements. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to work with you on this matter. To date, for this matter, I have:
 * Created assessment page for this wikiproject.
 * Created categories for the class/importance types.
 * Created the WPNURSE template. J o s h  11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you've got things pretty much covered. I added the stats box to the assessment page, it's a red-link right now, but should change with the first bot run. (Unless I gaffed something!)--Bookandcoffee 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working.--Bookandcoffee 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your help.  J o s h  20:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 24 September 2007 - expires 29 September
 * Robert Priharjo --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 6 September - expires 11 September
 * Nursing research stastitics ( PROD by User:Escape Orbit; this is more suited for inclusion in Wikibooks than Wikipedia. ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Schoolnurse1.jpg
Image:Schoolnurse1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open
Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.


 * General information about the project: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
 * Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Wikimedia Sister Projects
There is a lot of work to do in Wikipedia, but also sitster projects Wikibooks and Wikiversity are sorely lacking in nursing representation Wkc3 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 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 )  21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Nursing
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting started
Those monitoring Nurse will no doubt be aware that I've jumped in with both feet and started moving that article toward the point where we can apply to have it reassessed as a good article.

Today I am going to spend some time working with the nursing wikiproject itself. My main goal is to make the project more accessible to new editors, more welcoming and easy to navigate. I plan to remove outdated information and links.

I recognise that I am making some major changes to the project's pages, but the project is stagnant and needs a bit of tough love to get it moving again! I would be delighted to discuss these alterations with all interested editors. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Changelog
Cheers, Basie (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Set up slow archiving of this talk page with MiszaBot, to remove older threads. Interval is 100d.
 * Set up archive indexing with HBCAI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basie (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Designed a navigation template which has been added to each of the main WP:NURSE pages. Not set in stone, but it's a nice easy way of getting around.  See what you think.
 * Created the categories Category:Nursing templates and Category:Wikiproject Nursing templates.
 * Removed list of participants from main project page (because it's easy to get to via the nav bar now).


 * To-do list now features prominently on the project page. I hope to update this soon with more specific tasks.
 * Designed new talk page template (above). Let me know what you think! Basie (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The male nurse userbox
Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Use   to include this auspicious label in your collection. If you qualify, that is! Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles in both nursing and medicine wikiprojects
I have started a discussion on the medicine project talk page about whether some articles really need to be in both WP:MED and WP:NURSE. The medicine talk page sees a lot more activity, so we'll try to consolidate any discussion there. Cheers, Basie (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles removed from WP:NURSE
Occasionally I'm finding articles that I don't feel belong in our project. I am boldly removing the nursing tags from these if I feel that the WP:MED project is more appropriate. I don't plan to do this very often, just where it seems we have little involvement or interest. I urge everyone with an interest in our WikiProject to join WP:MED as well, because there is a lot of crossover and a good pool of active editors to talk to!

Removed from project

 * Amygdalohippocampectomy: esoteric surgical procedure, should only be in project if we include all such procedures, which is rather impractical. Basie (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Waking the Sleepy Nurses
G'day! I'd like to take a stab at getting this WikiProject active again. Accordingly, I have removed the inactive tag from the project page.

I'm an RN of ten years experience, currently working full-time in paediatric intensive care. My Wikipedia experience is less extensive, but I'm a fair writer and editor. I think the current nursing articles could use a huge shake-up, and I'd love some help! If you're still watching this page, please leave a comment (even if it's only, "Sorry, wish I had more time!") and let me know.

Momentum is a funny thing. All it takes is effort and consistency and all of a sudden you're barreling along. Let's get rolling! Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed this wikiproject was active again when some of the importance tags etc were changed on a couple of articles on my watchlist. I'm a RN with 30 years experience, but spend my wikipedia time on other areas so I have to say "Sorry, wish I had more time!". However I have helped get articles & lists to good & FA standard so if you have specific questions you are welcome to contact me.&mdash; Rod talk 09:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rodw (and others), are you willing to just keep this page on your watchlist? Sometimes it's convenient to be able to reach people who are interested in nursing (without spamming everyone's talk pages).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought I might be setting off a few people's watchlists with the latest review of article importance. Hundreds didn't have it set, I guess because the project hasn't been very active during the Wikipedia 1.0 changes.  Anyway, nice to hear from you!  I'm always grateful to have people who don't mind my (constant) questions :)  Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I joined this project in 2006 & it was active for a while. To reach others who might be interested try those on Category:Wikipedian nurses but I'm not sure how active some of them still are. To find other articles relevant to this project you could make a bot request to have all the articles in sub cats of Category:Nursing tagged - but be careful to put enough detail in the request (and that articles are properly categorised) otherwise inappropriate articles get tagged - any of the bots at Category:WikiProject tagging bots should be able to handle it. &mdash; Rod talk 14:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic importance
See also Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Nursing_articles_by_quality. Basie (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to move through the nursing articles checking the topic importance ratings. I want to stress that "importance" is not about how important a subject is to you, or me, or the nursing community; the criterion is what one might expect to find in a 'traditional' encyclopaedia. If a topic you've spent time editing changes in 'importance' and you disagree, let's discuss it; but remember, it's only a measure used by the Version 1.0 people to classify their releases. We can use it too, to decide (to some extent) what might be best to work on, but people will always have their favourite topics regardless.

The table above shows the current state of our WikiProject articles in terms of assessed quality and importance. I'll be starting with the 'top' importance pages and moving on down. Assistance very welcome! Cheers, Basie (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: yikes. I have finally cleared out Category:Unknown-importance_Nursing_articles, except for two articles that are being considered for deletion. Hundreds of edits later, eyestrain sets in! Basie (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to take another look at that category as it is filling up again.&mdash; Rod talk 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just when I thought it was safe! Cheers, Basie (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Empty again :) Basie (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletions
In the course of reviewing the project's articles, I have come across a few that I feel should be removed because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, or they are already covered elsewhere. I will list these below as I find them, as WP:NURSE doesn't have a deletion sorting list like WP:MED.

Please note that these are my opinions, given as part of a review with the intent of cleaning up our project a bit. They are not writ in stone! If you disagree, let's talk about it.


 * prod = proposed deletion
 * merge = merge suggested
 * afd = articles for deletion process started


 * Community Hospital School of Nursing: prod AfD (discuss), does not meet notability requirements per WP:ORG
 * Human care: prod, no content that is not covered more completely in Roper-Logan-Tierney model of nursing and activities of daily living Basie (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * redirected. Basie (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, so I am unsure of who the Community Hospital School of Nursing is important to, and why they think it is notable. You may want to check with the original author, or expand on the article rather than delete. I am hoping that you will merge Human care or at least redirect Human care to the proper sections of Roper-Logan-Tieney and adl . I appreciate what I have seen of your enthusiasm. rkmlai (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the Community Hospital School of Nursing prod had been contested. Curiously, the editor who removed it seems to have been engaged in removing a lot of different prod notices, so perhaps we just got caught up in someone's personal agenda.  I am tempted to submit it to AfD, but I'll check with  to see if there was any particular reason to think the organisation is notable. I will also place a redirect from Human care if the prod is uncontested. Thanks for your feedback, it really helps! Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Community_Hospital_School_of_Nursing Basie (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * deleted (archive). Basie (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * University of Maryland School of Nursing Living History Museum‎: prod, unreferenced stub, notability. Basie (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * merged with University of Maryland, Baltimore by TerriersFan about nine seconds after I prodded. (Well ok, maybe ten!) Basie (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please archive stuff that you remove
... from this discussion page. Thank you, rkmlai (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry. I mistakenly assumed that the main project page worked like an article, not a talk page.  I've set up archiving on this page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nursing, but I should similarly archive content from WikiProject Nursing? Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't quite understand this. The talk page was archived awhile back (just about the first thing I did when I went to work on the project).  It's on a 100 day auto-archive.  Was I supposed to do something different with WP:NURSE when removing outdated material from it? Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved--we were talking about different things, I think :) Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting an automated cleanup listing
As I've reviewed some nursing related articles & tagged them for this project I've noticed the high number of cleanup tags & banners. It can be useful to get an automated list of these by going to User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings & following the instructions - unfortunately it doesn't get updated that often & will not resolve the issues for you but does help to see where the problems are.&mdash; Rod talk 09:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, and for finding all these articles! Who knew there were still so many untagged? Basie (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are loads more - one way of finding them is to go into Category:Nursing & then into each of the sub cats, but it does take a while to open each article & see if it is tagged.&mdash; Rod talk 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, you're right... it's full of stars! Basie (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Child health nursing
This is an odd one. The stub says, "It differs from pediatrics, in that the emphasis in pediatrics is ill-health and the alleviation of symptoms or disease." Which is silly in my view; that's a very narrow definition of pediatrics! Not to mention that Pediatric nursing redirects to Child health nursing.

Then later, a complete contradiction: "Another word [sic] for child health nursing is pediatric nursing."

I'd prefer to move the page to Pediatric nursing over a redirect and rewrite from scratch. There is a health promotion aspect to "Child health nursing", but this can be addressed within the scope of an article on the pediatric field. Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've proposed the move here, please discuss on that page. Basie (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an article for untrained nurses?
I came across Mary Ward (nurse), and have been reminded of the important historical role played by women who had little or no formal training (and, of course, little other outlet for their talents, given how few occupations were deemed acceptable). Is there an article that explains this, or lists such nurses? There must also be some explanation for how the word changed use from breast-feeding ( as in wet nurse) to caring for children generally (as in nursery nurse) to caring for the ill. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Back after a few weeks' wikibreak. Yes, I agree there ought to be some historical discussion of the profession although I'm not sure that is the way the word arrived at its current usage.  As to the first question, I don't know if there is such an article... want to write one? :)  Cheers, Basie (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I am not sure of the etymology, but certainly the first two long predated formal nursing as a career, as we know it. Writing new articles is not my forte, nor where I want to put my energy.  I will help anyone who starts one, with editorial input, wikifying, copy editing, etc.  A wikibreak sounds like a good idea! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Family Centered Care article
Hi, I wanted some review of the family centered care article, to see if the systemic bias it originally had has been addressed enough, or if there were other suggestions on how to address it. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

what is case managment
Talk:Case management. any thoughts ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * new articles Case management (mental health) and Care programme approach (for our UK friends)  Earlypsychosis (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles about nursing
This list is taken from User:Skysmith/Missing_topics_about_Medicine:


 * Dry nurse -
 * Oncology Certified Nurse -
 * Ward clerk -
 * Ward healer -
 * Clinical Nurse Leader -
 * Clinical nursing research -
 * Death-Watch -
 * Differentiated nursing practice -
 * Functional nursing -
 * General duty nurse -
 * Graduate nurse, trained nurse - /
 * Head nurse -
 * Maternal-child nursing -
 * Modular nursing -
 * Multistate Nursing Home Case Mix and Quality -
 * Nurse extended organization -
 * Nurse Licensure Compact, USA -
 * Nurse minimum date set (MNDS) -
 * Nurse Practice Act -
 * Nurse recruiter -
 * Nursing audit -
 * Nursing care hours (NCH) -
 * Nursing facility practice -
 * Practical nurse -
 * Probationer nurse -
 * Public health nurse -
 * Scrub nurse -
 * Standards for Organized Nursing Services and Responsibilities -
 * Student nurse -
 * Supervisor nurse -
 * Visiting nurse -
 * Ohio Nurses Association -
 * Oregon Nurses Association -

Please feel free to create whatever redirects or new articles that you think are needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

possible to add nursing assessments catagory?
I was wondering if it's possible to add the catagory of Nursing Assessments? MarieLinton (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To add it to what? Are you asking about creating a new category?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about nursing diagnoses? Rrralf (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User Box
Another idea to get started is creating a userbox for users to display on user pages. Any nurse that happens to hit on someone's page and sees the user box might just be interested enough to join. I'm not sure if anyone here already knows how, but I can figure it out if no one else knows or can do it.
 * A userbox has been developed, I'll also post some RN userboxes. AriTotle (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nursing articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Nursing articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Image issue settled?
Tradimus (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Was the consensus to use the lamp? I believe it is most likely the most recognized. It seems the consensus was to switch to the lamp, but the image is still the red cross. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790;   talk  02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a week, and no objections to the apparent consensus per discussion above, I have made the change to Nursing symbol.svg  jsfouche  &#9789;&#9790;   talk  03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of that particular symbol, but I think the image is the very least of the problems facing the nursing presence on Wikipedia so whatever works is fine! Basie (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two lanterns in the nightingale museum which belonged to Florence. She is said to have used both at scutari. The style used to represent nightingales lamp varies from a menorah style, turkish genie-in-the-bottle style and even symmetrical designs all drawn with some artistic license. I pose a solution that the actual shape does not matter as much as the concept of the lady with the lamp representing the illumination and caring. However, it might be nice to have a public domain image which could be shared. It is very easy to reproduce a red cross, but a universal template for the lantern might help represent nursing profession with an identifiable logo.Tradimus (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The existing symbol is great, but under license to user Silje, which means that any use outside wikipedia requires referencing. I notice gold leaf versions of Silje image are available as 3-D badges for sale, so the image selected has the potency to become universal in recognition. I beleeve it would be better if we had an icon or logo that was not bound by copyright issues, like the used by the medicine portal. I propose to make an improved nursing logo without copyight issues. for example lamp image. Tradimus (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See inset right a public domain logo made with inkscape for your suggestions.
 * Is it better to have three dimensional or flat?
 * Should it be a single colour or have red and / or orange flame?
 * Will we continue with an oil lamp, or swap to the candle in a paper concertina we see in paintings of florence?
 * Is a black cartoon outline preferable, or solid colour?
 * The lamp is generally blue in insignia, but there are wide variations, is there any basis for colour?
 * Does anyone have ICN connections or feel like asking them if they want to be involved? Tradimus (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bed-making
I've just expanded a feeble stub on bed-making, but someone from this project might have good sources, perhaps historical, about the importance of bed-making in patient care, techniques, etc? Most of what I can find on Google is Youtube videos. Pam D  15:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to say that you are not alone in your concern, there is additional material that may be helpful at Wiki educator basic bed making someone has placed a furniture manufacture template there which must be removed. Tradimus (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting set of pages, thanks, but so badly written that I hesitate to link to it - and as a prospective patient I find it depressing that "Reasons for bed making" seems to prioritise "To keep the ward neat and tidy." above "For patients comfort."! As for the furniture tag: it says it's "about furniture or furnishing", and I think that's reasonable as beds are furniture and bedmaking is done in relation to them: there's no mention of "manufacture"!  Pam  D  14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with Linen than furniture. You may find what you need in nursing textbook previews on google books. Tradimus (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal versus wikiproect
I find the distinction between nursing portal and nursing wikiproject confusing. I think there may be few enough active editors to place a welcome message at one of them re-directing potential contributors to the more active page.Tradimus (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the red cross icon
Image:Cruz Roja.svg is currently widely used in nursing related articles. I'd remind that this use is a breach of both a Wikipedia guideline and US federal law. The red cross is reserved for the explicit use by military medicine and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The icon is currently used in all nursing templates. Is there an alternative symbol that could be used for this purpose? --SaMi ✉ 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From a legal stand point that is true, I'm not sure that the syilized one used in these graphics qualifies as "red cross on white back ground", the circle makes it unique. If it was not copyright free then it would have been removed from Wikimedia. But, that said it is not truly unique to nursing as a symbol, just as the lamp isn' t either (Knowledge/eduction), so what should we use? If you identify a problem then you should provide at least two solutions...I don't see any here. We could use the Army Nurse Corps insignia...but that does not reflect everyone, although it is widely used among civilian nurses too. Just a few random thoughts -- Bullock  Talk 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I object to the use of a medical insignia. Just as an aside, when the US army doctors chose their insignia, they got it wrong - for an explanation, see Asclepius versus Caduseus --Tradimus (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never thought the red cross made sense as a universal emblem of nursing, but then: there really isn't one! Certainly not one recognised internationally. There's obviously a strong nursing history associated with the current symbol (American Red Cross). I don't think the use of the image as it stands is illegal or in use beyond its legitimate scope, though I'd be happy to see another in use if one could be agreed on. An option is the white heart, which has been adopted as a symbol of nursing by the International Council of Nurses. I'm not sure if any copyright issues apply there, but it's worth investigating. Basie (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't regard the red cross as being a symbol for nursing as I'm from Europe. Here the symbol is more of a symbol for hospitals in general, plus the other legal meanings. The only connection with nursing I know of are those horrible nurse costumes (google for "nurse"). But then again, I don't know of a universal non-US-centric symbol either. In the French Wikipedia they use a picture of Florence Nightingale for this purpose. The lamp was proposed to replace the cross here. But the white heart would definitely be the best option. The legal interpretations should also be done from a global perspective. The red cross comes from the Geneva Conventions, which define the only legitimate uses of the symbol internationally, so just to avoid misinterpretations (e.g. being a nursing symbol). The round border is not a relevant difference: the ICRC uses a red cross inside a sphere as their emblem. Also, the laws on the use of the red cross are often stricter outside the US. --SaMi ✉ 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a version of the white heart to Commons. In the portal template it would look like what you see on the right. What do you think of this? --SaMi ✉ 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fantastic idea to incorporate the white heart into the portal templates. My one concern is many will not know the significance of the symbol; is there an article that details this for those that are dumbfounded (like I was)? The portal page also makes use of the oil lamp. I created a graphic on what that would look like AriTotle (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the white heart is kind of in use here already, in the project navigation bar. The symbol seems to be defined by an authoritative global organisation (representing nurses in 128 countries. The symbol is however still unknown to the public, but maybe Wikipedia could improve its status by using it? But I'm no expert here. --SaMi ✉ 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I just say from a male nurse perspective that the "white heart" is a bit "nursey". I would actually be more willing to see a "nurse's hat" then a "heart" of any color. I know that I speak for the minority in our profession, although I understand the intent to comunicate caring, it looks like a Valantine's card. How about a traditional nurse hat? That is universally recognized, probably even overseas, and reaches back to our heritage without evoking Florance. Just a thought. And no they would not give me a hat at graduation...I asked. But please no hearts. -- Bullock  Talk 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a male student nurse, I must add that I like the idea of the white heart and do not think it is "nursey" at all. It is indeed puzzling to me though that you would be against the idea of using the white heart but be an advocate of the Nurse's cap, which male nurses have never worn and have fallen completely out of fashion for nurse's in the western hemisphere since the 1980's. In my view, if we do change the template it should reflect the modern representation of nursing, not something that does not represent both genders in nursing. Unless, of course, we choose something like the oil lamp, which has rooted history in the the very beginnings of nursing. I'm fine with just leaving things the way they are but the two alternatives present in graphics above are viable and acceptable alternatives. AriTotle (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for fun, there is a graphical representation of a nurse's cap, but I think it looks like a toilet seat AriTotle (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your right, that looks like a toilet seat. I looked for a simple hat and did not find one in the commons. Ok what about the Army Nurse Corps insignia, it is available and universally recognized though out the health-care community? As to the effeminate nature of the white heart verses a historical clothing item, seems pretty clear after 18 years of practice. Too bad no one has a simple hat icon, not artistic myself or I would tackle it. But my vision was just the hat, no head. Enjoyed the laugh, thanks. Bullock    ✉  04:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (put your proposed icon to the portal link template to demonstrate how it would look like) The Army Nurse Corps insignia seems pretty US-centric for me, whereas the other symbols are more universal. I will throw in another white heart, this one from the project page header. Have all members of the project been informed of this discussion? --SaMi ✉ 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sami, I visited the ICN.CH website yesterday and was unable to find the "white heart" as adopted. The site is down right now and I'm unable to connect to it. The Wikipedia page for the International Council of Nurses shows a stylized lamp as their logo. If the army one is to country specific then I suggest the lamp as a good compromise. (The conversation has come full circle.) We could use a few more contributes to the conversation and need to consider how to democratize the decision (i.e. send it out to all portal members for vote.) PS I copied your "talk" button, very nice thanks. Bullock   ✉  22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great that you like it! It looks good, doesn't it? Back on track, the ICN seem to be updating their website, so they don't yet have anything on the Heart, but you can look in the archive. Yes they have a different logo, but e.g. the FNIF has the heart in theirs. Also some general info in this article (see #Pharmacists & Nurses). The project members should be informed, could someone do it, as I'm not really in the project... --SaMi ✉ 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the article the ICN adopted it as "a universal symbol of nursing" in 1999, but they kept the lamp as their own corporate symbol...I vote lamp still. Bullock    ✉  00:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Bullock. The use of the lamp seems like the best decision. Especially considering its historic roots within the nursing profession and its universal understanding as a symbol of nursing. Although I'm not entirely opposed to using the white heart, I do feel it is universally unknown and using it will only create bewilderment. AriTotle (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see some discussion on this. The lamp seems a trifle archaic to me but I suppose these days we're carting around a plastic dispenser filled with alcohol and chlorhexadine gel, not very iconic! The version above screams "Aladdin", but hopefully we can find an alternative. I designed the navigation at the top of the page and when I found a free icon set that had a white heart in it, it seemed natural to use it. Basie (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a good place to note that the sword with two winged serpents, the wand of caduceus has been mistakenly used by the united states army as a symbol for medicine, but neitherItalic text this nor the original single serpent without wings, the wand of Asclepius represents nursing. Tradimus (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC) There are a couple of other images which testify to the use of the lamp in traditional nursing badges. Also the oil lamp has been chosen by the international council of nurses, the American Nurses Association the South African nursing council. I will try and improve the image chosen and dedicate to public domain. Tradimus (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradimus (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars
Do we have any Barnstars yet? I have a few people helping with nursing related articles who I would like to recognize for their efforts, but could not find any nursing specific awards. If not how does one go about creating a barnstar? -- Bullock  Talk 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wager if you contact someone on the Wikipedia Awards page, they would be happy to assist you in creating a Wiki project specific barnstar or doing it for you. Mulling over the award pages though, there seems to be TONS but I admit having a project specific barnstar would be rather nice. AriTotle (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, even better, it looks like you can ask the community as a whole on their project talk page AriTotle (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First I think that we need to settle the imagery (see above). Then we can tap into that resource. Thank you for doing the research. -- Bullock  Talk 03:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I come armed with inkscape and an enthusiasm to use it. I have posted a primitive Nursing Barnstar to prompt discussion. Please let me know if you have any preferences. Tradimus (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I have added another Barnstar SVG file, no comments or activity for over a week.Tradimus (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Midwifery in the United States
Hi all, I'm currently undertaking a project to create a new page entitled "Midwifery in the United States" to be completed at the end of November 2012. I have an interest in midwifery and noticed that the entry on Midwifery has very little coverage on American midwifery. My new entry will have two main components: history and current practices. Relevant to this WikiProject, I will highlight the professionalization of midwives in the United States, drawing a connection between historical and current midwifery practices with nursing. For my sources, I'm using a collection of academic books on history of midwifery in the United States and the websites of current professional organizations. Additionally, it appears that one of the urgently needed tasks for this WikiProject is Nurse Midwife. I plan to update and merge the information from Nurse Midwife into my new page. I welcome any feedback, suggestions, and criticisms. Thank you. MonicaHe (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge Nurse Midwife?
Hi all, I have created a new page, Midwifery in the United States and propose that nurse midwife is merged with the new page as there is a lot of overlap between the two.

Thank you! MonicaHe (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Nurse midwife is a subtopic, but worthy of a separate article, especially since it is one of the main categories of APRNs. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 12:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. Comments and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

EmmaMPearson.jpg
image:EmmaMPearson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors
Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Referencing problem at Doula
The Doula article discusses the type of person solely in relation to childbirth whereas a reference used frequently and throughout the article relates to helping critically ill older patients with delirium. The post made at Talk:Doula seems fully justified to me. I am posting this at the Nursing and Medicine WikiProjects since both claim involvement. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Higgs Nichols
New article on an American Civil War nurse who was made an honorary member of the Grand Army of the Republic – needs clean up and better referencing. Plenty of sources are listed but there are very few inline citations, and most of those are bare URLS. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Maude E. Callen
Hello. I have no knowledge of nursing, but stumbled across the article Maude E. Callen, which was a well-intentioned mess. I have sorted out its (previously haphazard) referencing systems (plural); but there's plenty more work to be done. As the template of this WikiProject didn't appear on its talk page until I added it, it occurs to me that it's very likely that interested people here might not have heard of the article.

In brief, at one time Cullen was perhaps the most famous nurse in the US, and (as the article makes clear) justifiably so. She certainly merits a good (or "Good") article. I hope people here can do a bit of work on it. I can't do much myself, but I do hope to do a little more. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm happy to help with this article in the next few days. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 15:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BELTRI
Could someone have a look at the Balance Elevator-Lift for Tractioning Recumbent Individuals? There's a ref to " Textbook of Basic Nursing. Caroline Bunker Rosdahi, Mary T. Kowalski. 9th edition. Lippincott, Wiliams & Wilkins." though without a page number, and an illustration from a 19th-century text. Is it real? Stub was contributed in May 2013 by a new editor who hasn't been back since. Pam D  08:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nurse scheduling problem
Can you all please add some input? Bearian (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nursing and nursing journals
Hi, I have started a discussion about the categorization of nursing journals here and the input of interested editors is welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Nursing At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing
Dear nursing experts: Here's an old Afc submission about a nursing journal. Is this a notable journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? , I saw your post about classifying journals; this may be of interest to you. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It has an impact factor, so its considered notable. It contained a lot of promotional language, though. I have cleaned it up and it is now ready for "prime time" in my eyes. I'm not familiar with the procedures for moving drafts, so I'll leave that for you... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,, that's done; I will leave the categorization to you. It's a little shy on references.  Thanks for removing the puffery. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Nursing at Wikimania 2014(updated version)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made. Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Interdisciplinary team approaches to health care
What is the patient's prognosis, folks? Bearian (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2014 (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)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Nursing articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerontological Nursing Proposed Revisions
I proposed revisions to the Geriatric Nursing page, which has been noted to need major revisions or a rewrite. The rationale is here: Talk:Geriatric_nursing. The proposed revisions are in a Gerontological nursing sandbox. Suggestions and comments are welcome. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say (well after the fact) nice job on Gerontological nursing! Looks great. Basie (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again
Hi all. Just started back editing a few bits and pieces around the place. Anyone else with this page on their watchlist, would be great to hear what you're interested in/working on of late. Basie (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I like biographies. I created the List of Living Legends of the American Academy of Nursing and have worked little by little on creating or expanding those bios. There are still some fairly prominent people on that list (like Pender) with red links. If any nursing courses engage with the WP education program, there might be an opportunity to have students work on articles like those. I don't know too much about how that works though. Clinically, my interests are neonatal intensive care and pediatrics in general. Also willing to help with articles on nursing specialties, degrees or journals. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 20:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. My clinical focus is PICU, but I don't really feel I've contributed much in that area yet. I've been striking lots of good nurse bios in trolling through the WPNURS cats. Basie (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge Assistant practitioner with Unlicensed assistive personnel?
Disccussion here. Basie (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nursing WikiProject article class/importance assessment updates
I've been ambling through the categories assigning class/importance where none existed (or were obviously out of date). For want of a better method, most nurse bios (who had achieved their notability through nursing) received a 'mid' importance. Some were upgraded from stub to start, or to C.

It was a fairly rapid run through so obviously feel free to disagree/alter assessments where you think it needed. Basie (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A quick search finds 32,000+ articles containing the word nurse (or nurses) and 20,000+ containing the word nursing. There are only about 600 tagged articles.  I'm guessing that the number of articles that ought to be tagged is at least twice what's been found so far.  If you want to go on a search, then I've been pretty happy with the script at User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.  It lets you tag an article without needing to click through to the talk page first.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You're trying to kill me, aren't you? ;) Thanks! Basie (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a more efficient way to search for additions to the category than the likes of this?"nurse -incategory:nursing -incategory:'nursing by country' -incategory:'advanced practice registered nursing' -incategory:'nursing ethics'..."Sadly, category exclusion from search doesn't seem to cascade to subcats. Basie (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Lynn Sibley
FYI, I've proposed Lynn Sibley for deletion (per WP:NOT). The discussion can be found here. Basie (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was speedily deleted thanks to picking up copyright violation. Basie (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nursing in media
We have one small category, Books featuring nurses, with a few entries. However, there are a lot of other articles that arguably belong in nursing categories: In the case of Nurse Jackie, a good deal of fuss was made by various nursing organisations at the time the first season aired because nurses were being portrayed in a less than favourable light. When ER first aired, many nurses felt they were showing nursing work fairly accurately for the first time on TV.
 * Fictional movies about nurses, or with prominent nurse characters (Registered Nurse (film))
 * Documentaries about nurses (Vietnam Nurses)
 * TV series about nurses (Nurse Jackie)
 * Controversies that made headlines with direct consequences for the level of trust in nurses (Daisuke Mori)
 * Other newsworthy events involving nurses (HIV trial in Libya)

It does rather open a can of worms though. The medical cats have Works about physicians and Fictional doctors. Also Medicine in society. Is this a good approach for WPNURSE? Basie (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like Category:Fictional nurses is already a decently robust category. For the movie category, do we want to add movies about nursing to an established category (like Films about health care, Documentary films about health care, or Medical-themed films) and then evaluate how many apply to nursing? EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find. I like the idea behind the medicine in society cat, but then Category:Medical works is a bit of a muddy way to classify things IMHO. I'll see if there's enough fodder for a "films about nurses". Basie (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nursing
Input invited. I think the main article for this project is in need of an overhaul. Basie (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on nursing student edits to Wikipedia articles
I hope that some of you might want to provide nursing students with some feedback on their novice editing.

I am the professor of a first year nursing communication course at Brock University. The class has a Wikipedia assignment and I'm hoping some of the students will want to stay on as editors after the course ends. The course Wikipedia page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Brock_University/NUSC_1P10_Professional_and_Therapeutic_Communications_%28Fall_2014%29.

The students worked in groups of 4 to find credible evidence to enhance content about communication on assigned Wikipedia articles, some of which have been flagged as important for WikiProject Nursing. Many of the articles they edited do not seem to be active in terms of editing. Some did not have talk pages. This means that the students are not engaging with other experienced editors about editing on these pages.

We invite you to view the students' edits and give them advice to improve them.

The articles are listed on the course page. I'll list the ones that haven't had editors outside the class comment here:
 * Psychological stress
 * Visual impairment
 * Patient safety
 * Elderspeak
 * SBAR
 * Nurse-client relationship
 * Interpersonal communication
 * Hildegard Peplau
 * Hearing loss
 * Crisis
 * Aging

Thank you for considering this.LynnMcCleary (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynn. Thanks for letting us know. I had already engaged with the students editing Patient safety, but did not know about the others. That's quite a list! I'll check it out. Basie (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out, Dr. McCleary. I interacted with a student at the Peplau article. I sometimes worry about whether I'm supposed to "butt in" on a student assignment, but I found the student to be collegial and open to suggestions. I'm excited about this student work. Many of our theorist articles are pretty incomplete. In fact, there are numerous AAN Living Legends who don't have an entry. Even Patricia Benner didn't have an article until a few months ago. Lots and lots of potential for student work here!  EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 04:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

More on our main article
I've started a discussion here on paring down the history section of Nursing, comments and participation welcome. Cheers, Basie (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the icon from the Nursing template
A relatively new editor changed Template:Nursing recently to remove the little lamp icon next to the heading. It's not clear that they understood it would impact more than one page, so I've dropped a note on their talk mentioning it. I think it's fine to leave it this way, in line with other health wikiprojects such as Template:Medicine and Template:Anatomy. Feel free to weigh in if you disagree though! Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never been a big fan of the lamp, so I'm okay with it. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 01:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me either. It always reminded me of Aladdin. Basie (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the template how it was before. The lamp is a Western symbol of nursing but I do not expect that it is global. Also, other templates of this sort do not have icons as Basie said. I think it is better to omit the symbol in this template. I put the image on the WikiProject page, because it is still a usable symbol and right now that page has no better images being shared.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Fade to black whistling, Arabian Nights...) Basie (talk) 09:38, 8 December 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) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Journals subcat
Hi. Category:Oncology nursing journals‎ is a member of Category:Oncology; I think it should be a member of Category:Oncology journals‎ instead. Your thoughts? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...
 The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! 07:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

September editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal, October 2016
I propose that Care map be merged into Nursing care plan. Comments are welcome at Talk:Nursing care plan. Biogeographist (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance
There is a discussion on Talk:Margaret Sanger that failed to attract third-party comments. Your comments are welcome there! Request put down here, as it is listed s in the interest of this WikiProject. The Banner talk 23:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Kathleen Morris (missionary nurse)
This article is up for deletion (see discussion here. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Gendered nursing categories
Hello! I'm curious about what people think of categorising nurses by gender. I think we should remove or rename all gendered nursing categories on the project.

Potentially useful background on similar issues can be found in WP:CATEGRS. I'll ping WP:MED and WP:WikiProject_Women_in_Red in case anyone wants to weigh in.

Bias: I was a nurse for 17 years, and I've been a man for 46.

A list of categories this might affect: Category:Women nurses, Category:Male nurses, Category:Female nurses in World War I Category:Female wartime nurses, Category:Male wartime nurses, Category:Female nurses in the American Civil War, and the regional cats in Category:Women nurses by nationality.

Mostly, I don't think it's a useful distinction. Was it once? The world has (to some extent) moved on, to the point where referring to someone as a "male nurse" has become fairly unusual in my experience. The word nurse is inclusive; if historically it wasn't, it is now.

It also creates work. There are maybe a score of articles on nurses who are men. The rest currently get shuffled into non-diffusing subcats with women or female in the title, even when a corresponding male subcat doesn't exist. This seems unnecessary.

Finally, I'm not wild about its binary nature... having non-gendered nursing categories is easy, inclusive, and simple. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed that guideline for a while, but I think that the recommended approach in a characteristically gendered (etc.) profession is "Professional" (all of them) plus "Minority professional" (if applicable) as a subcat, with people who are both minority and professional getting both cats. So, for example, if wartime nurses were primarily male during the American Civil War, then there should be a category of female nurses during the American Civil War, but there should not necessarily be a category of male nurses during that war (or vice versa if the numbers go the other way).  In the specific instance, it appears that front-line military nursing was primarily a male role until the 20th century.
 * When it's more evenly split (which might be true for military nurses at various points), or the category contains a small number of pages, then there's not necessarily much point in splitting them. Similarly, if there were no women (or almost none), as was true of military nursing for centuries, then there's no point in specifically labeling the category as being male (or the other way around, e.g., the US military nurses for the first half of the 20th century).  "Female members of female-only organization" is just redundant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your responses. The issue of wartime roles is murkier still, since many men performing roles similar to that of a nurse would have been described as an "orderly" or "medic". I'll have a think and see if I can arrive at a sensible solution. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Maternal-child nursing
We have this redlink in several places. Does anyone know if it's the same thing as Obstetrical nursing, for which we have an article? It's a US-ism (I think) with which I'm not familiar. If it's considered distinct, could it be redirected to a section on the obstetric article? Basie (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nightingales remember
Kaybeesquared (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'Nightingales' are mentioned in the article and the Nightingale Fellowship is on a link at the very end. The beautiful 'badge' and its 'meanings' and the art installation with reminiscences recently commissioned is not referenced on this wiki.

This badge has been superseded by one for the new structure within the hospital/training institute.

As a (40 years ex-)Nightingale I cannot edit this myself (perhaps) but it has an annual re-union with nurses from across the globe returning and wide age-spectrum attending and a formal thanksgiving/remembering Florence Nightingale, placing flowers at her memorial in St Thomas's Hospital chapel.

Would someone like to edit this into the article?

Nomination of Portal:Nursing for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nursing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nursing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Student nurse vs Nursing student
I requested a consensus for the article title of Student nurse on its talk page, and wanted to bring it to the project page for more exposure. Thanks and gig 'em! Doghouse09 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nursing in Pakistan
This could use a lot of work. Please help fix it. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nightingale College in Salt Lake City with 18 branches
Please see Nightingale College talk page I am not a nurse and I dont know enough about nursing to know a lot about what is being discussed. Any expert nurses would be most welcome to comment. Thank you in advance. 02:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitepeace (talk • contribs)

Category:Nursing articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Nursing articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Nurse anesthetist
Would some of you come to help? There is alot of resident and physician hostility in an attempt to define us by malicious editing. Mmackinnon (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): Advance for NPs & PAs nursing journal
FYI, the article Advance for NPs & PAs has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject thusly:


 * "Advance for NPs & PAs is a peer-reviewed nursing journal covering the practices of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. It is the official journal of the Association of Family Practice Physician Assistants and the National Association of Dermatology Nurse Practitioners."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:


 * "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani
There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill of relevance to this project. Structuralists (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)