Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Health Service/Archive 1

message: Should we agree some guidelines on how to treat the relationship between public and private health articles? We may run into trouble with some private organisations being categorised as part of the NHS if we don't consider how to separate them. Also, private health must be considered by this project in some manner if only to redirect the issue to more relevant articles outside of the NHS project. Readers from another country won't know the difference between public & private in the UK. Any comments? Road Wizard 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed a rubric in :Category:National Health Service to make it clear that the category includes articles 'relating to' the National Health Service. do you have any particular articles in mind where you feel the categorisation might be misleading? I think as long as we make it clear in the relevant articles where and how a non-NHS organisation works with, or has intimate connections with, or influences the NHS we should be OK on this. Possible examples - King's Fund, Independent Sector Treatment Centre, Royal College of Nursing, British Medical Association - all intimately bound up with NHS, but not 'part' of it.--Smerus 07:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading what I posted before, I have become confused over what I meant myself :). All I was really trying to point out is that editors should be careful when they are handling health articles in the UK that contain aspects of the Private sector. Some articles are entirely NHS, some are entirely Private and then there are some which are are a strange combination of the two. I suppose that as long as editors keep this concept in the back of their minds whilst editing then we shouldn't run into too much trouble. Road Wizard 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The heading "public v. private" might be part of the problem. For NPOV, I was thinking along the lines that "UK healthcare: NHS & other" would get closer to a decent structural answer in the NHS project, because the top-level purpose is healthcare. I've started to make those links, along with a possible structure of main articles on the project page like NHS Institutions and Organisations where the second half includes bodies like Healthcare Commission. --Mereda 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public vs. Private 

message: One of the articles I was looking for ages ago was one on Adgenda for Change, the new NHS pay scale - I couldn't find it, so today, rather than working on my blood pressure essay I started it.
--kylet 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, some real pro-active roll-out, to use standard contemporary NHS management jargon. Keep up the  good work - you have reminded me to take my statins this morning.--Smerus 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Agenda for Change]] 

message: Hey - am very interested in this project! Have already helped with the medical career structure box (together with smerus we seem to have got it just about covered now!). 
There has been some mention on this page about NHS staff roles/titles etc. This is something I've already done quite a bit of work on (I created Consultant (medicine), Specialist registrar, Matron and Senior Registrar, and have made extensive edits on Nurse etc.). So I'm more than willing to carry on doing this. Perhaps those of us who are interested in this area could come up with a structure for these pages (i.e. categories, general layout, maybe a box linking them all?). 
Incidentally, for any of you who are a little more au fait with wikipedia than I am, there is no user box for nurse or paramedic (well, not UK paramedics anyway! They have EMT-B, EMT-I and EMT-P from america), and probably a multitude of other healthcare professions - would very much like a nurse one for myself, and I'm sure our other colleagues would too!
I also agree with the comment above about the america-centric nature of alot of health service/health provision articles. There does need to be some work on highlighting the differences between the UK and the US.
Finally, a bit of shameless plug - is there anybody reading this who is interested in First Aid? Am trying to set up my own project on this! See User:John24601/Wikiprojectfirstaid --John24601 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was something like template:user doctor for nurses etc. --John24601 15:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread your previous post - I really need to clean my glasses :). I haven't created a userbox before, but if you want one I might as well learn now. Would you like me to use an NHS logo instead of the "star of life"? Road Wizard 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a quick one for paramedics I threw together based on the example you provided: Template:User UK paramedic. The article link on UK paramedics hasn't been created yet so it is currently red. The user will also be placed in  Category:Physician Wikipedians. Is this ok? I will get to work on a Nurse one now. Road Wizard 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * And here is the nurse one: Template:User NHS nurse. This user box also uses the Category:Physician Wikipedians. Road Wizard 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ** Both userboxes now point to categories for their own professions - :Category:Paramedic Wikipedians and :Category:Nurse Wikipedians. Road Wizard 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things 

message: I have created an infobox for NHS Hospitals. Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements?  If we can agree what the infobox should contain, we will be able to use it as a basis for all other NHS infoboxes, thereby maintaining a consistent look to the articles. Thanks. Road Wizard 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, just a couple of small suggestions - It might be better to split patients/year into inpatients/year and outpatients/year, as I think this is how the data is published, and it also gives important information about a hospital (e.g. some hospitals may have huge outpatient departments but hardly any inpatients). Or if that's gonna get too complicated, you might find it easier to just have the number or beds - that's  a pretty good indicator of hospital size. You might also want to specify what type of hospital it is (e.g. teaching hospital, district general hospital, psychiatric hospital, cottage hospital), whether or not it's a specialist centre (e.g. Newcastle is a regional centre for heart transplantation), and give some information regarding its A&E services (i.e. minor injuries unit, full A&E, whether or not it handles major trauma, is it open 24 hours/day?), although maybe that's just me (I'm an A&E specialist).--John24601 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no. of beds may be a doubtful indicator - likely to be changing downwards these days :-{! Maybe replace patients and beds with outpatients and inpatients. I agree that type of hospital would be helpful. As regards A&E, maybe just whether present or not? Details - and details of specialities - could perhaps be better situated in main article. How about also adding SHA? --Smerus 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have now updated the template with your suggestions on beds, patients, A&E and type of hospital. However, I have a couple of questions: 1) What information do you see being entered into hospital type and where can it be found? 2) What is SHA and why should it be added? Thanks. Road Wizard 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SHA - I was thinking of Strategic Health Authority - would indicate which region they came under. But as you have the Trust they belong to, SHA whould on 2nd thoughts better feature on a template for NHS Trusts. One other thing - do you think the template should feature the NHS logo - see e.g.Template:NHS medical career grades--Smerus 11:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can probably include the logo. I will play around with the template a bit to try to fit it in neatly. Road Wizard 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hospital type = Teaching Hospital, District General Hospital, Cottage Hospital etc. It can be found on the hospital trust's website (which reminds me, maybe we should include the name of the hospital trust responsible as well e.g. Hull Royal Infirmary is part of the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust); SHA = Strategic Health Authority, the regional body responsible for healthcare. --John24601 11:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. From Smerus's comments above, I don't think I will include SHAs, unless you have any objections? Thanks again. Road Wizard 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a couple of changes (sorry, should have checked here first) - mainly wikifying the template so that we don't have to keep typing ... when using it.  Another point worth considering is that getting information (staff & patient numbers etc.) is tricky for individual hospitals - it's much easier for trusts as a whole.  One possible addition could be the size of the hospital site? Waggers 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is a good idea & I've put it on the stub I've done for the RUH but I wasn't sure what was wanted re: A&E - I also had a problem with county as it is in a unitary authority so I've used the old ceremonial county - I don't have picture of the hospital (yet). I note the bottom link is to the list of UK hospitals - will this be superseeded by the category?Rod 10:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to give numbers for inpatient and outpatient for a maternity hospital which talks about 4-5000 births a year — Rod talk 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod, sorry I didn't respond to your earlier comment, I must have missed it. I started up a discussion last month about what statistics should be included in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital. Waggers made a suggestion about a possible source for statistics but I haven't done anything further with it yet. I would appreciate your comments on what should and should not be included in the template. Also from your earlier comment, it looks like we will need to agree which type of county we should be placing on the template, if any. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since found another useful source of information: .  For England only, I'm afraid. Waggers 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: Hi there,I am watching you roll out your programme, to use NHS-speak. Do you not think that - since of course many Hospital Trusts include more than one hospital - :Category:NHS hospitals should itself be a category of :Category:NHS Hospital Trusts? It seems to me this would be right. Best regards --Smerus 08:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we can make 'NHS hospitals' as a child of 'NHS foundation Trusts' as not all of the former are the latter. Perhaps we are safer to leave 3 separate categories at the same level. The hospital infobox will say which 'hospital trust' a hospital belongs to. Where an individual hospital is also a Foundation Trust it can be categorised as both 'foundation trust' and 'hospital trust'. Strictly I suppose there should be 2 mutually-referencing articles for each foundation hospital, one for the Trust (history, board members, notable facts or incidents), one for the hospital itself.--Smerus 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Am in the middle of creating an article which deals with nursing in the UK (and specifically, the NHS). The current article (see Nurse) does have some information, but I think we'd be better served by a further article which goes into much more detail. Have put it here (in my userspace) as I'm not sure on exactly what the title should be. It's provisionally titled NHS Nurses, what do you think? The article itself is obviously not finished yet, but feel free to add to it. --John24601 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Nurses in the United Kingdom"? This will be a less ambiguous title for international readers. If someone eventually writes a separate article about private sector nurses in the UK we can consider at that time whether an NHS specific name is appropriate. Road Wizard 15:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! "Nursing in the United Kingdom" would be neat as a new main article.--Mereda 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There exists an article Nursing which has a few paragraphs about the UK. Therefore I suggest you use the title Nursing (United Kingdom) to contain your article and anything relevant in that article - then you can delete the UK passage in Nursing and insert 'See separate article', with a link under the heading. And you can reference back the main article Nursing in your article. Best regards --Smerus 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: You might add a heading on Nursing and Midwifery Council near the head of your article with a brief description and a link to the exisitng article on the topic.--Smerus 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the best way of linking this to the :Category:British nurses?Rod 10:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have doe a bit of copyediting on Nursing (United Kingdom), but it has thrown up a number of red-links where articles are needed (some for the new :Category: NHS defunct bodies!)--Smerus 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nursing 

message: Should we start a list of defunct NHS articles? Given the rapid pace of change in the NHS there is likely to be a significant number of old articles that are no longer relevant. Once we begin to list them, we can decide whether they should be saved as a historical record, merged with another article or deleted. I will begin the list with the article that inspired me to introduce this section. Road Wizard 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might also help to have a :Category:NHS defunct bodies which I've linked to "Category:Former public bodies in the United Kingdom" . Don't know why the edit here didn't show category text in square brackets --Mereda 10:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good one - btw you need to put a colon (:) after the square bracket and before the word 'category' to get the Category box to show -  thus :Category:Former public bodies in the United Kingdom--Smerus 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct Articles 

message: Does anyone have any ideas how we should start to "Establish a set of standards for NHS articles"? I have placed it at the top of our "to do" list as it is mentioned on the main project page under the title "What needs to be done". However, I am at a total loss as to how to start on it. Perhaps we should just leave the criteria listed as a set of goals to aim for when editing articles and leave it at that? Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. As no one has responded on this, I will change the "establish standards" section to a list of goals we are aiming for. I will also remove it from our to-do list later today. Road Wizard 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establish standards 

message: Could anyone who has the knowledge add something about teaching hospitals in the NHS in the article Teaching hospital? At the moment it contains a sentence or two about the US and a paragraph on Ancient Persia. If it had something on the UK (or maybe if there was a separate article Teaching hospital (NHS)) , we could use it as a standard link on the NHS hospital infobox. --Smerus 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teaching hospital]]s 

message: There are 15 NHS regions in NHS Scotland and after July 1st there will be  ten in England (each with an SHA - now listed). Someone can doubtless tell us how many there are in Wales and N. Ireland.
I propose that we treat each of these regions as an NHS category (as is already the case with :Category:NHS Grampian). Hopitals and Trusts located in each region can then also be categorised by region.
We will need to have an article for each of the regions. I propose that for England the 'header' article for each region be an article on the SHA.
To assist all this we need to have a template for NHS Trusts- giving for example region, type of trust, annual budget, name of Chairman and Chief Executive. I will try to design one for your comments. In the meantime I invite comments on this proposal for regions.--Smerus 08:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smerus, how will we avoid these articles from remaining stubs throughout their existence? While I have no doubt they are notable, how do you envisage populating them with useful information? JFW | T@lk 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. At present I am working abroad; I will have no problem developing the stubs I have started (such as Enfield Primary Care NHS Trustwhere I am in fact a non-executive director) when I am back in the UK.  I suppose it is a moral responsibility to develop a stub once one has started it! One problem is that the NHS coverage in WP has been so full of holes that it has been necessary to put up a large number of stubs in order to demarcate the area to be covered, if I can mix metaphors. Perhaps helpers in the WikiProject could in the near future dedicate a couple of weeks to expanding stubs - should we try this? --Smerus 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we could do with a "collaboration of the month" style template for the project page (and, for the willing, our user pages) to focus our efforts on the neediest articles.  From what I've seen, quite a few wikiprojects take this approach and (as long as it's updated often enough), it seems to work.  (The exception being the UK geography project, where the "collaboration of the month" has been Dartmoor for most of this year!) Waggers 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "collaboration of the month" or similar might be a good idea - but we probably need to recruit a few more project members to get much done. I'm away in Korea for the next couple of weeks & will be busy, with variable access, but when I get back would be willing to get more involved. — Rod talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHS Regions 

message: * A bit of a tiswas has developed over the use of Template:NHS-stub, and hence :Category:NHS stubs. See their talk pages and also look here, where I am trying to rectify the situation. Please support my proposals there if you agree with them.--Smerus 08:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A different, but related, issue we may want to look at is the use of "medical" as the parent category instead of "healthcare".  Certainly in the NHS, if not worldwide, "medical" staff are doctors or people having a degree in medicine, and the term excludes nurses, therapists, scientists and other healthcare providers.  I don't want us to bite off more than we can chew, but we may need to try and get "medical" changed to the more generic, and inclusive, "healthcare" at some stage. Waggers 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the use of healthcare or even health - however I've been having this argument for years & still not winning. Another slight worry I have is about the use of the NHS logo on info boxes etc - I remember a case a few years ago when a site (very critical of NHS management) was threatened with prosecution for using the logo without permission. — Rod talk 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the logo is protected by (Crown) copyright.  It's use on the main NHS article is probably ok in terms of "fair use", but elsewhere we may be on dodgy ground.  However, the same standard of "fair use" should equally apply to trust logos on trust and hospital article pages, so that may be the solution.  It means uploading a whole heap of images though! Waggers 12:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any update on this?  There's been no further comment at the Stub Sorting proposals page since my rant of 10th June - presumably this is because there are no further arguments against :Category:NHS stubs (or :Category:National Health Service stubs if that's preferred) and we're free to re-create the category again... Waggers 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the rules of stub creation you can create a new stub-template/stub-category if there has been no objection after one week (it does not say how to deal with it if there has been any objection). As Carabinieri and Grutness have both objected, I would suggest you take the issue forward by discussing the matter with them on an individual basis. If they are willing to remove their objections, then you should be free to go ahead. Road Wizard 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad someone managed to get a grip on the bureaucracy!  I've done as you suggested. Waggers 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, of those two users, one says he still doesn't know the difference between medical and healthcare but doesn't care any more, and the other has no further objections.  It looks like we can go ahead, but first I guess we should consider whether we need to.  After all, we can use the "what links here" from the stub template, and ignore the category, if we need to for the project.  One thing I think we should do, though, is push for the use of "health" or "healthcare" rather than "medical", as the latter is misleading.  I can think of a number of people who would take offense if we started referring to all NHS staff as medics!  Any thoughts? Waggers 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend go for the full stub, including 'National Health Service stub' as category name (i.e. not 'NHS stub' as a name) - that seems to deal with all angles ---Smerus 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be useful (whatever the name) & there are a large number of NHS related pages which could do with it - if we are to put this onto pages do we remove the med-org-stub from pages which get the new NHS one? This could also help to populate the "NHS collaboration of the week" which doesn't seem to be achieving much? — Rod talk 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll leave it a few more days to see if there are further objections, then we can go ahead with the new stub category.  We wouldn't need to manually change every article, no; changing the category on the NHS stub template itself will automatically do that for us. Waggers 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHS stubs 

message: I have been bold and made a major change of layout to the main project page. I felt that the page had become cluttered with too much information, and that potential new members may be scared away by trying to work their way through it all. To improve the situation, I have borrowed a layout from Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help that separates the information into more manageable sections. Can I please have your comments on whether you think this is an improvement, or if I have been too bold? We can always revert the changes if you do not like them. Thanks. Road Wizard 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks great.  My only niggle is that the subpages don't carry the same font and colour scheme, making them feel a bit disjointed from the front page.  But that's a minor thing. Waggers 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Many thanks RW, great improvement. --Smerus 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have now changed the font & colour settings for each of the sub-pages, but not talk pages. I am happy for you to play around with the style if you think of something better. Road Wizard 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major change of layout 

message: I have now listed our first Collaboration of the week. I decided to be original and went with the first page list under A in our stub category. Can as many editors as possible spend a few minutes each week to improve the selected article? Working together we will begin to see a dramatic improvement. Please also make suggestions as to which pages we should collaborate on in future. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to start on this collaboration agenda, but I suggest 1 hospital a week is going to make progress pretty slow. Why not, for example, 'hospitals beginning with A' or 'Hospitals in NHS Grampian'? We could then all get stuck in. --Smerus 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on how much time people are willing to put into the collaboration each week. If the others are willing to expand the focus by including more subjects, then I don't see much problem with your suggestion. I would point out though that it is not just hospital pages we would be expanding, though they do make up the bulk of our stubs. Road Wizard 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I have been a little snowed under for the last week. I will try and get some of those fleshed out a little though before this Friday. Road Wizard 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the week 

message: To keep the ball rolling I have proposed 'hospitals in the NHS Grampian region'.--Smerus 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have been a little snowed under for the last week. I will try and get some of those fleshed out a little though before this Friday. Road Wizard 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New collaboration

message: I see from discussions above that concerns were raised over the copyright status of the NHS logos we have been using in templates and articles. From reading Wikipedia's guidance on copyright, the emphasis is on removing copyrighted content unless we are certain that we either have a strong fair-use argument or that our use of the content does not otherwise breach copyright. I don't think the fact that we have replaced the NHS logo image with a mock-up made from a blue background and white font on the templates is any real defence in law. Unless someone can present a good argument for retention, I would suggest that we remove the logos from anywhere that their use cannot be justified (fair use on specific individual articles). I have started a list below of where I am aware that an NHS logo is in use. I would appreciate any comments, or additions to the list. Road Wizard 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can justify use in the articles themselves - particularly articles on NHS organisations (as opposed to hospitals, etc.).  I agree that we probably shouldn't be using it in stub templates and the like, though.  If you look at articles on private companies (Southern Water springs to mind, as I've worked on that one), you'll see that using company logos in articles for illustrative purposes seems to be considered fair use. Waggers 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright logos 

message: How do we want to handle the trust and hospital articles? Currently we seem to be aiming for an article for every trust and an article for every hospital. In the short term at least, this will lead to a very large number of stub articles being created. Here are a few options we might want to go with:
#Carry on with 1 article per trust and 1 article per hospital.
#Have 1 article per trust including information on its associated hospitals. Hospitals can have separate articles when their sections become big enough to warant one.
#Have lists of Trusts with sections that can be expanded for details of each one. Trusts can have separate articles when their sections have expanded enough to justify them.
#Leave the situation alone and let the situation develop without trying to impose any control.
If you can think of any other options, please list them as well. Thanks. Road Wizard 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with many NHS organisations, particularly those affected by Commissioning a Patient-Led NHS, is that the articles are going to be almost identical for the ten strategic health authorities and the new PCTs.  Their history etc. is the same because it's come about through central decision making and apart from a few demographic stats, there's very little to say about each one!  Hospitals are a little easier as they usually have a distinct history.  I'm all for including hospitals as sections of the acute trust articles, but I've no idea how to start on SHA or PCT articles without making them carbon copies of one another.  Any suggestions? Waggers 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trust and hospital articles 

message: Although I believe the this Wikiproject is improving the quality (and organisation) of articles about the NHS & related areas it isn't happening very fast. I feel we need to get others involved & have asked some colleagues from the RCN to look at the page about that organisation & nursing topics. I have written and sent off a piece for the new magazine of the BCS Health Informatics Forum asking for readers to get involved in improving the relevant wikipedia articles. I have now been asked to do a piece for the RSM journal He@lth Information on the Internet & need to do something that is a bit different - what do you feel are the key points which need to be included & emphasised to get people involved? — Rod talk 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I haven't responded sooner. If you are trying to get people involved who have no knowledge of Wikipedia, I assume you are going to cover the basics, so there is no need for me to do so as well. I assume that this article will be aimed at people with a knowledge of medical subjects? If so, then I think you should place emphasis on neutrality and sourcing. People with specialist knowledge are very helpful to Wikipedia, except that they often include details they take for granted, but which can't be verified. As for the "something that is a bit different", I don't think I can help you too much. Road Wizard 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the first of these has now been published as Online encyclopaedia is in need of redrafting lets hope it generates some activity.— Rod talk 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting others involved 

message: When creating NHS articles, can I point out that unless the content relates to all four countries of the UK, that stating "the NHS in Britain", "Britain's NHS", "the United Kingdoms NHS" etc is simply wrong.  There has never been a body called the UK NHS.
Examples were (until I edited them):
*NHS Trust - "National Health Service Trusts (NHS Trusts) provide many services of the United Kingdom National Health Service."
**There are no NHS trusts in Scotland, these were replaced a few years back.
*NHS Pension Scheme - "The NHS Pension Scheme is a large pension scheme for people who work for the British National Health Service." 
**Again Scotland has a scheme administered differently.
*NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service -  The "NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS) is the organisation with the remit to protect the staff, assets and resources of the NHS."
**Different to the two above as there is no distinction between the devolved NHS, where as in this example the NHS CFSMS is not a body in Scotland, yet the article infers that.
I am not a radically patriotic Scot, BTW.     Panthro 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating NHS articles specific to the 4 countries 

message: Is the NSH involved in any official health resource allocation projects? Many other health organizations are starting to look at ways to allocate health dollars on a more equal basis (such as on population characteristics) instead of simply using past budgets as an indicator (same money even if disease profile has changed). I may add this to the NSH article or to the article on health economics if there is such a project. --ShaunMacPherson 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource allocation projects 

message: Yesterday the Healthcare Commission made available data about all NHS trusts in relation to Quality of Services and Management of Resources (see Healthcare Commission - search our findings should an excerpt of this data (or a link to the HC site specific page) be included in each of our entries for trusts etc?— Rod talk 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think its definatly relevent. A link to the URL in the infobox, and a section in the article on the rating and rationale for the rating? --RickiRich 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? inclusion of Healthcare Commission data 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia: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 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: 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) 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] needs YOU! 

message: Hi all.  I am working on List of hospitals in Wales at the moment.  I will have a page for each Trust, together with at least a stub on every hospital (at first, until there's enough to spin off into their own article, all info on a hospital will be within the appropriate Trust). Proto::type 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of hospitals in Wales]] 

message: I have a proposal to merge Template:Infobox NHS hospital into an upgraded Template:Infobox Hospital (we really don't need a US Hospitals, Canadian Hospital, Australian Hospital templates etc). Some UK NHS hospitals already have Template:Infobox Hospital rather than the NHS-specific template. Whilst the NHS-template has good additional parameters to that of the currently US-centric Template:Infobox Hospital, all of these seemed appropriate to add into the Template:Infobox Hospital but in a manner than is more generic for any country and allowing for UK Private hospitals to be included as well as NHS.
See Template talk:Infobox Hospital for details on the proposal & discussion. My subpage User talk:Davidruben/Templates/Test1 has demonstrations. I don't think there should be anything too controvertial as any current article using the Template:Infobox Hospital will be hardly affected (just request to insert a country to the location details). See Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital re fairly meaningless (for an encyclopaedia) statistics within the current Template:Infobox NHS hospital that do not seem to be used by articles and should be dropped (this made the differences between the two templates quite small - again see the table in the proposal at Template talk:Infobox Hospital). Whilst almost all of the extisting Template:Infobox Hospital parameter names need to be kept for compatibility reasons (only 'Classification' for trauma coverage gets a newer more functional alternative parameter of 'Emergency'), some of my new parameter names seem awkwardly named. Can people have a look at the proposal at Template talk:Infobox Hospital and offer any alternative names for the parameters ? David Ruben  Talk  13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied from Jfdwolff's talk page:David Ruben  Talk  13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think NHS hospitals should have dedicated boxes. A hospital is a hospital. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence I hope that the more generic "Org/Group" parameter will allow mention of NHS trusts or health boards where these exist, or other controlling body  - so what should it be for Scottish NHS hospitals ? David Ruben  Talk  17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Scotland only has health boards, with their hospitals sub-divided usually into "Acute Division".  Trusts were abolished in 2000. Panthro 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a one-on-one link i.e. each Hospital run by one dedicated Health Board or might a Health Board run several hospitals ? David Ruben  Talk  23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Template:Infobox Hospital has been upgraded to include additional features. Template:Infobox NHS hospital is now depreciated and I have recoded it so that its parameters defined a subset of the generic Template:Infobox Hospital. Please see details on the template pages about how to upgrade articles to the full generic template (additional parameters and automatic wikilinking provided). I would appreciate help in this upgrade as there are quite a lot of hospitals involved... :-) David Ruben  Talk  05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade proposal 

message: I've had a couple of suggestions and amended and renamed a couple of the parameters in the proposed upgrade to Template:Infobox Hospital. I would appreciate comment on choice of parameter names, e.g. 'HealthCare' vs. Funding, alternatives to 'Standards' (applies to developing countries with external accreditation certification), 'Region' vs Area (for the current County. but this does not apply outside of UK & US). In the next day or so, I shall implement the changes (see demonstration) and redirect this UK-centric template across to the generic template... David Ruben  Talk  03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox Hospital has been upgraded to include additional features. Template:Infobox NHS hospital is now depreciated and I have recoded it so that its parameters defined a subset of the generic Template:Infobox Hospital. Please see details on the template pages about how to upgrade articles to the full generic template (additional parameters and automatic wikilinking provided). I would appreciate help in this upgrade as there are quite a lot of hospitals involved... :-) David Ruben  Talk  05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last call for comment

message: 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 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Comments about proposed NHS WikiProject are welcome here.
----
Congratuations on creating the project, a few thoughts:
* Most wikiprojects also have a section on their projectpage to list "Participants" to the project. This includes a summary of their "Special interests" (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine), so on this project people might list themselves as being doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, administrators, practice managers, accountants, etc etc.
* It is stated that "no parent of this WikiProject has been defined". However is not the NHS's primary aim that of health care provision and as such should it not be a daughter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Health ?
* A suggestion for an additonal stated aim of this project and one that is perhaps too politely hidden in the current description of aims - namely the redress of health-provision topics that are US-centric and thus make little sense to the UK reader. Hence until very recently the glaring ommission of articles for District nurse or Health Visitor had not been picked up. Whilst I have added stubs as to what these are, they need expanding in terms of their history and a better description of the service provision that they provide with respect to the NHS as a whole (my perspective is that of being a General Practitioner). David Ruben  Talk  08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many thanks for these constructive suggestions. You are spot on about professions and job-titles within the NHS, which needs a lot of work by someone who (unlike me) knows about them. --Smerus 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: An issue has arisen with using the infobox for vanished hospitals - the case in point being Highlands Hospital. Whilst I belieive the topic deserves an article, using the standard infobox alongside it (with its categories such as emergency services, website, responsible authority, etc.) seems to me rather misleading. So I want to propose a convention that the infobox is only used for actual hospitals which are still used for treating illness - especially as there are so many active hospitals where the infobox is not up yet. Please give your opinion.--Smerus 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that closed hospitals still warrant having an infobox, but that it should make clear the hospital is closed.  The current infobox does that (it's always had a closed date as part of the history section) although arguably it should be made clearer.  What services the hospital offered and who managed it are still relevant information so shouldn't be removed from the infobox.  The point of an infobox is to give summary information on the article, not to say "this hospital is still open". Waggers 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the hospital infobox 

message: By the way, as this page is getting rather long, I have set up the auto-archive feature which you can see at the top, which should make it easier to find our way about current issues. Archived items will continue to be available at a click.--Smerus 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Waggers 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although Werdnabot is currently offline, Shadowbot3 has taken over the archiving of pages that have the Werdnabot archival template on them, so using the Werdnabot templates should still work. Waggers 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Wikipedia: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.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] 

message: Should not the project rate articles for importance and quality with the  ?  An assessment page would be similar (without the separate taskforces) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. 
For sandbox of proposed template coding additions, see :Template:WPNationalHealthService/Sandbox (all the category red links will go once they are created).
Clearly 3 service articles of NHS get Top importance, along with such topics as Department of Health. Teaching hospitals or National centres (eg NHNNS Queen's Square) are High, and district general hospitals of Mid importance with community hospitals of Low importance (we would need set up some clear pointers to such scaling system). David Ruben  Talk  19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add article classification ? 

message: It could definitely use some more activity, the project is not inactive. I found a edit on one of the sub pages within the past few weeks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing inactive header 

message: ... all state everyone has the right to an ambulance. This isn't true as far as I am aware, you get one if you need one but if you can get there under your own power (or your condition is not serious enough to warrant it) they decide you don't get one. No? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Ambulance servies articles... 

message: I have added at least one reference that came from outside the HPC (Health Professions Council) website, and a number of inlinks to other articles not related to the NHS. If the NHS articles are to have any meaning, each related article should provide the same. 
I also removed the section on "history of the HPC" because it was not only unreferenced, but contradicted the dates/names given in the previous definitional section. Guptan99 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HPC article 

message: I am staunchly anti-HASCB, as may be evident from the slant I used in authoring the article which I freely admit quite often verges on POV (others can fix this, obviously) — but that said, I really do want to see pro-HASCB views added to the Support section. When I say pro-HASCB views, I don't mean overall negative views with selected instances of positivity within them. I mean positive views that are 95-100% positive, and contain perhaps the same ferocity in the positivity of those reactions as opponents have their ferocity in the negativity of theirs. Can anyone find any? And if no one can find any, I would want to see a source cited within the Support section explicitly stating that officially, no such collection of groupings with such positive views can be found. I'd like to see evidence of a lack of a fact just as much as I'd like to see evidence of a fact itself. Make sense? The reason I'm not doing this myself is I can't find any of the things I'm saying I want to see. Therefore, it would fall probably to a HASCB supporter to find these things. HASCB supporters, step up! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Health and Social Care Bill]] article 

message: There is discussion at the above AfD as to which NHS hospitals should or should not be considered notable, and what the bar is to pass WP:GNG, that could do with wider input.
I don't know if such a thing already exists, but it might be useful for this project to set out a note of what sort of things a basic entry-level article on an NHS hospital should aim to contain; and perhaps co-ordinate a drive to turn List of hospitals in England blue, at least for as many hospitals as are considered do pass notability.  Royal Surrey County Hospital seems to me a reasonable example of the sort of facts a basic stub article should aim to contain.  Jheald (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Articles for deletion/Scarborough General Hospital]] 

message: Per subject. Is anybody reading those pages? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is not like the editing is coordinated in any way... JFW | T@lk 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced that this project is active any more. Its scope seems to be covered by WikiProject Hospitals mainly (with no explicit UK-specific interest) and to some extent WP:Medicine. Many of the hospitals now being tagged in WP:Hospitals do not have the NHS project template, and the WP assessment scheme is not enabled for this project. There would seem to be no other logical place to gather NHS organisational structures (Trusts, etc), however. Does anyone have a view? Clearly a lot of good work was put in around 2005-8, and this has been built upon additively, driven by the personal interest of employees and patients over the years. Would it be too bold to suggest that either the project should be brought back to life or now retired formally? welsh (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this project still active? 

message: I would appreciate comments for or against my proposal to merge Emergency medical personnel in the United Kingdom into Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom. Please see Talk:Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom#Proposed merge with Emergency medical personnel in the United Kingdom. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello there. I couldn't find an article on NHS Pathways, the telephone triage system that is gradually replacing the AMPDS system in many UK 999 ambulance control rooms, and is being employed in a greater capacity by 111, NHS Direct and Out of Hours GP agencies - so I created one. I don't know what categories to add and I'm sure it can use some expansion. Who knows, the article may already exist somewhere under another title, but I couldn't find it! S.G.(GH) ping! 12:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NHS Pathways]] 

message: Hallo, A large number of articles have been created recently for NHS Trusts (eg Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust), so please chip in and improve any you are interested in. Is there an infobox enthusiast out there who could assemble a decent  template? The infoboxes at present are handcrafted, of a non-standard width, and could do with some help. PamD 23:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was previously such an infobox template but it was deleted back in 2008 due to lack of use / being abandoned. I've copied the old box to User:Waggers/sandpit/Infobox NHS Trust so we can start playing with it to bring it up to date. I would suggest that "last annual budget" should be taken off (as it's unlikely that we'll manage to find that information for every trust, every year, and keep all the articles up to date), and we should add a list of hospitals owned/managed by the trust. Any other suggested modifications? WaggersTALK 12:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks - looks as if the infobox the current editor has been adding to articles is based on that, with it's slightly weird "Wikilinks" field etc. He said he found it in an existing article, though it's been added as code, rather than a template. PamD 08:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHS Trusts 

message: Wikipedia struggles to keep up with NHS reorganisation.  This project is barely alive.  I've done quite a lot of work on creating articles for NHS Trusts, and sorting out the categories, which were very neglected.  My biggest problem has been creating articles about private providers.  I am forced to defend myself against accusations of advertising when I produce new articles, for example Cygnet Health Care.
The page ==NHS Categories==  is very out of date, and I am afraid I have already reorganised some of them before I saw it.Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: This is a notice about :Category:National Health Service articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention 

message: Just a quick thing Stafford Hospital is now called County Hospital, Stafford and the University Hospital of North Staffordshire is now called Royal Stoke University Hospital. I will start changing the links in due course. C. 22468   Talk to me 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staffordshire Hospitals 

message: 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: An editor has been adding large amounts of content to National Health Service. This amount goes way beyond WP:UNDUE, and seems to be a collation of every negative article the editor can find about the topic, instead of a balanced summary of the topic. After discussion at the talk page, I removed a whole chunk of material, but was reverted by the editor. Could other editors give their opinion here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Health Service]] 

message: Seeing as the ransomware attack came to international attention when the NHS got infected, I'm posting here about the current event article to encourage you to participate in its creation. — Gestrid (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the section name due to a page move. — Gestrid (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WannaCry ransomware attack]] 

message: When you use "Search Wikipedia"
and type in this:
"Barts Health N.H.S. Trust"
you don't get this existing page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barts_Health_NHS_Trust#/search
even using "search within pages".
-- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliasing (or something; don't know the jargon) needed 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: *
* 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Derrick Morris]]