Talk:Health care

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Nursing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Photo[edit]

Instead of the name-calling - how about we discuss the matter here. You do realize that you've used the wrong infobox template for the photo. Also, an infobox is supposed to provide additional information about the subject of the article - not to decorate the photo. Simply adding 'healthcare' title to the photo is pointless. Another problem is that the current photo is a little redundant, we can do much better than just a photo of a row of buildings. Perhaps something like this [1] would be better. -SFK2 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your picture would go very very well under the primary care section. The current picture is a superb way to introduce the topic as a whole and it could definitely use an infobox, maybe you can suggest a different template? I think the template I proposed is simply a good place to start, not to decorate. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Image added as such. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how an aerial photo of a row of buildings is a 'superb way' to introduce an article on health care. Especially when it's not immediately clear from the photo which building is the hospital. I think the point is that the article doesn't need an infobox - "it looks good" isn't really a valid reason.-SFK2 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Your picture really belongs in the primary care section, SFK2. It looks strange at the top, because emergency room care is only one type of health care. The caption of the original picture can be modified to meet your concern mentioned above, there was no reason for you to remove it without consensus for replacement with yours. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced it with the original image at the top, which had already been there for a while, and changed the caption to meet your concern. The ER image goes in the primary care section, where it belongs. Before you get into an edit war, which you normally do with others, I would first like to see what others think. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is a better presentation of 'healthcare' from a non-US centric point of view: an emergency room or a photo of specific hospital in New York amidst a row of other buildings? I'd like to hear an actual justification for the use of that photo - particularly how "it's a superb way to introduce the topic". And to clarify for people reading this - I should point out that by "been there for a while" what you mean is that you just added it a month or two ago without seeking any discussion. -SFK2 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
In my opinion this photo isn't contributing much; but it would be difficult to substitute any one image to encapsulate such an abstract umbrella concept as "healthcare". If you look at an article on one object or location such as Brooklyn Bridge you expect to see, and do see, a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. But here, for a box at the top, it may be more useful to have a display of articles on the main aspects of healthcare, arranged systematically under "Primary care", "Secondary care" and so on. See Human Rights for an example. I've no problem with the photos further down, when we get to the various forms of healthcare - one or two more pix might be good : Noyster (talk), 12:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that there is a single picture that can aptly represent the entire topic. But that shouldn't be used a rationale to keep an ambiguous photo of a hospital. Surely we can find something that is far more universally recognizable i.e. doctor, patient, emergency room or even the Caduceus. I do agree with the last point that a topical box would be a good addition. -SFK2 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Noyster, there's no ideal image to capture health care as a whole. But the image of this medical center comes close, and it is valuable for that. One of the world's busiest, it provides emergency, inpatient, and outpatient care, and primary, secondary, and tertiary care, so is broadly applicable to the topic and laudable for that. Unlike a picture of an empty ER (or even a full one). 24.190.174.194 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comes close to what? Showing the skyline of New York? "One of the busiest" is a WP:WEASEL term that doesn't really translate to any meaningful concept. Nor is there any reason why we should use "busy" as a criteria for including a particular hospital. Maybe I wasn't clear before but I should point out that I'm disputing whether the photo (that is, the image itself) is a good representation of article, not the relevance/quality of New York Presbytarian Hospital. So you can describe all the features of the hospital but it won't change anything because the photo is still ambiguous and as Noyster said "Isn't contributing much".-SFK2 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess you have a hard time reading (or interpreting), SFK2. Let me say it again, I think this medical centre image is a superb representation of the article, there are others who think it's at least reasonable, and certainly it's better than anything else so far. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
All I'm hearing is a bunch of lofty descriptions "valuable", "laudable", "superb", "one of the busiest". How exactly is it a good representation when it's still ambiguous even with the caption (there is more than one "white building" pictured). Also you haven't replied to concerns over WP:WEASEL. And who are these others that think it's reasonable? -SFK2 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to prolong this useless discussion. But since you ask, 24.190.174.194 (above), possibly Noyster (above, not strongly), 24.92.252.166 (5 May), 24.228.129.64 (29 April), Katieh5584 (21 March), and others who have changed the caption but kept the picture. So far at least, everyone except you. So many people can't be wrong. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Basically there's one other IP who strangely enough has a similar pattern of edits, overlapping contributions and is in close proximity geographically to you. I wonder what's happening here. Noyster's comments are clearly not an endorsement. User:Katieh5584's edit is routine maintenance (probably part of WP:RCP) and is not an endorsement either. -SFK2 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Humourous. I think the point is that people clearly find it reasonable, maybe some more than others. There's nothing more to say. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So the point is that there are people that clearly find it 'reasonable', we just don't know who.-SFK2 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)