User talk:Rathfelder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Making the NHS edits work[edit]

Hi Martin, good to catch you here on Wikipedia.

As you'll have found out there is a strict and strange etiquette here on WP and - because of its importance to the whole ethos of WP - you'll find many people will uphold this etiquette over and above just general information. You can't get away with Mostly Harmless here, I'm afraid. To be honest, I'm still learning and still getting things wrong.

More than happy to do what I can to help with the NHS Articles. If you look at how thin the NHS England article is, given its importance within the system, then you'll get a sense of the mountain to climb.

But, once you get the system going, it's easy to copy and paste the references etc and use the same formula for many articles. Have a look at what I've done with your Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust article and you'll see what looks nearer what the editors are looking for.

I usually put the intro paragraph above the infobox, for clarity (I've yet to be told this is wrong) - and you'll see how I've used references and the shortcut for repeated use of the same reference. The protocol is that each statement of fact should be appropriately referenced within the text - and ideally referenced to somewhere precise enough for someone to check up (ie you can't just point to the annual report when the fact is on page 217). Normally it's not enough just to reference an organisation's website - you should be looking for third party references - usually from notable news sites (eg BBC Online, The Guardian etc). It's well worth reading Wikipedia notability Guidelines to help you understand where editors will come in and challenge what you're doing.

I hope all this is helpful and isn't telling you what you know already. And, working for the NHS, it still surprises me how few Trusts and organisations worry about their Wikipedia page.


Jpmaytum (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice to meet you here! I think I'm learning. I no longer get threats to delete my articles!
Someone needs to get NHS Comms people interested. I wonder how we could do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talkcontribs)
It would be worth reading WP:COI and/or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide: if an NHS Communications or PR person started to edit the article about their employer, this would be strongly disapproved of. If they find errors of fact, or have other suggestions, they should say so on the talk page (with sources) and leave it to independent editors to correct the article. PamD 13:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest."Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I don't see why a public not for profit institution like an NHS trust should not update basic information like the name of its chief exec or annual turnover. Rathfelder (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New Foundation Trust template[edit]

Hallo, have you noticed {{Infobox NHS Foundation Trust}}? It has been created, and nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Template:Infobox_NHS_Foundation_Trust (all votes so far being "Keep"). I think it looks useful - a standardised template is better than a mass of handcrafted ones, and will help improve the articles. I wonder whether it ought to be made more general, to include all NHS trusts? Do join in the discussion on the template's talk page at Template talk:Infobox NHS Foundation Trust. PamD 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation."Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Learn more about page curation.

interesting work[edit]

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

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

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

Hospitals vs NHS Trusts[edit]


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

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

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

I have been wondering what to do about this for some time. The NHS is in a state of flux and we can expect even more reorganising over the next few years. Wikipedia has found it hard to keep up anyway. Foundation Trusts seem likely to survive, and probably take over other services and buildings. Quite a few hospital trusts now run all sorts of services away from their main site. All official reports and evaluations, and most journalism, relates to trusts, not hospitals. So, for example mortality figures, financial information etc is only available at Trust level. Wikipedia's treatment of hospitals is variable, but often concentrates on the actual building more than the services provided. Some Trusts run several hospitals, and so it makes sense to have an article about the trust and another about each hospital. For those like James Paget where there is very clearly a main site it seems more sensible to combine the Trust entry with that of the main hospital. It is difficult see how to use the Wikipedia:Official names policy - because different people will use different names for what is fundamentally the same organisation. We clearly need an article about the Trust. We also need an article about the hospital. The question is, do they need to be two separate articles?
I was planning to go back to the JPH article and tidy it up. But if you think there should be two articles perhaps I should try and do that instead. I'd be grateful for your opinion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd argue that the physical hospital is more likely to outlive the Trust - especially in these bold days of Trusts being replaced or allows to be bankrupt and so on. For that reason more than any other I'd argue articles on hospitals are a better choice as the base article - they may change their names, but the physical building remains (or is closed in which case the article is a historical one). It's a bit like railway stations for example - some closed, some renamed, lots changed operator, but the physical building is a key reference point that's difficult to move. It's also a little like schools for many of the same reasons.
But then I do tend to think spatially. But that'd be my preference - stick with whatever the hospital is (commonly?) called (I would argue in just about every case). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm sure there's all sorts of interesting information about individual hospitals available however. History, for example, or the number of wards or beds or perhaps things such as infection outbreaks, specialist services and so on. The JPH/Lowestoft example highlights this well - clearly there is lots of information available about Lowestoft hospital, very much the smaller facility. Just because a bunch of statistics are currently published at another level doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about hospitals as well.
Can I ask if any consensus about this has been reached at either of the relevant wiki projects?
Btw, you might find it handy to indent response on talk pages. I think that's in the talk page guidance, I can't remember. It really helps,with readability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sadly the NHS wiki project seems to have died.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't have articles about hospitals. The problem comes when the Trust and the Hospital are pretty much one thing. The Lowestoft article is actually clearer when it relates to the article about the JPH Trust. Quite a lot of the information on the JPH article is not about the hospital. It's about the Trust. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Appletree Medical Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Appletree Medical Group, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Appletree Medical Group[edit]

Hi there, I saw your argument not to delete on this talk page. However, the merits of an organization has nothing to do with its notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Arguing that it's a good idea is a bad argument that it's famous. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if it's not advertising, neither is it notable - that is, famous for a reason. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I shall userfy your page for you. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is here: User:Rathfelder/Appletree Medical Group. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have discovered the source of the original story, and found a number of objective sources which I think collectively establish its notability. I would be grateful if it can now be restored. I don't think much of your approach. Deleting an article which is not finished without giving its author any opportunity to dispute your premature conclusion is not what I expect. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Appletree_Medical_Group, any other sysop can do so. I'd rather not get more involved. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Baumann[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Rathfelder/Appletree Medical Group (February 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appletree Medical Group (March 24)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Wiki Project NHS[edit]

Martin -

Can I encourage you to sign up to to the WikiProject National Health Service (which is very quiet at the moment) - as a way of trying to be a bit strategic about all the NHS articles.

What do you think?

Jpmaytum (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done it, but I think there is just thee and meRathfelder (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi - I note that you have sought to include financial results for GSTS Pathology into the article on Serco. I am not sure the point you are trying to make by including these numbers (rather than the results of any other subsidiary) and why they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GSTS Pathology is a joint venture which seems to be majority owned by NHS trusts. the question of whether these pathology ventures are financially viable is much debated, and whether such things are being used as loss leaders among those campaigning about privatisation of the NHS. Perhaps it would be clearer if I moved this bit into a separate article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. The figures lack context at the moment. It sounds as wikipedia would benefit from an article on pathology ventures if there isn't one already. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Independent Living Fund[edit]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appletree Medical Group (June 26)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Rathfelder, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

I have left a critique of the references on the draft article. The overall quality is poor, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Labour Party candidates[edit]

Hi. You have recently created quite a few articles for Labour Party candidates that do not appear to meet the notability criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN. Just being a Westminster candidate or a councillor is generally not sufficient notability. I have proposed deletion of most of these. Might I suggest you review the guidance on whether an individual is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Bondegezou (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are also now two deletion discussions going on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the articles are notable, but whether the subjects are. Each of these people has been featured in multiple independent articles, and is likely to be featured further as the election draws nearer. Each is a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". They are candidates in marginal constituencies, or constituencies likely to get a lot of coverage for other reasons.Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. If they have been the subject of multiple independent articles (not merely listed or mentioned as a candidate) then, of course, they will meet general notability criteria. Articles for local or unelected politicians generally get deleted, as per WP:POLITICIAN, so I would suggest that if the citations exist to show notability in these cases, you try to ensure they are included when you create the article to avoid uncertainty and debate.
If the citations don't exist yet, but you expect them to appear in due course, then it's generally better to wait until they do appear before creating the article. You can always create an article in a WP:sandbox if you want to work on one ahead of time. (And I think you're right that some of these may be clearly notable in due course.) Bondegezou (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am planning to improve these articles. Can I have a bit of time to work on them?Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you have put into these articles (and other articles -- your work on various NHS-related articles has been very helpful). However, I personally remain of the view that most of these candidate articles are premature. I would suggest sandboxing them until notability is clearer. Another possibility is to edit them to be re-directs to the relevant constituency page: then your work remains in the history and can be quickly restored if they're elected MPs (which would certainly be sufficient notability).
You are, of course, free to remove PROD tags before then and AfDs take a week (IIRC) to complete and you can say there if you've put in significant more citations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will take your good advice for those which I don't think meet the notability criteria now. But I would argue that some Labour candidates in safe Labour seats, where their election is almost certain, are probably notable now. Rathfelder (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The view on Wikipedia has generally been that, unless they meet general notability criteria, candidates are not notable in themselves, even if it is likely they will be elected. Once elected, of course, they are then notable, but until then, individuals are generally re-directed to the relevant election/constituency page. Also, whether or not something is likely to occur should be something determined by reliable source citations, not by individual editors (WP:CRYSTAL touches on this). Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That may be the view taken, but is it based on any evidence?Rathfelder (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm uncertain what you mean by "evidence" in this context. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that provide a framework in which editing takes place. WP:NTEMP is probably the most relevant here: in brief, the subject of an article is notable if there has been (past tense) significant coverage, but Wikipedia lags behind real world notability -- it does not seek to predict ahead of time who will become notable (see also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:POLITICIAN). That someone will probably be notable in the future is not a reason to create an article now. They must become notable first and then an article is warranted. Before then, information about candidates may be appropriate in the relevant election or constituency article (while respecting WP:RS and WP:UNDUE). Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Could you please add a space after the comma in DEFAULTSORT. Without the space, the sort algorithm sees only one long name instead of a surname and firstname. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That wasm't apparent to meRathfelder (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Alex Sobel. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)