This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals 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.
This stub is covered in main article where it has been merged and requires none of it's own. Indeed, the topic should be first expanded and referenced at the Ellis Island page until such time as it may require a separate page, if it ever does.Djflem (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Response posted on User talk page and response
Hey I would like it if you would stop reverting my edits on this page as I am trying to expand the page, but you mass-reverting it is not helping. So what if it is adequately covered in the main article? If anything, having the separate page is great because it will allow for people to know that it is there and expand it. Constantly reverting me is not cool because the hospital did exist for a long time, is a huge complex, and treated many people, something that a lot of the existent hospitals today have never done. As to your charge that it is covered better in the main article for Ellis Island, that is utter crap. There is more information potential in a separate page with a sentence and infobox with a photo than one which mentions the hospital in one sentence. Additionally, having the page within another article restricts its potential in more ways than one. I know you mean well, but please stop reverting me as I am trying to expand the encyclopedia, and reverting pages like that is not how I like to spend my time and energy. I'm sorry if I offend you here, but I am trying to not escalate the situation further and I don't want us to get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. Thank you for reading this and have a wonderful day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
After the material is written on the main page would be a good time to determine if the hospital requires a separate article, not before. At this time dispersing info in such a way is an ineffective approach to expanding this encyclopedia. The lack of content on the this page would require readers to head main article anyway. I look forward to seeing the substance there. Incidenetally, can you please post any discussion related to this topic on this page? Djflem (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Kevin may be right here. The Immigrant Hospital is clearly independently notable (see , , , etc.), and writing a full-length article on it in the Ellis Island page would be counterproductive. Going into the detail that this subject deserves would add a large chunk of very specific text to the Ellis Island page, and would distract from the article subject itself. I'm not sure why you're so averse to him writing a separate article on this: it can be quickly mentioned in the Ellis Island article with a link to this page. Furthermore, in the future you should not revert so many times without discussing. – GorillaWarfare(talk) 02:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Since you have been active but have not responded to this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and revert back to Kevin's version. – GorillaWarfare(talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is a redundant content fork, and adds no additional information to the topic already better covered in main artcile Ellis Island. Again, when the author provides content to tha article is the time to determine if and when it should be forked His desire, wish, promise, interest, intent to do so are accepted in good faith, that that an article doesn't make. Again, where is the content?????? Djflem (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have all the time I want to take as Wikipedia will never be finished. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You might want to use some of that time to read Wikipedia:Content forking, because despite your POV that diluting the integrity of the encyclopedia with crappy little stubs (such as the one you created here), it's actually not encouraged. How is any reader served coming to a page entitled Ellis Island Immigrant Hospital to read that it was was a hospital on Ellis Island and that they should hold their breath until Kevin writes it? Djflem (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a real difference between forking content from an article that all relates to each other, and forking content that is a separate entity. Let's just drop this as we're going nowhere fast and it isn't worth it to continue these silly debacles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Am happy to improve crappy little stubs on Wikipedia when worthwhile. If you ever make good on your threat to expand and actually do any writing (now with an abundance of material provided), you might first want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which states opening should be a summary of topics discussed within it and not some tag-on as your have now placed and I have corrected. Looks like your bratty "I have all the time I want" has yielded something positive after all. Djflem (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Lorie Conway (2007), Forgotten Ellis Island.. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)