Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hospitals

Hospitals Project‑class

This page 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.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please see a proposed split discussion here

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rajah Muthiah Medical College#Requested move 3 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital for Special Surgery currently has a DAB link to "Hospitals in New York" in the infobox that doesn't show up in the code, so is it programmed elsewhere to appear there automatically? Should a DAB be there? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink seems to be automatically added by the infobox Template:Infobox hospital/lists based on the region coding in it. In particular what's currently header 52 and label 54. It partly relies on the subtemplate Template:Infobox hospital/lists. I agree linking to the disambiguation page List of hospitals in New York doesn't make much sense and will see if I can get someone to update the lists subtemplate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This project looks fairly inactivate, however if there is anyone paying attention, Great Ormond Street Hospital currently rated as high importance, looks like it may need some work. [1] In particular, it seems to have become a classic example of the problem with controversy sections as the section seems to have become a dumping ground for anything critical the media once reported that someone cared enough to add. Heck a whole bunch of stuff start with "it was revealed". From what they say, it seems unlikely all of these have long term significance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]