Talk:Kaiser Richmond Medical Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gallery[edit]

Recently the gallery of images was removed uner the rationale: "Remove superfluous "gallery" of unattractive, uninformative photos. Any information in this section should be integrated into the article text."

But the images are not superfalous, one is of construction, one of the inside, one of the front entry, and the main non gallery photo is of the campus from afar. So clearly not superfalous. As for unatracctive i dont see what makes they the least bit unattractive. as for uninformative, the construction photo clearly provides a visual for the ongoing construction and the façade one a clearer view of the entry, and the chair one, helps expalin kaisers worldview, they should not be removed without discussion and should not be removed by inaccurate edit summaries. if the consensus is to removed of remove some, i say we dont removed until they can be placed in commons with their own category.CholgatalK! 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The captions should be worked into the article when pictures are removed, not deleted.CholgatalK! 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't refer to me directly in edit summaries, please simply state what your edit is doing. FRY discussion is required when someone brings it up. Why do you stalk me on every article I edit? You are not only removing the images you are removing the captions which should be worked into the article. If consensus states that they should be removed could you please add them to the commons and create a Richmond Medical Center gallery there, that would be very helpful. In the meantime if you insist on removal during disucussion which I am against, place the images here alongside their captions or work the captions into the actual article. Or just let it go, go edit Romani people or San Francisco or Phoenix, Arizona and leave me alone.71.142.84.165 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the three pictures either, but until the discussion settles, they should stay. For me the construction and interior shots don't display anything unique about the medical center (at one point it was constructed in a perfectly ordinary way and the interior contains factory made chairs and standard hallways). The exterior picture is OK, but isn't very different from the existing one (necessary admission: I took the earlier exterior shot myself). So, my vote is to remove the construction and interior shot and retain only one of the exterior. - Richfife 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons in a dedicated gallery with interwiki link then? Know how to do that?CholgatalK! 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find out. In the meanwhile, I think IL2BAs version is a better bet. - Richfife 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the arbitrary gutting of the services list?CholgatalK! 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:Construccionkaiserrick.jpg[edit]

It was removed with "Remove picture that illustrates NOTHING and is exceedingly ugly as well. It's a black blocky shape against an almost-as-dark sky, for chrissakes." as the rationale.

  • Illustrates nothing, The image clearly illustrates the construction and obvious could not be a photograpgh if it did not illustrate somthing. Or did you simply use "NOTHING" for dramatic effect meaning, inconsequential?
  • Ugly is extremely subjective, I can't find any ugly about it, what do you think is so ugly about the image?
  • Black block, I can't help if the building is black nor if its a block, just as well as i can't complain that the transamerica building is a coney white tower, it is what it is.
  • What does it matter if the sky is dark? Skies are both light and dark, black, grey, white, pink, rainy, snowey, foggy. This is the bay area for "chrissakes" have you been here? Overcast is more representative of what the sky looks like, blue skies look nice but are uncommon, as for brightness its plenty bright and not as dark as the black block, overcast is white in color so thats just wrong.

This image should be in the article it helps to illustrate the growth of the hospital.CholgatalK! 10:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to commons:User:Qrc2006, who took the image, it does, to me, appear to be a very low-quality image. Image:Construccionkaiserrich.jpg is low resolution, out of focus (see how the leftmost fifth of the image is blurry), and seems to have been compressed quite badly.
And besides, this really was a quite ordinary construction effort. This was not an extraordinary construction, such as that of, for example, the Eiffel tower. Anyway, I just came here to offer my own take on things, and I'll be leaving again now. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is that a keep, conditional keep, delete or just comment?CholgatalK! 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict with User:Cholga, below) Well, I had hoped my feelings would be clear enough by themselves, but just in case, I actually don't like the image, and think it lowers the quality of the article by being included (that's an against inclusion rationale then, I suppose). I actually feel similar feelings, to a slightly lesser extent to the other two images in the gallery above. I do, however, feel that the image at the top of the article at current, is a good one, if perhaps a bit too low-resolution for my likings. --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... it's certainly not the clearest photograph ever. I work on the guideline "would I understand what this photograph was illustrating if it didn't have a caption?", and in this case the answer would probably be "No". It would certainly be better to get an improved photo of the construction work. ELIMINATORJR 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case I'd keep it how it is for the time being (or move it to Commons - either is OK). ELIMINATORJR 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This is a copy and paste of this users comments on my talk page seen here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs).

  • I was asked to comment. The images does not seem to violate the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. Keep and replace if a better photo is provided to replace the present photo. However, if there is justification to delete in Wikipedia:Image use policy or search. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, this Google search is better. Dunno why more people don't use quotation marks w/Google; they really help to narrow the focus. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never knew you could use quotation marks. Thanks! -- Jreferee (Talk) 13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • C asked me to provide an opinion. I am indecisive. Its a poor image which doesn't really add much. But there is space in the article for it so removing it doesn't help much. Thats a "don't know" if you're in doubt William M. Connolley 08:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does help because it ... removes a poor-quality photo. As folks here are no doubt sick of hearing, I'll repeat that there's no rule that says that we must have pictures in a Wikipedia article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's view[edit]

In regards to the fact that there is actually no rule against an absence of pictures, it is always desirable to have a picture. Look at WP:GA? and decide for yourself.

Placement: WP:IMAGE gives me the impression that the surrounding text should warrant an image. For example, one line on construction doesn't warrant a photograph.

In my opinion, the image megapixels of 1.2 is not enough for publication on Wikipedia, but many other editors will disagree.

In summary, the image should be kept until an administrator deems it

a) bad quality b) unsuitable c) not notable.

If you don't want to keep it on the article page for now, just dump it here.

Thank you, Auroranorth 09:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been asked to comment on this picture as someone with no interest in this article. As a picture it shows what it intends to show, a great black area. But it is imperfectly focussed (or has rain on/near the lens). As an addition to an encyclopaedia I feel it adds nothing. I would not include it as part of an article unless the big black thing is fundamental to the article in question. I have deliberately not read the article before delivering this opinion. Fromthe article title I surmise that a big black thing is not the topic, though. Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i never do understand what people mean by add nothing, oh well =( thank you for providing your views and the big black thing is part of the topic, which is growing71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can see, to an extent, your point about "adding nothing", since an addition, ipso facto, adds "something". What I mean is that this picture, even if the big black thing is relevant, does not either do the black thing justice or the topic of the black thing justice. Hence the article overall is not enhanced by its addition. This is, of course, my opinion, of interest but little use by itself. It is only of use when others agree or disagree with at, at which point consensus develops, or has the chance to develop. During consensus building minds may well get changed. If you look at any worthwhile editor's history in discussion you will see that opinions alter when powerful arguments hold sway.
Should the topic surrounding the big black thing grow and be notable then the picture may become not only useful but essential. Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not asked to comment on the picture, but the previous user's talk page is on my watchlist at present, and I was curious... My opinion is very similar to the previous contributor: it is not a very good photo (I would not show it to my friends!), it is not at all obvious what the subject is supposed to be -- and even with explanation I don't think that it would add significantly to the article. A picture of the new section after construction would be another matter: then a picture could be taken without the clutter of delivery lorries, skips and tarpaulins, etc. However, the present photo is in keeping with the rest of the article which is littered with typos and missing words. When the article is cleaned-up, the photo should be removed as unnecessary. As a record of a stage in construction it is fine, for personal use, but its not really suitable for publication. EdJogg 11:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that makes your comment neutraler! maybe we should put a request for a photo of the finished job. or maybe a better shot that shows the entire complex?71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment and did so on my talk page, here it is...
Glad to do it, I'll just comment here if that's okay. I took a look at the picture as it sits right now in Richmond Medical Center, and also viewed it full size. In my opinion any picture used to illustrate an article here should (a) tell a story, and (b) be visually pleasing. No disrespect to anyone involved, but I don't think the picture does either of these things. I have not read the article but I think the point of the picture, which seems to be that the center is expanding through construction, could be better made by simply adding a sentence or two to the article. --CliffC 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for replying and providing your point of view.71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also asked to comment. – I agree, there is simply no rule in Wikipedia that requires an article to have images. Unfortunately, too many image contributors to Wikipedia seem to invoke that non-rule as justification for having pet images kept. Looking at the images here, neither is what I would consider to be a particularly high quality image, both being exceedingly amateurish snapshots, lacking in good composition or even proper exposure. That said, the top image (Image:KaiserPerm.jpg) is at least useable until someone can provide a better image. The image in question here (Image:Construccionkaiserrich.jpg), however, adds absolutely no relevant information to the article, is an exceedingly bad image, and should be dropped. Why is that even at issue? Peter G Werner 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is an amateur site by definition its writting imrpoves overtime as does its images. thanks for opining so quickly =)71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also asked to comment. I'm not quite sure I support unilateral jury selection for making decisions on Wikipedia, and I'm curious how Cholga decided who to ask (I am, of course, flattered to be chosen ;)). However, since I'm here, I'll give an opinion. The image is pretty poor quality. I couldn't really tell what it was of without viewing the full size version. Also, the construction work is barely mentioned in the article, as far as I can tell (I can see one sentence in the History section, which isn't where the image is). I've only scanned the article, so I may have missed it, but if there isn't any discussion of the construction work, then there is no need for an image to illustrate it. --Tango 13:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL unilareral jury selection, i did try to be as random as i could and i tried to pick people that had both agree and disagreed with both Cholga and IL2BA in the past and complete strangers from talk page to talk page and edit histories, because every time i do a request for comment well, i never get any responses for quite sometime and the community portal gets vuxated by these kinds of requests there. but id love it if you would pick 10 people for me the next time i need opinions and make it bilateral of a selection, id be glad to reciprocate. that how i decided by the way i went over the edit history of this page and selected everyone, once on their talk pages i seleced poeple from those talk pages and the next ones, i did like 50 or 60 because i thought that might get me 3 or 5 opinions, kinda like a party if u want 20 people to come you should invite 100. im glad youre flattered too dude, i hope we can cooperate and write lots in the futurah. thanks for chiming in71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was invited to comment too. In my opinion, the photograph is pretty poor and adds nothing worthwhile to the article. Signalhead 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I mentioned above: For me the construction and interior shots don't display anything unique about the medical center (at one point it was constructed in a perfectly ordinary way and the interior contains factory made chairs and standard hallways).. I think it should be removed. - Richfife 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you richlife, polite comments are so refreshing =)71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coming late to the discussion with another neutral opinion, in all honesty I must say that I could probably find similar scenes right here in my city, 3000 miles from Richmond, including the slant-top condos, if that's what they are in the construction pic. In fact, the shot of the entrance reminded me of the hospital in the city where I work, about 25 minutes drive from here. I'll grant that the gallery might be interesting to an archaeologist, far in the future, studying late 20th/early 21st century cityscapes, but right now none of the pictures catches anything that makes me go, "Hmmm, so that's what the Richmond Med Ctr is about." I don't even need an "aha!", a simple "hmmm" will do-- in my view, that's what the pictures in any article should aim for. Don't stop trying... __Just plain Bill 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the encourgaing words hehe =)71.142.84.165 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it, Cholga; pretty clear consensus that the picture is of low quality and shouldn't be included here. Exactly what I've been saying all along. Remember, you invited these folks' opinions, and the picture was last removed by someone other than me.

All it took was beating you over the head with thousands and thousands of words, over a period of a few months. Maybe next time you'll get the message sooner, and avoid all this needless discussion. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are a sore winner, but it wasn't about winning was it, it was about comming to agreement which doesnt conform to a Cholga vs. IL2BA dichotomy, so you seem to miss the whole purpose of this project. Try reading WP:Don't be a dick, honestly following that essay's guidelines and suggestions will win you friends on here (even me) and will save you from petty bickering and having to be annoyed by people whom you offend or otherwise irk.CholgatalK! 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. Cholga asked, people answered, and the consensus will take its course. It's not really something to dance about either way, it's just consensus. I praise anyone brave enough to seek neutral opinion, the more so since it can go against them. Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Fid-Fad, i just tried to focus on the idea that it should be a community desicion not a me vs. s/he kinda affair. thanks for th praise dude.
  • I was asked to comment. I'm thrilled with the quality of the image nor with the subject. --evrik (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my requests for neutral opinions and also those of you whom I did not ask personally, Your're comments were fair and polite I wish everyone were as polite and even encouraging as you are on this talk page, a quality i will try and emulate. please feel free to ask me for my opinion whenever the occasion presents itself, i hope you all have a nice day.CholgatalK! 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References section[edit]

This is really poor. There were refs dotted in the text so I added the cite.php stuff, but what poor referencing. please look at {{cite web}} to do this better. Are they seriously all the same reference, too? Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this link is broken and the whole ref mess has therefore been removed.--Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have now read the article. It reads like an advert, so much so that I almost nominated it for deletion. Creating lists of departments just to fill article space is not encyclopaedic editing. If this is a notable centre then its article also needs to be notable. This requires an almost total rewrite, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have run the automated peer review tool over the article[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

I appreciate the hard work put in by other editors (see sections above) in trying to get this article into shape, but I can see absolutely no reason for this building being included in Wikipedia. Surely it is just another hospital? (Hence the placement of the {{notability}} tag.)

Now it may be that as a Brit I don't understand the significance of certain aspects of this hospital (not knowing anything about the US health service), but surely that is the whole point. This article should clearly establish what is special about it such that someone from outside Richmond can appreciate its finer points.

Before tackling any of the other issues, I would strongly recommend establishing why the article should remain here at all.

EdJogg 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (with absolutely no axe to grind!)[reply]

Following the recent edits by Oakshade, it is clear how 'some' notability has been established. However, I would suggest that the article is now (some worldwide equivalent phrase to 'arse-about-face').
Let me explain. What is notable is not this hospital, but the one that preceeded it. The article should be about the historically-notable field hospital, with the modern hospital only mentioned at the end of that article in a note such as 'The field hospital was closed in 1995 and has been replaced by the Richmond Medical Center on the same site.' That last sentence is about as much coverage as I reckon this hospital actually deserves. (Again, no axe to grind here!)
EdJogg 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is persuasive. The Field Hospital has substantial notability, whereas this is just another medical centre, large or not. Yet the field hospital has but a passing mention. Fiddle Faddle 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion[edit]

The nomination is intended to cause one of two outcomes:

  1. A major cleanup and rewriting of the article to make it a worthy stub (at least), with full citations, and properly asserted notability
  2. Deletion of the article as unworthy to be here

I would prefer outcome 1, but the article is so poor I will accept outcome 2 and be content. Please contribute to the discussion on the AfD page in order that a good consensus may be reached either way. And, if you are editing the article in the meantime, please note on the AfD page when you have made substantial edits in order that those who have expressed an opinion so far may reconsider. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To seek to ensure as good a discussion as possible, and to attempt to get knowledgable editors with editing time available to come and save the article I have placed a neutral comment/ request at Talk:Kaiser Permanente Fiddle Faddle 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has issues[edit]

This is why {{articleissues}} was put there in the first place. The whole thing needs a massive rewrite. While notability may have been agreed at AfD, the rest of the issues have to be solved. Removing the template does not remove the issues.

Copying a great list of departments from the medical center's website is not the same as writing a good article. That list is a list of departments found in medical centers. By all means note the unusual ones, but lose the rest. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Services and Transportation sections[edit]

Services requires a major prune. It's a hospital. What else would it provide? And I am tempted to trash the Transportation section as being a guide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can be expanded, it would make sense to explain what exactly this hospital does and does not do, in addition to what it is capable of doing (i.e. being an ICU) but does not actually do. Most hospitals with a shuttle service tend to have only commute hour feeder service but this one seem to have early morning to late night service that runs very frequently and is located next to a major intermodal transit hub which I think is helpful to put its area into context.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaiser_Richmond_Medical_Center&oldid=1203172755"