Talk:Boston Medical Center

Comparison

We used to have this text before a mobile edit removed it...

It is the largest safety-net hospital and Level I trauma center in New England.

...claiming that it's an inaccuracy (even misspelling the word 'inaccuracy'). MaynardClark (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

10/16

10 out of the article’s 16 sources are primary. It’s important to note BU Medical Campus and BMC are joined. Elttaruuu (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Roundhouse Hotel (public services) into Boston Medical Center

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is about the social services tenant in the building, which is temporary. The coverage available is about the services starting, during, and ending. I have low faith that it has enduring notability and probably not pass WP:NCORP on its own right. The target, though, is probably notable Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Three things: 1. Roundhouse has two separate programs. One is the clinical services which are for any person off the street, the other is a housing program which was for very specific people. The clinical is BMC, the housing is through the city of Boston. Roundhouse, as a location, is what is usually in the news, not either program. Thus, I think it wouldn’t make sense to merge this article into BMC because half the article/the services are not BMC services. 2. If the whole thing was to shut down today (which is not that far off), there’s plenty of notable press on this subject. It is constantly in the news and part of Wikipedia is not just documenting subjects as they gain press but also, with the press and sources that already exist, so we can preserve history as it changes. 3. Boston Medical Center is a huge system with tons of innovative programs and a page that is poorly maintained and sourced. I don’t think it makes sense to take something notable on its own and stick it in an article that does not speak to much of any other programs. Elttaruuu (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, @Graywalls I started making these more specific articles because you edited these services out of a bigger article. And I am glad I did because I’m realizing these programs often (not always) have plenty to them to have their own articles. Elttaruuu (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the temporary tenancy of the Roundhouse Hotel has enduring notability. A sentence or two here is a reasonable compromise and I suspect that's what will be suggested when the Roundhouse Hotel is proposed for deletion. The few year stint at the roundhouse does not have enduring notability to merit its own article. What I do not agree with the way you do is that you create articles, then find a reason to work it into other articles so the mentions of the organization spreads everywhere. Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No I don’t????? All this stuff is connected because it’s all on the same street. Not to mention, articles get orphan tagged if you don’t link them to relevant places. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be reasonable. For example, a crane manufacturer maybe notable and that crane may have been used to erect the Statue of Liberty, but to link "xxx crane's" crane was used to erect the Statue of Liberty into Statue of Liberty is undue. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That does not make sense. This wasn’t a crane, this was a set of programs that were and are incredibly controversial in the city of Boston, costing the hospital and the city millions of dollars, potentially stabilizing a number of sick people that have 40+ articles about it. On Wikipedia, things do not get taken down because they go out of business and people stop writing about them. If there are strong well protected sources that show the significance of something in time and history, it stays. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

BMC is notable enough to merit its own article, I think. The Round House Program, no. Therefore, that should be merged here; or the Roundhouse deleted. Make sense? Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, what makes sense is that you bully and hound people on here, especially pages concerned with drug users and social services Elttaruuu (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I edit on subjects that interest me. For example, I don't get into your Kaylor/Gaylor thing, because that's not something that interests me. Graywalls (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You hound people. And you weaponize policy to get what you want even if it doesn’t clearly match policy and no consensus has been reached. You talk down to me and follow folks like @Prezbo and I around the site, stating we’re pushing an agenda, as though you don’t have your own. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been editing on this subject area before you were even around on Wiki, meaning that my interest in the subject area wasn't formed around you. Graywalls (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and why did you know I’ve been gaylor/kaylor editing if you haven’t been closely following my edits??? Just because you’ve been editing on this subject before me, doesn’t make you right. Actually seems like further reason to challenge your thinking and your dominance in this space. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You still haven’t answered how you know about my other editing in subjects that are not of interest to you Elttaruuu (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a sin to look in others contributions, which I did for the sake of this discussion. Please keep discussion on this talk relevant to the topic. I am limiting myself to discussion relevant to Boston Medical Center on this article's talk page though. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t police what I say on here because you don’t like being held accountable Elttaruuu (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ask if the tenancy that occupied that building for a year or two is going to be notable 20 years from now. WP:20YT. When the first Walmart in a town is proposed in a small town, it will get a lot of coverage when it is proposed, during construction, and shortly after it's built, but that Walmart is not considered enduring notability, therefore Walmart of little town is not something to have an article about. Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also in twenty years, this program very well could be notable. Again, it’s extremely controversial and it’s likely, given the amount of schools in Boston, a ton of research has been done on it. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It could, but it's too soon to tell. It could always be re-created later if it holds sustained notability. Anyways, I am holding this discussion here, rather than just proceeding with the merge so people have a chance to provide input. Graywalls (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s a misuse of policy. Policy states “If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.” Sources exist. That page is for when there’s not enough sources to create an article, that is not the case here. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan on proceeding with the merger on my own right now. I posted requests for input on Wiki project Massachusetts and Boston for others to comment. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I now support Merge into BMC and a page on transitional housing sites created under the Wu administration. Elttaruuu (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The closure was premature. It's only been open for two days and I've only had it at Wikiprojects for a day and it's reasonable to leave it open a little longer to give chance for people to comment more, such as how the merge should go. There was one input, which suggested trimming down contents, which I agree with. However, there maybe others with other suggestions. So, allow a week. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Support merge: While there's been a lot of verbiage in the press about the programs, there's not enough useful factual information to need a separate article. A merge will allow for an appropriate amount of detail to be kept. (There's a fair bit of fat that needs trimming - The Massachusetts government referred to... in particular is a sentence that tells us nothing.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535:, Thanks for your comment. Any thoughts on how much of it should remain? The Roundhouse Hotel is meant to be a temporary stint. It opened February 2022 and it was supposed to have folded by end of July, but they've extended that to end of September. Do you have further input on what should remain and what should be trimmed out? @Elttaruuu ended up creating a branch out article Transitional housing programs created under the Wu administration in the meantime where they copied everything from Roundhouse to it. Graywalls (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987:, just messaging you to see if you've got any input since we're worked on Mass and Cass and some of the contents there were moved into the newly created transitional housing program. Graywalls (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History incomplete

In discussing the merger that formed BMC, reference is made to Boston City Hospital but fails to note BMC’s earlier life as Mass. Memorial and as University Hospital Irish Melkite (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

New Article for BMC Health System

With the acquisition of St. Elizabeth's Medical Center and Good Samaritan would it be helpful to create a separate article for the Boston Medical Center heath system as this article is primarily related to the flagship hospital itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington567 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Washington567 I've thought about that briefly, my position is that it would be best to give it a few months to see how everything shakes out, especially how they structure themselves and what they name the hospitals (it sounds like they're going to have to give the hospitals new names given BMC is not inheriting Steward's agreement with the Archdiocese). I'm definitely open to it though once we have more info. Mangocove (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)