AsylumProjects:Message Boards/Administrative Board

Something to keep int he Back of your minds

I've seen some editors moving pages to adjust the titles to the current name of the institutions. I would prefer only doing that as a last resort.

However, that does not mean we are stuck with the older or lesser names. Instead all you need to do is create a redirect. What that means is that you create a new page with the new name then redirect ( #REDIRECT [[older page name]] ) the new page to the old page. That is a much better way because then you can create a couple different redirects to the same page, especially for articles/institutions that have more then one name it's known by. That way if someone types in the name whether current or older, they'll be directed to the current page. Plus, you can have multiple titles/names people could type that all go to the same page. This is another reason why I like the new software over the older is because it is much easier to do this. M-Explorer 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to spell out my thoughts behind this: I've seen on other wikis people going through those wikis and changing the names of articles to names they felt better reflected the article subjects without discussion and without any other considerations outside their own person ones. The articles on this wiki have the same potential. Editors may be tempted to change the article titles to reflect either what they may consider the popular name of an institution may be or change the title to reflect the current name. Because of this we may see waves of editors changing article names willy nilly. So I've come up with a rule/guideline in article name changes:

Unless the article name is incorrect in that the institution or subject of the article had never been called that name, then article renaming should be kept to a minimum. It is recommended that alternate names be both included in the article and using the alternate name redirects to the original article instead.

What this means is that we should not see or tolerate huge amounts of renaming without sufficient explanation and if it looks like the article naming was unjustified, then the original name should be restored and the renamed redirect may be removed. Also, it is expected of the renaming editor to state why they are renaming the article, this can either be done either in the summary or on the renamed article's talk page. I'll add this somewhere at a later time. M-Explorer 23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the name of some PA State Schools on the PA index page because some were the current name and some were the original. So I changed 2 or 3 to the original name and then did a redirect to the page. I left the database page the original name. For example I changed Selinsgrove Center to it's original name of Selinsgrove State School and Hospital and put a redirect on the state school page. Thomasp94 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but like I said, we shouldn't rush to change page names without sufficient reason. If the current name is an accurate name, then maybe it might be better just to create a redirect with the alternate name instead that redirected to the original page. M-Explorer 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thought, if your unsure or want to discuss a name change, don't hesitate to discuss it first. I'm not against name changes as much as I'd rather seen name changes when either there is a problem with the current name or that the community decides that the article deserves a better name. Otherwise, I'd rather uses redirects that can easily cover the various institution names without having to go through the time/aggravation of renaming something only to have someone disagree and change it to something other. For example: Weston State Hospital. While it has been known as Weston State Hospital for a long time, when the new owner bought the place, he renamed it Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum. While that may be it's current name, should we change it to that new name? In my opinion no because it's older name is easily just as recognizable. Plus, it could be argued that the institution never used the new name when it was active. Yet, I can guarantee that someone will go in there and change the article name to the new name because that's the name they like. Are they right or wrong? Personally I'd rather let the community decide. (More incite into my thoughts.) M-Explorer 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maryland Transfer Completed

I'm done moving the Maryland database from the old site. Thomasp94 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I believe that the UK stuff still needs to be transferred over, plus we need to check to see if we missed other states. Also, we need to make sure that accessory pages like the different building plans have been transferred over too. M-Explorer 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can start at the bottom of the UK list & meet you in the middle if you want.Squad546 05:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. M-Explorer 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will go over all the building plan pages then. I was working on the cottage plan page yesterday anyway. Thomasp94 13:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They're looking great! Shouldn't be much more left then. M-Explorer 17:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am adding images of some UK hospitals for examples on the plan pages. Check them when you guys make pages for the hospitals so that there are not duplicate images. Also, should there be links to the building plan pages on the left side bar like on the old database? Thomasp94 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. M-Explorer 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Urban Exploring

I know in private conversations we discussed the new AP:IIP policy and Urban Exploring. It was brought up that maybe we should expand it or create another policy concerning UE. What are your thoughts. Is that policy enough, should we expand it, or should we create another policy specifically for UE? What do you guys think? M-Explorer 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

More Boards?

Should there be more boards set up, like a remembrance board or something like that? Is there something I didn't think of? Should we expand on existing boards here? Thoughts? M-Explorer 13:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a section for regional discussion like the old forum? Also I liked the former employee/patient topic.Squad546 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely we should have a former employee/patient board. Yet, as far as regional boards, my question is how much did we use most of them compared to the general topic discussion. Plus, thinking about it, each hospital has it's own talk page that if people want to discuss something specific about that hospital they can go to the talk page instead of a regional section. Finally, we now have that nifty news feature so if someone wants to share some important news, they can just post it up there instead of hunting down the specific talk page. M-Explorer 08:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)