Talk:Leishenshan Hospital

Untitled

The name "雷" (Thunder) is related to the concept of wood (木) in wuxing (五行), not fire (火). Wood begets fire (木生火) and fire overcomes metal (火克金). If you don't understand Chinese traditional culture, please don't delete the content of the article.--Huangdan2060 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Full protection

I have protected the page briefly to stop the edit warring. The parties need to come here and discuss the matter, not edit war while arguing in edit summaries. Make your points here, try to reach consensus, and in the meantime don't keep reverting each other. For starters I suggest you all reread the AfD discussion, and if necessary ask the closer for clarification. Offhand I see discussion of a possible merge there, but via a merge discussion - not unilaterally, and certainly not over opposition. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Would you mind speaking to the closer about making contentious, non-admin, speedy closes based on his idiosyncratic opinion that AFD is never the place to discuss redirecting a page? I have tried multiple times in the past, and he usually just blanks my messages without replying, or starts a brief spurt of revenge-hounding (in fact his closing the AFD shortly after I !voted might well be more of the same). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I looked at the AfD and it was overwhelming that the article is to be kept. Yes, there are some with merge or redirect votes. mine included, but they are in the minority. Even if the AfD is to be opened, assuming that it was closed cuz of 'revenge hounding', at the velocity which the AfD receives votes, consensus may still be overwhelmingly on keep. Personally, I would have closed the AfD as it is if not because I had participated in the discussion as well. robertsky (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: AFD !votes for "keep, don't delete" are strawman arguments when the AFD was clearly opened as a discussion of redirecting the page. No one addressed, for instance, my concern that the only non-outbreak info that is given on the topic is questionable etymological data. Moreover, where did you get that I was assuming that it was closed cuz of 'revenge hounding' -- I am assuming it was closed because Andrew Davidson personally believes that AFD is not the forum for redirecting, and speculated that Andrew's hounding of me (something he's done intermittently over the last two years or so) is) might just be how he came across this particular AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: 1. I don't see an attempt of redirect discussion happening here before MelanieN stepped in. Some may take the redirect as a controversial action like the editors reverting your redirect. 2. My assumption is based on your words: "or starts a brief spurt of revenge-hounding (in fact his closing the AFD shortly after I !voted might well be more of the same)". If you are speculating, a casual observer like me might or might not have seen as such. robertsky (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The AFD close read nobody, not even the nominator, wants to delete this. The assumption is that the nominator opened the AFD to discuss redirecting the page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's take the AfD as redirecting the page then, and as Andrew Davidson had tallied the !vote count, it is a majority on Keep/Speedy Keep, even if we take Keep or Merge as a vote for Merge. Andrew Davidson has also laid out his criteria below for closing AfD discussions as speed keep, which has nothing to do with "his idiosyncratic opinion that AFD is never the place to discuss redirecting a page". robertsky (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• The !vote tally in the recent AfD was:

5 Keep

4 Speedy Keep

2 Keep or Merge

1 Redirect

All the !voters seemed reasonably well-informed. Strong facts in evidence were that hospitals of this size are usually kept at AfD and that several other languages' Wikipedias have articles about this place. The discussion had been open for about 4 days and the conclusion seemed clear. When considering AfDs for speedy closure, I usually look for at least two !votes calling for SK and, in this case, there were four. My view is therefore that the closure was appropriate. Note that the parallel AfD for the sister hospital was also snow-closed even more quickly.

For clarity, note that the article is now fully protected until 6:04 on 7 February. As the topic is in the news and time is of the essence, we should try to lift this protection sooner. More than one person in the discussion said that consideration of merger should wait on events and so it seems best to enable a free flow of editing and defer a merge discussion until after the dust has settled.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I am always hesitant to start a new article if the subject relies on notability of one event. But since the article is already here, let's wait and see if the article has been fleshed out as the event unfolds. If not, we can always merge the article sometime in the future. robertsky (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for request on full protection without using the talking page, but it seems that a consensus on keeping the page, right? --5LZ 11:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, discussion is now happening, and it looks like there is consensus at this point not to redirect the page. Assuming that Hijiri is going to respect that and wait for a consensus before doing it again, I will unlock the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

While editing is suspended, we can make a note of sources here. The rapid construction of this hospital is especially notable (Wiki means quick too!) and so a timeline would be good. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

1 Feb

• Millions tune in to watch Chinese hospital construction live

5 Feb

• Aerial view of Wuhan's Leishenshan Hospital construction site

6 Feb

• Leishenshan Hospital gets ready for novel coronavirus patients

Merger proposal

Propose to combine Leishenshan Hospital and Huoshenshan Hospital articles.

These two hospitals are field hospitals built in Wuhan with an exclusive specialty on COVD-19. As someone in this discussion section has already mentioned, the two hospitals have an identical purpose and built with similar designs in mind. I think we can combine the two into one general article and call it something like "the COVID-19 Emergency Field Hospital Project". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staliniumarmor (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Not seeing any benefit or reason for doing this. See WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:Response Proposal is raised in an effort to reduce unnecessary redundancy and improve reading easiness and general accessibility. The source you cited in WP:NOTPAPER is, therefore, irrelevant in essence.

• Agree. Combining all the presumably temporary field hospitals in Wuhan is constructive and would increase clarity.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree Temporary hospitals are transient. robertsky (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)