Talk:My Health Record

Proposed merge of Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record into My Health Record

It appears that "Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record" was the old name and former structure of My Health Record before it was remade and re-released in 2016: https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/news-and-events/news/pcehr-is-changing-its-name-to-my-health-record ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, No, this information should be added to the existing article, then that article should be moved to this title (an admin will have to do that since this redirect blocks the move). This is to save the attribution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Please do not redirect articles with significant content without consensus. This article was created as a result of a discussion of splitting content out from Health care in Australia. What's the point of merging content from this article into Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record when you're just going to have to bother an admin to delete this page then move PCEHR to this namespace, when you could just merge PCEHR into this article? A lot of the content on the PCEHR article is extraordinarily technical for the everyday reader and needs rewriting, not to mention that it's out of date by about, oh, 7 years. Opposing a merge for the sole fact of saving attribution is hardly reasonable either; we have templates (such as {{Split article}}, which is already used on this page for content split out of Health care in Australia, and {{Copied}}) that adequately and appropriately provides attribution details for article content. Similarly, a merge does not mean that we delete the old article - it just means that we redirect the old article, which still keeps all version record (i.e. attribution data) intact. Also, and again with all due respect for your efforts to build a better encyclopedia, taking ownership of articles like you've done here by removing the discussion tags because you object isn't helpful. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

ItsPugle, Because that's the correct way to do it. Please read WP:CUTPASTE. Your original intent was not to split out, as shown by your merge tag. You wanted to create a new page, then get rid of the old page. The correct way is what was explained to you. It is one thing if you intend to create a brand new article about the platform, but that's a different issue. Your intent to merge the older article into this page clearly shows that you think the two are interlinked, however, and therefore this new info should be included on the existing page. In fact, readers are better served if the information is in the same article. And if that is the case, than WP:SPLIT doesn't apply, since it wouldn't actually be splitting out the information. Attribution is very important, and you should understand that. Onel5969 TT me 11:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: Please do not speak to my intent - you do not know me and you were not involved in the previous discussion that gained consensus to split content out to this new article. I was unaware of the old page because it has been so poorly maintained, and no one has mentioned that article. Absolutely I agree that we should keep this all in one article, but it's more logical to just merge content from PCEHR into this article. So much of PCEHR needs rewriting and updating, so trying to merge this content in, then again, bother an admin to have to delete this page just to clear it for a move, is ridiculous. Also, I absolutely agree that attribution is important (and legally required as per CC-BY-SA), but as per WP:COPYWITHIN, a simple message in the edit message is perfectly adequate, and as I've already explained, templates like {{Merged-from}} more than cover any attribution concerns. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, you see, you can't hide your intent, because you clearly stated your intent. And I'm sorry you don't feel like bothering to follow the rules, but they are there for a reason. Just because the old page, is in your opinion, is poorly written is no reason to create a new page and then delete the old. Onel5969 TT me 11:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: Please do not be uncivil by talking to me in a condescending tone. You appear to be trying to make a catastrophic issue out of a simple mistake, and you seem to want to waste the time of administrators in implementing an overly complex and disruptive process rather than following existing policy and convention by referring to attribution through a simple edit summary and through a talk page template. Simply put, the amount of time and effort needed for your solution (merging substantial content into a low-quality article, having an administrator delete attribution data [ironic much], move a page, then rewrite the page) is vastly excessive to the simple thing of merging the basic content of the old article into the new then just redirecting it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, Not condescending at all, simply addressed your point. I'm trying to explain the rules to you, which you seem to be going out of your way not to understand. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: "You seem to be going out of your way not to understand" and telling me to "move along" is a perfect demonstration of condescension and a disregard for civility. While I appreciate that we're all here just trying to work towards our own understandings of a better Wikipedia, please focus on edits, not editors. Is your entire opposition to this merge on the sole basis that you'd prefer the longer, more complex and time consuming version which actually results in more attribution issues instead? And I say more attribution issues in that your process would require this article to be deleted, which unlike my process which keeps in tact all attribution data, doesn't. The content in this article, as per the talk template, has been contributed by other editors - deleting this article (and consequentially, its attribution data) while still using this content in a merge to PCEHR actually creates an attribution gap. This is unlike my process, where we just redirect the PCEHR article to this page, which keeps in tact all attribution data. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, my entire opposition is what has been stated numerous times, and you are still going out of your way not to understand. Follow the rules. Plain and simple. You've proposed the merge, and below I've cast my !vote. Let it go, take a look at WP:BLUDGEON. Onel5969 TT me 13:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: As I've already cautioned you twice for, please do not make uncivil comments about editors, such as claiming that I "don't understand" talk conventions or that I am "going out of [my] way not to understand". Also, please remember this merge is not subject to your approval. I am trying to understand why you think that a longer process is more appropriate here, and that means having to reply to you - a discussion is not bludgeoning. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, as per above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

@Onel5969: Please do not repeat your !votes. If you wish to highlight your opposition more plainly, alter your message, don't post a second message. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, not a dupe !vote. If you think so, please point out where else I marked my comments, Oppose. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: You have to separate threads of opposition... how is that not duplicating your !vote? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, Again, please point out where there are two !votes. If not, move along. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC) @Onel5969: Your first opposition is the threat starting with you saying "no", the second is the thread starting with "oppose"... how is that not a duplication of !votes? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC) ItsPugle, You clearly don't understand the difference between comments and !votes. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge. The successory to PCEHR is MHR, so it makes sense to cover them in one article. There is a longstanding precedent on this website that the technical means to do something shouldn't prevent it being done if it's the right thing to do for an article. Like other mergers, attribution can be provided in the history of the redirected article, or even using a history merge. This certainly shouldn't be the reason a merge isn't performed - otherwise no mergers could possibly performed at all.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)