Talk:OPCS-4

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Publication title

The published and official title of the classification has been OPCS Classification of Interventions and Procedures version 4.x since OPCS-4.3. No reference to Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has been made within the title since OPCS-4.2. Within this context, OPCS is used as a pseudo-acronym/orphaned initialism.

The OPCS-4 article is about all versions of the standard and doesn't prevlidge the latest version (see WP:RECENTISM). Also you haven't provide secondary source for any of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to double check when next in work, but IIRC the only source that states OPCS is an orphaned initialism is the introduction within OPCS-4.6. To maintain stylistic consistency with the likes of the BBC article I've reverted OPCS-4 to the 11 June version until I can provide a reference re use of OPCS as an orphaned initialism. I'd rather that, than a delete tag or vandalism lock be applied. Little pob (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With OPCS-4.7 due April, I've come back to this. There seems to be some incompatibilities between ~~WP:AT,~~ WP:ON and WP:RECENTISM with regards to the way to go, hopefully I've got the lead section's balance right? Little pob (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite

This is one of the first wiki articles I wrote. Coming back with a bit of time to work on it, I can see the following issues/fixes needed.

~~lead section no longer reads smoothly. Needs overhaul, but need to keep in mind WP:ON vs WP:RECENTISM~~
~~rework "revision cycle" as a history section. The issue here is the most comprehensive source is OPCS-4 itself.~~
~~rewrite "chapter list" as a Vol I section.~~ - renamed, more work needed.
~~create Vol II section between current chapter list and sup pub sections.~~ - needs expansion though.
attempt to locate some 3rd party sources.

Little pob (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've just tinkered around the edges with some inconsistencies and inaccuracies that annoyed me. Sadly, there is zero chance of removing the 'third-party' template as noone cares about OPCS-4 unless they are working in this area in the NHS :-( The NHS Terminology and Classifications Service like to hide the history of OPCS before 4.2, but it did exist. OPCS-3 was published as a blue hardback, OPCS-4 first appeared in a red ring binder with no index. 4.1 came as photocopied pages to slot in until 4.2 came as the square-bound not-quite foolscap book with the red cover 208.127.199.222 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]