Talk:St Bartholomew's Hospital

message: Isn't this where Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson meet for the very first time in Arthur Conan Doyle's stories? Should there be a mention of this? Angmering 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference might help! :) 82.45.248.177 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just checked in the version of A Study in Scarlet available at Wikisource, and it is indeed their first meeting place. I shall add it to the article, with the reference. Angmering 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sherlock Holmes]]

message: I was gobsmacked to read that the Charterhouse Square site is in Camden. It's in Islington, but actually I feel that which borough this site lies in is of no relevance to the article anyway. Saying "Islington" does not really place it as most people would think much further northwards than CHS. I feel it's better to leave it out, then if someone has a pressing need to know exactly where it is they can click the link and read all about it! :) 82.45.248.177 02:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the slow reply but actually I honestly think it is that simple. :) The map (see for example this) clearly shows the purple line of the borough boundary and seems to place the CHS site entirely in Islington. Even allowing for potential oddness in Aldersgate St ... I mean I don't think there is a gate there, and the "front gate" would certainly seem to be the one in Charterhouse Sq (or Rutland Place for nitpickers) and that is certainly in Islington. Maybe the coppers found it a convenient thirst-quencher to be unable to remember exactly where the boundary ran?? Feel free to try to convince me otherwise but till then I say the whole site is in Islington, just as the whole of Barts per se is indeed in the City. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHS is NOT in Camden 

message: Not the most neutral and detached pieces of work, is it? I'll be adding it to my "things to do" list; should get to it in a month and a half or so :P. Ironholds 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the most helpful and positive comment, was it? Always good to turn up and make snotty comments, I feel - really helps the work along. And, oh look, you never actually came back but the article seems to be doing fine without you. But do stay in touch. 212.137.70.194 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: #Broke 'history' into several sections - for readability and developing the article
#Tried to rewrite 'threatened closure' in sense of 'this happened, caused that'. Before it had a tangled causality. Some of the sections still need a justification by referencing - I'll look for some of that.
#'Save Barts Campaign' still active - from NHS campaigns directory.
#Still need to check some of the cancer and cardiac specialisation stuff - some's already happened - some plans changed, some new buildings are now in the pipeline.
#Some of the more irrelevant stuff about stickers removed ... sorry!
HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally excellent, thank you. I think I can live without the stickers (sob), and indeed if I ever find a massive and verifiable source on them I could always put them back in ... till then I imagine the article can just about struggle on stickerless! :) Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember the stickers - many were put up by the market porters in Smithfield - if you didn't, "a brick thru yer winda at 5am" often causes offence ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Some more achieved: PFI row, estimated completion of new facilities. Parish thing ref'd - although I thought City parishes were 'abolished' because, apart from St Giles, there are few residents. Kbthompson (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Phase II buildings. A&E closure ref'd. Kbthompson (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: It seems that Barts had a central role in the history of body snatching and resurrectionism in London, it'd be great to expand the article to add some more background and references. --DarTar (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, all places doing anatomy at time had a problem - prior to the early 1800s, there was a surfeit of bodies from condemned criminals - often for petty theft. By the 1830s, the alternative punishment of 'transportation' meant there were no cadavers for training and experimentation - so, they 'bought them off the streets' - this created a demand that even body snatching could fulfil - hence the murders. A pub in Smithfield was a popular meeting place for 'resurrection men'. All the hospitals were all at! I think too much here is actually :WP:UNDUE; but there should certainly be links to the more specialised articles on the subject. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be worth copying content from articles on body snatching and The Fortune of War Public House, but I think some more specific references on Barts are in order. --DarTar (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Body snatching

message: Hi. I've replaced the "too short" tag on the lead paragraph. It's quite a weighty article and it does seem a little unbalanced to have the entire lead para consisting of "St Bartholomew's Hospital, also known as Barts, is a hospital in Smithfield in the City of London, England." I'd have a go myself but I am sure it would be better done by a more knowledgeable editor. Also, I guess we must have a guideline somewhere on this Ah yes, here's a guideline though I think it might be a bit too obsessional to start measuring it by the yard, or whatever. Really I'm just commenting here because I hate drive-by taggings, and replacing the tag without a comment has a slight drive-by feel to it! Anyone else care to comment - or even fix it - please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Could we have some consistency: either Bart's or Barts. The possessive form  is more gramatically  correct, but  which  is common usage? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Just Barts - see http://www.bartshealth.nhs.uk/ or the not unrelated http://www.smd.qmul.ac.uk/ .. to use the apostrophe would not be normal usage at all - it would look overfussy or as if one had no idea of usage. I'll zap any I see in the article. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If there is any  backlash, you  can quote WP:AT. It  deals mainly  with  article titles, but  the same principle applies in  article text. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: The article on Hôtel-Dieu de Paris indicates a much older age, founded in 651.Ekem (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest (ongoing) hospital? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Whoever has deleted it please add his name R$3856 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the name of Dr.Bidhan Chandra Roy missing from the alumni list?