Talk:Teddy bear hospital

Requested move 25 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital → Teddy bear hospital – The recent AFD shows that this general topic is likely notable, while the current article is only about a specific (non-notable) instance of the topic. The move would allow this topic to be expanded, while the extraneous informaiton about this specific hospital can be pared down. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Hospitals has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Teddy Bear Hospital. Looks to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've asked for the AFD to be reopened. I'm not seeing any enduring significant coverage particularly for the SGUL one, but also nothing to suggest there's any overarching notable link between the various individual schemes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What images can be used
I saw on your edit summary and you raise valid points. I had another look at the image page and its archive record on DVIDS and it is unclear if the image was taken in a public place as per WP:IUP. It is hard to speculate whether consent was obtained or if it is serious to consider the child is able to provide consent morally speaking. That being said, according to IUP's listed moral issues, it does not demean the subject. I doubt the image was obtained unfairly due to the description and it being from DVIDS. It is really hard for me to say whether it "unreasonably intrudes into the subject's private or family life" since many children have teddy bears and this is generally not private information. The identity of the child is also not disclosed by the image description. Based on this set of factors, I do not think it is clear cut whether to include this specific image, and I can understand wanting to err on caution.

At the time, I was looking on wikimedia commons and found a few similar pictures, with children clearly in hospital beds holding teddy bears. Usine one of those images would be inappropriate since it is possibly disparaging to the subject and more privacy invasive. Another option is to use just a teddy bear image itself, but I feel it detracts from the key message of the article topic and its theory.

About whether such an image, aside from this particular one, is "illustrative" or "representative" of the topic: I think illustrative use of this kind of image still adds to article quality, much like how in wikiproject psychology, many of the articles can be dry to read and images can break text up and make it more engaging/accessible. I forget exactly, but I also have a vague memory of a wikiproject focussing on adding illustrative images from wikimedia commons to articles.

Do you have other specific images you think could be used for illustrative or representative purposes for the article? I have had another look and I have found a few that may be better suited; what do you think of using Teddybär-Krankenhaus_Heidelberg_2014_IMG_1757 or Teddybär-Krankenhaus_Heidelberg_2014_IMG_1758 instead? No description but looks like 'real' TBH. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. Personally I'd suggest adding the File:Teddybär-Krankenhaus Heidelberg 2014 IMG 1758.jpg image instead. As a replacement. As (a) perhaps more representative of the subject, (b) already used on the related wikiquote entry, (c) perhaps less impactful from a privacy perspective (faces of minors/vulnerable being more obscured and less identifiable). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)