Talk:The Shambles (York)

York[edit]

The Shambles in York is world-famous, while the other Shambles seems to be a show on community television in one part of Australia. I think this should be moved from The Shambles to The Shambles (disambiguation) so I'm going to "be bold". Rosejpalmer 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move of The Shambles (York) → The Shambles, which may delete this disambiguation page. Discuss it at Talk:The Shambles (York) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now I'm confused.

I had intended to move this article to The Shambles (disambiguation) and then move The Shambles (York) to The Shambles. I performed the first part of the move this morning but then found that I could not move The Shambles (York) to The Shambles because of the redirect created by the first move. So I created the request. But I see that you have moved this disambiguation back to The Shambles.

Have I got this wrong? Surely the disambiguation page would only be deleted if it's in the way (that is, if it's at the destination article, The Shambles). If it's at The Shambles (disambiguation) then after the move there will be three different pages: The Shambles (an article about the famous York street), The Shambles (disambiguation) and The Shambles (community television program) (and article about an Australian television series), and all that then needs to be done is to put a pointer to the disambiguation page into the top of The Shambles. If I'm right, what is gained by moving this page back from The Shambles (disambiguation) to The Shambles? --Rose Palmer 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the technical details right, but the disambiguation page should be deleted, wherever it ends up, as it will be orphaned. As it only has 2 entries, there is no reason for any article to point to it. In this situation, it is best not to move the disambiguation page, but simply blank it and redirect it to Shambles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I've no objection. As you probably have more experience than I, would you like to go ahead with that? --Rose Palmer 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]