Talk:Bedlam
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Moved
editI moved the article from Bedlam to Bethlem Royal Hospital and put a redirect to it at Bedlam
as per the quote from http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect "In accordance with wikipedia:naming conventions (precision) it's best to have an article at a well-defined, unambiguous term, with redirects from looser colloquial terms, rather than vice versa."
Steeev 08:00am 20 Nov 2003 UTC
- Agreed that the article on "Bethlem Royal Hospital" should be at "Bethlem Royal Hospital".
- "Bedlam" redirect turned into disambiguation page for the numerous other meanings of "Bedlam".
- Hi Lowellian, I don't agree with this move. "Bedlam" is known as the word for the old hospital, and/or for the chaos associated with it. It should be redirected to the hospital, or ideally a separate article should be written for the history of the hospital, but it shouldn't be the title of the disambig page. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Slim. The hospital is the original and primary use.--Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to restore the original redirect. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Slim. The hospital is the original and primary use.--Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Lowellian, I don't agree with this move. "Bedlam" is known as the word for the old hospital, and/or for the chaos associated with it. It should be redirected to the hospital, or ideally a separate article should be written for the history of the hospital, but it shouldn't be the title of the disambig page. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Page moves
editKeith, if you want pages to be moved, please be explicit, because this is already a mess. If you look at the history of Bedlam, it has been moved around enough already. Simple redirects seem to make most sense now. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted the move as it was done by a cut and paste method which destroys the attribution. I would have expected any move back to this title would have been done by a move. Keith D (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the history of Bedlam, it has been a redirect, an article, and a disambiguation page, so I would say the history's already messed up. I think it's best to stick to a simple redirect. I can't think where it would be moved to now that would make the history make sense. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The page history was not a mess until your cut-and-paste move, which is against Wikipedia policy. Even if you had consensus that "Bedlam" should be a redirect rather than a disambiguation page (and you did not, as both User:Steev and I have expressed opposition), you should have moved this disambiguation page ("Bedlam") over to the disambiguation position ("Bedlam (disambiguation)") to preserve the page history and then created a redirect at "Bedlam", instead of doing a cut-and-paste move that separated the page history and as User:Keith D stated, destroyed the attribution. I've reverted the cut-and-paste move. —Lowellian (reply) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bethlem Royal Hospital which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)