Talk:Bedlam

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Moved[edit]

I 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".

—Lowellian (reply) 05:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with Slim. The hospital is the original and primary use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the original redirect. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Keith, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There 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)[reply]