Talk:LHR (disambiguation)

Redirection to London Heathrow Airport

I just noticed that the redirect to London Heathrow Airport was taken off a few months ago. Looking at the other articles on the disambiguation page, I think Heathrow counts as the primary topic for LHR. The hatnote is still there on the Heathrow page anyway.

Looking at the stats for June 2011, London Heathrow Airport has 61598 views. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia has 6675 views, but is only loosely related to LHR. The remainder total 1229 views between them (2% of the Heathrow traffic). For comparison, LHR had 1911 views in June - I'd bet the vast majority of them were looking for Heathrow.

Is there any special reason for not moving LHR back to LHR (disambigation) and reinstating the redirect?

Raikje (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A few months ago I found two dab articles at LHR and LHR (disambiguation), which I merged. Why I chose this page as the merge target? I can't recall. I agree with your rational to move to LHR (disambiguation) and make LHR a redirect to London Heathrow Airport. +mt 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I missed the second DAB being created on LHR in place of the redirect just before your merge, it makes sense now. I can't move the page though, as there is edit history left behind at LHR (disambiguation). I'm not sure if undoing your merge would work (the comparison shows only a deletion as the net change), or if it would be less pain just to stick a request on Wikipedia:Requested_moves? Raikje (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't recommend a copy & paste move, but there really isn't much of a history to be merged or any copyright issues to consider, so this could be an easy fix. Otherwise it would be an uncontroversial request for and admin to make, which doesn't take too long to complete. +mt 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

L&HR (disambiguation)

User:Dovid we don't transclude [1] per the minimal use of templates on dabs WP:MOSDAB. It's fine as a see also, and allows L&HR to be normally formatted too. I'm impressed at the novelty, but we don't do that and as you can see it involves modifying the transcluded dab. As to merging L&HR, it seems fine as is, nothing against merging either. Widefox; talk 12:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you for the notice. It was nice bumping into you - we seem to be veterans of similar WP tenure. I hope to meet again. You made some good edits here. Note, however, that you misinterpret MOSDAB. Templates are a type of transclusion, but transclusion is not always a template. WP:IAR, specifically referenced on MOSDAB, probably encourages the L&HR content directly on this page, to avoid extra click-throughs on marginal content that (following normal English style instead of railroad specialty style) would be here anyway. Dovid (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dovid: Hi, nice to meet you too. Just to be clear, we keep dabs simple. For example we don't use the ship name templates or anything like that, and this is a step way further than that. Suppose it's KISS. MOSDAB / WP:D does specify how to do this - see INTDABLINK and FURTHER disambiguation, so it's that simple. I'm also not following your logic - 1. transclusion is a superset of templates (not quite so but bear with me) 2. other things in the transclusion set are not templates. MOSDAB says to minimise use of transclusions so 2. doesn't matter as we're talking about templates. As templates can be substituted it's a bit more blurred than 1., but even from your 1. 2. MOSDAB says not to use them (of course unless substituted, which is the same as not using them). I will see about adding "templates" in MOSDAB to clarify. Feel free to participate. I'm not sure what you mean about misinterpret MOSDAB? Dabs are about the most strict style places in WP, so the bar is high for justifying invoking IAR, and there's no consensus for it. Widefox; talk 08:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: I want to preface the following by emphasizing that I'm not looking to argue about this. Just in interest of clarity, I would like to point out some errors. You may take them or leave them, but after this, I suspect we'll both be fully informed and can lay it to rest, whether we agree with each other or not on this fairly minor point of wiki practices.

Please read MOSDAB again. It only mentions transcluding templates. It does not mention transclusion in general. Search the page for "transcl" - you won't find it, other than the "not transclude templates" text, and I believe one other mention for use of a particular technique. In defense of your position, it does recommend keeping things simple. However, even the no-template rule is violated multiple times by other sections of MOSDAB (e.g., wiktionary, R from, look from).

Were MOSDAB to exclude transclusion in general, your two-point logic above would in fact refute my statement. Since it des not, what I said makes sense - the more specific class of transclusions (templates) is discouraged, without discouraging any other use of the more general class of transclusion. I only invoke IAR because MOSDAB itself explicitly encourages IAR in the interest of better pages. In this case, I think it can be justified as an improvement (due to standard English dropping the ampersand) over either the current choice of cross-reference DAB, or the alternative of double-maintaining references that may become out of date.

I suppose a third possibility would be to combine the two pages into one, so there is nothing separate to maintain - this actually appeals to me; let me know if that is something you woudl also be keen on. Dovid (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you check how we do further disambiguation (above)? Follow that. I'm very familiar with MOSDAB thanks. Bottom line - don't use templates (obvious exceptions like wiktionary etc listed at MOSDAB) on dabs, OK? Believe me, I've edited quite a few of them and templates are rare - the only exceptions I know of are the exception examples in MOSDAB. If you disagree get a third opinion. It's BRD, and you won't convince me based on the IAR argument above. We keep the dabs as simple and conformant as possible and see absolutely no justification above. Wikilawyering wording does nothing. Widefox; talk 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"LHR (disambiguation)/version 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LHR (disambiguation)/version 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 01:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)