Talk:LP

What's this about?

What is this page about? It's a bit confusing!?

It looks like it discusses LPs of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which links here. That material should probably get moved to the HHGG page. This could probably redirect to some other record page. -- Merphant

I'm going to redirect this page to vinyl record and just delete the content, since it's pov and imo not very useful. -- Merphant 10:57 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure where to put this, but should there be a page on Let's Playing? That is just what I think of when I see LP. 98.238.254.158 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Extra entry

Didn't know what to do with this:

• in popular usage in Taiwan, a common abbreviation for lan pa (Taiwanese for "testicles"), used for instance by Taiwan's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen in blasting Singapore over its pro-China stance [1]

--Commander Keane 13:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This usage is very common in Taiwan. It's an English abbreviation of a Taiwanese word; as such I'm not sure whether or not it belongs in an English-language article. Pterodactyler 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a dictionary defintion, if you agree then it doesn't belong on the dab, but perhaps in Wiktionary. --Commander Keane 17:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Linkin Park

Wondering why Linkin Park was added and removed?! I would've added it back but why waste my time & energy.

--Unbreakable_MJ 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As to why it's not there anymore, you have to consider that this is a disambiguation page. It's not a listing of every LP acronym, it's here to help readers find their desired article. I think it's highly unlikely that someone will search for Linkin Park by typing in "LP". I also think it's high unlikely that someone will wikilink to LP expecting it to redirect to Linkin Park. That's why Linkin Park doesn't belong on this page.--Commander Keane 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you for replying. Still don't see clear rules about the subject since I can list many examples where no one removed the artists from the disambiguation pages. Quick examples:

• Limp Bizkit are listed in LB
• Michael Jordan & Michael Jackson (among others) are listed under MJ
• Marilyn Manson, Eminem & Mandy Moore (among others) are listed under MM

And unlike the listed artists above, Linkin Park do use the two letters LP on their official records. So if someone wanted to fix this should they remove them all or should they add them all? So many articles contradict each other and that's where I'm confused. --Unbreakable_MJ 08:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Many disambiguation pages do contradict eachother, we are trying to work on it at WikiProject_Disambiguation but with 35,000 pages is it a big job! If someone wants to fix a dab page like MM you really have to think about each entry case-by-case, and descide if it belongs. If you are not sure you can just move it to the talk page with your concerns and no harm will be done. I'm afraid it's not an easy job, and I'm often ocnfused too.--Commander Keane 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Should LP do straight to album?

Found my way here via WikiProject_Disambiguation. It seems to me that the vast majority of links to this disabmig page mean to find studio album. Does anyone else like the idea of making this page go automatially to Album with a "for other uses of LP see LP (Disambiguation)" line at the top? Theheadhunter 10:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that most links will go to Album, but I have also seen a significant number of links that rightfully belong to Gramophone record, like when the format is specifically mentioned. It all depends on context. For instance, in a single information box, LP as Format seems to indicate that the link should go to Gramophone record. The same goes for when there is talk about CD, DVD and MC formats. So, in short, I think it's best kept the way it is. --Pekaje 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pekaje. Furthermore see the article EP/Extended play, which also is a league of its own. Brz7 11:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

LP vs L.P.

There's also a disambiguation page at L.P.. If anyone has the time and knowlege, they should probably be merged. --WikiGnome 03:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposing some cleanup

This page (as well as L.P. is unruly and includes a lot of things which seem to belong in a dictionary but not wikipedia (which is not a dictionary)Does the Les Paul article even contain the abbreviation LP? Barely. Neither does light pollution WikiGnome 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Boy howdy

Well ran into this page when my link to LP was bounced back. OK then.

There's hella things here that happen to be named "L... P...." for which the initials "LP" are not used, I'd warrant. I've never heard of a lesson plan being referred to as an "LP", ever, for instance. Doing so would likely elicit a blank stare. I've marked these for citations and if these aren't forthcoming in a while I propose to remove them.

Some of these are legitimate IMO, such as "LP" for Liquid Propane, and so I didn't mark a few. Some others are probably legit and I invite my colleagues to prove good reliable refs. Several obviously don't belong. The rest, let's wait and see. It looks like somebody, doubtless well-meaning, went though here and added everything she could think of that is named "L... P....".

Beyond that, IMO "LP" should devolve to LP record because IMO that's overwhelmingly what people mean when they say "LP" and are probably looking for when they type it in the search box. For one thing, it's silly to say that one meaning of "LP" is "a music album in general". Really? When was the last time you heard someone show you their new CD and say "look at my new LP". Not recently for me. However, let's clear out the cruft here first and then tackle this second issue afterwards. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, another editor maintains that you can't tag stuff for review on a disambig page. Maybe there's such a rule and maybe not, but then disambig pages have plenty of silly rules like not piping stuff. If it's considered better to just just delete the stuff without review, fine, I've done so, and let's move forward to the next task. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear up one one point as we go forward: "Album" can mean "LP" but the converse is not true. Right? Right. All LPs are albums (for the purposes of argument) but all albums are not LPs. That's why its neither necessary or helpful to include any reference to the general concept Album on this page, while it is necessary and useful for the Album article to discuss LPs, and for the LP record article to discuss the concept of albums, and I assume that they each do. Herostratus (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK then, getting some discusions on some of these, so let's work through them. Herostratus (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• El-P. The man's name is El-P which stands for El Producto. It is true that the word "el" (Spanish for "the", I believe) is pronounced the same as the leter "L", but so? We have many articles starting with "el" -- El Alamein, [[El Cid] -- and we don't have "L" versions of those... There's no redirect "L-Al" to El Al and so forth. I can the case for a possible exception here though, but iffy.
• Gibson Les Paul -- no one calls a Les Paul an "LP" -- no one. No entry.
• Latin Percussion (company) -- according to their article this company is also known as LP for short. There's no ref for that though. Maybe the person who wrote the article (tagged as an advertisement, so quite possible a Latin Percussion employee) made that up. We need to get a good ref showing that they are indeed called that.
• Laxmikant-Pyarelal --- Hmmmm. Their article is shot thru with "LP did this" and "LP did that" but AFAIK that's just the editor being lazy. There's no indication that they're called "LP" by anyone outside of Wikipedia. Maybe they are but refs'd be needed.

Got to go for now but let's look at these ones to start. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If an article contains what you feel is incorrect information, the correct place to challenge it is on the talk page of the article. Disambiguation pages are navigational aides to existing content. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding El-P, it is common for disambiguation pages to include homonyms. Sometimes these can go in a See also section. For the others, that is a matter for of specific article content better suited to the specific article talk pages. FWIW, the Gibson Les Paul contains a number of places where the guitar (or a version of it) is referred to as LP. older ≠ wiser 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, correct regarding El-P, now that I think about it. And sure some of these are OK, and the addition of of LAN Perú which uses the IATA code LP, and which wasn't in before is an excellent addition, so let's keep working on these. And some of these are these are marginal, but on the grounds that, hey, somebody somewhere might search on them someday, I guess that's OK. But there's a limit. Some of these are just clutter and its not helpful to the reader to have to search thru clutter. Here are some which are just clutter:

• Gibson Les Paul -- no one calls a Les Paul an "LP" -- no one. And no indication of it in the article. Pure clutter.
• Lower primary school -- never referred to as "LP" AFAIK, and certainly no indication of that in the article. Come on. There are lots of word pairs that start with an "L" and then a "P". Large Pizza, whatever. We can't include them all. Clutter.
• Lesson plan. No one calls a lesson plan an LP and as I said already no one would understand them if they did. No one says "Could I see your LP for next week" anymore than they say "I love your BT" (meaning blue top) or "I'll take care of that NM" (meaning next Monday). Come on. Not every phrase of two words lends itself to an initialization. Clutter.

I mean, the general vibe I'm getting is that these are kind of thrown in scattershot. This is not helpful. "Large Pizza". "Lower Prussia". "Long Pencil". "Lemon Pipers". There are a lot of two-word phrases that a person might write or speak of which the first word begins with "L" and the second word begins with "P". It's not service to the reader include those which are not actual acronyms and are very unlikely to be searched on or used in articles.

• Lorne Park Secondary School -- here we have kind of the opposite problem. It probably is true that local people might occasionally refer to the school as "LP" at times. I'll bet their local paper has headlines like "BP JV beats East Jesus in Lacrosse" etc. The problem is, there are probably scores of high schools school in the United States that have the initials "LP", and this applies then also. This school is part of Category:High schools in Mississauga, which includes Applewood Heights Secondary School which is not listed at AH, and Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School which is not listed at GGM, and Iona Catholic Secondary School which is not listed ast IC. That's the first three I checked and that's the trend, and adding all these to their respective disambig pages would clutter all these pages a lot. Let's leave high schools out it unless there's a special reason, such as BC High which is widely known by those initials. It's just reasonable for a person to search on "LP" and expect to find "Lorne Park Secondary School", it's not reasonable for an editor to write in an article "He graduated from LP and then when to Harvard" without explaining to the reader what LP stands for, and so on. It's not helpful to have this entry.

Right? I'm pretty sure we can agree on these. Les Paul, Lower primary school, and Lesson plan are not supported in their own articles with any ref indicating that they're called "LP" -- probably because they're not -- and there's no support for including those. (There similar entries lower down the list, but let's go thru these one at a time. There's no support for these and no reason to have them so these three should go.

Regarding Lorne Park Secondary School, its a different argument. Think I made a pretty good case that this acronym is not useful for our purposes and for not swamping disambig pages with high schools (or just putting in a random ones). I'm willing to hear counter arguments if there are any. Herostratus (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for all of these should be on the respective articles talk pages. If the article content is incorrect, it should be discussed and amended there.

• Gibson Les Paul, In addition, the early 1952 Les Pauls were never issued serial numbers, did not have bound bodies, and are considered by some as "LP Model prototypes". and The LP body was changed from a one-piece mahogany with a maple top into multiple slabs of mahogany with multiple pieced maple tops. as well as the Edwards E-LP series, and the Navigator N-LP series, which are based on the Les Paul design.
• Latin Percussion (company) It's the logo of the company. I don't see any basis for disputing claim that it is known as LP.
• Laxmikant–Pyarelal Whoever wrote the article seemed to think LP is commonplace shorthand. If that article needs to be improved, this is not the right forum.
• Lower primary school I'm inclined to agree that the mention in the article is unreferenced with no indication of LP being used in reliable sources, but again, if that article needs to be improved, this is not the right forum.
• Lesson plan, agree on this. There is no supporting mention in the article. TBH, I thought I had culled this one.
• Lorne Park Secondary School, I actually don't care about this particular one, but the article clearly asserts the usage. If there is inconsistency in articles for other schools that might contain similar claims but do not, that is a matter for another forum. Disambiguation pages are navigational aides for existing content. Notability and verifiability of statements in articles is not directly a concern for disambiguation. Of course, disambiguation page editors should be alert for obvious hoaxes or self-promotions and remove or challenge offending content from the articles. But repeated discussions at the disambiguation wikiproject have generally concluded that WP:DABMENTION is the accepted criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)