Talk:London Bridge (disambiguation)

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

Bridges and Tunnels

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles

isn't London bridge also a sex position?

Isn't London Bridge also an MSI song?PsychoPanda. 01:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex position: I don't know, if you're sure, feel free to add...

MSI song: Indeed, somebody added this meaning a few months ago, but somebody else deleted it, but now, I added it again... Greetings, Belgian man 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps fucking up with this?

Are they trying to make Fergie look good or something? Just leave it the way it is, please.

No. Why would we link a Fergie song and not a Mindless Self Indulgence song? And other links than these to the London Bridge articles are not done. Belgian man (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of (subsection) links to historical London Bridges

I notice that @Jauerback: removed the subsection links to the various different London bridges on the basis that "they all redirect to the exact same article".

They redirect to specific subsections covering each of the numerous *different* bridges in that position.

FWIW, most of these bridges (and their subsection entries) would probably be important enough to warrant their own article. That's not to say I want that to happen- IMHO the content is strengthened by being placed within historical context- but the individual bridges *are* significant enough in their own right. This is a fairly long article to wade through and find specific entries, thus the subsection links are useful.

The remaining parent entry in the edited version of the dab page doesn't even make clear that the article also covers the historical bridges. It simply says "the current incarnation of several bridges throughout the years that is located over the River Thames in central London, England".

I've reverted the edit for this reason, and would welcome discussion if Jauerback or anyone else disagrees with this.

Ubcule (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how disambiguation pages are supposed to work. I agree that they could easily have separate articles, but until then, they shouldn't have individual links on here. See MOS:DABPIPE and then the next section MOS:DABREDIR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the rules surrounding piping as well as DABREDIR, the latter of which I usually have in mind (and have on occasion explicitly mentioned) when I link via a redirect.

It actually says "A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This also suggests that the topic may eventually have its own article."

In other words, it explicitly doesn't require there is *currently* a separate article; that's really the point.

Depending on how one wants to interpret the second sentence, it *might* be argued that I undermined my own case when I said I didn't think they'd be best served by *actually* becoming separate articles (even though they could be).

However, I'll note that it merely "suggests" this. More importantly- I assume this is was included to emphasise that the subject of the redirect-to-subsection links were important and substantial enough in their own right to warrant that. Which I entirely agree with; as noted, my reasons for favouring keeping them together were to do with context, not importance.

I'll ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation to see if I can get some other unbiased input on this.

Ubcule (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral party, I don't think there's anything wrong with listing the individual redirects because it helps readers get to the section they're looking for (noting they're not piped). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]