Talk:LTP
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
In the neuroscience, psychology, physiology, etc. communities, "LTP" is used all the time to refer to long-term potentiation. For this reason, I'd like to redirect this page to long-term potentiation and make a note on that page that LTP may also refer to Linux Test Project. Of course, if "LTP" is also very commonly used to refer to Linux Test Project, then I'd advocate leaving things the way they are.
FWIW, Google gives 443,000 results for LTP (with Linux Test Project coming up as #2, and long-term potentiation not appearing in at least the first 20 results) [1], 2770 for LTP "linux test project" [2], and 25,300 for LTP "long term potentiation" [3]. --Diberri | Talk 16:12, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I think the disambignation is the best way of solving all these questions. I can't (I force myself to 'can not') choose what meaning is more important. And I don't think that Google is a good judge in this case also. Thing that is more common isn't always more important. You know. But all this additions in the main article are not fair. I think. It's just as you're called on a party, and you came there, and then somebody tells you: hey, it isn't your party. We decided to call you only to tell you that now you should go there and there, turn the corner, then downstair, upstairs, third door to the right. It isn't fair. I don't like when I search what the term in utero means - and I see the Nirvana album. I want to see several links and to choose between them. Even if one link is 700 times less important for the most part of people. What do you think about it? Arseni (Jul 02 2004)
I see your point. But I tend to think that Google does a pretty good job at judging the commonness of a term or its usage, especially in the context of scientific research or technology -- so a Google count probably does a decent job with respect to long-term potentiation and Linux Test Project. With that in mind, I think my original Google tests are inappropriate: My tests only count pages that contain the initialism "LTP" as well as its expanded form, which is a problematic confound. For one, I'd say the majority of long-term potentiation-related articles are going to be published in the context of scientific research (PubMed abstracts, etc.), where there are standards about specifying the expanded form of an initialism once it's mentioned. Conversely, Linux-related web pages are often published informally, so that in the context of Linux, "LTP" unambiguously refers to Linux Test Project. Thus, my original Google searches were misleading because they made the inappropriate assumption that on each relevant page, the initialism "LTP" would be mentioned along with its expansion. All that's to say I think we should stick with the status quo, leaving LTP as a disambig page. --Diberri | Talk 17:16, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the LTP page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "LTP" page.
