Talk:SHS

Cleaning up
I have removed several lines which, in some cases, did not link to target article and, in other cases, led to an article which made no mention of SHS. If I missed any links please say where. Abtract (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SHS now gets a (sourced) mention on the Passive Smoking page to which Secondhand smoke redirects. I think the general/other refs should be at the top, not the bottom, of the page, and have moved them back there.  I also corrected Secure Hash Standard, which seemed to have got muddled into being a redirect while it appears to me to be a valid, if short, article. Can find no Google or WP evidence re Southhessian, and the Warrington company isn't redlinked from anywhere else, so they can certainly go, and there's nothing about State Historic Sites either. PamD (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The australia note has to go ... a dab page it to aid navigation to articles not to inform. Abtract (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it meaningful to discussion placement of schools before consensus have been reached at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? Sources belong in articles, dabs are not articles.  Taemyr (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated SHS (high schools) to solve the problem of order ... subject of course to the current discussions. I suggest edit that page for schools and when debate concludes bring it back here if necessary. Abtract (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sub-dabs are discouraged. I restored the list of things known as SHS to the SHS disambiguation page, since that's what the disambiguation page is for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK no problem I have put in a redirect. Abtract (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the schools whose pages did not indicate they were known as SHS. I also used explicit (disambiguation) links for linking to disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A Search on WP shows that there are a huge number of schools which use "SHS" in their articles - no, I'm not about to add them all, but if individual editors add them there can't be any objection. There are also a couple of once-redlinked companies out there... but nothing else now meriting inclusion as far as I can see! PamD (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind: if there are existing redlinks, the companies need to be listed here, to help anyone who's about to create an article on them under a variant name. PamD (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)