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
Since this redirect page has had less than one view per day, I think it doesn't matter much. If someone wants to form a disambiguation page with more than two entries, that's OK, too. A two-entry disambiguation page does seem appropriate. —RCraig09 (
talk)20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
— Within disambiguation pages, there should only be a single internal link per entry; accordingly, "climate change" and "cold fusion" should not be linked. —RCraig09 (
talk)12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
To me it makes more sense to have
excess heat redirect directly to
Earth's energy budget, and to have a separate disambiguation page. Readers get pointed to the new disambiguation page from the new "redirect hatnote" of
Earth's energy budget. Why do you think the current solution is problematic, does it violate a guidance? I don't feel very strongly about it though so if you want to change it, go ahead.
EMsmile (
talk)
13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirects to a particular article are appropriate only if that article gets substantially more attention than all other articles. See
WP:TWODABS. Here,
Earth's energy budget is third out of fourth in views in the last 20 days! Also, it was not the subject of a 15-year-old redirect to a different article. —RCraig09 (
talk)15:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am confused. Do we have a primary topic for this term? I thought it might be
waste heat but that also gets only low pageviews. I wasn't going to make a big thing out of this redirect, thought it would be quick and easy. :-) . I just didn't think that a redirect for "excess heat" going to nuclear fusion made sense. I got onto the "excess heat" topic as part of our discussions at
ocean heat content where we talk about "90% of excess heat" and I wanted to wikilink excess heat to the right place... I don't want to waste your time though with long discussions. I invite you to change it over into a system that you think would work best and be in line with that primary topic concept?
EMsmile (
talk)
21:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
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
Since this redirect page has had less than one view per day, I think it doesn't matter much. If someone wants to form a disambiguation page with more than two entries, that's OK, too. A two-entry disambiguation page does seem appropriate. —RCraig09 (
talk)20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
— Within disambiguation pages, there should only be a single internal link per entry; accordingly, "climate change" and "cold fusion" should not be linked. —RCraig09 (
talk)12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
To me it makes more sense to have
excess heat redirect directly to
Earth's energy budget, and to have a separate disambiguation page. Readers get pointed to the new disambiguation page from the new "redirect hatnote" of
Earth's energy budget. Why do you think the current solution is problematic, does it violate a guidance? I don't feel very strongly about it though so if you want to change it, go ahead.
EMsmile (
talk)
13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirects to a particular article are appropriate only if that article gets substantially more attention than all other articles. See
WP:TWODABS. Here,
Earth's energy budget is third out of fourth in views in the last 20 days! Also, it was not the subject of a 15-year-old redirect to a different article. —RCraig09 (
talk)15:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am confused. Do we have a primary topic for this term? I thought it might be
waste heat but that also gets only low pageviews. I wasn't going to make a big thing out of this redirect, thought it would be quick and easy. :-) . I just didn't think that a redirect for "excess heat" going to nuclear fusion made sense. I got onto the "excess heat" topic as part of our discussions at
ocean heat content where we talk about "90% of excess heat" and I wanted to wikilink excess heat to the right place... I don't want to waste your time though with long discussions. I invite you to change it over into a system that you think would work best and be in line with that primary topic concept?
EMsmile (
talk)
21:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply