Talk:Excess heat

Change redirect to Earth's energy budget?

I am wondering if we should rather redirect this to Earth's energy budget, or have a disambiguation page for both options? I see the term "excess heat" used a lot in climate change articles. Pinging User:RCraig09 and User:Efbrazil. EMsmile (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation is needed. Both destinations are valid. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that the term "excess heat" means anything on its own though, it's very contextual. Consider

• Cooking
• Engine cooling
• Computer cooling
• Satellite cooling, like telescopes
• Nuclear power plants
• Animal biology
• etc

Efbrazil (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Thanks to both of you. I've changed the redirect now, set up a disambiguation page (please check): excess heat (disambiguation) and also added a note at the top of Earth's energy budget. - wonder if someone could argue that the more common usage of "excess heat" is waste heat and the redirect should go to there? I would prefer if it goes to Earth's energy budget though. EMsmile (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

— The disambiguation should occur within Excess heat. Since no reader or article is aware of Excess heat (disambiguation), no one will ever reach it! Excess heat (disambiguation) should be deleted.

— 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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no primary topic. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RCraig09, in the future please use the proper channels to move a page; do not cut and paste text from one location to another. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)