Talk:Scientific debate

I would note that User:Ed Poor, recent creator of an article under this name, that was userfied to User:Ed Poor/Scientific debate, has since been creating numerous links to this redirect. HrafnTalkStalk 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a serious problem. Many links to redirects exist on Wikipedia. If you wish, you could pipe those redirects to point to the actual target, but as long as no double redirects are created, the readers probably won't be inconvenienced. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was anything wrong with this, in and of itself. But as Ed has been doing some odd things with wikilinks lately (including red-linking a wide range of semi-random two-word combinations where 'scientific' or similar is one of the words), so I thought it might be a good idea to leave a "note" for future reference. HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something that would be best discussed on his talkpage. I'll point him in the direction of Requested articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not semi-random: they are concepts I've come across elsewhere, which have no articles at Wikipedia: etc.
 * 1) scientific debate
 * 2) scientific controversy

In the old days of Wikipedia, red-linking was considered A Good Thing. It indicates articles which are needed. Now, in case you're worried, I have no plans on counting the links I made and using the sheer number of them to "prove" that an article is wanted. That would be like voting for yourself multiple times in an election! :-) --24.215.186.227 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)