Talk:The weather in London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The weather in London is used as an example of a broken link and a deleted page: see what links there. A serious article about weather in London could be at London weather or Climate of London. Nonsense or unhelpful substubs such as "it usually rains" can be deleted: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The weather in London. Serious articles can be moved and the automatic redirect deleted.--Henrygb 10:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Then why not lock the article against editing and remove the little blurb from the top of the page that says, "this article is locked?" Cernen 10:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatelty an administrator can only lock (="protect") a page if it exists. In this case, in order to protect the page it would need to be created first - making it a blue (rather than red) link.--Commander Keane 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not anymore is it being used as a red link example. See WP:VPR#End the edit war once and for all: Stop using noun phrases for red link examples: A title that sounds like a potential article subject does not make a good red link example: it's too tempting to good-faith editors, and someone might actually search for it. _SeahenNeonMerlin 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, do not insert the template {{deletedpage}} onto the article, as that would still make it count as a real page and therefore appear as a blue link. The weather in London is supposed to appear as a red link on purpose. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use red, underlined text for the link? Bart133 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We seem to prefer real examples rather than HTML coding. And it is now a historical non-page. It seems to now have an average lifetime of about 30 minutes. --Henrygb 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete this talk page, even if it's an orphan talk page, to keep the warnings above visible to other sysops. --cesarb 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

What is this??? Why not create some nonsensical article title as a redlink example, instead of something someone might (and obviously did) search for? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look what I came across: Wikipedia:Intentionally permanent red link. Salad Days 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. It just seems really nonsensical to use something that might actually be searched for and used, when there are an infinite number of lesser-possible choices. But it looks like this whole thing has been debated up and down already, and I'd rather not get into it. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fang, but I do think The weather in London to be an exceedingly unlikely search, so I imagine there's very little harm here. Joe 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I actually typed "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The weather in London" in my search bar hoping it would redirect me to an article about the weather in London. It wasn't an article, but I noticed that it had a discussion page. I was going to put db-talk on this page. You really should use a different example. Voretus^talk 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? And how many articles have you come across starting with "The" which are not the proper name of something? Weather in London would have got you somewhere else. --Henrygb 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

None. That's why I'm not surprised there wasn't an article. Thanks for linking me to the article on London's climate, though, even if I had already found it once I came to this talk page and read through the discussion :) Voretus^talk 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)