Not knowing much about this stuff, I don't know if one could say a significant amount about Vitamin C-qua-Vitamin C that would not be covered in an ascorbic acid article. *However*, in this case, I wouldn't use redirects at all, and here is why: when you use a redirect for anything not totally trivial (e.g., misspellings), you miss the opportunity to explain then and there for the reader what the relationship between A and B, when you want to redirect to A to B. So, I'm guessing most of the relevant information should go under "ascorbic acid," but at Vitamin C we should have at least a line that says "''Vitamin C'' is the common name for [[ascorbic acid]], q.v." I (at the risk of irritating Jimbo) use "q.v." because this expresses to the reader the author's intention that this isn't *all* we want you to know about Vitamin C (I mean, it doesn't help much just to be told that it's also called "ascorbic acid")--we really do want you to follow the link, so "quod vide."

Larry

----- Original Message ----- From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" kpjas@promail.pl To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 4:39 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] To redirect or not ?

Hello all,

What do you think ? I am in a dilemma :

We have 'Vitamin C' and 'Ascorbic acid' that are exactly the same thing so is it better :

1. to create entry for 'Ascorbic acid' and redirect 'Vitamin

C' entry to the page 2. to create entries for both 'Ascorbic acid' and 'Vitamin C' and from the 'Vitamin C' page, which is just a note, link to 'Ascorbic acid' 3. the other way round

It is open for debate what should be the fundamental entry - 'Ascorbic acid' is the chemical name but most people recognize the name of 'Vitamin C'. So...

Regards, kpj. -- Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Lekarz leczy chorobę, a zabija pacjenta. Czestochowa, Poland ... | Francis Bacon Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l