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(a)promail.pl>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)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