Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 20

March 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2012

Systems and Information Engineering



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 08:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * → University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect currently points to a small subsection of University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science, as it's the name of a program there. This, of course, doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't know where it should redirect to. I'm sure there's a good target for this. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too generic of a redirect, and one that makes no sense. This is akin to redirecting University to University of Virginia. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete highly generic. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Acetonide (disambiguation)



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete. It is not a dab page now. Ruslik_ Zero 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * → Acetonide (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Was recently created as a redir to simple-name (without "(disambiguation)" token), which has always been the actual DAB page. All incoming links adjusted to point to actual, so this redir is not useful intrinsically or a likely search term. DMacks (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created this redir per WP:INTDABLINK because I linked to the dab from Fluclorolone acetonide. My link was since changed to point to the plain-title dab directly. Did I misunderstand INTDABLINK? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I look more closely, I'm not sure this the redirect-target really a "disambiguation" page, since there is a bit of content (not just a list of articles), and one could write somewhat more specifically about this acetal as a class and the listed articles are specific examples of this more general idea (rather than more specific meanings of a nonspecific topic-term). But to the question at hand, WP:DABNAME says that the DAB page goes at the term itself (as you created acetonide), so there is simply no use for also having acetonide (disambiguation) (and that MOS does not recommend it). That's why this nomination--I can't think of anything else that would reasonably be entitled simply "acetonide". DMacks (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I've added content, bringing acetonide up to a definite WP:STUB not a WP:DAB at all (acetonides are citedly notable as a protecting group). The presence of that page was never an issue, just (still) the "... (disambiguation)" redir to it. DMacks (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion, that was quick! Perhaps WP:INTDABLINK could be clarified? Currently it reads 'To link to a disambiguation page..., link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect... (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it...).' That's exactly what I did (except that the page apparently wasn't strictly a dab), and it was obviously wrong. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete disambig page, since the target is what we call WP:DABCONCEPT, and not actually a disambig page. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  12:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (outdent) Okay, but what should be put on the disambig that could not be added to the article? A list of acetonides is already at Acetonide. (It might be expanded, of course, if additional acetonides crop up.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion and as the target is now a stub. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate between Acetonide, Fluocinolone acetonide, Triamcinolone acetonide, Fluclorolone acetonide and probably something else (eg. Fluocinolone/hydroquinone/tretinoin). If we have a name for DAB and the topic can be disambiguated, why shouldn't we? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the "XXX Acetonide" are not things that one would trivially call just "acetonide", so it's not ambiguous what one means when one is looking for just the term "acetonide". "Acetonide" is simply an adjective or attribute identifying specific detail of any other chemical-compound. I hadn't remembered the WP:DABCONCEPT section, but it's sounds pretty on-target. Your "why shouldn't we?" sounds like it would be better-served by a Category:Acetonides, where one could research both the topic and the specifics and easily get from one to another specific example (finding structurally related chemicals). WP:CHEMS and WP:PHARM have long been interested in enhancing the searchability of WP based on chemical attributes of the chemicals that are the topics of articles. DMacks (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is kind an ambiguous topic since people tend to forget the unfamiliar words, and we can't know whether the reader is searching for acedonite because he's interested in this particular chemical or because he forgot/misspelled the first part of the name. That said, category would be good to, but I wouldn't so much count on it, as categories are just not as easy to spot as the hatnotes are. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When soneone does not remember the word in front if acetonide, they are still more likely to type acetonide in the searchbox -- reaching the article with the list of corticoids -- than typing acetonide (disambiguation). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so: many people (including me) use smart bookmarks (where "%s" is substituted in address "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s") and thus never use search at all. Still even if this wasn't so, the search outputs many articles with short snippets that may not be helpful at all, while the DAB page would contain short descriptions specifically crafted to disambiguate the types of acetonides and related subjects. Thus the search doesn't solve the problem for everybody. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am missing something... why would you choose %s = "Acetonide (disambiguation)" instead of simply "Acetonide" in your smart bookmarks? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This time I probably miss something. Sure I'll choose "Acetonide", and that's why I believe that there should be a DAB page at "Acetonide (disambiguation)" and a hatnote at "Acetonide". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.