Talk:Head and Shoulders

?

User: Uanfala please do not make a redlink to the shampoo. I just merged that into the generic and leaving it a redlink is a magnet for it to be recreated as another PROMO piece of junk... Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you did. My question is: do you have any issues with Head and Shoulders (brand) redirecting to Zinc pyrithione#Brands? Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... or to List of Procter & Gamble brands? Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I haven't provided enough context in my edit summaries. After you redirected Head & Shoulders to this disambiguation page, all 78 78 articles that contain links to it are now showing up in this report. As a result of that, editors are likely to rush in now and fix all these links. How they fix them is dependent on what they see on the dab page. If all they see is the link to the section in the chemical article, they're likely to retarget the links to something like: [[Zink pyrithione#Brands|Head & Shoulders]]. This isn't optimal: the piping is obscure, we don't know if a proper non-promotional article won't get created (and if it does, we won't want to have robbed it of all its incoming links), and even if it doesn't get created, we don't know if List of Procter & Gamble brands isn't a better place to direct readers looking for info on the shampoo. All these issues would be solved if had the Head & Shoulders (shampoo) redirect (or similar) and if it is listed on this page. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for replying! I hear what you are saying. I created the redirect at Head & Shoulders (shampoo).... this is better than the P&G brands as there is actual information there about the active ingredient). thanks again!! Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]