Definition talk:Multiplicative Function

Disambiguation
Why did we disambiguate this, considering each of the disambiguations means exactly the same thing? There is a slim argument for implementing it as a master-with-subpages style, but a disambiguation page just leaves loads of maintenance work to be done (which is being done piecemeal and haphazardly -- it seems to be a challenge even to change all instances of the link to the disambig when they occur on the same page). Seems pointless to me. --prime mover (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2018 (EST)


 * It is certain that the nonequivalent notion in Definition:Additive Function (Conventional) is also called 'multiplicative'; it's only a matter of effort to find a reference, hence the anticipation with the disambig. (Let's not focus on tangential events.) --barto (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 3 March 2018 (EST)


 * It is recommended that when one makes a more-or-less far-reaching change, like disambiguating a page, that one goes through the references and updates them. I recognise the fact that it may not be a very exciting job, but it would be appreciated if an effort is made to do so. After all, if this is a change which is important enough to do, then it is important enough to clean up after oneself. Leaving it for someone else to do (perhaps a long time later, when there may be a number of different disambiguation pages to choose from) is suboptimal, particularly if that person may not understand the details of what that change is for.


 * It is also recommended that if you do make such a change, that is, to move a page into disambiguation, then it would be expected to add the other definition that causes the page to need to be disambiguated. Leaving the job half done (perhaps with redlinks all over the place) makes the website look untidy. --prime mover (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2018 (EST)

While the rationale for the disambig is valid, I do agree with PM that changing incoming links is *not* tangential -- it is a vital and important part of keeping PW consistent.

If this is too much effort, please suffice with signalling the problem using some maintenance template explaining the issue, and leave it for some other person/some later time. This approach is free of any cost. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2018 (EST)
 * Yes, agreed. (With the parenthesis I was alluding to the remark following the dashes in comment #1.) --barto (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 5 March 2018 (EST)