Definition talk:Scalar Multiplication/R-Algebraic Structure

In the "also known as" section, probably of doubtful benefit to add the specific sources of the alternative names / notations. I admit there is a precedent (there are some pages which do this) but I would need persuading that it's a good way to go to add specific "Borowitz & Borwein refer to this as ..." throughout. It's just one reference book of many; the only thing that distinguishes it is that it appears on my bookshelf. In the "Sources" section certainly (it's what "Sources" is for) but I have a feeling that this would open the floodgates to "... but Fredsmith and Johnjones call it a ... while Bigslob, Dandy and Crumble refer to it as a ..."

I'm open to persuasion if it's considered of particular value, or important in particular cases (a counterexample to the above is in Symmetric Difference, of course) - but my view is that the existing style of "Some sources" and so on should indeed be adequate.

Another counterexample is the Definition:Range page, but that one is a special case. --prime mover (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Inclined to agree on that point. --Lord_Farin (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)