Definition talk:If

Suggest that this and its evil twin are linked somehow (probably by transclusion) with Definition:Conditional. --prime mover 08:08, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

... and while I think about it, I feel a little uncomfortable about the idea of replacing all occurrences of "if" on this website with links to this page. I may be persuaded, however, because I can think of no intellectual reason not to. --prime mover 08:10, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Re: the first point, I'm neutral either way, but whatever is done to this should probably be done to Definition:Iff as well. Re: the second point, I didn't particularly have in mind that every instance of "if" be linked to. I just thought it would be handy to have these links for someone who confuses "if then", "if", "only if", and "iff". --GFauxPas 08:52, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps transclude "if", "only if", and "iff" into a general "If" def'n? Just thinking aloud --GFauxPas 08:55, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

... the point is Definition:Conditional is already that general "if" page. My view is that if we need these pages (and I'm not sure they do), they should probably transclude stuff from that page. Definition:Iff is a special case, specifically written because well-meaning simpletons kept changing instances of "iff" to "if" because they thought it was a spelling mistake. I would have thought that "if" required no such special page, on the grounds "everybody knows what if ... then means", but then maybe I'm once more overestimating the clued-up-ness of the people browsing here.

As you say, needs more thinking about. --prime mover 09:16, 2 May 2012 (EDT)