Talk:Functionality (chemistry)

Requested move 2 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Functionality (chemistry) → Functionality – Current title has unnecessary disambiguation. The target is a somewhat dubious redirect. Laurdecl ^talk 06:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The chemistry usage is most certainly not the primary topic for this common word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And what is? We have no other articles on "Functionality", so this is by default the primary article. Or do you think a redirect to "Function" is better? The word may be common, but this isn't a dictionary, and we should select the primary encyclopedic topic. Laurdecl ^talk 06:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't one. It's therefore fine as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

There is only one article titled "Functionality", therefore it is de facto primary. Per WP:ATDAB, the disambiguation in the title and unnecessary and should be removed. Laurdecl ^talk 02:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I also do not really agree with the moving. Certainly at some point a appropriate disambiguation page will be created. I think the redirect to Function is appropriate for most readers, but I would suggest to place at a prominent position on the page Function a link to Functionality (chemistry). --Minihaa (talk)

There will be no disambiguation page because there is nothing to disambiguate. We have only one article on "Functionality". We could put a hatnote on this page with a link to "Function". Laurdecl ^talk 02:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It is reasonable for someone looking for the chemical term functionality to search "functionality"... this redirects to the function dab page which does not include a link to functionality (chemistry), inconsistent with the principle of least surprise. There is mention on the function dab page of functionality in a polymer chemistry context, but this directs them to structural unit. If this discussion retains functionality as a redirect pointing to function, that dab page should probably have either a "functionality redirects here" hatnote or a suitable link to functionality (chemistry) or both. A reader searching on "functionality" could also be looking for one of the following: functionality doctrine; functionality assurance (a redirect to software testing); functionality creep (a redirect to scope creep); or, the doctrine of functionality in Canadian trademark law. Perhaps making functionality a dab page is an appropriate solution? EdChem (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, but functionality should be turned into a disambiguation page instead, since there are clearly enough possible uses of that term to warrant its own page. kennethaw88 • talk 03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

FUNCTIONALITY

The no. of bonding site in a monomer, is referred to as it's functionality.

    H   H              H   H
    |   |              |   |
    C = C  ------->...-C = C-..
    |   |              |   |
    H   H              H   H
  
Thus , ethylene is considered to be bifunctional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepokroy (talk • contribs) 07:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)