Talk:Biquadratic function

Disambiguation
You reverted my disambiguation with the edit summary, "The second meaning is unusual and not sourced". It is not normal to place citations on disambiguation pages since they should say nothing that is not in the linked article. The meaning I added is not unusual. On the contrary, it is a common term in electrical network theory and I think you will find that a gbooks search shows it to be the more common term: example,example, example. SpinningSpark 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your change of the redirect page into a dab page is not correct because of WP:ONEOTHER: the target of the redirect is clearly a primary topic, as this meaning of a "biquadratic function" is classical and widely used in mathematics for centuries. Secondly, the sentence that you added in the lead is clearly misplaced, as it uses the degree of a rational function, which is not defined in the lead.
 * However, I understand your concern: As the term is used with a new meaning in circuit analysis, you need a target to link this new meaning. So, hoping that this will be convenient for you, I'll:
 * Edit and move to Rational function the sentence that you have added.
 * Create Biquadratic rational function as a redirect to this sentence (Biquadratic function (computer science) is another possible name for this redirect).
 * Add hatnotes where needed.
 * D.Lazard (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing has come up on Wikipedia before, an historical term gets hijacked by a modern usage. If the modern use becomes more widespread, it takes the primary meaning, and if indeterminate, a dab page is created.  This is what happened at bandwidth because the IT sense has taken it over.  I dispute that the historical use of biquadratic function is primary in Wikipedia terms.  Just a quick look through gbooks confirms that.  So from my point of view, if I can't have a dab page, I want the circuit theory meaning as the target.  Is it going to be necessary to open an RFD on this to settle the issue? SpinningSpark 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, both redirects and  exist. Determining which is the primary topic requires a consensus. As suggested by WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, the best way for seeking a consensus is a WP:request move. If you open such a request, please notify the involved wikiprojects, and WT:WPM, in particular. D.Lazard (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9. SpinningSpark 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)