Talk:Verhoeff algorithm

Omitted algorithm

It's bad practice to omit the algorithm from the task description. --Rdm (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it's considered good practice to indulge in lengthy and needless repetition from a non-ephemeral source with full past history, then I'm guilty as charged but unrepentant. --PureFox (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's lengthy, it's fine to create a secondary page -- for example, perhaps Verhoeff algorithm/Lengthy Description -- with that content. As for why this is good practice:

1. as world events are showing us, bad things do happen, and
2. clear and concise descriptions are valuable

--Rdm (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"lengthy and needless repetition..." I resemble that remark. I usually try to err on the side of too much information rather than not enough. Not 100% of the time but pretty darn often. --Thundergnat (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you should never repeat things - if it's short and sweet or is needed because the original source is unclear, that's fine. In this particular case, I did think the Wikipedia article was clear but to describe the algorithm adequately (with its tables and examples) I'd have needed to repeat a large part of the page.

Also and FWIW, I generally find your own tasks a model of clarity whether repetitious or not :) --PureFox (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)