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/Length Description with that content. As for why this is good practice:
- as world events are showing us, bad things do happen, and
- clear and concise descriptions are valuable
- --Rdm (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- If it's lengthy, it's fine to create a secondary page -- for example, perhaps Verhoeff algorithm/Length Description with that content. As for why this is good practice:
- "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.