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:
- 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/Lengthy Description -- with that content. As for why this is good practice:
- That's all very well but what if I had made a blunder when trying to describe the algorithm and people had relied on it? I'm not a cryptographic expert or particularly good at explaining things, but presumably the people who write these articles for Wikipedia are. Moreover, the lack of an explanation in the task description doesn't seem to have stopped people, including yourself, from submitting correct solutions. --PureFox (talk) 16:29, 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.