Talk:Verhoeff algorithm: Difference between revisions
→Omitted algorithm: Further comment.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Omitted algorithm: usual suspect) |
(→Omitted algorithm: Further comment.) |
||
Line 6:
::"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. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk: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 :) --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
| |||