[seqfan] Re: Position of new material
charles.greathouse at case.edu
Sun Nov 27 21:11:02 CET 2011
I largely follow rules similar to Franklin's when adding new material.
In short: if there's a good reason for it to be in a particular
place, put it there, otherwise put it at the end. I don't rearrange
existing material unless there's a special reason for it.
Longer entries could use some work, though I haven't attempted to put
any kind of order to them in the past. There are I have tried to
limit material in those entries. For example, I move
peripherally-related information to other sequences when possible.
For example, if a comment was proposed for A000040 that said:
For all members p of this sequence, p+1 has the property ...
I would tend to move this to A008864 which has less material and is
more closely related.
Case Western Reserve University
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Alonso Del Arte
<alonso.delarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> My two cents: I agree with Franklin's suggested rules of precedence for
> comments and formulas but I also partly agree with Tony on the
> impracticality of doing it on a thorough basis.
> However, perhaps we should do it for core sequences. The comment sections
> for such sequences may very well be riddled with unintentional duplication
> (people saying pretty much the same thing, failing to realize the
> equivalence of their comments to earlier comments).
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:36 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that any sort of effort be made to make every sequence
>> follow these rules. But I think that sequences so organized are better than
>> those that are strictly chronological, and improving some sequences is
>> better than improving none of them.
>> As for differences of opinion about the importance and relevence of
>> material: that is precisely what we have editors for.
>> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. D. Noe <noe at sspectra.com>
>> At 10:31 PM -0500 11/26/11, franktaw at netscape.net wrote:
>>> Is there, or should there be, a standard rule for where new material is
>>> to be placed in the comments or formulas section of a sequence? My
>>> opinion is that the following rules should be applied, in order:
>>> 1) If the new material is closely related to existing material, it
>>> should be placed next to it.
>>> 2) More significant material should be placed before items that are
>>> more peripherally related to the sequence.
>>> 3) Place new items after existing items.
>>> Basically, I think the sequence entry should try to present some degree
>>> of narrative rather than simply reflecting the history of the entry.
>> I think it would be too much work (and too open to opinion) to try to
>> organize entries as you wish. Currently almost all new material is placed
>> at the end of a section. I think we should continue to do this.
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> Alonso del Arte
> Author at SmashWords.com<https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/AlonsoDelarte>
> Musician at ReverbNation.com <http://www.reverbnation.com/alonsodelarte>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan