[seqfan] Re: Position of new material

franktaw at netscape.net franktaw at netscape.net
Mon Nov 28 00:59:44 CET 2011

Again, I'm not proposing mass editing of existing sequences.

But I recently added comments to a couple of sequences in what I 
considered appropriate positions, and had an editor say "no, they 
belong at the end" and move them there.

What I'm suggesting is that these rules are desirable, and we should 
try to move towards them rather than away from them.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>

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.

Charles Greathouse
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 
> 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 
> for such sequences may very well be riddled with unintentional 
> (people saying pretty much the same thing, failing to realize the
> equivalence of their comments to earlier comments).
> Al
> 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 
>> follow these rules. But I think that sequences so organized are 
better than
>> those that are strictly chronological, and improving some sequences 
>> 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 
>>> 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 
>> at the end of a section.  I think we should continue to do this.
> --
> Alonso del Arte
> Author at 
> Musician at ReverbNation.com 


More information about the SeqFan mailing list