[seqfan] Re: Links and references in the OEIS, my policy

[jean-paul allouche]

Why not? in particular if the reference is a paper, a book, etc.
and the link... a link. In any case, better a duplicated entry than
an --ultimately dead-- link.
best
jp


Le 08/12/2019 à 18:21, michel.marcus at free.fr a écrit :
> But then we will have duplicated entries in refs and links ?
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>
> De: "Chris Thompson" <cet1 at cam.ac.uk>
> À: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 8 Décembre 2019 16:09:07
> Objet: [seqfan] Re: Links and references in the OEIS, my policy
>
> On Nov 30 2019, Neil Sloane wrote:
>
>> Dear Sequence Fans, There have been discussions among the editors that I
>> don't agree with, andI would like to make some comments:
> [ ..snip.. ]
>> 3. Replacing a reference by a link is not always a good thing. When the
>> link breaks, as it will sooner or later, the citation gets [broken link]
>> added. Whereas the original reference could still be useful if you have
>> access to the right library.
>>
>> 3.1 That is why we keep references and links separate.
> I do very much agree with this, and consider it a mistake that entries
> began to be moved from "References" to "Links" just because an online
> version became available. Of course, it is useful to provide such a link
> if one exists. If the link subsequently breaks and cannot be mended, drop
> the link but keep the reference - which would be the natural action if
> it had remained in the "References" section.
>