Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:18, 9 May 2009

Revision as of 03:32, 9 May 2009

Line 185:

**I don't think the ''implementations'' section belongs in this article. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] a how-to guide, and this section does not contain any new relevant information.

**::Your initial reaction is similar to mine. Bu let me argue that the implementations contribute at least epsilon to the article for most readers, and for some readers may convey the algorithm's idea better than anything else. I note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclidean_algorithm&oldid=276556143 when I arrived] at this article — then rated at nearly GA level by the Math WikiProject — the implementations were the article's main content, having been debated and perfected for over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclidean_algorithm&oldid=250714 seven years]. Some editors champion the pseudocode as the only valid way of defining the algorithm precisely. In deference to these editors and in deference to the many readers like them, I feel we should retain the Implementations section. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

**:::Deference to these editors? Pfft. Perhaps you have forgotten the disclaimer: "If you don't want your writing to be '''edited mercilessly''' or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." As for the readers, they come here for a lot of things that they really shouldn't (medical advice comes to mind). The very most we can do in regards to instruction content like this is to provide an informative link — perhaps to a WikiHow article or a programming site. I realize that you have the best intentions by wanting to keep the material, but the fact of the matter is that it really doesn't belong here. The other points you've brought up are largely irrelevant. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

**"if the resulting negative remainder is smaller in absolute value than the typical positive remainder" You used "magnitude" earlier. I recommend swapping out "absolute value" for "magnitude" for consistency.

**::OK, sounds good. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)