Talk:Sensipent family: Difference between revisions
m clarification |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:: If you agree a subgroup extension is canonical s.t there's no ambiguity (meaning it's unique among alternatives) then I believe it should be presented as such (as an extension proper, but with a subheader indicating it's a subgroup extension, as it was before). Furthermore, your reason seems backwards to me; shouldn't a subgroup extension that isn't in the increasing order of primes be prioritised at the very top, as it represents unique information? --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) | :: If you agree a subgroup extension is canonical s.t there's no ambiguity (meaning it's unique among alternatives) then I believe it should be presented as such (as an extension proper, but with a subheader indicating it's a subgroup extension, as it was before). Furthermore, your reason seems backwards to me; shouldn't a subgroup extension that isn't in the increasing order of primes be prioritised at the very top, as it represents unique information? --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) | ||
::: I believe subgroup extensions may be prioritized if they skip one prime. Any more than one, they tend to be esoteric, and there's not much logic to putting them at the top organizationally. Instead, the overview section should be expanded to inform the readers of a subgroup extensions section. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC) | |||