Template talk:Infobox code

Not happy

I'm not too happy with this infobox. For one, it contains excessive redundant information. IMO it suffices to include Named after, Type, and Notation - for block codes, at least. A single click on notation reveals any further information required to interpret its parameters. Second, the box does not consider convolutional codes, which are defined by constraint length rather than block length and message length, or rateless codes, which do not have a predetermined block length or code rate at all. Regarding code type, which one do we want to give? Do we only want to distinguish between linear/nonlinear block codes, convolutional codes, and probably rateless codes? For example, the class hierarchy of RS codes may be given as RS codes ⊃ BCH codes ⊃ cyclic codes ⊃ polynomial codes ⊃ linear block codes. Or do want to indicate the next class of codes in such hierarchy? Do we want to point out particular properties, like whether the code is perfect, whether it is optimal (MDS code), or that particularly efficient algorithms exist (like for Fountain codes, which are linearly en-/decodable)? Other than that, I think the principal idea of an infobox for codes has some appeal. Nageh (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)