OEIS Server: This sequence has not been edited or commented on for a week
yet is not proposed for review.  If it is ready for review, please
visit https://oeis.org/draft/A032766 and click the button that reads
"These changes are ready for review by an OEIS Editor."

Thanks.
  - The OEIS Server

Kevin Ryde: Hmm.  If a bit of formula goes with a comment, then it should be with the comment.  Andrew said it would go in formula section because there was no hint that it relates to the construction.

Peter Munn: Your formula looks to me essentially the same as at least 5 earlier ones, dated Sep 04 2003, Apr 04 2005, Mar 19 2010, Oct 25 2013, Jan 18 2015. Of these, I think yours corresponds most closely to Reinhard Zumkeller's (2005), especially the 2n-1 -> 2n+1 rewriting of yours, which would make 7 essentially the same.

  When including something in your contribution to a sequence entry, I think it helps to ask yourself whether it benefits any significant part of the entry's readership. 
  If your formula is not arguably the best of the 6, who needs to see it if they have read past the other 5? If, however, you can make a case that yours is the best, then you could argue the reader benefits from it appearing earlier, where it is more likely to be read. So, *if* you can make such a case for your formula, I would say it goes after Reinhard Zumkeller's 2005 formula, prefixed by "Equivalently, ", and probably rewritten 2n-1 -> 2n+1.

Alexander M. Domashenko: Dear Peter Munn. The formulas are needed because they explain my comment: “The number of integer rectangles, one of whose sides is of length n with the property: the bisectors of the angles form a square within its boundaries.” Since at n = 0 a rectangle with side 0 is degenerate, therefore in the formulas n starts from 1. And accordingly the data is as follows: 1,3,4,6,7,... That is, with a shift by one element.

Peter Munn: Does anyone else think there are already perhaps too many simple formulas listed here? This new proposed formula is essentially the same as Gary Detlefs, Mar 19 2010, and I think we gain nothing by adding it at this point in an already long list.

Peter Munn: Also L. Edson Jeffery, Jan 18 2015.

Peter Munn: In the absence of responses either way (many may not have seen my request) I will put this back into editing.

Michel Marcus: fixed

Alexander M. Domashenko: I made changes to Comments and Formula.

Andrew Howroyd: Please don't insert line breaks in paragraphs. Just let the text wrap naturally.

Andrew Howroyd: The formula should be placed in the Formula section.
But a(n) = 3*k for n = 2*k should be written a(2*n) = 3*n - since this is easier to read.

Alexander M. Domashenko: I fixed it.