Suggested LifeWiki edits

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
Sokwe
Moderator
Posts: 2709
Joined: July 9th, 2009, 2:44 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Sokwe » May 14th, 2024, 3:02 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
May 14th, 2024, 1:04 am
“Every finite phoenix evolves into an oscillator”

But the domino and dot do not do this?
According to the wiki
A phoenix is a pattern all of whose cells die in every generation, but that never dies as a whole.
Since the domino and dot reach population 0, they do not qualify under this definition.
-Matthias Merzenich

User avatar
DroneBetter
Posts: 106
Joined: December 1st, 2021, 5:16 am
Location: The UK (a delightful place)
Contact:

moving spaceship status pages to the mainspace and {{LinkForumThread}} style=raw

Post by DroneBetter » May 14th, 2024, 1:29 pm

as shown in User:DroneBetter/userspace rule pages#Spaceship_Search_Status_Page-style_pages, there are a few pages alike the LifeWiki:Spaceship Search Status Page for other rules, of which 2×2, HighLife, Day & Night, LeapLife and (in User:DroneBetter/qfind results) the sqrt replicator rule, Flock, HighFlock, Pedestrian Flock and Holstein have pages. Should these status pages be moved from their respective userspaces to subpages of their subject rules? (I have contributed mainly to my own userspace ones and 2×2 as of late, and have been treating the edit logs themselves as sufficient citation, and including longest partials for selected results in the footnotes, neither of which are done in the mainspace Life one)

also, I added an option for one to specify style=raw in {{LinkForumThread}}, to allow the appending of " (discussion thread) at the ConwayLife.com forums" to be omitted like {{LinkCatagolue}}, and currently used it in the 2×2 and qfind results pages, in order to add descriptions of what they contain (since the usual "Re:" titles are not very helpful), should this be employed on the mainspace? The default appendiing is not very useful when repeated many dozens of times in very long pages and looks somewhat ugly, perhaps forum citations could be separated off from others in their own subsection with "ConwayLife.com forums" as the header? (the current consensus seems to be to have them appear in order of invocation, not chronology, so it wouldn't violate any existing conventions)
That concludes my post (I hope you liked it)

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3124
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: moving spaceship status pages to the mainspace and {{LinkForumThread}} style=raw

Post by confocaloid » May 15th, 2024, 12:49 am

Hunting wrote:
August 22nd, 2023, 8:49 am
[...] Also: you should've quote me.
DroneBetter wrote:
May 14th, 2024, 1:29 pm
[...] Should these status pages be moved from their respective userspaces to subpages of their subject rules? [...]
Only if the initial contributor(s) explicitly agree to the idea. Some userpages may not be up-to-date. Some userpages may go against formatting/style guidelines. Some userpages were not intended to be moved into mainspace to begin with.

No matter what is the current state of the page, it should be the decision of the initial contributor(s) whether or not the page can be moved.

DroneBetter wrote:
May 14th, 2024, 1:29 pm
(I have contributed mainly to my own userspace ones and 2×2 as of late, and have been treating the edit logs themselves as sufficient citation, and including longest partials for selected results in the footnotes, neither of which are done in the mainspace Life one)
Edit logs don't provide a sufficient citation for a page, either in the main namespace or in the OCA namespace. A citation should lead to a place that is external to the wiki page. E.g. that might be a webpage, a book, an external article, a forum post.
DroneBetter wrote:
May 14th, 2024, 1:29 pm
also, I added an option for one to specify style=raw in {{LinkForumThread}}, to allow the appending of " (discussion thread) at the ConwayLife.com forums" to be omitted like {{LinkCatagolue}}, and currently used it in the 2×2 and qfind results pages, in order to add descriptions of what they contain (since the usual "Re:" titles are not very helpful), should this be employed on the mainspace? The default appendiing is not very useful when repeated many dozens of times in very long pages and looks somewhat ugly, perhaps forum citations could be separated off from others in their own subsection with "ConwayLife.com forums" as the header? (the current consensus seems to be to have them appear in order of invocation, not chronology, so it wouldn't violate any existing conventions)
I don't have an issue with repeating similar titles in footnotes. As long as the link leads from a footnote to the correct source (which does support the claims made on the wiki), and as long as the footnote text doesn't somehow mislead or misrepresent the source, any consistent formatting should work fine.

Adding new values for template parameters or adding new template parameters usually creates more problems with consistency (and/or maintainability of the resulting template infrastructure) than it could solve. Hence my preference would be to avoid using the newly added "style=raw" and remove it from the template.

If it is desirable to have a different formatting for some situations, then I think there should be a discussion opened here in the "LifeWiki Discussion" subforum, with a detailed outline of what is suggested, and when exactly the new formatting would be used (vs. when the old formatting would be used). If that discussion reaches some consensus, perhaps the end result could be a separate dedicated template (as opposed to overloading an existing template with too many special cases).
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic CA, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
wwei47
Posts: 1716
Joined: February 18th, 2021, 11:18 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by wwei47 » May 15th, 2024, 1:56 pm

Is it time to move the 754P7 page to 563P7? I have a draft in my namespace ready to go.

hotdogPi
Posts: 1650
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by hotdogPi » May 15th, 2024, 2:01 pm

I would support a move.
User:HotdogPi/My discoveries

Periods discovered: 5-16,⑱,⑳G,㉑G,㉒㉔㉕,㉗-㉛,㉜SG,㉞㉟㊱㊳㊵㊷㊹㊺㊽㊿,54G,55G,56,57G,60,62-66,68,70,73,74S,75,76S,80,84,88,90,96
100,02S,06,08,10,12,14G,16,17G,20,26G,28,38,44,47,48,54,56,72,74,80,92,96S
217,486,576

S: SKOP
G: gun

Haycat2009
Posts: 811
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Haycat2009 » May 15th, 2024, 10:09 pm

Nah. It is a reduction. For the same reason 51P384 was not moved to 49P384, I do not support it.
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

Sokwe
Moderator
Posts: 2709
Joined: July 9th, 2009, 2:44 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Sokwe » May 16th, 2024, 5:04 am

wwei47 wrote:
May 15th, 2024, 1:56 pm
Is it time to move the 754P7 page to 563P7? I have a draft in my namespace ready to go.
I support the move, as the 563-cell form is currently the most notable form.
Haycat2009 wrote:
May 15th, 2024, 10:09 pm
Nah. It is a reduction.
The page was moved once before after a reduction. Another example is 54P23, which was moved from 55P23.
Haycat2009 wrote:
May 15th, 2024, 10:09 pm
For the same reason 51P384 was not moved to 49P384, I do not support it.
51P384 was moved to 49P384 (by C28, without discussion) but then moved back (by Confocal, without discussion). I don't think that case should be used as precedent.
-Matthias Merzenich

User avatar
hotcrystal0
Posts: 2336
Joined: July 3rd, 2020, 5:32 pm
Location: United States

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by hotcrystal0 » May 16th, 2024, 7:33 am

Sokwe wrote:
May 16th, 2024, 5:04 am
wwei47 wrote:
May 15th, 2024, 1:56 pm
Is it time to move the 754P7 page to 563P7? I have a draft in my namespace ready to go.
I support the move, as the 563-cell form is currently the most notable form.
When 678P7 was found, the 754P7 page was not moved to 678P7, so I disagree with the move.

Code: Select all

x = 192, y = 53, rule = B3/S23
33$42b4o$41b6o$40b2ob4o$41b2o3$41b2o$39bo6bo$38bo8bo$38bo8bo$38b9o3$42b
4o$41b6o$40b2ob4o$41b2o!

User avatar
wwei47
Posts: 1716
Joined: February 18th, 2021, 11:18 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by wwei47 » May 16th, 2024, 7:57 am

hotcrystal0 wrote:
May 16th, 2024, 7:33 am
Sokwe wrote:
May 16th, 2024, 5:04 am
wwei47 wrote:
May 15th, 2024, 1:56 pm
Is it time to move the 754P7 page to 563P7? I have a draft in my namespace ready to go.
I support the move, as the 563-cell form is currently the most notable form.
When 678P7 was found, the 754P7 page was not moved to 678P7, so I disagree with the move.
This feels ambiguous; it could also be argued that the page was moved from 1320P7 to 1308P7 and from 1308P7 to 754P7, meaning that it should be moved a second (EDIT: 3rd) time.

EDIT 2: Correction: The page was moved directly from 1320P7 to 754P7. This would actually be the second move.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10733
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » May 16th, 2024, 9:05 am

Sokwe wrote:
May 16th, 2024, 5:04 am
I support the move, as the 563-cell form is currently the most notable form.
...
51P384 was moved to 49P384 (by C28, without discussion) but then moved back (by Confocal, without discussion). I don't think that case should be used as precedent.
It does seem like we have a good number of precedents where a page was moved to document a reduced and now-more-notable form. Maybe there are just as many cases where a page was not moved, and the new form was documented in the gallery section instead. Not sure about the relative counts of moved vs. not-moved. Pretty clearly there are a good number of examples in both categories.

That being the case, it seems to me that arguing from precedent just plain isn't a useful way to decide this issue. How about looking at what form of the article will best document ... whatever people might want to know?

I'm somewhat convinced by the idea that it works well to have the article be about the current most notable / most used form of the pattern. If there's a variant that everyone would use for new constructions if they knew about it, and if someone is willing to do the work to make the article be about that variant, then what's wrong with having the article document that variant, with previous variants shown and documented in the gallery section?

Before we have the same arguments all over again, I'd suggest that anyone who wants to discuss this might want to read through this previous discussion on the 54P23 move that Sokwe mentioned, starting with confocaloid's statement of the "don't-move" case, and I think ending with Sokwe's ideas about when a move is warranted.

(Side note, the "heavyweight volcano" article is still stuck saying that it was discovered by Dean Hickerson; there wasn't any more discussion about whether it should be changed to say that Scot Ellison discovered that form of the sparker in 2007. I think maybe it should be changed -- the history with Dean Hickerson's original 1995 variant will still be plainly visible at the top of the gallery.)

User avatar
wwei47
Posts: 1716
Joined: February 18th, 2021, 11:18 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by wwei47 » May 16th, 2024, 9:07 am

Unrelated but is this P5 toad worth adding to the toad reaction page? It trades clearance for size compared to the one on the page.

Code: Select all

x = 17, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
11bo$10bobo$10bobo$8b2obob2o$8bo2bobo$9bobobo$8b2obobob2o$7bo2b2obo2b
o$b2o5bo5bo$bobo5b5o$3bo$ob2o5b2ob2o$2o8bobo$10bobo$11bo!

Post Reply