Can we substantiate this claim?

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10886
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by dvgrn » February 9th, 2024, 5:28 pm

confocaloid wrote:
February 9th, 2024, 4:18 pm
... perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, as a dubious claim which does not add anything relevant to the knowledge about the article topic.
I'll try that. In the context of the sentence, adding the actual name didn't seem like a problem -- the same information was instantly available from the footnote. But the whole sentence did seem a little dubious to me. Maybe it's kind of a fun piece of trivia about that particular oscillator, but it's also potentially a little bit awkward, as you describe.
confocaloid wrote:
February 9th, 2024, 4:18 pm
See for example MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS on Wikipedia: (I highlighted the directly-relevant part)
A Wikipedia style guide doesn't necessarily seem relevant to a LifeWiki formatting question. Do we have anything about not using links on headings in LifeWiki editing guidelines? I've done a couple of searches but haven't found anything.

The LW:WIKIPEDIA "In general, if there is not a policy or guideline that covers a particular situation at LifeWiki, then the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline should be used" seems like a somewhat unclear source of authority, given the widespread existing usage in "Commonness" headings.

It's interesting that Wikipedia really really doesn't like links to parts of headings, though. I'll go ahead and make that adjustment in the Pulsar quadrant article for now, and see if anyone wants to start a LifeWiki Discussion thread about these various existing linked headers. The "Commonness" linked header seems perfectly fine and useful to me.

Once the whole "LCM oscillators" header is linked, it seems like it might be in the same category -- the text below those headers won't necessarily have the words "commonnness" or "LCM oscillators", so it's simpler to link the words where they currently appear. If these are standard references across many articles (notice there's also an "LCM oscillators" heading in the p76 pi-heptomino hassler article, for example) then linking the header provides a nice easy standard quick jump to that reference material.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » February 9th, 2024, 5:56 pm

LifeWiki:Style guide says
LifeWiki:Style guide wrote:LifeWiki's style guide is designed to maintain consistency throughout the site. Since editors from all over the world can make modifications and additions to LifeWiki's articles, it is important for the project to have a uniform format and style. This article summarizes our recommended style guidelines that apply to all articles written on the site. Articles that follow these guidelines are more likely to be well-received by the rest of the community, and will require other editors to spend less time cleaning them up.
[...]
Cross links between wiki pages are important navigational tools, allowing the reader to easily follow up on interesting points and find more detailed information. However, it is possible to fill a page with too many links. [...]

Links to other articles should only be created when they are relevant to the content, and will be helpful and informative to the reader. Creating too many links can distract the reader and make the article hard to read; some readers are likely to pause on each link to determine whether the link is of interest. [...]
and directly links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style for more information. The latter explicitly says that links should not appear in section headings.

One of problems with links inside headings is that they are essentially distracting visual clutter.
Aiming for a uniform format and style means that headings should not contain any markup. Otherwise they will contain markup sometimes but not other times, which is a failure to be consistent.

A different problem can be seen in the edit summary here: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=137243 - section links can break when the linked section contains a link in its heading.


dvgrn wrote:
February 9th, 2024, 5:28 pm
[...]
confocaloid wrote:
February 9th, 2024, 4:18 pm
See for example MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS on Wikipedia: (I highlighted the directly-relevant part)
A Wikipedia style guide doesn't necessarily seem relevant to a LifeWiki formatting question. Do we have anything about not using links on headings in LifeWiki editing guidelines? I've done a couple of searches but haven't found anything.

The LW:WIKIPEDIA "In general, if there is not a policy or guideline that covers a particular situation at LifeWiki, then the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline should be used" seems like a somewhat unclear source of authority, given the widespread existing usage in "Commonness" headings. [...]
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.

hotdogPi
Posts: 1701
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by hotdogPi » February 13th, 2024, 11:40 am

It has been proven that B23 rules without S0 cannot support spaceships,[citation needed] however examples are known in the ten rules B2367(8)/S2467(8), B235(78)/S14678, and B2357(8)/S3678 (where transitions in brackets are optional). All known are photons.
Both statements cannot be true.
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

User avatar
DroneBetter
Posts: 111
Joined: December 1st, 2021, 5:16 am
Location: The UK (a delightful place)
Contact:

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by DroneBetter » February 13th, 2024, 6:39 pm

hotdogPi wrote:
February 13th, 2024, 11:40 am
It has been proven that B23 rules without S0 cannot support spaceships,[citation needed] however examples are known in the ten rules B2367(8)/S2467(8), B235(78)/S14678, and B2357(8)/S3678 (where transitions in brackets are optional). All known are photons.
Both statements cannot be true.
I am very sorry about this mistake, it arose from my referencing of my diagram, File:OT map (Gray, speed colouring) (annotated).png, in writing it, which had the S0 presence indicator the wrong way around in the B0-less left half. It should actually be "B23 rules with S0 cannot support spaceships," I was not thinking.

I think LaundryPizza03 proved this, since they appear to have taken it as a given here, though I would like an explicit citation to put on the claim and in Spaceship#In_other_rules.
That concludes my post (I hope you liked it)

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » February 29th, 2024, 8:33 am

Sounds like the name in question was mentioned by 'jestlute' back in November 2022, when discussing possible names for a recently populari(s|z)ed catalyst. And then it was added by someone else a few days later. Anyone got more details on this one?

Special:Log?page=Lambunctious+Larry
User:Haycat2009 wrote:m (Add note. Who coined this funny name?)

Code: Select all

5c5
< * [[Lambunctious Larry]]{{citation needed}}
---
> * [[Lambunctious Larry]], an alternative name for Chucklebait.{{citation needed}}
User:Cvojan wrote:(Create page to reduce confusion)

Code: Select all

#REDIRECT [[Chucklebait]]
cgol.zip -> out.txt wrote:

Code: Select all

---
id: 1045127034625597480
author: [866749792214581249, 'hotdogpi']
time: Thu Nov 24 00:01:42 2022 UTC
edited: 1669248108.126
content:
and we have another p11 thumb in <#883375754879041576>
---
id: 1045100722754175047
author: [461357944982863883, 'vivi__mouse']
time: Wed Nov 23 22:17:09 2022 UTC
content:
lambda unctious
---
id: 1045087841069305866
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:25:58 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1045069933752619134
content:
Anyways... I still like this name . I will use this name every time something involving this catalyst comes up
---
id: 1045087351988305940
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:24:01 2022 UTC
reactions: [['🤔', 1], ['™️', 1]]
content:
That irnplies scorpion itself cannot catalyze:trademarkedsymbol:
---
id: 1045087223135076432
author: [690143153566646282, 'jiqci']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:23:30 2022 UTC
content:
we have like 2.5 barges and 3 wings, no need to worry
---
id: 1045086779272872068
author: [343222107255078914, 'ljkiernan1']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:21:44 2022 UTC
edited: 1669238542.87
content:
it looks sort of scorpion-like. scorpion catalyst? or is that too close to giving the same name to 2 different things
---

Code: Select all

---
id: 1045070119711285289
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:15:33 2022 UTC
content:
Known ong ago since catforce antiquity
---
id: 1045070116427157544
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:15:32 2022 UTC
content:
...right
---
id: 1045069969580376106
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:57 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1043091935872696381
content:
nobody expects my ability
---
id: 1045069933752619134
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:48 2022 UTC
content:
Lambunctious Larry
---
id: 1045069827284410418
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:23 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1045068744952651857
content:
yeah
---
id: 1045068885822550137
author: [456226577798135808, 'Deleted User']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:10:38 2022 UTC
content:
it looks kind of buggy
---
id: 1045068744952651857
author: [866749792214581249, 'hotdogpi']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:10:05 2022 UTC
content:
known as of a few days ago
---
id: 1045067925545029782
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:06:49 2022 UTC
content:
i think this catalyst deserves a name at this point
---
id: 1045067537391558816
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:05:17 2022 UTC
content:
very nice
---
id: 1045067380793036830
author: [210964083116212228, 'turingcomplete30']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:04:39 2022 UTC
content:
P60 HF shuttle: ```x = 20, y = 41, rule = B3/S23
2b2o$3bo2b2o$3bobo2bo$2b2obobobob2o$3bobobob2obo$bo$ob3obob4o$o4b3o4bo
$b3ob3ob3o$3b7o$15b2o$14bo2bo$14b2obo$17b2o$14b2o3bo$6b3o4bo2b3o$5bo3b
o2bob2o$4bo5bo2bo2bo$4bo5bo4b2o$4bo5bo$5bo3bo$6b3o$15b2o$13bo2bo$12bob
2o$13bo2b3o$14b2o3bo$17b2o$14b2obo$14bo2bo$15b2o$3b7o$b3ob3ob3o$o4b3o
4bo$ob3obob4o$bo$3bobobob2obo$2b2obobobob2o$3bobo2bo$3bo2b2o$2b2o!```
---
Last edited by confocaloid on February 29th, 2024, 10:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10886
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by dvgrn » February 29th, 2024, 8:54 am

confocaloid wrote:
February 29th, 2024, 8:33 am
Sounds like the name in question was mentioned by 'jestlute' back in November 2022, when discussing possible names for a recently populari(s|z)ed catalyst. And then it was added by someone else a few days later. Anyone got more details on this one?
Yikes, what is "Lambunctious Larry" doing in a disambiguation page?

Or the "LL spark" entry, either, for that matter: it seems like both terms were used exactly once and then never used again. There was at least one quote of the name suggestion -- Jestlute claimed they would use it every time a use for chucklebait came up -- but Discord search doesn't turn up any follow-through on that claim.

Anyway, "Lambunctious Larry" is extra especially dubious on an "LL" disambiguation page, because nobody has ever used "LL" as an abbreviation for "Lambunctious Larry" even once. There's no way anyone could expect "LL" to be understood to mean "chucklebait", right?

Any objections to simply removing both "Lambunctious Larry" and "LL spark" from the disambiguation page?

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » February 29th, 2024, 9:11 am

It is unfortunate that archives of past relevant discussions are not easily available.
dvgrn wrote:
February 29th, 2024, 8:54 am
Any objections to simply removing both "Lambunctious Larry" and "LL spark" from the disambiguation page?
I'd say highly unlikely, considering the date of creation of the page in question (2023-04-01).
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
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10886
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by dvgrn » February 29th, 2024, 9:21 am

confocaloid wrote:
February 29th, 2024, 9:11 am
I'd say highly unlikely, considering the date of creation of the page in question (2023-04-01).
Okay, I'll try taking out those two entries. Someone can always restore them if there's some unexpected groundswell of opposition to the removal. (I find that hard to imagine, but my imagination is kind of limited sometimes.)

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » March 19th, 2024, 9:06 am

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!
To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.
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.

Haycat2009
Posts: 853
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by Haycat2009 » March 19th, 2024, 9:10 am

confocaloid wrote:
March 19th, 2024, 9:06 am
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!
To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.
That is what the Lifeline letter said - but I will correct it anyway.
~ 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.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » March 19th, 2024, 9:28 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
March 19th, 2024, 9:10 am
confocaloid wrote:
March 19th, 2024, 9:06 am
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!
To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.
That is what the Lifeline letter said - but I will correct it anyway.
What is the exact place (volume, page) you are referring to?

According to File:Lifeline_vol_3_p04.jpg,
Lifeline vol 3 p04 wrote:The period three 'double ewe' developed by the writer is presented in this class for the same reason. A modified beacon is used to prevent overloading of the two stable diagonal bit pairs (shown as solid dots).
Here "in this class" refers to class II.B (billiard table configurations) (see previous page).

Note that that Lifeline page does not assert that the oscillator is a "hassler".
Also note that the Lifeline page says "modified beacon", and not just "beacon". There is no actual beacon in that p3 oscillator.
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.

hotdogPi
Posts: 1701
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by hotdogPi » March 19th, 2024, 9:59 am

confocaloid wrote:
March 19th, 2024, 9:28 am
There is no actual beacon in that p3 oscillator.
I would argue that there is. It's a phase-changing reaction that can happen at any odd period. p47 example:

Code: Select all

x = 139, y = 139, rule = B3/S23
48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo4$43bo17bo15bo17bo
$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$39b2o23b2o7b2o23b2o$38bobo7b3o3b3o
7bobo5bobo7b3o3b3o7bobo$38bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo5bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo$37b2o27b2o
3b2o27b2o2$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o2$37b2o61b2o$38bo
8bo3bobo3bo6b2o7b2o6bo3bobo3bo8bo$38bobo7b3o3b3o7b2o7b2o7b3o3b3o7bobo$
39b2o57b2o$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo4$48bo7bo
25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo$65bo7bo2$65b3o3b3o$65b3o
3b3o$65bo7bo$66bo5bo2$12bo4bo42b2o15b2o42bo4bo$10b3o4b3o41b2o13b2o41b
3o4b3o$9bo10bo40bobo11bobo40bo10bo$9b2o8b2o41b2o11b2o41b2o8b2o2$62b2o
11b2o$6b3o12b3o37bobo11bobo37b3o12b3o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$14b2o44b2o
15b2o44b2o2$bo9bo6bo9bo37bo5bo37bo9bo6bo9bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo35bo7bo35bob
o7bo8bo7bobo$bo8bo8bo8bo36b3o3b3o36bo8bo8bo8bo$10bo8bo45b3o3b3o45bo8bo
$11bo6bo101bo6bo$65bo7bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$10bo8bo99bo8bo$bo8bo8bo8bo81b
o8bo8bo8bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo79bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo9bo6bo9bo81bo9bo6bo9bo2$
14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$14b2o21bo7bo16bo13bo16bo7bo21b2o$6b3o12b3o13b3o3b
3o13bo19bo13b3o3b3o13b3o12b3o$38bobobobo14b2o17b2o14bobobobo$39b2ob2o
51b2ob2o$9b2o7b2o99b2o7b2o$9bo8b2o10bob3o13b3obo33bob3o13b3obo10b2o8bo
$10b3o19b2obo11bob2o37b2obo11bob2o19b3o$12bo19b2o15b2o37b2o15b2o19bo4$
12bo19b2o15b2o37b2o15b2o19bo$10b3o19b2obo11bob2o37b2obo11bob2o19b3o$9b
o8b2o10bob3o13b3obo33bob3o13b3obo10b2o8bo$9b2o7b2o99b2o7b2o$39b2ob2o
51b2ob2o$38bobobobo14b2o17b2o14bobobobo$6b3o12b3o13b3o3b3o13bo19bo13b
3o3b3o13b3o12b3o$14b2o21bo7bo16bo13bo16bo7bo21b2o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o
2$bo9bo6bo9bo81bo9bo6bo9bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo79bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo8bo8bo8bo
81bo8bo8bo8bo$10bo8bo99bo8bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$65bo7bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$
10bo8bo45b3o3b3o45bo8bo$bo8bo8bo8bo36b3o3b3o36bo8bo8bo8bo$obo7bo8bo7bo
bo35bo7bo35bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo9bo6bo9bo37bo5bo37bo9bo6bo9bo2$14b2o44b2o
15b2o44b2o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$6b3o12b3o37bobo11bobo37b3o12b3o$62b2o
11b2o2$9b2o8b2o41b2o11b2o41b2o8b2o$9bo10bo40bobo11bobo40bo10bo$10b3o4b
3o41b2o13b2o41b3o4b3o$12bo4bo42b2o15b2o42bo4bo2$66bo5bo$65bo7bo$65b3o
3b3o$65b3o3b3o2$65bo7bo$48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo
25bo7bo4$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$39b2o57b2o
$38bobo7b3o3b3o7b2o7b2o7b3o3b3o7bobo$38bo8bo3bobo3bo6b2o7b2o6bo3bobo3b
o8bo$37b2o61b2o2$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o2$37b2o27b2o
3b2o27b2o$38bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo5bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo$38bobo7b3o3b3o7bobo5bobo
7b3o3b3o7bobo$39b2o23b2o7b2o23b2o$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$
43bo17bo15bo17bo4$48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo
!
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

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3618
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s234c/C4_4/xp62

Re: Can we substantiate this claim?

Post by confocaloid » June 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm

The main page currently mentions the new 135-degree LWSS-to-G, but for some reason doesn't link to the new page "135-degree LWSS-to-G".
The latter page links to two Discord messages which I cannot read, and doesn't link to any forum posts or web pages that would be accessible to every LifeWiki reader, making it unnecessarily hard for a LifeWiki reader to check how much of the content can be substantiated and to understand what else is known about the device and its discovery.

Relevant forum posts (there might be more):
viewtopic.php?p=187562#p187562
viewtopic.php?p=187589#p187589
viewtopic.php?p=187600#p187600
viewtopic.php?p=187626#p187626
viewtopic.php?p=187598#p187598
viewtopic.php?p=187599#p187599
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.

Post Reply