Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

[get_Snacked]

That assumes that it's a good idea to expect the reader to follow the link to understand.

you got that right, following the link is a good idea. if someone genuinely got confused because they knew so much about CGOL to the point where they know two different p49 pi hasslers like the back of their hand, then only would they click the link.

[confocaloid]

[...] you got that right, following the link is a good idea. [...]

No, that's a misreading of what I wrote. I think it's usually better to avoid wording that changes meaning after the reader follows a link. (I.e. do not contradict the expectation)

[...] if someone genuinely got confused because they knew so much about CGOL to the point where they know two different p49 pi hasslers like the back of their hand, then only would they click the link.

It is unnecessary to know about two specific p49 pi hasslers, to be able to get confused about this.
The reader only needs to know that "p49" stands for period 49, and to know what "pi-heptomino hassler" means in CGoL.
The reader doesn't need to know how many different p49 pi-heptomino hasslers are known; the reader doesn't need to know any specific examples; at this point, it makes sense to assume/expect that there are many examples.
However, following the link contradicts this assumption/expectation. The page p49 pi-heptomino hassler just so happens to talk about one particular example.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=148158
Inconsistent mentions of usernames.
(Either all mentioned usernames should be in quotes, or none of them.
Either all mentioned usernames should be preceded by "forum user", or none of them.)

EDIT by dvgrn: I didn't change anything here. The "forum user" prefix is pretty standard, and it's okay to use it sometimes but not all the time. It's used specifically for cases where someone is getting mentioned as a discoverer, but their name doesn't link to a LifeWiki page about their discoveries.

"Forum user" and the quotation marks help provide information to readers that's equivalent to a link, saying that we're talking about a conwaylife.com community member. Some forum handles don't exactly look like names, so it's good to have the clarification when there isn't any link -- but when there is a link, I think there's no need for either "forum user" or quotation marks.

We have existing examples where quotation marks are used with the phrase "forum user" (e.g., forum user "Disaster16439") and other articles where quotation marks are not used (e.g., forum user rattlesnake). If someone wants to standardize the punctuation so that it's always forum user "handle", that seems okay to me, but it's not particularly high on my own priority list at the moment.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144233
I think pages about people should avoid any claims about whether or not the person is (currently) active.
(Such claims are vague. E.g. someone might be currently active, silently working on some complicated construction or proof, even if without any visible recent activity.
Further, adding such claims means the page is more likely to become outdated.)

EDIT by dvgrn: I undid this change for all of the above reasons.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143270
Redundant comment; a redlink by itself already implies a claim "this page needs to be created".

[confocaloid]

In response to an edit to the previous post:

I think it's a good general rule of thumb to avoid forcing the reader to jump back and forth between pages merely to be able to comprehend the text on the basic level.
Imagine the link is removed. Does the same text still make sense? Does it read the same way?

Whether or not the intended meaning can be intuitively understood, shouldn't depend on presence of hyperlinks.

Stylistic choices (such as adding or not adding "forum user", or adding or not adding quote marks) also shouldn't depend on presence of hyperlinks.
If "forum user" is used when referring to one forum member, but omitted when referring to another forum member, then that is a distracting inconsistency at best (regardless of whether or not there are any links).
At worst, it can be interpreted as discriminatory/disrespectful language.

I think these kinds of inconsistency are a real issue that should be corrected in some way or another.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=148158
Inconsistent mentions of usernames.
(Either all mentioned usernames should be in quotes, or none of them.
Either all mentioned usernames should be preceded by "forum user", or none of them.)

EDIT by dvgrn: I didn't change anything here. The "forum user" prefix is pretty standard, and it's okay to use it sometimes but not all the time. It's used specifically for cases where someone is getting mentioned as a discoverer, but their name doesn't link to a LifeWiki page about their discoveries.

"Forum user" and the quotation marks help provide information to readers that's equivalent to a link, saying that we're talking about a conwaylife.com community member. Some forum handles don't exactly look like names, so it's good to have the clarification when there isn't any link -- but when there is a link, I think there's no need for either "forum user" or quotation marks.

We have existing examples where quotation marks are used with the phrase "forum user" (e.g., forum user "Disaster16439") and other articles where quotation marks are not used (e.g., forum user rattlesnake). If someone wants to standardize the punctuation so that it's always forum user "handle", that seems okay to me, but it's not particularly high on my own priority list at the moment.
[...]

[dvgrn]

Imagine the link is removed. Does the same text still make sense? Does it read the same way?

This is the same idea that has been showing up in some of your objections to Haycat2009 removing four words from the period-49 glider gun (April 2023) article.

Thus far you've gotten feedback from Haycat2009, me, and get_Snacked about this idea of yours. It doesn't seem to us like a good rule to try to follow, so we're not planning to follow it.

Why should we have to bother imagining that a link is removed? In each case, the link is right there. It's supposed to be there. It conveys very useful information -- just by its presence, without anyone having to click it. The existence of the link reliably conveys a key fact: "this set of words is a defined term elsewhere on the LifeWiki".

Whether or not the intended meaning can be intuitively understood, shouldn't depend on presence of hyperlinks.

In these cases we're discussing, it seems to me that the intended meaning is already as clear as it's going to get.

In this latest case, adding "forum user" in front of every person's name would create an awful lot of unnecessary clutter. In the article with the edit you're objecting to, we'd have

"forum user Adam P. Goucher", "forum user iNoMed", "forum user David Raucci", "forum user James Pascua", "forum user BlinkerSpawn", "forum user ElijahKen", "forum user Period1GliderGun" ...

This seems completely unworkable to me. The consistency you're insisting on isn't worth all those extra words -- not even close.

Conversely, removing "forum user" in the one "ElijahKen" case would be a loss of perfectly good relevant information in the name of consistency.

We already have good consistency in this article. It's just that the consistent rule that the article is following is

"every first use of a user identifier should either have a link to the relevant LifeWiki user article, if one exists -- or it should be preceded by the words 'forum user' if the information in question is coming from the forums."

[confocaloid]

Imagine the link is removed. Does the same text still make sense? Does it read the same way?

[...]
Why should we have to bother imagining that a link is removed? In each case, the link is right there. It's supposed to be there. It conveys very useful information -- just by its presence, without anyone having to click it. The existence of the link reliably conveys a key fact: "this set of words is a defined term elsewhere on the LifeWiki".
[...]

In the case of the wiki page "Period-36 glider gun", the hyperlinks do not convey any "key fact" other than that there is a linked page (which might be a redirect). All mentioned usernames in the linked edit are forum usernames. It is inconsistent and arbitrary to use quotes for some usernames but not all of them, and it is inconsistent and arbitrary to use the label "forum user" for some but not all of them. That does not depend on presence of hyperlinks at all; the negative impression and consequences of such inconsistencies remains the same.

In the case of the wiki page "Period-49 glider gun (April 2023)", the hyperlink in the sentence "The gun uses two [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]]s." fails to convey the intended information.
That link misleads the reader into believing[1] that "p49 pi-heptomino hassler" is a notable type of hassler oscillators, and that the linked page will list multiple known examples of "p49 pi-heptomino hasslers" which are considered noteworthy enough for inclusion. Then the claim "The gun uses two p49 pi-heptomino hasslers" reads as a claim that the gun uses two different hassler oscillators of that type (which is false, because the gun actually uses two instances of the same hassler oscillator).
Following the link again contradicts the likely intuitive meaning of the sentence; instead of listing multiple known examples of "p49 pi-heptomino hassler", the page only talks about one specific example, without any justification of this.

[1]: it is reasonable to expect that the reader of the page about a p49 glider gun is already familiar with the ideas/concepts of a "hassler oscillator", a "pi-heptomino hassler" as a specific kind of hassler oscillator, and the abbreviation "p49" meaning "period-49".

I think both the linking page and the linked page need to be changed. The linking page should be reworded to directly and clearly say that the gun uses two instances of the same hassler oscillator. The linked page should be either rewritten to become a list of all noteworthy examples of "p49 pi-heptomino hassler", or else renamed so that the pagename clearly implies that the page is about a single specific oscillator.

[...]
In the article with the edit you're objecting to, we'd have

"forum user Adam P. Goucher", "forum user iNoMed", "forum user David Raucci", "forum user James Pascua", "forum user BlinkerSpawn", "forum user ElijahKen", "forum user Period1GliderGun" ...
[...]

That is incorrect. Three out of names you mentioned aren't forum usernames, so "forum user" should not be used for those. The other four usernames all unambiguously read as usernames even without quote marks and prefixing them with labels.

[...]
We already have good consistency in this article. It's just that the consistent rule that the article is following is

"every first use of a user identifier should either have a link to the relevant LifeWiki user article, if one exists -- or it should be preceded by the words 'forum user' if the information in question is coming from the forums."

My point is that your proposed "rule" is a bad rule. It leads to negative consequences for the wiki articles.
By reading articles trying to follow your "rule", a reader is likely to get wrong impression about the local community.

I think labels such as "forum user" should be discarded entirely. Especially when not applied consistently, this carries a negative connotation, creating an impression that people here somehow discriminate each other into "forum users" and community members.

[Haycat2009]

Just a complication: What should be done if the user or one who discovers has neither a forum username nor a Lifewiki article?

And should I say “Forum user Haycat2009” or “Forum user Haycat Durnak?” Real name or pseudonym?

[confocaloid]

Just a complication: What should be done if the user or one who discovers has neither a forum username nor a Lifewiki article?
[...]

There is a page a page in someone's userspace. IIRC, the leftmost specified column should be used for crediting someone on the wiki.

[...]
And should I say “Forum user Haycat2009” or “Forum user Haycat Durnak?” Real name or pseudonym?

You do understand that it's very easy to Google it and make an educated guess that neither of two is the actual real name? https://dadish.fandom.com/wiki/Space_Durnak

[Haycat2009]

You do understand that it's very easy to Google it and make an educated guess that neither of two is the actual real name? https://dadish.fandom.com/wiki/Space_Durnak

Coincidences do happen - there are multiple people named Simon Ekstrom (See some edits adding papers that were made by someone with the same name)

If you see my colleagues, you can ask them about my real name - this name is true and you suggesting that my name is fake is somewhat degrading.

By the way, I did not know of that website. Do you have the link to whatever that wiki is about?

[confocaloid]

Many of relatively recent additions of "In other rules"-type sections to many main-namespace pages go against LW:NB (both in the added content not being notable enough to be added to those pages, and in many of the additions clearly going against the rule of not documenting one's own discoveries).
Special:Contributions/WhiteHawk

Many "In other rules" sections are low-quality collections of arbitrarily chosen trivia, and should be moved to some other place outside the main namespace.

Please keep in mind that there are hundreds or thousands of cellular automata, each of which could be expected to be mentioned in such a section, and there is no objective reason to mention some of those CA without mentioning other CA. Further, there are lots and lots of similar "curiosity"-type observations in lots of different CA. The majority of such "curiosities" are not anywhere near being notable enough to be mentioned in the main namespace.

[WhiteHawk]

Many of relatively recent additions of "In other rules"-type sections to many main-namespace pages go against LW:NB (both in the added content not being notable enough to be added to those pages, and in many of the additions clearly going against the rule of not documenting one's own discoveries).

Fixed, (Pilife is indeed a notable rule due to it's similarity to DryLife and it's stability that wasn't mentioned before). I would also argue that B34c/S234c is an important rule (and by extension B34c/S23 is as well, especially with it being named) that have garnered significant attention previosly and have numerous interesting and unique patterns, and I personally haven't discovered anything of note in those rules (I did discover things in B3/S234z, which I do admit probably wasn't the best choice for me to add, though I do think it could be notable to mention for it's discovered items).

Many "In other rules" sections are low-quality collections of arbitrarily chosen trivia, and should be moved to some other place outside the main namespace.

Please keep in mind that there are hundreds or thousands of cellular automata, each of which could be expected to be mentioned in such a section, and there is no objective reason to mention some of those CA without mentioning other CA. Further, there are lots and lots of similar "curiosity"-type observations in lots of different CA. The majority of such "curiosities" are not anywhere near being notable enough to be mentioned in the main namespace.

Would that perhaps include the Conway+-, Conway--, and Conway+-1 rules already included, which I don't know of being notable enough, and certainly haven't been much of a notable topic recently, though the may have been historically?

[confocaloid]

[...] Would that perhaps include the Conway+-, Conway--, and Conway+-1 rules already included, which I don't know of being notable enough, and certainly haven't been much of a notable topic recently?

I would say those CA are in a different class. They were explored fairly early (before this website existed, before the currently popular notation existed, ...), and are listed in Mirek's lexicon (archived copy). I believe the investigation at the time mostly focused on those CA that were relatively easy to define/explain, in particular those that could be defined using a symmetric weighted neighbourhood:

Code: Select all

515
101
515

Because that happened before the "recent" explosion of interest in arbitrary two-state R1 Moore isotropic CA, and there were relatively few explored CA, they can be considered more notable than the vast majority of other CA explored later (as well as historically interesting).

For the CA type "two-state isotropic with range-1 Moore neighbourhood", there are 2^102 rulesets. Even if you discard those which "blink" due to B0, those which explode, those which do not support any spaceships, there are still way too many possibilities to be explored (let alone documented). There are relatively few notable CA. Some happened to receive lots of attention (whether or not they really deserved it is another question). Some are (early/first known) examples with certain "interesting" properties, like e.g. "most soups grow chaotically, but there is nevertheless advanced technology".

[WhiteHawk]

I would say those CA are in a different class. They were explored fairly early (before this website existed, before the currently popular notation existed, ...), and are listed in Mirek's lexicon (archived copy). I believe the investigation at the time mostly focused on those CA that were relatively easy to define/explain, in particular those that could be defined using a symmetric weighted neighbourhood:

Code: Select all

515
101
515

Because that happened before the "recent" explosion of interest in arbitrary two-state R1 Moore isotropic CA, and there were relatively few explored CA, they can be considered more notable than the vast majority of other CA explored later (as well as historically interesting).

For the CA type "two-state isotropic with range-1 Moore neighbourhood", there are 2^102 rulesets. Even if you discard those which "blink" due to B0, those which explode, those which do not support any spaceships, there are still way too many possibilities to be explored (let alone documented). There are relatively few notable CA. Some happened to receive lots of attention (whether or not they really deserved it is another question). Some are (early/first known) examples with certain "interesting" properties, like e.g. "most soups grow chaotically, but there is nevertheless advanced technology".

So what would constitute an "interesting" rule which would be worthy of inclusion on the List of isotropic non-totalistic rules in your opinion? I do feel there still are rules which would likely merit mention that aren't yet on that list.

EDIT: Also, there were a lot of links for that didn't actually lead anywhere. Would it be better to leave links going nowhere, or not put in links unless an actual page gets set up?

[confocaloid]

[...] [an unnecessary long quote of immediately preceding post omitted for brevity] [...]
So what would constitute an "interesting" rule which would be worthy of inclusion on the List of isotropic non-totalistic rules in your opinion? I do feel there still are rules which would likely merit mention that aren't yet on that list.

I'm not entirely sure that list is a good idea in the first place. There are no objective criteria for inclusion. It is impossible to list all isotropic CA. Almost certainly people will continue to disagree on what to include and what to exclude, unless/until this list goes away from the main namespace (and possibly becomes someone's userspace page).

Related discussion: OCA talk:Salad

For what it's worth, even the pagename is already confusing. (Does "non-totalistic" explicitly exclude outer-totalistic CA, or it allows them as a subset? How about CA on the hexagonal tiling, or on the triangular tiling? How about multistate CA? How about higher-range neighbourhoods? All of those can be isotropic, and optionally outer-totalistic.)

[WhiteHawk]

For what it's worth, even the pagename is already confusing. (Does "non-totalistic" explicitly exclude outer-totalistic CA, or it allows them as a subset?

There is a separate page for Life-like rules (outer-totalistic), so I guess there is one answer of sorts.

How about CA on the hexagonal tiling, or on the triangular tiling? How about multistate CA? How about higher-range neighbourhoods? All of those can be isotropic, and optionally outer-totalistic.)

I would presume that the tiling would also be specified in the name. Catagolue is probably the best reference to see what fits in each category, since it categorizes and lists OCA. As a matter of fact, Catagolue is likely the better source of at least some of the information listed here.

I'm not entirely sure that list is a good idea in the first place. There are no objective criteria for inclusion. It is impossible to list all isotropic CA. Almost certainly people will continue to disagree on what to include and what to exclude, unless/until this list goes away from the main namespace (and possibly becomes someone's userspace page).

I agree that there is no objectivity for what is and isn't to be included, but one thing that I guess the page could be rearranged to accommodate would be to just serve as a directory to only those rules with their own pages already on the wiki/other sites (or maybe just to link forums related to general topics covered by the category). That list is easily quantifiable and quite short compared to all of the rules that exist under all isotropic non-totalistic ca.

[dvgrn]

Many of relatively recent additions of "In other rules"-type sections to many main-namespace pages go against LW:NB (both in the added content not being notable enough to be added to those pages, and in many of the additions clearly going against the rule of not documenting one's own discoveries).

Fixed...

@WhiteHawk, can you clarify what was fixed, or what you're doing differently after recent feedback on your "In other rules" additions?

hotdogPi seems to share confocaloid's concern about some recent "In other rules" additions, and I have a lot of the same worries. A little bit of "in other rules" detail about really common oscillators and still lifes and active objects seems like a nice thing to have -- but it's definitely possible to overdo it. In fact, it's very very easy to overdo it.

Example: you recently added an "In other rules" section to the "Beluchenko's p40" article, and hotdotPi reverted it. Looks like confocaloid mentioned back in August that this kind of thing isn't really notable.

If we start mentioning every way we would have to modify every Conway's Life oscillator if the rules are changed slightly... then almost every oscillator page's "In other rules" section will end up being much longer than the Conway's Life part. The LifeWiki main namespace is mostly reserved for information specific to Conway's Life. The exceptions pretty much prove the rule, so it's a bit worrisome when it starts looking like the exceptions are going to become the rule.

[WhiteHawk]

@WhiteHawk, can you clarify what was fixed, or what you're doing differently after recent feedback on your "In other rules" additions?

I removed everything I added, except PiLife (B37e/S23) after adding B34c/S23, B34c/S234c, and B3/S234z accounts

I will stick to minor edits and do fewer edits from now on.