Suggested LifeWiki edits

[C_R_116]

Can we replace the "wicks" directory link on the home page with something more popular like "conduits"?

I don't see how adjustable oscillator extensions deserve to be on the home page rather than conduits.

[confocaloid]

Can we replace the "wicks" directory link on the home page with something more popular like "conduits"?

I don't see how adjustable oscillator extensions deserve to be on the home page rather than conduits.

I disagree. I think wicks are at least as interesting as conduits. For example vex, or the phoenix wicks.
Someone might justifiably say that they don't see how adjustable tracks for active objects deserve to be on the home page, rather than wicks.

It may be a good idea to add link Category:Conduits, though (without removing anything).

[dvgrn]

I think the infobox in Heavyweight volcano should show and describe the original form from 1995. Otherwise the discovery info does not match the shown pattern, which is confusing.

Totally agree that this is confusing.

I just don't know that there's any agreed-on way to make it less confusing. It's possible for readers to get de-confused eventually by reading the article carefully.

This article has shown Scot Ellison's 2007 version of the heavyweight volcano for a long time now; the bounding box and population are correct for the Ellison volcano shown in the infobox. It's also true that Dean Hickerson originally discovered the (first version of the) heavyweight volcano in 1995.

Can someone remind me what the conclusion was, if any, the last time a tricky question like this came up? I found this old Tiki Bar discussion about the vaguely related question of what to put in for bounding box and population, when there's a whole family of related objects and it's hard to know which one (if any) should have its specific metrics listed. But I'm pretty sure this kind of question has come up several times, specifically for a smallish pattern that was bigger when it was originally discovered, and then it got gradually improved. I just don't remember what the general consensus was!

I think that we generally wanted to strike a balance between always having to update to the latest and greatest smallest version (for some maybe-arbitrary definition of "smallest") ... versus forever being stuck with an ancient awkward version of some discovery in the infobox, even though nobody really wants to use that version for anything and its details are really just a historical footnote that fits better in a gallery item?

(Except for the discovery info -- those details have to stay in the infobox, because it shouldn't be possible to end up implying that heavyweight volcanoes were discovered by Scot Ellison in 2007, when they were really discovered in 1995 but the more useful form showed up later.)

[confocaloid]

[...]
(Except for the discovery info -- those details have to stay in the infobox, because it shouldn't be possible to end up implying that heavyweight volcanoes were discovered by Scot Ellison in 2007, when they were really discovered in 1995 but the more useful form showed up later.)

I think that means also showing the original pattern in the infobox (unless it is way too large to be shown in the infobox).
In this case the original form is small enough to be shown in the infobox. It should be clear which pattern was the first, and who discovered what.

The "usefulness" of different versions is not generally anything that could be explained in the infobox. For that, one needs explanations in the main part of the article, telling just how different variants of some patterns are useful in different contexts.
But if one is explaining "usefulness" in the main part, then one might as well show the patterns outside the infobox in the main part of the article (with those considered "most useful/interesting" located closer to the top of the page, and those considered "less useful/interesting" placed later on the page).

Basically, infobox is not the right place for that kind of explanations anyway, about when and how different versions of a pattern can be useful or interesting. And keeping the original version shown in the infobox means that no updates of the associated information are needed. Any updates will go in the main part of the article.

[Chris857]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/P171_pi-heptomino_hassler - needs references for discovery and SKOP info

EDIT by dvgrn: Looks like this is done.

[Haycat2009]

Please expand the custom rules tutorial: It does not help at all in custom rules.

Also, info on variables is appreciated.

[Chris857]

https://discord.com/channels/3579222555 ... 8959072306, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1437&start=4375#p179639 (54P23)
https://discord.com/channels/3579222555 ... 0110815233 (SKOP115)
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1155&p=179563#p179563, https://gitlab.com/hatsya/open-source/c ... 6307624780 (54P23 synth)

Need some updates to 55P23 and the SKOP articles.

[simeks]

On the LifeWiki page about me Simon Ekström someone added:
==External links==
* {{MathGenealogy|id=269110|title=Simon Ekström}}

But this is another Simon Ekström and not me, I'd appreciate if someone with editing right would remove that link.

[JP21]

On the LifeWiki page about me Simon Ekström someone added:
==External links==
* {{MathGenealogy|id=269110|title=Simon Ekström}}

But this is another Simon Ekström and not me, I'd appreciate if someone with editing right would remove that link.

I have now removed it.

[Naszvadi]

On the LifeWiki page about me Simon Ekström someone added:
==External links==
* {{MathGenealogy|id=269110|title=Simon Ekström}}

But this is another Simon Ekström and not me, I'd appreciate if someone with editing right would remove that link.

My bad, that was my fault. Sorry for that!

[May13]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Butterfly_hasslers, p6 section:

found by rlifesrc[2]

Should this be replaced with "found by iNoMed"? As far as I know, rlifesrc is the name of this search program, not username.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Butterfly_hasslers, p6 section:

found by rlifesrc[2]

Should this be replaced with "found by iNoMed"? As far as I know, rlifesrc is the name of this search program, not username.

Or even better, mention both the discoverer and the software tool:

Code: Select all

found by [[iNoMed]] using [[rlifesrc]]<ref name="post144614" />

[confocaloid]

^^ More suggested edits:

o https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144710 Incomplete update. Change the "as of" date to "As of March 12, 2024, this includes..."

o https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140688 Relink to "[[LCM oscillator]]" rather than just "[[LCM]]" (LCM = least common multiple is a number rather than a pattern)

o https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146732 The added "based" is incorrect; the p345 only uses the p15, but is not based on it.

A further question is whether it is even a reasonable idea to continue the long pattern of "copy&paste editing", after earlier discussions/warnings on this. (The patterns were copied from another page, making it hard to maintain the pages.) I think it is better to revert to "The p345 shown on the [[Karel's p15]] page..." and only link to pages with examples, without copying the examples themselves.

EDIT by dvgrn: looks like hotdogPi independently reverted that last edit. Haycat2009 has updated the first two.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143646
The linked forum post doesn't support the added claims.

EDIT by dvgrn: Haycat2009 fixed that problem; I added some more details and references.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146825
I did not find an eater 3 catalyst in the shown p111 oscillator. The catalysts are not eater 3s.

EDIT by dvgrn: Haycat2009 made another edit to clarify that: there's a catalyst known as a "drifty eater3" (mostly it's Entity Valkyrie who calls it that, both on the forums and on Discord) that can often be swapped in for a regular eater3.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145954
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143282
Non-transparent piped links; it is confusing to have "two" and "isomers" linking to the two isomers. (Which in this case are unlikely to be notable for separate pages to begin with.)
Should be either unlinked back (if said isomers aren't really notable), or otherwise reworded to mention the two explicitly so that the linked page title is reasonably close to the displayed link text.

EDIT by dvgrn: There might be an argument that the "two" and "isomers" links are more or less acceptable in a Did-You-Know item (to get a couple of links in without making the item too wordy -- the goals of conciseness and clarity are maybe a little bit in conflict here). But Haycat appears to have cheerfully tried something different there also. Haycat2009, thanks for keeping an eye on this suggestion thread!

[b-engine]

Should we put the first 5 (+1, for octagon 0 as tub, at least for what I call) octagons in the family in octagon 2 and octagon 4?

Code: Select all

x = 82, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
70b3o2$29b3o17b2o18bo3bo$30bo18b2o19bobo2$bo4b2o6b2o13b3o16b4o17b5o$o
bo2bo2bo4bo2bo11bo3bo14bo4bo15bo5bo$bo3bo2bo3bo4bo9bo5bo12bo6bo13bo7b
o$6b2o3bo6bo4bo2bo7bo2bo7bo8bo8bo2bo9bo2bo$11bo6bo4b2obo7bob2o4b2obo8b
ob2o3bo2bobo4bo4bobo2bo$12bo4bo5bo2bo7bo2bo4b2obo8bob2o3bo4bo3bobo3bo
4bo$13bo2bo10bo5bo11bo8bo6bo2bobo4bo4bobo2bo$14b2o12bo3bo13bo6bo9bo2b
o9bo2bo$29b3o15bo4bo14bo7bo$48b4o16bo5bo$30bo38b5o$29b3o17b2o$49b2o19b
obo$69bo3bo2$70b3o!

[confocaloid]

I think neither tub nor pond belongs to the "family". They're unrelated still lives.

Further, although the comment sections on Catagolue pages for xp4_y1g9b9gze40ehy1he04ezy11iqi1 and xp4_y381b18zog0k02t2iai2t20k0goz1w204b44544b402w1zy318d81 have comments apparently putting those oscillators "in the same family", I'm not sure whether that's common enough at this point to be put on wiki. (LW:NB#Name_notability_guideline)

Further, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to copy the same content in both pages. Editors will then have to maintain two copies of the same content.

Should we put the first 5 (+1, for octagon 0 as tub, at least for what I call) octagons in the family in octagon 2 and octagon 4?

Code: Select all

x = 82, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
70b3o2$29b3o17b2o18bo3bo$30bo18b2o19bobo2$bo4b2o6b2o13b3o16b4o17b5o$o
bo2bo2bo4bo2bo11bo3bo14bo4bo15bo5bo$bo3bo2bo3bo4bo9bo5bo12bo6bo13bo7b
o$6b2o3bo6bo4bo2bo7bo2bo7bo8bo8bo2bo9bo2bo$11bo6bo4b2obo7bob2o4b2obo8b
ob2o3bo2bobo4bo4bobo2bo$12bo4bo5bo2bo7bo2bo4b2obo8bob2o3bo4bo3bobo3bo
4bo$13bo2bo10bo5bo11bo8bo6bo2bobo4bo4bobo2bo$14b2o12bo3bo13bo6bo9bo2b
o9bo2bo$29b3o15bo4bo14bo7bo$48b4o16bo5bo$30bo38b5o$29b3o17b2o$49b2o19b
obo$69bo3bo2$70b3o!

[confocaloid]

The rules temporarily named "your_rule_name" and testing_RealLife_or_maybe_not were never meant to be actually posted on the wiki (Rule:your_rule_name, Rule:testing_RealLife_or_maybe_not).
The intent was to provide an incomplete template (so that the person who requested the rule would change at least the name, and possibly the rule as well). It's plausible that there will be other ruletables of this kind posted with temporary name "your_rule_name", etc.

[Ian07]

The rules temporarily named "your_rule_name" and testing_RealLife_or_maybe_not were never meant to be actually posted on the wiki (Rule:your_rule_name, Rule:testing_RealLife_or_maybe_not).
The intent was to provide an incomplete template (so that the person who requested the rule would change at least the name, and possibly the rule as well). It's plausible that there will be other ruletables of this kind posted with temporary name "your_rule_name", etc.

Deleted, thanks for letting me know.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140209

The Nihonium* oscillator fails to illustrate the idea of a (closed) track, precisely because there is a distracting requirement that it is impossible to put just one Herschel on the track.

I believe the following patterns are good examples of closed Herschel tracks. One or both of these patterns could be used instead as an illustration.
They have odd track length, lack symmetry (showing that tracks don't have any symmetry constraints), and have just one Herschel on the track (making it easy to see what happens, and what is the basic idea).

Stable glider reflector and Herschel tracks

A period-945 gun, which I believe to be the minimum odd period that can be realized using a single Herschel:

Code: Select all

x = 81, y = 124, rule = B3/S23
36bo$35bobo$35bobo$34b2ob3o$40bo$34b2ob4o2bo$34b2obo3b3o$40bo$12b2o26b
2o$13bo$13bobo47b2o$14b2o47bo$64bo$63b2o$72bo$70b3o$8bob2o57bo$8b2obo
57b2o2$17b2o41b2o$17b2o41b2o5$29b2o3b2o$30bo3bo$27b3o5b3o12b2o$27bo9bo
12bo$25bobo23b3o$25b2o26bo$53bobo$54b2o3$7b2o$8bo45b2o18b2obo$8bobo42b
obo18b2ob3o$9b2o42bo26bo$52b2o20b2ob3o$75bobo$75bobo$72b2ob2o$72bobo$
74bo$74b2o5$10b2o15b2o$10b2o15bobo$29bo$29b2o$77b2o$77bo$58b2o15bobo$
58b2o15b2o3$22b2o$11b3o8bo21b2o$11bo8bobo22bo$10b3o7b2o20b3o$42bo4$36b
o$34b3o20b2o$33bo22bobo$33b2o21bo$55b2o3$2b2o15b2o$bobo15b2o$bo$2o$8bo
$8b3o$11bo$10b2o5$65b2o$56b2o7b2o$57bo$57bobo$34bo17b2o4b2o$34b3o7b2o
7bo20b2o$37bo6bo8bobo18bo$36b2o4bobo9b2o16bobo$5b2o35b2o28b2o$5b2o4$
10b2o$10b2o$6b2o$6b2o3$12b2o52b2o$12b2o52b2o2b2o$70bobo$72bo$72b2o$30b
2o$31bo$28b3o3bob2o$28bo2b4ob2o$31bo$32b3ob2o2b2o$34bobo4bo6b2o$34bo2b
4o7bo$35b2o12b3o$37b2o12bo$37bo$38bo$37b2o!

p785 (F117 + L156_1 + L112 + F176 + L112 + L112) :

Code: Select all

x = 108, y = 79, rule = B3/S23
38bo$38b3o$41bo$40b2o45bo$47b2o38b3o$35bo7b2o3bo41bo14bo$35b3o4bobo3bo
bo38b2o12b3o$38bo3b2o5b2o2b2o47bo$37b2o14b2o47b2o3$101b2o$28bo53b2o17b
2o$27bobo52b2o$27bobo$26b2obobo$26bo3b2o$24bobo$2b2o19bobo$3bo15b2o3bo
60b2o$3bobo13b2o44b2o19bo$4b2o2b2o55bobo16bo$8b2o57bo16b2o$67b2o19b2o$
31b2o56bo$31b2o26b2o25b3o$59bo26bo$60b3o$43b2o8b2o7bo$43bo9b2o$44b3o$
46bo$41b2o$2b2o31b2o4bobo$bobo16b2o13b2o6bo$bo18bobo20b2o$2o20bo$16b2o
4b2o$16bo2bo$18b2o$9b2o85b2o$9b2o85b2o2$87b2obo$87bob2o$105b2o$105bo$
103bobo$103b2o2$88bo$88b3o$79bo11bo$60b2o17b3o8b2o14bo$61bo20bo22bobo$
20bo27bo11bo20b2o23bo$18b3o27b3o9b2o$17bo33bo$17b2o19b2o10b2o$21b2o16b
o$22bo16bobo$20bo19b2o$20b2o41b2o$63b2o2$94b2o$94bo$95b3o$23b2o15bo56b
o$4b2o17b2o15bobo$4b2o34b3o$42bo11b2o$54bo$3b2o50b3o$4bo52bo$b3o12b2o$
bo14bo$17b3o$19bo!

edit (2024-03-17): the part below was fixed by TYCF.
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146926
Edit summary says "Maintenance is unnecessary", but the edit added "growth." as a separate paragraph, without any clear reason why that would be needed.

[Haycat2009]

By the way, I used Nihonium as an example as it is small enough that the pattern can be seen in detail, and it is infobox-shaped. The constraints are there to show that such tracks are possible, but I added a statement that these are not compulsory.

[confocaloid]

Note that there is no infobox on the page in question. (And no need for an infobox, either, because the page is not about some specific pattern, but rather about a general concept.)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:INFOBOX for an overview of infoboxes.

By the way, I used Nihonium as an example as it is small enough that the pattern can be seen in detail, and it is infobox-shaped. The constraints are there to show that such tracks are possible, but I added a statement that these are not compulsory.

The examples with odd track length I posted above (p945 and p785) would not fit well in an infobox.
However, both of those patterns would fit nicely in an embedded viewer placed on the page without any infobox. I think one or both of those patterns can be added to the page.

Another small closed track is the p256 "machine gun", which is a closed Herschel track consisting of four R64 conduits, with a single Herschel on the track. However, that one is rotationally symmetric (which doesn't have to be the case) and consists of four copies of a single component (which doesn't have to be the case).

EDIT by dvgrn:: Because this article is "track" and not "Herschel track", and because the special caveat about needing two Herschels did make for a difficult-to-explain example of a track (and "Note that most tracks do not have these constraints or are symmetrical, though" wasn't quite grammatical) ... I replaced Nihonium with a custom track containing Herschel conduits, elementary conduits, a Snark and a speed tunnel.

[hotdogPi]

Currently, https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Category:Oscillators_with_11_cells says "This category contains all notable oscillators with a minimum population of 11."

Can we modify the OscillatorPopulation template so that the word "notable" is replaced with the following:

"This category contains all oscillators with a minimum population of 6." (10 or less)
"This category contains all known oscillators with a minimum population of 11." (11 and 12)
Keep 13+ as is.

(While I find it highly unlikely that there's an unknown 11-cell or 12-cell oscillator, searches haven't been done for it. The only unknown 10-cell patterns are colliding 5+5, 6+4, and 7+3 patterns — any oscillator that exists is going to be much more compact than that, so I think it's safe to say there aren't any.)

[Haycat2009]

Dronebetter made an erroneous edit regarding diehard duration of block fuse in Grounded Life - the formula, when followed produces an irrational number of generations. I suggest that it should be corrected.

EDIT by dvgrn: This was a minor trig-function radians vs. degrees confusion, as discussed here.

[confocaloid]

I think the page OCA:Grounded Life has too many animated viewers that are running by default unless/until the reader stops them actively (which requires knowing how to stop them, which is not obvious). Hence a suggestion to disable most or all animations.
Probably also cleanup by removing non-default themes from viewers.

[dbell]

In the "LifeWiki:Game_of_Life_Status_page" under the "c/4 diagonal spaceships, puffers, rakes" section, it might be appropriate to add something like this (perhaps worded better):

"For known rakes whose period p is greater than or equal to 112, rakes of all periods p*N are also known"

BCNU,
-dbell