Suggested LifeWiki edits

[Vort]

Can you please link to the source for the intended pattern? The description is unclear.

I took it from some gun (probably, yours):

Code: Select all

x = 74, y = 77, rule = LifeHistory
9.A52.4B$9.3A49.4B$12.A47.4B$11.2A46.4B$11.4B43.4B$13.3B41.4B$.4B2.B.
3B.A3B39.4B$.4B.2BA3BA11B31.4B$2A5BA4BA3B2A7B29.4B$2A5BA2BA2BA3BA7B
28.4B$.B.5B4A3BABA7B27.4B$3.B2A4B2A3B2A10B24.4B$4.2A7B2.13B22.4B$4.8B
6.10B21.4B$6.7B7.7B21.4B$5.10B6.8B18.4B$5.13B2.7B2A17.4B$6.21B2AB15.
4B$8.22B.B12.4B$8.16B2A5B2A10.4B$8.16B2A5B2A9.4B$9.18B.4B9.4B$16.4B.
3B.B2.4B8.4B$17.4B18.4B$18.3BA16.4B$19.ABAB14.4B$20.2A2B12.4B$21.4B
10.4B$22.4B8.4B$23.4B6.4B$24.4B4.4B$25.4B2.4B$26.8B$27.6B$28.4B$19.A
7.6B$17.3A6.8B$16.A8.4B2.4B$16.2A6.4B4.4B$14.4B5.4B6.4B$13.2AB6.4B8.
4B$13.A.AB4.4B10.4B2.2B$14.2AB3.4B12.8B$14.3B2.4B14.8B$14.8B16.8B8.2A
$13.8B15.2B.9B5.A.A$13.8B14.2A12B4.A$13.7B15.2AB.9B4.2A$12.9B15.B2.7B
5.2B$11.11B17.8B2.5B6.3B5.2A$10.11B19.15B4.4B5.A$10.16B.7B5.5B.10B4.
5B.BA.A$10.24B4.18B3.5B.B2A$9.47B3.7B$9.46B3.8B$9.45B3.8B4.2A$9.21B2A
33B3.A.A$7.2AB.19B2A18B2A13B3.A$6.A.AB2.10B3.24BA2BA13B.2A$6.A6.8B5.
10B2.B3.B2.B3.B2A15B$5.2A6.7B9.6B14.18B3.2A$13.2A16.3B13.5B3.12B.B2.A
$14.A18.B13.2A7.12B3A$11.3A19.2A13.A8.9B.BA$11.A22.A10.3A9.9B3.2A$34.
A.A8.A11.9B4.A$35.2A20.2B2A3B.B2A2.A.2A$55.3BA2BA2B.BA.A.A.2A$54.2A3B
ABAB5.A.A$53.A.AB.2BA4B3.A.A$53.A.2B6.2A4.A$51.A.2AB7.A$50.A.A2.B8.3A
$50.A2.2A11.A$51.A.A$50.2A2.A$53.2A!

I think collecting all known examples in a single wiki page is impractical.

User wants to know how to multiply period by some number.
He goes to wiki and sees "semi-Snark, tremi-Snark, quadri-Snark, unnamed x5 reflector, unnamed x12 reflector, unnamed x11 and x(6n+4) reflectors".
He may conclude that x7 multiplication is not possible, which is not true.

No need to collect all examples, it is enough to show what multiplications are possible with present technology.

[confocaloid]

Can you please link to the source for the intended pattern? The description is unclear.

I took it from some gun (probably, yours):
[...]

That composite 7G-to-G pulse divider has the output glider crossing the input glider track, which makes the repeat time higher than necessary.

Here is a composite 7G-to-G pulse divider that avoids that problem (attached to a p120 glider gun):

Code: Select all

x = 81, y = 82, rule = B3/S23
19b2o$19bo2b2o$20bobo52bo$7bo11b2o2bo49b3o$7b3o11bobo48bo$10bo8b2obo
49b2o$4bo4b2o9bo$3bobo7bo4bobo43b2o3b2o6b2o$3bobo6bobo3b2o44b2o3bobo4b
obo$2obobobo4bo2bo54b2o4bo$2obo2b2o5b2o22b2o35b3o$3bo24bo8bobo33bo$3b
2o21b3o10bo33b2o$5bo19bo13b2o$3b3o19b2o$2bo$2b2o$22b2o$5b2o14bo2bo$5bo
16b2o18b2o15bo$3bobo36b2o15bo$3b2o54b3o15b2o$61bo15bo$78b3o$6b2o72bo$
5bobo65b2o$5bo21b3o38b2o3bo$4b2o21bo24b2o13bobo4b3o$28bo24bo11b3obobo
4bo$20b2o15b2o11b3o11bo5b2o$20bo16b2o11bo13b2o$18bobo$18b2o24$57b3o$
57bo$58bo3$46b2o5b2o$46b2o5b2o2$50b2o$50b2o4$66b2o5b2o$64bo8b2o$62b2o
4b2o$62bo6b2o6b2o$62bo2b2o2b3o5b2o$63bob2o4$66b2o$66bo$67b3o$69bo!

I think collecting all known examples in a single wiki page is impractical.

User wants to know how to multiply period by some number.
He goes to wiki and sees "semi-Snark, tremi-Snark, quadri-Snark, unnamed x5 reflector, unnamed x12 reflector, unnamed x11 and x(6n+4) reflectors".
He may conclude that x7 multiplication is not possible, which is not true.

No need to collect all examples, it is enough to show what multiplications are possible with present technology.

The wiki is not perfect, and does not always adequately explain the topics.
In particular, the wording you quote was added in the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=133166 and is incorrect. These devices are not reflectors.

The known x7 examples are not very compact. The same holds for many other pulse division coefficients. I think one could simply link to known examples for every coefficients, without showing many large patterns.

[confocaloid]

I suggest that all the recent edits adding hyperlinks to https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=150403 be reverted, at least until the current dispute is resolved in a meaningful way.

Those changes violate LifeWiki:Dispute resolution. The edits were made without consensus for those changes, and ignoring existing disagreement with those changes.

Despite the claims made in the edit summaries, the linked page ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=150403 ) doesn't explain the specific intended meaning behind those uses of words and phrases. Furthermore, the linked page currently fails to explain *any* specific meaning. The linked page contains several internal contradictions, technically false claims, failures to correctly document actual existing usage; the page significantly misrepresents existing ideas in available sources, and otherwise misleads readers as to what is or is not the case.
I believe adding those links to that page is detrimental to LifeWiki as a repository of existing knowledge about Life and other cellular automata.

Crosspost:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?targ ... tributions

I believe the recent large-scale hyperlinking campaign by User:Dvgrn violates LifeWiki:Dispute resolution, by pushing changes (adding links to their preferred page) without consensus for those changes, by ignoring existing disagreement with those changes, and by failing to attempt to understand legitimate objections of others / avoiding meaningful discussion of the matter.

The website-related questions are [...]
[...]

Note: two cellstates (dead/off/0 and alive/on/1), square grid, and range-1 Moore neighbourhood are assumed in most of the discussion.

[...] the conwaylife community's current standard usage [...]

I think it is counterproductive to attempt to declare any "standard usage". There is no "standard usage" in the local community on this website, because there is no reliable, commonly agreed, uncontroversial way to determine what counts as "standard".

It would be much more productive to aim for intuitive, self-explanatory terminology that is easy to understand and hard to misunderstand.
Existing usage of words and phrases in the local community is frequently counterintuitive or self-contradictory.
[...]

[dvgrn]

I suggest that all the recent edits adding hyperlinks to https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=150403 be reverted, at least until the current dispute is resolved in a meaningful way.

Those changes violate LifeWiki:Dispute resolution. The edits were made without consensus for those changes, and ignoring existing disagreement with those changes.

In point of fact it is confocaloid's suggestion that would violate LW:DR. Here's a quote from those guidelines:

5) ...Optionally, if a dispute carries on for a long time (e.g., more than 2 weeks) without a clear path towards consensus, a moderator may initiate this step themselves. If you disagree with their decision, do not revert their actions on the wiki.
6) Disengage. Again, for at least a week. The result of most disputes will not critically affect the lifeblood of LifeWiki. Disengage and consider whether the time and energy spent on this dispute is worth it, or could be better spent improving things elsewhere on the wiki.
7) If you disagree with the moderator's decision and it seems like an important enough issue to escalate, you can message another moderator for a second opinion...

A while back I made an executive decision saying that the dozens of existing uses of "transition" on the LifeWiki should be left the way they were, not changed to some other term, until the community's opinion on this topic could be shown to have changed.

Quite a number of people have used the term "transition" in quite a number of LifeWiki articles, apparently with the expectation that they would be clearly understood when they referred to something like "B6" as a transition. And for at least the decade since 2014, everyone on the forums and the LifeWiki apparently did understand phrases like "B6 transition", without any confusion.

Now all of a sudden confocaloid seems to think that it's critically important to change that particular piece of terminology -- so critically important that it's worth prolonging this argument at any cost, including breaking LW:DR rules repeatedly. LW:DR rules strongly suggest that now would be the time to look for a moderator who is willing to overturn the executive decision, or maybe to look for people who have previously said that confocaloid's proposed changes were not necessary, who are now willing to speak up and say they've changed their minds.

It's not easy to find a moderator who is willing to overturn that executive decision. I've made several public and private requests for anyone who fits that description to please speak up. I've heard various levels of support for my executive decision, from four other moderators -- and zero objections so far. Maybe there's a hidden reservoir of discontented moderators somewhere, but it has been very hard to find any evidence of that. The same has been true of the wider community: there have been two or three expressions of support for confocaloid's suggested changes, and over a dozen people saying that those proposed changes were not a good idea.

Contrary to what confocaloid keeps saying, the transition (rule definition) page is an explanation of the existing usage of "transition" on the LifeWiki. The added links didn't change the existing usage on those pages. In my opinion the links are potentially useful to help newcomers understand that existing usage. No doubt that page can be improved in various ways, and anyone should feel free to make improvements.

As soon as there's a groundswell of support for confocaloid's ideas, I'll be happy to withdraw my executive decision. In the meantime, please just leave those links as they are, and don't try to add anything to the LifeWiki that implies that "transition" is only a useful term when it's used in the old LIFELINE sense of an oldstate->newstate transition.

[confocaloid]

Your "executive decision" is completely irrelevant to your recent hyperlinking campaign.

[...] The added links didn't change the existing usage on those pages. In my opinion the links are potentially useful to help newcomers understand that existing usage. [...]

That is only your opinion, and not anything that would by itself suffice to support your idea.

In my opinion the added links and the page are damaging to LifeWiki. They misrepresent ideas and opinions of people, and otherwise mislead readers regarding what is or is not the case.

As I already pointed out in my previous posts, there are existing objections to your idea to add that page and those links. There is currently no consensus that would support you adding that page and those links.

The fact that you started the recent editing/hyperlinking campaign, despite those objections and despite lack of consensus, is a clear violation of LifeWiki:Dispute resolution: you are completely ignoring the need for any dispute resolution, and instead trying to push your own point of view ("In my opinion the links...") into LifeWiki.

[dvgrn]

The fact that you started the recent editing/hyperlinking campaign, despite those objections and despite lack of consensus, is a clear violation of LifeWiki:Dispute resolution: you are completely ignoring the need for any dispute resolution, and instead trying to push your own point of view ("In my opinion the links...") into LifeWiki.

@confocaloid, I've quoted the specific sections of LW:DR that your suggestion violates: "If you disagree with their decision, do not revert their actions on the wiki," and "If you disagree with the moderator's decision and it seems like an important enough issue to escalate, you can message another moderator for a second opinion."

Questions
1) Do you believe that your actions so far count as any kind of attempt to follow the above LW:DR rules?

2) What specific step of LW:DR do you believe that I should be following, that I'm not following?

Executive decisions
Executive decisions are a key part of the LifeWiki dispute resolution procedure. LW:DR standard procedure can't possibly work very well if some community members feel free to completely ignore executive decisions, on the grounds that they're just obviously wrong (or any other reason).

@confocaloid, your continued attempts to undermine my executive decision are, to put it bluntly, a really really bad idea. Follow the rules and get the executive decision overturned, if you can. You've never shown any sign of awareness of the possibility that a community consensus actually does exist on this topic -- a consensus that you disagree with. Consensus does not require unanimity.

Second opinions have already been posted by other moderators, including one from rowett that very clearly followed LW:DR guidelines. Nobody else has voiced any objections about the way that the LW:DR procedure worked in that case.

Long story short, public community support for this idea of changing LifeWiki "transition" usage to something else is really extraordinarily thin at the moment. In my opinion as a moderator, the threshold for consensus on not changing "transition" was met a long, long time ago -- when I made the executive decision.

The dispute should have been considered to be closed when the executive decision was made, unless someone wanted to follow LW:DR rules to re-open the question. H. H. P. M. P. Cole did a great job of trying that out recently -- and the dispute is now closed again, after rowett's second opinion came in. If someone still wants to re-open the question, another moderator or admin needs to be found who would be willing to overturn the executive decision.

Alternatively, the larger community needs to convince me that I'm mis-reading what the community wants to happen (or rather, not happen) in this case -- in which case, I'd be happy to withdraw my executive decision myself.

Moderators don't think that they're infallible
Everyone should definitely remember that my opinion as a moderator about the existence of a consensus could perfectly well be wrong! Again, if that's the case, then it's up to the rest of the community to correct me on this point.

To re-open this issue, a number of other people will have to post their own opinions agreeing with confocaloid. Until that happens, more LW:DR-rule-breaking posts from confocaloid simply aren't going to help anything.

[confocaloid]

@dvgrn My suggestion is for you to follow the community rules (which you seemingly want others to follow), and for your edits adding those links to your new page to be rolled back, because there is no consensus for your idea to add that page and those links to it and there are objections to you doing so.

You are violating LifeWiki:Dispute resolution by failing to attempt any actual dispute resolution (including attempts to understand the legitimate objections of others and discussion).

You are actively undermining the rules LifeWiki:Dispute resolution and the basic idea of a possibility of any dispute resolution, by ignoring those very rules, by pushing your point-of-view into LifeWiki, as well as by causing long-term or persistent damage to the local environment here on this website, in attempts to avoid responsibility for those your actions.

@confocaloid, I've quoted the specific sections of LW:DR [...]

Again, those sections are irrelevant to your linking campaign and to my suggestion.
Your earlier "executive decision" is irrelevant to your recent series of edits adding a new page and linking it from various other pages.

I suggest that all the recent edits adding hyperlinks to https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=150403 be reverted, at least until the current dispute is resolved in a meaningful way.

Those changes violate LifeWiki:Dispute resolution. The edits were made without consensus for those changes, and ignoring existing disagreement with those changes.

Despite the claims made in the edit summaries, the linked page ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=150403 ) doesn't explain the specific intended meaning behind those uses of words and phrases. Furthermore, the linked page currently fails to explain *any* specific meaning. The linked page contains several internal contradictions, technically false claims, failures to correctly document actual existing usage; the page significantly misrepresents existing ideas in available sources, and otherwise misleads readers as to what is or is not the case.
I believe adding those links to that page is detrimental to LifeWiki as a repository of existing knowledge about Life and other cellular automata.
[...]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?targ ... tributions

I believe the recent large-scale hyperlinking campaign by User:Dvgrn violates LifeWiki:Dispute resolution, by pushing changes (adding links to their preferred page) without consensus for those changes, by ignoring existing disagreement with those changes, and by failing to attempt to understand legitimate objections of others / avoiding meaningful discussion of the matter.

The website-related questions are why someone with technical capability "moderator" fails to respect the ground rules that are supposed to apply to everyone in the local community on this website, and acts in ways that are ultimately detrimental to the local community on this website.

Context for the above:

I've already addressed confocaloid's various complaints above, to the best of my ability, in previous posts. [...]

I disagree. I believe many issues relevant to the topic remain unaddressed.

LifeWiki is different from the forums (different purpose, different content, different target audience). Some relevant issues are consequences of that. Those issues remain unaddressed.

The Life/CA community is larger than just active people on the ConwayLife.com website. People are exploring and discussing CA outside this website. It is counterproductive to reject relevant knowledge merely because it happened to be shared outside these forums. These issues remain unaddressed.

For supporting something said in the wiki, two or three external CA-related sources that discuss the relevant concepts can easily suffice, beating dozens of forum posts with chitchat conversations and vague counterintuitive wording.

As I already wrote, there is currently no observable consensus regarding the changes that you're pushing to the LifeWiki with your recent edits, and there is existing evidence of disagreement with those your changes.
[...]

[...]

[...]
Meanwhile, I've experimentally posted a version of the "green writeup" at Transition (rule definition). This is intended to be the specific definition of "transition", in the sense of "an elementary component of a rulestring or ruletable", that is in current use on a couple dozen LifeWiki pages.
[...]
-- I experimentally linked just the first instance of "transition" in each article to the new "Transition (rule definition)" page (except one, where a link wasn't appropriate). [...]

There is currently no observable consensus for linking those occurrences of the word 'transition' to your proposed "green writeup", among those people who posted something about your "green writeup" specifically.

There is currently also no observable consensus that would support your claim that "an elementary component of a rulestring or ruletable" correctly reflects the intended meaning behind those occurrences of the word 'transition', among people who posted something on this so far.

Further, there is existing evidence of disagreement with your idea to add those links to your "green writeup":
viewtopic.php?p=186665#p186665
viewtopic.php?p=186668#p186668

Note: two cellstates (dead/off/0 and alive/on/1), square grid, and range-1 Moore neighbourhood are assumed in most of the discussion.

[...] the conwaylife community's current standard usage [...]

I think it is counterproductive to attempt to declare any "standard usage". There is no "standard usage" in the local community on this website, because there is no reliable, commonly agreed, uncontroversial way to determine what counts as "standard".

It would be much more productive to aim for intuitive, self-explanatory terminology that is easy to understand and hard to misunderstand.
Existing usage of words and phrases in the local community is frequently counterintuitive or self-contradictory.
[...]

[WhiteHawk]

Hi! I have some edit suggestions related to Honey Ring and Pedestrian Life

I recently noticed that Honey Ring is not listed under p17 oscillators, though it is very important as it provides not only the first p17 sparker, but also providing the first p34 from period multiplication of a P2.

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Category:Os ... _period_17

On the Honey Ring page itself, I would like to see the P34 Honey Ring rephasing Cheater which is not there currently. Additionally, but perhaps not of significant note, it also has the property of working under all rules in which Snark and Snark64 work.

Also, the Pedestrian Life stabilization of Honey Ring can be modified since the block-stabilized weld of two hook-on-tails is unnecessary.

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Honey_ring

Finally, on a related note, I think the wiki page for Pedestrian Life should feature some of the unique oscillators of periods 2, 3, 4, 8 (minus the B8 Kok's Galaxy, which is not entirely unique), 17, 25, 26, 34, 62, 94, 120, and 240 which are found on the forums.

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/OCA:Pedestrian_Life

EDIT: Shouldn't the page for Omniperiodicity have a LifeViewer depiction of Life's Omniperiodicity?

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Omniperiodic

[Vort]

1. Quadri-Snark article mentions mold variant with 25x21 bounding box. However, 25x19 version exists as well. I suggest to replace version in article with smaller variant.
(I used larger variant in many guns now almost all of them needs revisiting)

Code: Select all

x = 55, y = 21, rule = LifeHistory
9.2A$8.A2.A$8.A.A.AB27.2AB$9.A.3A26.B3A$B9.B3A16.B9.B2A.A$2B8.3B17.2B
8.2B.A.A$3B5.2B20.3B5.2B2.A2.A$4B3.3B20.4B3.3B3.2A$.5B.3B9.2A10.5B.3B
9.2A$2.9B8.A.A10.9B8.A.A$3.3BA4B.B8.A11.3BA4B.B8.A$4.3BA7B3.B.BA.2A9.
3BA7B3.B.BA.2A$4.B3A3B2A3B.B2A.A.A10.B3A3B2A3B.B2A.A.A$4.7B2A5B2A.A.A
10.7B2A5B2A.A.A$4.15B2.A.2A9.15B2.A.2A$2.2AB.12B4A2.A7.2AB.12B4A2.A$.
A.AB.10B.BAB2.2A7.A.AB.10B.BAB2.2A$.A5.7B6.2A9.A5.7B6.2A$2A5.4B.2B7.A
8.2A5.4B.2B7.A$6.4B9.A16.4B9.A$5.4B10.2A14.4B10.2A!

2. CP semi-Snark article deserves mention of mold variant as well as Quadri-Snark article.

edit: Corrected my mistake.

[WhiteHawk]

Period-59 glider gun page should probably have the smallest p59 glider gun in addition to the old ones (The one from catagolue below for reference).

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Period-59_glider_gun

Code: Select all

x = 47, y = 38, rule = LifeHistory
33.A3.2A$32.A.A.A.3A$32.A.A.A4.A$33.A.A.ABABA$35.A.A.2A4.2A$23.2A9.AB
A4B4.A$21.2B2AB6.3BA2B4.BA.A$21.2B2A6.5B4.B.B2A$21.2B3A4B.6B2.4B$22.B
ABA5B2A10B$22.BA2BA6BA9B$6.A15.2B4A3B2A11B$6.3A8.2A.A5B3A11B.4B$9.A7.
A.2A2.4BAB2A8B3.4B$8.2A14.2BAB2ABA3B2A6.3BA$8.6B10.5BABA2BA4B5.ABA$10.
4B10.8BA4BABA5.2A$8.7B7.A8BABAB2ABABA5.B$5.10B6.ABAB2.3B.4A4B2AB$4.8B
A2B.3B2.A2BA6.2BA7B$5.7BA9B2A7.7B$6.16B10.4B$7.3BABABA7B10.6B$9.B5A7B
14.2A$7.2A4BAB2A6B2.2A.A7.A$6.A4BA2B2ABA7BA.2A8.3A$.B2.13B3A4B15.A$2A
B.2B2A3BA5BA6B$2A8B2A12B$.B.4B2.3A3B.9B$4.2B4.A4B6.4B$8.A2BA2B6.B2A2B
$5.2A3B2A9.2A$5.2B.A.A$4.ABABA.A.A$4.A4.A.A.A$5.3A.A.A.A$7.2A3.A!

EDIT:

The loop on the Snark page says that "The other [Snark] variants also work in more rules, with the transitions B4q, S4c, S5e and S6n." However, the one in the infobox only fails due to B4q, and all 4 variants shown work under S4c, S5e, and S6n. It should be noted that the top and right variants can work under B4z with a different evolution (31.4 recovers a generation faster, but the repeat time is unchanged - a note about S6e on Snark64 may be helpful too).

Back to the point, the statement currently on the wiki is incorrect and needs to be changed to "The other variants also work in the same rulespace, but can operate with transition B4q added." or something along those lines.

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Snark

[May13]

From OCA:DrighLife:

Code: Select all

x = 24, y = 6, rule = B367/S23
2bo5bo12bo$bo7bo8bob3o$2ob2ob2ob2o6bo2bo2bo$bob2ob2obo7bobo2bo$2bo5bo
8b2ob2o$20b2o!

These 3c/8 mechanisms (failed puffer on the left, complete spaceship on the right) were found by May13

The spaceship is not mine. There is no information about discoverer in new-gliders.db, so it's from David Eppstein's gliders.db:

Code: Select all

#C Glider 3263, 3c/8 orthogonal
#C
#C B012345678 S012345678
#C  ---X--XX   --XX----
#C
x = 7, y = 6, rule = B367/S23
4bo$bob3o$o2bo2bo$obo2bo$2ob2o$3b2o!

I think it's also worth adding a link to the source of this puffer: viewtopic.php?p=136371#p136371

[unname4798]

B+Univ is actually B_plus_Univ
https://conwaylife.com/wiki/User:H._H._ ... ook_on_OCA

[b-engine]

B+Univ is actually B_plus_Univ

It's B+Univ. B_plus_Univ is due to technical limitations.
Why want to change the name of my rule? I gave it the name B+Univ.

[dvgrn]

B+Univ is actually B_plus_Univ

It's B+Univ. B_plus_Univ is due to technical limitations.
Why want to change the name of my rule? I gave it the name B+Univ.

See this discussion. "B+Univ" is an invalid rule name. Trying to use it causes errors in a number of contexts, because it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly. Please pick another name and adjust your posts accordingly.

[b-engine]

See this discussion. "B+Univ" is an invalid rule name. Trying to use it causes errors in a number of contexts, because it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly. Please pick another name and adjust your posts accordingly.

B_plus_Univ is only used as rule name for softwares. B+Univ is used everywhere else.

[dvgrn]

See this discussion. "B+Univ" is an invalid rule name. Trying to use it causes errors in a number of contexts, because it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly. Please pick another name and adjust your posts accordingly.

B_plus_Univ is only used as rule name for softwares. B+Univ is used everywhere else.

Please reconsider. We have zero other examples of rule names that are spelled one way in RLE headers, and a different way when we're talking about them. It's just not going to work very well to make exceptions in this case.

[unname4798]

Colors for Rule:Clisky:

Code: Select all

1 0 255 255
2 0 0 255
3 255 0 0
4 255 255 0

[b-engine]

See this discussion. "B+Univ" is an invalid rule name. Trying to use it causes errors in a number of contexts, because it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly. Please pick another name and adjust your posts accordingly.

The rule name "B+Univ" does actually works in LifeViewer:

Code: Select all

#R B+Univ
! 

[squareroot12621]

The rule name "B+Univ" does actually works in LifeViewer:

Code: Select all

#R B+Univ
! 

[emphasis mine]

…it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly.…

[dvgrn]

See this discussion. "B+Univ" is an invalid rule name. Trying to use it causes errors in a number of contexts, because it includes something other than the letters, digits, hyphens and underscores permitted by Golly. Please pick another name and adjust your posts accordingly.

The rule name "B+Univ" does actually works in LifeViewer:

Code: Select all

#R B+Univ
! 

Absolutely true -- for the moment, anyway. That might change.

In any case, my request stands. Please pick a name for this rule and any other rules you may choose to invent, that doesn't have any special characters in it besides hyphens and underscores ... and edit existing posts that mention "B+Univ" accordingly, to avoid a whole lot of completely unnecessary confusion and argumentation and incompatibility problems.

[pifricted]

If the name "Honeybomb Life" meet LifeWiki:Notability, I'll move my page to OCA:HoneyBomb Life.

[confocaloid]

If the name "Honeybomb Life" meet LifeWiki:Notability, I'll move my page to OCA:HoneyBomb Life.

I'm not even sure that the topic of the page (the cellular automaton B2i3/S23) meets LifeWiki:Notability.

As for the name, I suggest to use the rulestring itself for the pagename (i.e. OCA:B2i3/S23), and mention the rulestring in Hensel notation in the lead section. The proposed name is too recent and not in common use yet, to be added at this point.

At a minimum, the page needs significant cleanup (see also LifeWiki:Style guide) before moving.

[pifricted]

Some rules have c/3d or c/2d, shall they have an article?

[Haycat2009]

Please add the p10 and p36 fleet hasslers to the fleet hasslers page

(I want to do it myself, but my country, Zumaland, has banned Discord so I cannot access these posts.)

[hotdogPi]

We looked for the posts but couldn't find them.