Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 20th, 2024, 11:51 pm

Haycat2009 wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:39 pm
confocaloid wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:35 pm
Haycat2009 wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:33 pm
I meant that the embviewer stopped working for no reason, so I need help for this.
I think I saw the reason, and I posted the specific change that should fix it.
Oops. Should a hassler that uses a dependent reflector loop as a catalyst count as one?
I'd say "using a dependent reflector loop as a catalyst" might either be impossible, or lead to a non-notable trivial oscillator, depending on what exactly you mean by that.
If a "dependent reflector loop" oscillator is sparky enough, then one might probably use it as a periodic sparker, to support some oscillator engine. Using it as a catalyst does not seem to make much sense to me.

What is the actual oscillator in question?
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: 816
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by Haycat2009 » February 20th, 2024, 11:52 pm

confocaloid wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:51 pm
Haycat2009 wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:39 pm
confocaloid wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:35 pm


I think I saw the reason, and I posted the specific change that should fix it.
Oops. Should a hassler that uses a dependent reflector loop as a catalyst count as one?
I'd say "using a dependent reflector loop as a catalyst" might either be impossible, or lead to a non-notable trivial oscillator, depending on what exactly you mean by that.
If a "dependent reflector loop" oscillator is sparky enough, then one might probably use it as a periodic sparker, to support some oscillator engine. Using it as a catalyst does not seem to make much sense to me.

What is the actual oscillator in question?
P171 TL hassler based on it, see osc discussion thread
~ 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: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 20th, 2024, 11:56 pm

Reposting previous unresolved issues from the last page:
confocaloid wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 8:02 pm
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145870
Repeated modification of a quote taken from https://web.archive.org/web/20000226192 ... anted.html Quotes should not be edited.
(previous modification of a quote on the same page: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145608 )

---

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142444
I don't think "I for ill" is an existing term in common use. The linked edit appears to be an instance of someone documenting their own terminology.
confocaloid wrote:
February 14th, 2024, 8:52 pm
1
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=125212
Multiple patterns recently added to the page, with bad formatting (cleanup needed) and without providing links to sources (i.e. where these patterns come from?)
It is very easy to quickly add lots of patterns with unclear origin and bad formatting. It is much harder for someone else to go later and cleanup such additions, which would be unnecessary if the editor who added the patterns also added the links.

2
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144801
The same problem; a pattern is added without linking to the source(s). I think I remember seeing that pattern somewhere before; unfortunately, the wiki page does not help me to remember where it was. [...]

3
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=139987
I think the addition of the section for medium period oscillators should be reverted. As far as I can see, that section was copy-and-pasted (again, without acknowledging source) from the page "Prime number" ( https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Prime_numbe ... scillators ) with modifications.
The medium-period oscillators are not relevant on the "Large prime oscillator" page.
The assertion "Most SKOPs for large prime periods are rectifier loops." is an unsubstantiated claim.
I suggest to revert the page to the revision https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=139987

4
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=128875
Again, bad formatting, no links to source(s). In addition, the description is misleading. (People knew that kickbacks can be used to create high-period oscillators. That particular oscillator may be interesting for different reasons. However, I don't think it should go on the "Kickback" page.)
[...]
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 24th, 2024, 12:11 pm

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ther_rules
The section is very hard to read and comprehend. In particular,
  • nonobvious assertions without links to sources
    • unnecessarily nested bulleted lists
  • "This yields the following rulespaces" does not clarify explicitly whether those can contain spaceships or those cannot contain spaceships
  • Too long sentences; complicated structure of sentences ("or-despite-or", "and/or-not-and-[citation needed]-not-and so on", "all of - at least one of - any of - at least one" and so on)
The overall impression is that there are too many details, and that level of details doesn't really belong in this article (and the information shouldn't be presented in this form anyway in an encyclopedic-style article).

I think the section should be significantly reduced in size, to leave only a brief summary without details and several footnotes with links to places where an interested reader can read all the details, should they choose to do so.
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 26th, 2024, 7:15 am

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142909 There is no term "siamenising".
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146079 There is no term "siamenised".
(On the other hand, there are three previously existing occurrences on the forums for "siamized".)

Also linking to previous unresolved issues:
confocaloid wrote:
February 20th, 2024, 11:56 pm
Reposting previous unresolved issues from the last page: [...]
confocaloid wrote:
February 24th, 2024, 12:11 pm
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ther_rules
The section is very hard to read and comprehend. In particular, [...]
confocaloid wrote:
February 26th, 2024, 3:16 am
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146076
Edit war over the permanently-controversial topic of NFTs. [...]
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 27th, 2024, 3:25 am

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146135

What I agree and disagree with:

* Agree: proposed merge.

* Disagree: exchange of patterns in the infobox vs. in the main text. After the linked edit, the infobox pattern does not give a suggestion how the pattern is interesting. There is no "injection" visible anymore. I think the page should be reverted to show and describe the longer pattern in the infobox.

That may or may not be moot, depending on whether or not the page is going to be merged or will remain a separate page. But the "shortest possible version" doesn't really make any sense in the infobox.
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: 10737
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by dvgrn » February 27th, 2024, 1:22 pm

confocaloid wrote:
February 27th, 2024, 3:25 am
* Disagree: exchange of patterns in the infobox vs. in the main text. After the linked edit, the infobox pattern does not give a suggestion how the pattern is interesting. There is no "injection" visible anymore. I think the page should be reverted to show and describe the longer pattern in the infobox.

That may or may not be moot, depending on whether or not the page is going to be merged or will remain a separate page. But the "shortest possible version" doesn't really make any sense in the infobox.
I've rolled back the change for now; I do also agree with the proposed merge.

It also seems like the description has maybe always been wrong for the full-length signal injector. (?) If the "long diagonal wire initially has no signal in it", it should be the version on the right, not the version on the left:

Code: Select all

x = 102, y = 46, rule = B3/S23
7bo50bo$6bobo2bo45bobo2bo$6bob6o43bob6o$4b2obo6bo40b2obo6bo$3bobo2bob
5o39bobo2bob5o$3bo2bobo8bo36bo2bobo8bo$2obo8b6o33b2obo8b6o$o2bob5obo39b
o2bob5obo$2bo6bobo2bob4o33bo6bobo2b6o$3b2ob3o2bobobo4bo33b2ob3o2bobo6b
o$4b2o5bobo2bob3o34b2o5bobo2b5o$2bo4b2o3b2obobo5bo29bo4b2o3b2obo7bo$2b
2ob2obo6bo2b6o29b2ob2obo6bo2b6o$6bo8bobo39bo8bobo$6bobo5b2obo2b6o31bo
bo5b2obo2b6o$7b2o8bobo6bo31b2o8bobo6bo$17bobobob4o41bobo2b5o$18b2obo7b
o39b2obo7bo$21bobob5o42bo2b6o$21bobo48bobo$20b2obo2b6o39b2obo2b6o$23b
obo6bo41bobo6bo$23bobo2b5o41bobo2b5o$24b2obobo5bo39b2obo7bo$27bob7o42b
o2b6o$27bobobo46bobo$26b2obob7o39b2obo2b6o$29bobo6bo41bobo6bo$29bobo2b
5o41bobo2b5o$30b2obo7bo39b2obo7bo$33bo2bob4o42bo2b6o$33bobobo46bobo$32b
2obo2bob4o39b2obo2b6o$35bobobo4bo41bobo6bo$35bobo2b5o41bobo2b5o$36b2o
bo7bo39b2obo7bo$39bo2b6o42bo2b6o$39bobo48bobo$38b2obobob5o39b2obo2b6o
$41bobo6bo41bobo6bo$41bobobob4o41bobo2b5o$42b2obo47b2obo$45bo2b3o45bo
2b3o$45bobo2bo45bobo2bo$44b2obobo45b2obobo$48bo50bo!
I thought about updating the pattern in RLE:p11doublelengthsignalinjector to be

Code: Select all

x = 51, y = 46, rule = B3/S23
7bo$6bobo2bo$6bob6o$4b2obo6bo$3bobo2bob5o$3bo2bobo8bo$2obo8b6o$o2bob5o
bo$2bo6bobo2b6o$3b2ob3o2bobo6bo$4b2o5bobo2b5o$2bo4b2o3b2obo7bo$2b2ob2o
bo6bo2b6o$6bo8bobo$6bobo5b2obo2b6o$7b2o8bobo6bo$17bobo2b5o$18b2obo7bo
$21bo2b6o$21bobo$20b2obo2b6o$23bobo6bo$23bobo2b5o$24b2obo7bo$27bo2b6o
$27bobo$26b2obo2b6o$29bobo6bo$29bobo2b5o$30b2obo7bo$33bo2b6o$33bobo$32b
2obo2b6o$35bobo6bo$35bobo2b5o$36b2obo7bo$39bo2b6o$39bobo$38b2obo2b6o$
41bobo6bo$41bobo2b5o$42b2obo$45bo2b3o$45bobo2bo$44b2obobo$48bo!
... but then the infobox would have an oscillator predecessor rather than an actual oscillator, and the cell count wouldn't match at first (the population goes down to 258 a few times).

Possibly Haycat2009 was trying to solve that description problem by swapping the two patterns? The shortest form really is an oscillator.

Unfortunately Haycat2009's edit summary is too vague to explain anything -- it says just "Correct". I've sent multiple requests to Haycat2009 about being careful to include longer and more specific edit summaries; they're gradually getting better, but there are still quite a few lapses like this one.

The caption on the long-wire version ended up wrong in the new version: "Injector with wire in it" doesn't make any sense. Probably the intention was something like "Injector attached to longer wire, with p11 signals traveling through the wire."

Anyway, it seemed best to just undo and wait for the merge to happen -- if there isn't any infobox, the puzzle about what to put in it should conveniently go away, right?

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 28th, 2024, 1:52 am

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142756
Why "but"? Mechanical merge of sentences ignoring their meaning; not an improvement. (In addition, shorter sentences are otherwise better for readability.)

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=127363
Copyedit needed. In particular:
  • misspellings/incorrect uppercasing ("Greystretcher", "stablise", "Februrary")
  • Incorrectly formatted footnotes (unwanted space before "ref"; punctuation should come before "ref")
  • Inferior formatting using forced HTML linebreaks. Removing all the HTML linebreaks, and instead restricting width via "|style = width:300px;" would lead to automatic word wrap in a cleaner way.
  • "Period-{{Period|6|6}}" should be replaced by "{{period|6}}".
    (A link too short to be clickable, when a longer link can be made in a much simpler way)
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=117378
Unwanted space before footnote; "Februrary"

In addition, there are very many large RLEs inserted into source code of various pages in relatively recent edits. Those make editing hard (inline RLEs work better when they are reasonably small). Someone else will have to review those additions to decide which of those large patterns can be removed (because they are not actually needed/relevant on those pages), and which of the remaining RLEs should be moved into the RLE namespace.

There are probably other problems I did not notice.
Last edited by confocaloid on February 28th, 2024, 3:46 am, edited 1 time 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.

Haycat2009
Posts: 816
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by Haycat2009 » February 28th, 2024, 2:32 am

Caleb R Hilton has created a wiki page about himself. I am not sure whether this goes against notability guidelines.
~ 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: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 28th, 2024, 2:34 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:32 am
Please read carefully previous posts in this thread, and go back and cleanup/fix your previous edits, instead of making more and more edits many of which will have to be fixed/cleaned in the same way,
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: 816
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by Haycat2009 » February 28th, 2024, 2:36 am

confocaloid wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:34 am
Haycat2009 wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:32 am
Please read carefully previous posts in this thread, and go back and cleanup/fix your previous edits, instead of making more and more edits many of which will have to be fixed/cleaned in the same way,
I just fixed those that I thought needed fixing. The merge of sentences is ok, as each were too short so it did not sound coherent before. Little point in fixing formatting unless it distracts too much.Also, is Caleb R Hilton notable?
~ 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: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 28th, 2024, 2:42 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:36 am
The merge of sentences id ok, as each were too short so it did not sound coherent before.
The long sentence "does not sound coherent" after your edit. Inserting "but" in that place does not make sense.
Do not merge sentences unless you understand and can explain why exactly that is necessary. In most cases, shorter sentences are better.
Haycat2009 wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:36 am
Little point in fixing formatting unless it distracts too much.
Do not create work for other editors. If you don't want to fix it, someone else will have to fix your edits.
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: 10737
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by dvgrn » February 28th, 2024, 9:36 am

Intro note: the opinions below are just my opinions, not any kind of official decision. Other moderators may well have different opinions. This is simply an explanation of why I personally have decided not to take any moderator action on these two topics at the moment (Haycat2009's sentence-combining edit, and C_R_116's rule-bending creation of a couple of pages).
confocaloid wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:42 am
Haycat2009 wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 2:36 am
The merge of sentences id ok, as each were too short so it did not sound coherent before.
The long sentence "does not sound coherent" after your edit. Inserting "but" in that place does not make sense.
Do not merge sentences unless you understand and can explain why exactly that is necessary. In most cases, shorter sentences are better.
This is one of those awkward spots where it's a matter of personal preference which of the two options is better.

@confocaloid, this sentence combination in the 'galaxy' article is a tricky case for anyone to do anything about. It seems to me that

- contrary to your assertion, inserting the word "but" in that location does make reasonably good sense -- the sentences are strongly related by the idea of a potential appearance of a natural galaxy, but that hasn't happened yet;
- so Haycat2009 wasn't necessarily wrong in deciding not to fix that particular item;
- while it's true that in most cases shorter sentences are better, and it's also true that Haycat2009 has had a definite tendency to create accidental run-on sentences in the past ... this case could actually be an exception;
- if you spend time arguing with Haycat2009 about uncertain cases like this one, Haycat2009 will be less likely to listen to you in the 90% of cases when you're pointing out something that really does need to be fixed.

@Haycat2009, your question about the Caleb R. Hilton article is a good one -- and nobody answered it, so it makes sense that you asked it again. This is also a really tricky question. Here's my take on it at the moment:

- It's generally not a good idea for people to document their own discoveries on the LifeWiki, but
- if a page gets edited multiple times by other LifeWiki editors rather than being immediately removed, then that's a minor sign of approval from those other editors, so
- the p224 lumps of muck hassler page was created in a way that definitely bent the rules, but nobody made a big deal about it and it sneaked through, and
- now it's a perfectly good LifeWiki article, so
- the simplest thing to do is probably just to leave it the way it is.

- Once the p224 article existed, I would assume that "Caleb R. Hilton" would have been a redlink, and
- we generally don't like redlinks, so
- it makes sense to create a short Caleb R. Hilton article.
- Again, C_R_116 really technically shouldn't have been the one to create the article, but
- the LifeWiki is in a reasonably good state now, and
- C_R_116 probably won't get in the habit of doing that again (because the article is created now), so
- again it seems reasonable to just leave well enough alone at this point.

Long story short, article creation really shouldn't happen in quite this way, but it's the kind of thing that people get away with sometimes. Don't try this at home. However, if the end effect of some past series of edits is an improved LifeWiki, then don't bother worrying about it. Insisting that all rules must always be followed exactly to the letter can ultimately just make a lot of noise and not actually improve anything.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 28th, 2024, 12:46 pm

dvgrn wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 9:36 am
[...] the sentences are strongly related by the idea of a potential appearance of a natural galaxy, but that hasn't happened yet; [...]
Consider the following possible variations of the wording:
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally. Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally, but Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally, and Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally; Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
Again: why "but", exactly? Why not "and"? Why not keep the two sentences separate? If one really wants to merge them (for some unclear reason), why not use the semicolon?
There is no contrast or implication between the two parts. Catagolue could have a dedicated badge, even if there were already C1 occurrences of Kok's galaxy. Catagolue could have no such badge, regardless of existence of C1 occurrences.
Those are two different sentences in a single paragraph. Keeping them separate improves readability, and avoids confusion when a LifeWiki reader unsuccessfully tries to understand why exactly they decided to say "but".
dvgrn wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 9:36 am
This is one of those awkward spots where it's a matter of personal preference which of the two options is better.
Which means the edit merging two sentences was not an objective improvement. In addition, I provided an argument how that change made the affected part of the page less readable.
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
azulavoir
Posts: 117
Joined: September 20th, 2023, 10:28 am

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by azulavoir » February 28th, 2024, 1:36 pm

confocaloid wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 12:46 pm
Consider the following possible variations of the wording:
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally. Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally, but Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally, and Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
  • Kok's galaxy is still yet to occur naturally; Catagolue has a dedicated badge which will be given out to anyone who discovers one.
Again: why "but", exactly? Why not "and"? Why not keep the two sentences separate? If one really wants to merge them (for some unclear reason), why not use the semicolon?
There is no contrast or implication between the two parts.
Putting a ring around my hat here, but I personally see the idea that "this thing hasn't happened yet, but if it does, there's a reward in store" is a valid interpretation of this sentence(s).
Image

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » February 28th, 2024, 5:56 pm

It was suggested that I repost this, so here it is.
azulavoir wrote:
February 28th, 2024, 1:36 pm
Putting a ring around my hat here, but I personally see the idea that "this thing hasn't happened yet, but if it does, there's a reward in store" is a valid interpretation of this sentence(s).
Unfortunately I don't see such an idea in those sentences, after several attempts.

For all I know, Catagolue will continue to have a dedicated badge for people committing C1 hauls with occurrences of Kok's galaxy, even after the first such occurrence.
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » March 1st, 2024, 5:00 am

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140558 Repeated removal of an existing term that can be found via forum search. False/misleading edit summary.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146324 Not an improvement; putting multistate RLE into an article where a two-state RLE works. Explain the location of the bait in the text instead.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145530 Undiscussed large-scale changes of theme. (Even if one wants to highlight envelope for least-common-multiple oscillators, then further details have to be discussed - which specific phase to use? What to say in the captions/in surrounding text?)
Additionally, incorrectly spelled theme name (the name of theme is "Book", not "BOOK"; it is not a scripting command).
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » March 4th, 2024, 6:12 pm

55P23

I agree the page and the infobox should stay at "55P23". From the viewpoint of documenting it on LifeWiki, the reduction from 55 cells to 54 cells does not make a new article topic. The oscillator was discovered in 2022 and it is best to show and describe the original version in the infobox, with details about reductions and variants going to the text.

Why I'm posting here is that the apgcode in the embedded viewer and the footnote are missing.
The apgcode in the embedded viewer in section "54P23" should be xp23_02egoy1ca23zy4sgox4acga6zgs26y01y239czy3ey06a8o
The footnote should be added at the end:

Code: Select all

<ref name="post179639">{{LinkForumThread
|format = ref
|p      = 179639
|title  = Re: Oscillator Discussion Thread
|author = Carson Cheng
|date   = March 4, 2024
}}</ref>
Added later: 'u̶n̶f̶o̶r̶t̶u̶n̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶e̶d̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶U̶s̶e̶r̶:̶D̶v̶g̶r̶n̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶.̶'
Edited later: apply strikethrough after further discussion.
EDIT still later by dvgrn: apgcode and reference are consistent now, I think -- I just updated the reference date to March 4 (UTC time). I had originally created it as "March 3" (my local time).
Last edited by confocaloid on March 5th, 2024, 9:48 am, edited 1 time 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: 10737
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by dvgrn » March 4th, 2024, 6:46 pm

confocaloid wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:12 pm
Why I'm posting here is that the apgcode in the embedded viewer and the footnote are missing.
The apgcode in the embedded viewer in section "54P23" should be xp23_02egoy1ca23zy4sgox4acga6zgs26y01y239czy3ey06a8o
The footnote should be added at the end...
Yup, hotcrystal0 and I both jumped in and tried to make changes simultaneously, and that never turns out well -- looks like the citation that I added got left out in hotcrystal0's version.

i didn't see this note until I had already patched the citation back up and moved the article to 54P23. I agree that the reduction from 55 cells to 54 does not warrant a new article topic. For example, the statement that "It is the fifth unique period-23 oscillator to be discovered" is still true whether the article's name is "55P23" or "54P23".

I checked all the apgcodes; they match the versions of the oscillator that they're supposed to match, so I think the article is self-consistent now.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether "54P23" or "55P23" is a better place to leave the article. Not surprisingly, given the edits that I made, my impression was that on balance it was good to have the record-breaking minimal version of the oscillator in the infobox, and put the original form in the article text.

If there's a groundswell of support for moving it back, I'll be happy to move it back; it would be nice to have a clear set of rules for handling this kind of situation, since we have valid precedents in both directions at this point -- see, e.g., Heavyweight volcano, but see also 51P384.

hotdogPi
Posts: 1657
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by hotdogPi » March 4th, 2024, 6:52 pm

For 51P384, the population reduction involved replacing stable catalysts with periodic sparkers, which is typically seen as less elegant. While this reduction changes the block to a blinker, 23 is an odd number, so it isn't a periodic sparker in the same way.

I support moving. Strong no to two separate articles.
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: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » March 4th, 2024, 6:57 pm

dvgrn wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:46 pm
I don't have a strong opinion on whether "54P23" or "55P23" is a better place to leave the article. Not surprisingly, given the edits that I made, my impression was that on balance it was good to have the record-breaking minimal version of the oscillator in the infobox, and put the original form in the article text.
The choice "update the infobox and move page after every reduction" leads to a maintenance headache. For example, I noticed at least one error added when changing the infobox in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=146519

Code: Select all

|isorulemax   = Bb34c5ej6en8/S234cet5cek6en8
a typo in the rulestring ("Bb")

There may be more errors added this way, which are hard to notice.

My preference on these issues is (whenever possible at all) to keep the original version shown and described in the infobox, and therefore avoid updating the infobox whenever there is a reduction. Any reductions and variants should instead go to the main part of the article, primarily by adding new content, with most or all of old content left unchanged.

In this case, I think the page should be moved back to 55P23 (and the infobox restored accordingly). The article is about the oscillator which was discovered in 2022, rather than about any one later variant of the same oscillator.
hotdogPi wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:52 pm
Strong no to two separate articles.
I don't really suggest two separate articles (reductions and variants can go in the same article, in text).
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
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » March 4th, 2024, 7:07 pm

dvgrn wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:46 pm
[...] see, e.g., Heavyweight volcano, [...]
Crossposting my replies regarding that specific page:
confocaloid wrote:
February 17th, 2024, 11:47 pm
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.
confocaloid wrote:
February 18th, 2024, 6:30 pm
dvgrn wrote:
February 18th, 2024, 6:19 pm
[...]
(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.
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.

Sokwe
Moderator
Posts: 2716
Joined: July 9th, 2009, 2:44 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by Sokwe » March 4th, 2024, 7:08 pm

confocaloid wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:12 pm
the page and the infobox should stay at "55P23". From the viewpoint of documenting it on LifeWiki, the reduction from 55 cells to 54 cells does not make a new article topic. The oscillator was discovered in 2022 and it is best to show and describe the original version in the infobox, with details about reductions and variants going to the text.
I think differently on this matter. 55P23 really only met the LifeWiki notability guidelines because it was the smallest p23 oscillator. Since 54P23 is smaller, and thus more notable, it should take priority in both the article name and infobox. The way I see it, 54P23 is an oscillator discovered by Nico Brown in 2022 with a reduction by Period1GliderGun in 2024. It's unfortunate that the systematic name results in a confusing name change in this case.

Edit:
confocaloid wrote:
February 17th, 2024, 11:47 pm
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.
I agree. The information in the infobox, including discoverer and date, should always match the pattern in the infobox. Scot Ellison's version is just a completely different heavyweight volcano, not a reduction of Dean Hickerson's heavyweight volcano.
-Matthias Merzenich

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10737
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by dvgrn » March 4th, 2024, 7:30 pm

confocaloid wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 6:57 pm
The choice "update the infobox and move page after every reduction" leads to a maintenance headache. For example, I noticed at least one error added when changing the infobox in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=146519

Code: Select all

|isorulemax   = Bb34c5ej6en8/S234cet5cek6en8
a typo in the rulestring ("Bb")

There may be more errors added this way, which are hard to notice.
Fixed, thanks!

I definitely agree that an article page move after every reduction to an object can lead to maintenance headaches.

On the other hand, at the moment I still agree with hotdogPi that this particular move was okay -- partly because there's an interesting change in behavior (the addition of a blinker that gets rephased), and partly because further reductions seem rather unlikely. Also partly because it doesn't usually seem like an actual Bad Thing to adjust an article so that it's up-to-date, if someone is willing to do the work; it just shouldn't necessarily be expected that that will happen every time.

I was willing to take the risk of doing the work to make this particular move happen. If there are terrible catastrophic consequences, I can always move the page back.

However, I don't really expect there to be any terrible catastrophic consequences, so I won't move it back immediately. So far we have hotdogPi and Sokwe in favor of keeping "54P23", and confocaloid and probably hotcrystal0 in favor of "55P23" -- and I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but don't want to keep moving it back and forth. So let's wait a bit and see who else shows up with an opinion.

Freeze for discussion...
In particular, let's not move 54P23 back to 55P23 immediately -- but let's also not go through and make the fiddly little changes implied by Special:WhatLinksHere/55P23. The heat, volatility and strict volatility might also need to be adjusted slightly. The case isn't closed until at least hotcrystal0 comes back online again, to explain what the intention of their edits was and whether the current state seems okay now.

I'd like to be able to strike a reasonable balance between maintenance headaches and usefulness. I.e., it's preferable to not have to move pages after every minor improvement -- and it's also preferable to have article infoboxes contain reasonably up-to-date versions of the patterns that they're talking about, and the useful statistics about those versions.

Re: the heavyweight volcano as an example -- there's some further discussion between confocaloid and me on the next page of the thread, and we didn't end up agreeing on that issue. As usual, I'm very interested to hear what other people think of the idea of putting the huge 1995 form of the heavyweight volcano back in the infobox.

To me it seems like the 1995 form hasn't been the relevant pattern to display for "heavyweight volcano" for about seventeen years now. I won't be making the change back to the 1995 version myself, though I'm fine with someone else making it -- as long as a good number of community members show up first and say that the change should be made, and a similar number of people don't show up to object to that.

We do have the option of adjusting the heavyweight volcano infobox to say "Scot Ellison / 2007" instead of "Dean Hickerson / 1995" -- and everything gets to be nice and consistent, but I'm not sure I like it! First-discoverer rights for "heavyweight volcano" should go to Dean Hickerson, and yet I'd rather that infobox display rights for "heavyweight volcano" should stay with Scot Ellison's much more useful 2007 model.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3138
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

Post by confocaloid » March 4th, 2024, 7:45 pm

dvgrn wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 7:30 pm
[...] and it's also preferable to have article infoboxes contain reasonably up-to-date versions of the patterns that they're talking about, and the useful statistics about those versions.
[...]
Well I have serious doubts about the entire idea of keeping a recent variant of the pattern in the infobox. My take on this is that it makes sense to keep an early/first example in the infobox, when possible. It does not have to be updated. If it is historically interesting, that is enough to put it in a visible place.

Otherwise, one could even avoid having any infobox at all on the page, and instead put all relevant information in plain text with embedded viewers/galleries and explanatory captions. Infoboxes are very limited.

Edit:
dvgrn wrote:
March 4th, 2024, 7:30 pm
First-discoverer rights for "heavyweight volcano" should go to Dean Hickerson, and yet I'd rather that infobox display rights for "heavyweight volcano" should stay with Scot Ellison's much more useful 2007 model.
This is definitely confusing. The problem is that the infobox shows a pattern that is not, in fact, discovered by the person who is mentioned in the infobox. I think infoboxes should at least be self-consistent, if they are used at all.

In this case I think the infobox should show the pattern from 1995. Any other patterns should go outside the infobox.
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