Its it a stub? Is it notable?

For discussion directly related to ConwayLife.com, such as requesting changes to how the forums or wiki function.
Post Reply
Book
Posts: 303
Joined: August 28th, 2021, 2:38 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by Book » January 5th, 2022, 5:10 pm

Is the Cis-mirrored worm notable? Is the article a stub? I ask because there are numerous such articles about seemingly uncommon and/or non-notable patterns.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 9103
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by dvgrn » January 5th, 2022, 6:06 pm

Book wrote:
January 5th, 2022, 5:10 pm
Is the Cis-mirrored worm notable? Is the article a stub? I ask because there are numerous such articles about seemingly uncommon and/or non-notable patterns.
There's not much more to say about cis-mirrored worm, so it's not a stub. Four people have worked on it, so it's... a little more likely to be notable, or at least notable enough that there's no point in deleting it once it has been created.

A lot of our small-object pages are in that Sorta Notable category. This one is a reasonable sample of what "cis" means as opposed to "trans", and what "mirrored" means, and what a worm looks like in a stable pattern.

On the other hand, there isn't any trans-mirrored worm or trans-rotated worm (Catagolue's name for the trans version) page at the moment, and I hope nobody will be in any particular hurry to create one.

That probably isn't a really good answer to your question, but it's the kind of gut-feeling decision making that tends to get made about these kinds of questions. Separate pages for all objects up to that size would obviously be Way Too Many Articles, so we tend to compromise and have just ... whichever articles people thought it was worth creating. Except we have to gently discourage some people from creating too many articles sometimes.

confocaloid
Posts: 291
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by confocaloid » July 29th, 2022, 6:18 am

(This is in part an attempt to reply to the message left at LifeWiki:Tiki_bar#11-cell_and_12-cell_still_lifes)

It might be the case that at any specific time, there are not enough active people present on the forum/on the wiki to participate in discussions, unless the discussions last sufficiently long (at least several weeks I think; that also depends on the specific subject). I do not have a simple clear-cut answer. Having maintenance templates shown in articles forever is of course less than good. On the other hand, there is not much harm in keeping these templates for weeks, or for months, or maybe even for years.

A maintenance template is a way to specify some unresolved issues with an article. Having a way to specify unresolved issues seems a good thing. However, for me that does not imply that something more has to be done quickly to resolve the issues. Simply adding "stub"/"notability"/"citation needed"/making red links to not-yet-existing pages as appropriate is often an improvement in itself.

Stub/notability/citation needed templates help to find articles that lack something. That does not mean something needs to be done as soon as possible to get rid of those templates - these tags can be helpful when they are present, because they make it easier for editors to find what is missing. These templates are a part of the process - not something to get rid of.

Much in the same way, a red link is a part of the process, not something to get rid of. A red link can be helpful when it is present, because it helps to see that some article is supposed to exist, but does not yet exist. That does not mean the article must be written ASAP (because it might be better to wait for someone who can explain the subject clearly). That also does not mean there should be a redirect to some other page until the actual article gets written. Many redirects which were created to get rid of red links have two issues: these redirects are imprecise, and these redirects hide the very fact that some article is missing (thus making it less likely that the actual article will get written).

In fact, I would prefer many years of having a red link to an absent article about something central to Life which obviously needs a dedicated article - rather than making it a redirect to another page about a tangentially related subject and forgetting about the very fact that that obviously important article is missing, or rather than making it a short stub and again forgetting about it.

A shorter way to say this all: I think there is no need to resolve issues quickly. Actually attempting to do something quickly might turn out counterproductive for many issues, because it is highly unlikely that one editor or a small group of editors who are active at a given time will be able to resolve all issues in a satisfactory way. Given the size of the community, it seems to me more reasonable to wait as long as necessary - weeks, months, years - until someone is sufficiently prepared and enthusiastic to write a new article about something, or provide references to sources, or update an outdated table, and so on.

Book
Posts: 303
Joined: August 28th, 2021, 2:38 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by Book » August 4th, 2022, 7:31 pm

confocaloid wrote:
July 29th, 2022, 6:18 am
(This is in part an attempt to reply to the message left at LifeWiki:Tiki_bar#11-cell_and_12-cell_still_lifes)

It might be the case that at any specific time, there are not enough active people present on the forum/on the wiki to participate in discussions, unless the discussions last sufficiently long (at least several weeks I think; that also depends on the specific subject). I do not have a simple clear-cut answer. Having maintenance templates shown in articles forever is of course less than good. On the other hand, there is not much harm in keeping these templates for weeks, or for months, or maybe even for years.

A maintenance template is a way to specify some unresolved issues with an article. Having a way to specify unresolved issues seems a good thing. However, for me that does not imply that something more has to be done quickly to resolve the issues. Simply adding "stub"/"notability"/"citation needed"/making red links to not-yet-existing pages as appropriate is often an improvement in itself.

Stub/notability/citation needed templates help to find articles that lack something. That does not mean something needs to be done as soon as possible to get rid of those templates - these tags can be helpful when they are present, because they make it easier for editors to find what is missing. These templates are a part of the process - not something to get rid of.

Much in the same way, a red link is a part of the process, not something to get rid of. A red link can be helpful when it is present, because it helps to see that some article is supposed to exist, but does not yet exist. That does not mean the article must be written ASAP (because it might be better to wait for someone who can explain the subject clearly). That also does not mean there should be a redirect to some other page until the actual article gets written. Many redirects which were created to get rid of red links have two issues: these redirects are imprecise, and these redirects hide the very fact that some article is missing (thus making it less likely that the actual article will get written).

In fact, I would prefer many years of having a red link to an absent article about something central to Life which obviously needs a dedicated article - rather than making it a redirect to another page about a tangentially related subject and forgetting about the very fact that that obviously important article is missing, or rather than making it a short stub and again forgetting about it.

A shorter way to say this all: I think there is no need to resolve issues quickly. Actually attempting to do something quickly might turn out counterproductive for many issues, because it is highly unlikely that one editor or a small group of editors who are active at a given time will be able to resolve all issues in a satisfactory way. Given the size of the community, it seems to me more reasonable to wait as long as necessary - weeks, months, years - until someone is sufficiently prepared and enthusiastic to write a new article about something, or provide references to sources, or update an outdated table, and so on.
You're positions on these issue are (and have been) clear, cogent, and consistent. But I start with a different premise.

To me, a maintenance tag is, in most cases (an exception being when resolving it depends on a future event), a call to action (I include a red link as a proxy maintenance tag). It says, "this needs to be taken care of as soon as someone who knows how to do so can." Now, perhaps your last sentence above is actually saying the same thing. Let's say for now it does.

The issue I think is most difficult for us to resolve is notability. I see no value in notability tags sitting there very long (my threshold for long is clearly shorter than yours) and I doubt they would if only we had a better process for resolving them. Which was what my Tiki post said. Which I see as the core issue to that particular Tiki topic as opposed to being off topic.

confocaloid
Posts: 291
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by confocaloid » August 4th, 2022, 7:58 pm

Book wrote:
August 4th, 2022, 7:31 pm
The issue I think is most difficult for us to resolve is notability. I see no value in notability tags sitting there very long (my threshold for long is clearly shorter than yours) and I doubt they would if only we had a better process for resolving them. Which was what my Tiki post said. Which I see as the core issue to that particular Tiki topic as opposed to being off topic.
Judging by the section title, that particular tiki topic is about 11-cell and 12-cell still lifes. Whether or not there is a sufficiently good process for adjudicating notability tags seems to me a much more general question. I think attempting to discuss both issues at once is a recipe for disaster - that will most likely result in a failure to resolve either of two issues.
Book wrote:
August 4th, 2022, 7:31 pm
To me, a maintenance tag is, in most cases (an exception being when resolving it depends on a future event), a call to action (I include a red link as a proxy maintenance tag). It says, "this needs to be taken care of as soon as someone who knows how to do so can." Now, perhaps your last sentence above is actually saying the same thing. Let's say for now it does.
If it is indeed the case that notability templates shown on pages are likely to be interpreted as calls to immediate action without much accompanying public discussion as soon as someone thinks they know the best solution - then I might be tempted to put a "proposed deletion" template on top of the "notability" template, stating "notability templates considered harmful" as the reason. Of course that would not be very reasonable, would it?

My position is that what on first glance seems to be a good solution may fail to be a good solution. There is already a reasonably good process for resolving questions; it consists of different editors sometimes making various improvements to articles, sometimes writing new articles, sometimes putting maintenance templates to indicate intentions/show what is missing, sometimes providing references to sources/clarifying unclear statements. This process seems good to me because there is no expectation that one editor will have to decide everything - maintenance templates are one lightweight way to defer decision to Someone Else, and there are other ways to do so. It is not really important how much time passes in between these events, as long as the overall process eventually works. And I think that attempting to get rid of maintenance templates (and other consequences of "wiki is a work in progress") as soon as possible has significant potential for breaking the whole process.

pipsqueek
Posts: 6
Joined: September 10th, 2022, 4:42 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by pipsqueek » September 21st, 2022, 5:48 pm

I might've found a new a 24 cell still-life (honeycomb siamese eater at boat)
Does it deserve its own page?
there are plenty of still-lifes on the wiki. so Im assuming there is an exception
with still-lifes of some sort.
please tell me if this already exists (which it probably does)

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2bo$bobo$obobo3bo$obo2bobobo$bo2b2ob2o$2b2o2bo$4bobo$4b2o!
Last edited by pipsqueek on September 21st, 2022, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

carsoncheng
Posts: 147
Joined: June 11th, 2022, 11:24 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by carsoncheng » September 21st, 2022, 7:00 pm

pipsqueek wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 5:48 pm
I might've found a new a 24 cell still-life (honeycomb siamese eater at boat)
Does it deserve its own page?
there are plenty of still-lifes on the wiki. so Im assuming there is an exception
with still-lifes of some sort.
please tell me if this already exists (which it probably does)

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2bo$bobo$obobo3bo$obo2bobobo$bo2b2ob2o$2b2o2bo$4bobo$4b2o!
Firstly, this still life is known. All 24-bit still lifes have been enumerated by 2017 (see https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=38931#p38931), and now the enumerations go up to 34 bits (see https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87225#p87225).

Secondly, arbitrary still lifes don't deserve their own pages. For example, there are more than four million distinct still life of 24 bits, and what you posted is only one of them. Trying to create a page for all still lifes up to a this size simply makes the wiki too big to maintain. Therefore, pages for still lifes are only created when they are very common compared to other still lifes of the same size, or if they can act as catalysts.

For example, in the huge and not-yet-enumerated list of 40-cell still lifes, only three gets a page. The omnibus gets a page because it is the most common 40-bit still life in asymmetric soups. xs40_69b88c88b96z69d11311d96 (Cis-mirrored worm siamese cis-mirrored worm) gets one because it's the second most common still life of its size. The eater 4, although unnatural (i.e., hasn't appeared in asymmetric soups yet), can act as a catalyst that can perturb honey farms and other symmetric active regions. Even then, not all catalysts get their own pages as there are too many of them, and thus only the most significant or historical ones are being kept, while others are simply being added to lists of catalysts.

Thirdly, instead of the viewer tag, it's best to use code tags to post patterns in the forums. Put the RLE between the opening code tag and the closing code tag, and you'll see something like this:

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2bo$bobo$obobo3bo$obo2bobobo$bo2b2ob2o$2b2o2bo$4bobo$4b2o!

pipsqueek
Posts: 6
Joined: September 10th, 2022, 4:42 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by pipsqueek » September 21st, 2022, 7:20 pm

carsoncheng wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 7:00 pm
pipsqueek wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 5:48 pm
I might've found a new a 24 cell still-life (honeycomb siamese eater at boat)
Does it deserve its own page?
there are plenty of still-lifes on the wiki. so Im assuming there is an exception
with still-lifes of some sort.
please tell me if this already exists (which it probably does)

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2bo$bobo$obobo3bo$obo2bobobo$bo2b2ob2o$2b2o2bo$4bobo$4b2o!
Firstly, this still life is known. All 24-bit still lifes have been enumerated by 2017 (see https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=38931#p38931), and now the enumerations go up to 34 bits (see https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87225#p87225).

Secondly, arbitrary still lifes don't deserve their own pages. For example, there are more than four million distinct still life of 24 bits, and what you posted is only one of them. Trying to create a page for all still lifes up to a this size simply makes the wiki too big to maintain. Therefore, pages for still lifes are only created when they are very common compared to other still lifes of the same size, or if they can act as catalysts.

For example, in the huge and not-yet-enumerated list of 40-cell still lifes, only three gets a page. The omnibus gets a page because it is the most common 40-bit still life in asymmetric soups. xs40_69b88c88b96z69d11311d96 (Cis-mirrored worm siamese cis-mirrored worm) gets one because it's the second most common still life of its size. The eater 4, although unnatural (i.e., hasn't appeared in asymmetric soups yet), can act as a catalyst that can perturb honey farms and other symmetric active regions. Even then, not all catalysts get their own pages as there are too many of them, and thus only the most significant or historical ones are being kept, while others are simply being added to lists of catalysts.

Thirdly, instead of the viewer tag, it's best to use code tags to post patterns in the forums. Put the RLE between the opening code tag and the closing code tag, and you'll see something like this:

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2bo$bobo$obobo3bo$obo2bobobo$bo2b2ob2o$2b2o2bo$4bobo$4b2o!
Thanks for the advice
I don't know why I didn't consider that all 24 cell still-lifes haven't been found
after all, Conway's game of life has existed for more than a decade.

I'll try other ways to contribute to the wiki instead of just submitting random still-lifes

User avatar
Ian07
Posts: 848
Joined: September 22nd, 2018, 8:48 am

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by Ian07 » September 21st, 2022, 7:33 pm

pipsqueek wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 7:20 pm
after all, Conway's game of life has existed for more than a decade.
Over five decades, actually. This website is just the latest chapter in its history, which goes back to the late 1960s.

pipsqueek
Posts: 6
Joined: September 10th, 2022, 4:42 pm

Re: Its it a stub? Is it notable?

Post by pipsqueek » September 21st, 2022, 8:15 pm

Ian07 wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 7:33 pm
pipsqueek wrote:
September 21st, 2022, 7:20 pm
after all, Conway's game of life has existed for more than a decade.
Over five decades, actually. This website is just the latest chapter in its history, which goes back to the late 1960s.
I know, I just didn't know exactly how long

Post Reply