Difference between revisions of "Talk:Period 5 oscillators"

From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
MediaWiki supports sortable tables (at least Wikipedia has had them for a few years now). Wouldn't it actually be easier to install that here too rather than make separate tables for all kinds of "patterns by this or that"? --[[User:Tropylium|Tropylium]] 22:54, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
 
MediaWiki supports sortable tables (at least Wikipedia has had them for a few years now). Wouldn't it actually be easier to install that here too rather than make separate tables for all kinds of "patterns by this or that"? --[[User:Tropylium|Tropylium]] 22:54, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
:Sorting on tables would be a nice feature.  However, it is impractical to place 'all' period five oscillators in a single table.  I know of about 300 and there is every reason to believe that this number can grow without end.  Most entries in a single table would be rather unremarkable.  I would rather focus on oscillators that are exceptional; first discovered, smallest, largest volatility, smallest rotor, etc.  This approach might even spark some sort of interest/competition to find oscillators that qualify for a list. If we follow this multi-list approach then combining tables makes less sense since most oscillators will probably be only on one list.--[[User:Scotgot|Scot Ellison]] 09:21, 5 July 2011 (CDT)
+
:Sorting on tables would be a nice feature.  However, it is impractical to place 'all' period five oscillators in a single table.  I know of about 300 and there is every reason to believe that this number can grow without end.  Most entries in a single table would be rather unremarkable.  I would rather focus on oscillators that are exceptional; first discovered, smallest, largest volatility, smallest rotor, etc.  This approach might even spark some sort of interest/competition to find oscillators that qualify for a list. If we follow this multi-list approach then combining tables makes less sense since most oscillators will probably be only on one list.--[[User:Scotgot|Scot Ellison]] 09:21, 5 July 2011 (CDT)
 +
:: I tend to agree with Scot on this. But just so everyone is aware, we do support sortable tables here at LifeWiki as well -- see [[list of long-lived methuselahs]] for an example of their usage. [[User:Nathaniel|Nathaniel]] 21:16, 5 July 2011 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 02:16, 6 July 2011

MediaWiki supports sortable tables (at least Wikipedia has had them for a few years now). Wouldn't it actually be easier to install that here too rather than make separate tables for all kinds of "patterns by this or that"? --Tropylium 22:54, 4 July 2011 (CDT)

Sorting on tables would be a nice feature. However, it is impractical to place 'all' period five oscillators in a single table. I know of about 300 and there is every reason to believe that this number can grow without end. Most entries in a single table would be rather unremarkable. I would rather focus on oscillators that are exceptional; first discovered, smallest, largest volatility, smallest rotor, etc. This approach might even spark some sort of interest/competition to find oscillators that qualify for a list. If we follow this multi-list approach then combining tables makes less sense since most oscillators will probably be only on one list.--Scot Ellison 09:21, 5 July 2011 (CDT)
I tend to agree with Scot on this. But just so everyone is aware, we do support sortable tables here at LifeWiki as well -- see list of long-lived methuselahs for an example of their usage. Nathaniel 21:16, 5 July 2011 (CDT)