Talk:T-nose

Unexplained removal

Could someone clearly explain what is wrong with the removed content in the previous revision? The edit summaries do not explain this. Confocal (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The drama happened over a year ago. Basically, muzik wanted to impose his own definition on the community (specifically that it has to be detached and larger polyominoes don't count), while everyone else (me, iNoMed, forget who else at the time) opposed him. I'm calling iNoMed right now to weigh in on this. HotdogPi (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that a T-nosed oscillator's definition should not rely on whether its T-pentomino is attached or not (Thereby allowing T-nosed p8 and Rich's p16 to qualify as a T-nose), and that Muzik's attempted re-definition of a large amount of different terminologies (including a stricter definition of T-nosed oscillators) was indeed opposed by the wider community back then as well as today. INoMed (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)