Template talk:Conduit

To clarify, "recovery time" will record the safe recovery time, right? -- i.e., the smallest number of ticks after which a signal can safely come in at any time? Whereas the best recovery time accounts for special situations like overclocking, like 74 or 75 ticks best recovery time for a syringe, vs. 78 for the plain "recovery time".

Re: "dependent" vs. "independent" -- we did put a definition for "independent conduit" into the new Life Lexicon, but it has never really been the primary category. So "Dependent conduit? Yes" just seems more like the right way to convey the category membership, as opposed to "Independent conduit? No".

As the Lexicon now mentions, dependent conduits don't really depend on anything, though other conduits depend on them (to suppress the first natural glider). They should probably have been called "dependable conduits", or "FNG-suppressing conduits", or something like that -- but it kinda seems like it's Too Late Now. Dvgrn (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Recovery time" and "best recovery time" are just the numbers that the Lexicon gives, yes. So for, say F116, when the Lexicon says that "[i]ts recovery time is 138 ticks; this can be reduced to 120 ticks by adding extra mechanisms to suppress the internal glider, that means the template should record a recovery time of 138 ticks and a "best" recovery time of 120 ticks.

I don't know if "recovery time" and "best recovery time" are the ideal names for these. But the infobox text and template documentation can be adjusted as necessary/desired, of course -- I'll leave that in your capable hands, since unlike me you actually have extensive knowledge of conduits and related technology --, and at this point it's also still very easy to change the names of the template parameters. (Not that it'll ever be hard to do so, it'll just get tedious.)

Good point re: "dependent" vs. "independent", I'll change that.

And "dependable" (or "robust", or something along those lines) might've been a better name, yes. Is it too late to change what these are called? I don't know; maybe we could introduce a new alternative name ("dependent conduits, also called dependable or robust conduits, ...") and then gently nudge people to that name, hoping that it'll catch on. :)

Apple Bottom (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)