Okay... By this standard, about half the pages in this wiki are considered not notable. Something really needs to be done. It is now extremely hard to hold a record. In the methuselah category, you need to beat 40000+.--NotMentallyHere 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Beating a size+lifespan record of some sort would work for a methuselah, I'm sure. E.g. 7468M was introduced some years ago as a new record at 8 cells. (I have a handful of patterns that do more from 8 cells, but with much larger bounding boxes…)
- I also believe many of the pages on the wiki that might seem like non-notable, actually work as examples of this clause:
It, along with one or more other patterns, as a group constitute what would be considered a notable topic.
- Although I would not mind seeing various related patterns merged into single pages — e.g. airforce with burloaferimeter, or snake pit 2 with snake dance…
--Tropylium 02:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- If a topic has received coverage in external sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
CA discoveries are generally not discussed in peer-reviewed literature of any kind, so it seems unclear to me what kind of "external sources" exactly are sought here in the first place. Are LifeForum discussions considered sufficient? Is mention on someone's blog or website about Life?
In particular, it seems to me that we have quite a lot of pages which have no particular external coverage other than a mention in the Life Lexicon — and might not otherwise deserve separate articles; see e.g. backward glider, Mickey Mouse. Suppose I write my own competing Life Lexicon; does this then render anything mentioned in it notable enough to be the topic of an article? Sure, we could propose that Stephen Silver is a reliable source and I am not… but then this raises the question of who to count as a "legitimate Life expert". Starting policing that does not seem like a very good idea.
I suggest that "having been defined" is not yet "coverage in external sources", and further discussion would be warranted. E.g. Mickey Mouse has, as far as I can tell, no signifigance for Life engineering, nor any particularly interesting properties (it's just a D1 symmetric siamization of a couple of simpler still lifes). It is thus an example of an article that is more "Wiktionary-esque" than "Wikipedia-esque". For those having policies that are more Wiktionary-like than Wikipedia-like would probably help. Say, any pattern is "notable by usage" if it has a separate name and has been independently (i.e. in separate discussions) talked about by at least three people? (The first clause is to rule out things like "164P3V17".)
(tbh, Mickey Mouse might constitute a historically important example of still life construction as an artform rather than a topic of mathematical inquiry — but seeing how we have about zero other coverage of the topic so far, I'm not going to be making that argument in detail just yet. On the other hand, my wiki-editing policy is firmly rooted in eventualism, so I'm still not going to propose its deletion either.)
This "notable by usage" criterion might work also for defining the notability of similar topics, e.g.
- CA rules; many have been named, not particularly many names have caught on aside from e.g. a single LifeForum discussion.
- Specific object components, a la "t-nose" (attested so far at least in t-nosed p4 and blocked p4 t-nose).
- Specific reactions or conduits.
- Pattern families.
- Verifiability is expected for all topics added to LifeWiki.
Does the ability to run a pattern, and check that it does what it claims to, itself suffice for verifiability? LW:WP suggests that it probably is, but if so, this should probably be written more explicitly. (Perhaps at a separate page: LifeWiki:Verifiability.)
This also gets much more thorny when applied to topics other than patterns. If I introduce a new concept of e.g. pattern classification, what would that have to fulfill in order to be verifiable? An exact definition? A proof, or reference to a proof, of any alleged properties? --Tropylium (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it does still lacks the pure "category notability" section to know if the category for my discoveries are just okayish for it. Though it still is somewhat hard to understand the notability guidelines. --Gustavo6046 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
No--oh wait, it is enough!