Suggested LifeWiki edits

[b-engine]

There're infinite strictly volatile oscillators, being p2 phoenices (which must be strictly volatile), so more accurately, there's no known infinite families of strictly volatile oscillators other than p2 and those based on self-constructing circuit.

[NooneAtAll3]

I just want to protest against discord links in the "In the News" section

Especially for theoretic texts like recent "no finite phoenixes" that unlike "pattern discovery moment" can't be discarded to be understood

[dvgrn]

I just want to protest against discord links in the "In the News" section

Especially for theoretic texts like recent "no finite phoenixes" that unlike "pattern discovery moment" can't be discarded to be understood

Yup, this has come up elsewhere also. The current status is described here -- the Discord link in CurrentNews is intended to be temporary, just because we don't have a good substitute for it yet.

[Haycat2009]

Can an moderator increase the limit in Dyk 6 to 69? I cannot edit it yet, and the news and dyk are inconsistent.

Also, I hope I do not have to update it every day.

Furthermore, did Goucher use pure induction to prove so many periods impossible? I know that Hume's fork exists, and logically it should be the case. If he used pure induction we cannot be so sure anymore.

[b-engine]

I feel that 44P40H20V0.1 (the following ship below) should be added to Category:Spaceship with unsimplified speed 20c/40.

Code: Select all

x = 17, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
11b5o$11bo4bo$11bo$4o8bo3bo$o3bo9bo$o$bo2bo3$3b2o3b2o$2bobo$2bo6bo4b2o
$2b3o10bo$14bo4$4o$o3bo$o$bo2bo!

EDIT:
As well as 44P40H20V0.2, differs from the ship above by just the position of MWSS:

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
12b5o$12bo4bo$12bo$4o9bo3bo$o3bo10bo$o$bo2bo3$3b2o3b2o$2bobo$2bo6bo4b
2o$2b3o10bo$14bo4$4o$o3bo$o$bo2bo!

[confocaloid]

Are those spaceships notable (in the sense of LifeWiki:Notability)? Their notability is non-obvious at least.
I can see that both have glider syntheses completed and submitted to Catagolue, but they do not appear to be in any censuses (there are no soup links).
xq40_x6rucwgoc8gx6ruczy574221zcmsoz0331y366
xq40_x6rucwgoc8gx6ruczy574221zocogz0773y366

Also, I hope I do not have to update it every day.

I guess that is one reason to avoid DYKs that are likely to need multiple updates, and prefer information that is likely to remain true forever, regardless of any new discoveries.

Reposting unresolved issues from the last page of the thread:

I think the pattern in Pi ship 1 is large enough that it would display better outside the infobox.
First, there is simply more space (width) outside the infobox.
Second, in this case there are two similar patterns shown in the article. Putting both patterns in a single gallery is a simple way to highlight the similarity and differences between them.

Compare two revisions of the article:

• pattern outside the infobox: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=142472
• pattern in the infobox: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=143842

Also, the patterns display better when ZOOM values in viewers are integer multiples of THUMBSIZE (which is either 2 or 3 in most cases).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=135461
(1) A natural description ("transparent long boat glider loop") is replaced with a more awkward description ("NW-2T16 and dependent syringe loop").
(2) Incorrect linking (the correct link would be dependent syringe).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142041
Removal of rulestring. Rulestring should be kept in the article, so that readers who are not familiar with aliases do not have to follow the link to know what is the rule.
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141926 Add the rulestring so that readers do not have to follow the link to know what is the rule.
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=137731 Add the rulestring; same reason.

Currently, the p13_domino_sparker article body does not have the 7th reference, but it is still in the source, causing a site error.

EDIT by dvgrn: Reviewed all these, made most suggested changes that hadn't already been made, but used "dependent syringe + NW-2T16 loop" -- that description seems more understandable than "transparent long boat glider loop" and the links can be used to clarify further.

[b-engine]

Are those spaceships notable (in the sense of LifeWiki:Notability)? Their notability is non-obvious at least.

According to my searches on forums and wiki, these are the only two known spaceships that generate phi sparks. In particular, the phi-sparking ability is notable.

[Sokwe]

I feel that 44P40H20V0.1 (the following ship below) should be added to Category:Spaceship with unsimplified speed 20c/40.

I don't see why this ship should be added to the wiki. What other pages would benefit from its inclusion? I find that a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself "what pages would be improved by linking to the proposed page (not counting "see also" sections)?"

According to my searches on forums and wiki, these are the only two known spaceships that generate phi sparks.

That immediately seems hard to believe, as phi sparks are fairly common. For example, here is a p60 2c/5 ship taken from the moving objects collection:

Code: Select all

x = 60, y = 106, rule = B3/S23
22bo16bo$20b2ob2o12b2ob2o$23b2o12b2o$20b2o18b2o$22b5o8b5o$23bo3bo6bo3b
o$21b5ob2o4b2ob5o$22b2o4bo4bo4b2o$22b2ob2o8b2ob2o$23b2o2bo6bo2b2o$27bo
6bo$25b2obo4bob2o$26bobo4bobo$24b2o10b2o$23bob3o6b3obo$23bo14bo$25b3o
6b3o$23bob2obo4bob2obo$22bo5bob2obo5bo$26bobob2obobo2$26b10o$24bo12bo$
27b3o2b3o$28bo4bo$26bo8bo$27bo6bo$27bo6bo$27b3o2b3o$25bo2b2o2b2o2bo$
26b2obo2bob2o$29bo2bo$26bob2o2b2obo$25bo2bo4bo2bo$24bo3bo4bo3bo$24bo2b
o6bo2bo$27bo6bo$23b3ob2o4b2ob3o$22bo3b3o4b3o3bo$21bo2bo2bo6bo2bo2bo$
21bobo14bobo$20b2ob3o10b3ob2o$21bo4bobo4bobo4bo$21bo3b2o2bo2bo2b2o3bo$
20bo5bo2bo2bo2bo5bo$21bo7b4o7bo8bo$27bob4obo13bobo$25bobobo2bobobo10b
2ob2o$26b2o6b2o6bo7b2o3bo$41b3o5b3ob2ob2o$39b2ob4ob2ob2ob2ob2o$39bo5bo
2bob2ob2o$27b2o4b2o13bobo4b2o2bo$9b3o16b2o2b2o6b3o12bo3bo$9bobo15bo6bo
6b2o13bobo$4bo4bo2bo15b2o2b2o22bobo$3bobo3bo6b3o4b2obob2o2b2ob3o18bob
2o$2b2ob2o2bo2bo2bo3bo3bo5bo2bo23b4o$2bo2bo3bob4o4b2o3bo3bo4bo22b2o$2o
b2o4bo3bo4b2o5b3o6b3o$b2o7bo3bo3b2o$2b2o12bo$3bo13bo$2o5bo30bo$b3o34b
3o$4bobo32b2o$33b2obo3bo$32bo7bo$35bobo2bo$31bo5bo2bo$24bo9bo3b2o$23bo
bo6b2o$23b2o2$32bo$31bobo$33b2o$32bo3$29b2o$34b2o$24bo5bo3b2o$23bobo4b
2ob2o$23b2o5b4o$32bo10$35bo$35bo$37bo$37bo3$26b2o$25bo2bo$25bo2bo$25bo
2bo$26b2o!

[b-engine]

According to my searches on forums and wiki, these are the only two known spaceships that generate phi sparks.

That immediately seems hard to believe, as phi sparks are fairly common. For example, here is a p60 2c/5 ship taken from the moving objects collection:

Code: Select all

...

Sorry if there's more in other pages, but I only searched on forums and wiki. I feels that there should be a page about a phi-sparking ship in LifeWiki.
In fact according to my searches they're the smallest phi-sparking ships.

[Sokwe]

I feels that there should be a page about a phi-sparking ship in LifeWiki.

I think it would be excessive to have a page just for phi-sparking ships. There is already a page called "phi-sparker" that is not specific to oscillators, so it can also include ships as well. Rather than creating a separate page for xq40_x6rucwgoc8gx6ruczy574221zcmsoz0331y366, it could instead be included on the phi-sparker page as a spaceship example.

[confocaloid]

At the end of pages whose title begins with "p" lowercase, it is possible to replace the code

Code: Select all

{{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}

with a transclusion of Template:dtlc1:

Code: Select all

{{dtlc1}}

That should automatically make the first letter of the title lowercase, without need to specify the current pagename explicitly.

In addition, there are now broken links from several mainspace articles to Special:WhatLinksHere/p59_glider_shuttle, Special:WhatLinksHere/p71_glider_shuttle, Special:WhatLinksHere/RLE:p26glidershuttle, Special:WhatLinksHere/RLE:p31glidershuttle.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141089
The edit is a change from an explicitly formatted external link to an inline link, losing the visual distinction between internal and external links.
Should be reverted back to a more explicit formatting, so that it is easy to see which links are to other wiki entries and which are to external pages.

[b-engine]

I think that a summary table should be added to OCADOTY, as in POTY page.

[snowman]

On switch engine ping-pong, it currently states:

and it shows that quadratic growth can be synthesized with no more than 7 gliders.

In 2022*, quadratic growth was synthesized using 6 gliders*, so it should be phrased in a way that acknowledges that 7 is no longer the minimum

[NimbleRogue]

Mods, can I delete the wiki's 5s database because it is years out of date, and then move the 5s contribution thread to the 5s wiki thread?

[NooneAtAll3]

Status page is already linked in spaceships, oscillators and guns

It's probably worth linking to it in the rest of listed categories - like puffers, rakes, reflectors

[Haycat2009]

Add dyks 181-191.

[Sokwe]

Mods, can I delete the wiki's 5s database because it is years out of date, and then move the 5s contribution thread to the 5s wiki thread?

Only moderators can delete pages. I don't intend to delete them myself, unless there is a clear consensus that they should be deleted.

Add dyks 181-191.

I don't particularly object to these new dyks, but since they would go on the front page I would hope for a little more discussion and community approval before adding new ones. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Should there be a did you know discussion thread where new dyks can be proposed?

[Haycat2009]

Add dyks 181-191.

I don't particularly object to these new dyks, but since they would go on the front page I would hope for a little more discussion and community approval before adding new ones. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Should there be a did you know discussion thread where new dyks can be proposed?

But there is one already!

[dvgrn]

But there is one already!

Meaning this thread? Yup, people used to make a habit of posting their DYKs there instead of creating them directly as Did_you_know/X articles. That was a good system, because DYKs that didn't actually make sense for one reason or another could get some review and discussion before they showed up on the LifeWiki and then needed cleanup there.

How about we go back to doing things that way?

[Haycat2009]

I think that we should use that thread as discussion for existing dyks, as per the current system. Anyway, most dyks do not need community verification, and it might encourage others to "hijack" existing dyks.

[confocaloid]

Add dyks 181-191.

I don't particularly object to these new dyks, but since they would go on the front page I would hope for a little more discussion and community approval before adding new ones. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Should there be a did you know discussion thread where new dyks can be proposed?

I think many of recently invented DYKs trade quality for quantity. There are multiple issues with spelling. There are problems when a statement does not really make sense out of context. There are cases when a DYK item lacks links to relevant articles that could help the reader to understand the meaning / verify the claims. There are cases with overuse of jargon, where a more intuitive and easier to read wording could be used.

I think this discussion should be moved to the existing thread ( viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1565 ) to avoid cluttering the suggested edits thread, and that any future DYKs should be proposed there, rather than added directly to the wiki.

[Haycat2009]

Update Dyk 6 for the final time - It looks odd next to the news bar.

EDIT by dvgrn: Done (not by me).

[TYCF]

Create LifeWiki:General disclaimer because it is linked from the bottom of all pages.

[b-engine]

The claimed "eater 2 variant", hat on block on table, isn't an eater 2 variant at all. It can't perform catalyzes.
Observe the reactions below:

Code: Select all

x = 22, y = 26, rule = B3/S23
19b2o$2o4b2o6b2o3b2o$bo4b2o7bo$bob2o10bob2o$2ob2o9b2ob2o2$2ob2o9b2ob2o
$bobo11bobo$bobo11bobo$2bo13bo6$20bo$6bo12bo$2o4bobo5b2o3b3o$bo4b2o7b
o$bob2o10bob2o$2ob2o9b2ob2o2$2ob2o9b2ob2o$bobo11bobo$bobo11bobo$2bo13b
o!

Should we add a mention in the page or remove the still life from it?
Instead, this following could work, but useless because it has same bounding box with the canonical variant:

Code: Select all

x = 24, y = 26, rule = B3/S23
21b2o$8b2o11b2o$8b2o$o2bob2o7bo2bob2o$4ob2o7b4ob2o2$2b2ob2o9b2ob2o$3b
obo11bobo$3bobo11bobo$4bo13bo6$22bo$8bo12bo$8bobo10b3o$8b2o$o2bob2o7b
o2bob2o$4ob2o7b4ob2o2$2b2ob2o9b2ob2o$3bobo11bobo$3bobo11bobo$4bo13bo!

EDIT by dvgrn: Yup, somebody just got the wrong orientation for the table. Will fix now. Not necessarily useless, e.g., if it turns out to be easier to slow-salvo construct, or easier to weld to something else nearby.