Category talk:Oscillators

From LifeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Search box

OK, in case you were wondering why I'd been doing so many weird edits lately, they have finally turned into something. There is now an oscillator search box on this page. Play around with it and let me know what you think. Nathaniel 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured that's what you were up to after taking a peek at the Sandbox yesterday. Still seem to be some issues though. Specifically, when I asked for oscillators with period >= 54, it missed four of them. I know this because they are the four for which I have not done animated images...
Also, it seems to be impossible to search for things with a missing heat (e.g. Killer Candlefrobras before my edit), even by setting "heat: at least 1". With that setting it should really include all unknowns if possible, since, you know, they surely meet the criterion.
All that said, it's really cool! Elithrion 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually those two issues are the same thing. It didn't return the four without animated images because they also didn't have heat listed, and it searches for oscillators matching both of the conditions specified. I'll add an "Any" option to the period and heat drop-down boxes to fix this.
This is now done. Nathaniel 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
For the output, I'm torn between one of two options -- either add more data to the search results table (bounding box, discoverer, etc) to make it really worth having a table, or have the results come up the same way that category listings come up (three columns, bulleted). With the category listing, I could still have it show the period and heat of the pattern beside its name in brackets or some such thing. Nathaniel 14:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I prefer the table, even without the extra info, although extra info is better. Elithrion 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Setting something like "heat at most 1" seems to include oscillators with 2>heat>1; while the implication is that only exactly 1 or lower should be included (of which there are none). Elithrion 02:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not entirely sure what to do about that. The search results are based on categories, so I'm a little restricted with what I can do. It seems very unnatural to have categories have ranges like 0.1 - 1.0, 1.1 - 2.0 and so on. It also seems very unnatural to me to change the "at most" option to "strictly less than". :/ Nathaniel 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)