Pattern Of The Year 2023 Nominations

C28 · Post by **C28** » January 6th, 2024, 12:11 pm

confocaloid wrote: ↑
January 6th, 2024, 12:01 pm

C28 wrote: ↑
January 6th, 2024, 11:50 am
the nominee list is on the User:C28/POTY 2023 Nominations page, under the "Nominee list" section.
The page you linked to does not exist.
I agree that there should be a page with a working nominee list, separate from the "potential candidates" page (which is different in purpose, and is already long and slow to load).

oh they wanted a page, my bad.

will this do? User:C28/POTY 2023 Nominee list

Post by **Sokwe** » January 10th, 2024, 1:31 am

C28 wrote: ↑
January 1st, 2024, 11:02 am
After 2 weeks (January 14), noninations will close and a seperate thread will be made for people to cast their votes.

I really think this isn't enough time. I'm not sure if I'll even have time before then to begin organizing my thoughts on this subject, much less make nominations, explainer posts, invite discussion, write and clean up descriptions, or correct pattern credits.

I suggest we do what we've done in previous years: keep nominations open until there is a consensus on the final nominee list.

C28 · Post by **C28** » January 11th, 2024, 9:25 am

Sokwe wrote: ↑
January 10th, 2024, 1:31 am

C28 wrote: ↑
January 1st, 2024, 11:02 am
After 2 weeks (January 14), noninations will close and a seperate thread will be made for people to cast their votes.
I really think this isn't enough time. I'm not sure if I'll even have time before then to begin organizing my thoughts on this subject, much less make nominations, explainer posts, invite discussion, write and clean up descriptions, or correct pattern credits.

I suggest we do what we've done in previous years: keep nominations open until there is a consensus on the final nominee list.

ok

Haycat2009 · Post by **Haycat2009** » January 15th, 2024, 8:39 am

[ DATA EXPUNGED ]

Post by **Sokwe** » January 15th, 2024, 8:57 am

Haycat2009 wrote: ↑
January 15th, 2024, 8:39 am
Who is going to create the thread? My votes are waiting!

We aren't even close to finishing the nominee list. Have patience.

Haycat2009 · Post by **Haycat2009** » January 16th, 2024, 6:42 am

Suggestion: Merge 11, 13, 15 and 22 into 24, since they are all SKOPs

Post by **Sokwe** » January 16th, 2024, 7:30 am

I suggest that we convert the nominee list to a table like last year, as I think a table is better for viewing. If we remove the table numbers, then we can edit the table without having to renumber it every time we merge nominees. I still think we should eventually convert the table into a list that can be posted in the voting thread.

Haycat2009 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 6:42 am
Suggestion: Merge 11, 13, 15 and 22 into 24, since they are all SKOPs

I generally agree that such patterns should be merged into a single nomination. The exception would be if a pattern discoverer wishes for their pattern to be nominated separately.

Regarding shared nominations, the first 2c/5 wickstretcher and the c/5 diagonal dominoes stretcher should be added to #14, which would then become a "new wickstretchers" entry. We could potentially split the graystretchers off to form a separate nominee. Thoughts?

dexter1 · Post by **dexter1** » January 16th, 2024, 9:10 am

Sokwe wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 7:30 am
Regarding shared nominations, the first 2c/5 wickstretcher and the c/5 diagonal dominoes stretcher should be added to #14, which would then become a "new wickstretchers" entry. We could potentially split the graystretchers off to form a separate nominee. Thoughts?

One reason to keep the wickstretchers and greystretchers together in one entry is whether these are found using LLSSS predominantly, with JLS/WLS as branch solvers, and by Keith predominantly, by f.i. providing significant partials. I believe that both are the case, although Keith should confirm this.

Consequently, by the above reasoning i'm not sure if my c/6d tubstretcher should be part of the entry. I have neither used LLSSS or finished a partial from it. It's not up to me, but i am fine with either removing my contribution to the entry or keep it.

Haycat2009 · Post by **Haycat2009** » January 16th, 2024, 7:45 pm

Should I merge cribbage and p41 dependent reflector loop to the great oscillator discovery project?

Post by **Sokwe** » January 16th, 2024, 7:52 pm

Haycat2009 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 7:45 pm
Should I merge cribbage and p41 dependent reflector loop to the great oscillator discovery project?

I personally think we should keep those separate, but I'd be fine with merging them if that's what everyone else wants.

dexter1 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 9:10 am
One reason to keep the wickstretchers and greystretchers together in one entry is whether these are found using LLSSS predominantly

I'm more inclined to group patterns by their relation to each other rather than the tools they were found with. For example, last year we included a grayship entry with some components by Keith Amling using LLSSS and some components found by Hartmut Holzwart using WLS. In my opinion, the recent greystretchers represent the most notable subset among the larger set of new wickstetchers.

dexter1 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 9:10 am
Consequently, by the above reasoning i'm not sure if my c/6d tubstretcher should be part of the entry. I have neither used LLSSS or finished a partial from it. It's not up to me, but i am fine with either removing my contribution to the entry or keep it.

In a normal year, I would have included any new wickstretchers as separate nominees (like in 2013). But this isn't a normal year for wickstretchers. Since you are the discoverer, you could choose to have your c/6 diagonal tubstretcher included as its own entry, but I personally think it's better to include it in a general "new wickstretchers" entry.

confocaloid · Post by **confocaloid** » January 17th, 2024, 2:55 am

I think cribbage and 208P41 should remain separate entries; each new discoveried period is an event in itself.

The edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144558 removed p13 domino sparker from the nominations. There was no discussion of that removal that I can find. I think that entry should be restored.
If others think that it should be merged, then a mention of the p13 domino sparker should be kept.

The same edit removed mentions of 49P384, 42P38, Mold on fire-spitting, p76 pi-heptomino shuttle. I think mentions of those patterns and their discoverers should be kept in the merged entry.

In the same edit, the resulting item 19 (Various new SKOPs) has the username of the discoverer of Mold on fire-spitting spelled incorrectly (unlike in the revision before the edit).

C28 · Post by **C28** » January 17th, 2024, 10:54 am

confocaloid wrote: ↑
January 17th, 2024, 2:55 am
I think cribbage and 208P41 should remain separate entries; each new discoveried period is an event in itself.

The edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144558 removed p13 domino sparker from the nominations. There was no discussion of that removal that I can find. I think that entry should be restored.
If others think that it should be merged, then a mention of the p13 domino sparker should be kept.

The same edit removed mentions of 49P384, 42P38, Mold on fire-spitting, p76 pi-heptomino shuttle. I think mentions of those patterns and their discoverers should be kept in the merged entry.

In the same edit, the resulting item 19 (Various new SKOPs) has the username of the discoverer of Mold on fire-spitting spelled incorrectly (unlike in the revision before the edit).

thanks for telling me about the tomfoolery

dexter1 · Post by **dexter1** » January 18th, 2024, 6:27 am

Sokwe wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 7:52 pm

dexter1 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 9:10 am
Consequently, by the above reasoning i'm not sure if my c/6d tubstretcher should be part of the entry. I have neither used LLSSS or finished a partial from it. It's not up to me, but i am fine with either removing my contribution to the entry or keep it.
In a normal year, I would have included any new wickstretchers as separate nominees (like in 2013). But this isn't a normal year for wickstretchers. Since you are the discoverer, you could choose to have your c/6 diagonal tubstretcher included as its own entry, but I personally think it's better to include it in a general "new wickstretchers" entry.

I understand and concur. If a "new wickstretcher" entry is created, i'm happy to include my pattern to it.

carsoncheng · Post by **carsoncheng** » January 27th, 2024, 10:51 pm

Sokwe wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 7:30 am
I suggest that we convert the nominee list to a table like last year, as I think a table is better for viewing. If we remove the table numbers, then we can edit the table without having to renumber it every time we merge nominees. I still think we should eventually convert the table into a list that can be posted in the voting thread.

Haycat2009 wrote: ↑
January 16th, 2024, 6:42 am
Suggestion: Merge 11, 13, 15 and 22 into 24, since they are all SKOPs
I generally agree that such patterns should be merged into a single nomination. The exception would be if a pattern discoverer wishes for their pattern to be nominated separately.

Regarding shared nominations, the first 2c/5 wickstretcher and the c/5 diagonal dominoes stretcher should be added to #14, which would then become a "new wickstretchers" entry. We could potentially split the graystretchers off to form a separate nominee. Thoughts?

1. I have made a tabular form of the POTY nominations in https://conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Carson_Cheng/POTY_2023_Nominee_Table. In the table, the SKOP entries except for new periods are merged (except for the new periods, which remain separate), and also the new wickstretchers entry is expanded. The numbering has been removed, but if you would like to add the numbering back I could add it back quickly.

2. While the greystretchers comprise a large portion of the wickstretcher nominees, I don't think there's any point in separating them from the general wickstretchers entry unless there is some special importance or value of the greystretchers compared to the other stretchers. (just like merging the miscellaneous SKOP entries into one large entry).

Haycat2009 · Post by **Haycat2009** » January 31st, 2024, 9:08 am

Just a confirmation: The voting is starting in 1h 20min decimal time right? It is already Homer 3, aka January 31.

Edit: It is Homer 13 and no news yet.

Post by **Sokwe** » January 31st, 2024, 9:31 am

Haycat2009 wrote: ↑
January 31st, 2024, 9:08 am
Just a confirmation: The voting is starting in 1h 20min decimal time right? It is already Homer 3, aka January 31.

A consensus on the nominee list requires discussion. We have not had this discussion yet, so the voting should not start. The "let's try to wrap it up by the end of January" comment was meant to encourage people to work on the list, not to be a definitive end date. Unfortunately, I haven't found time yet to give my thoughts. Hopefully I will this weekend.

Post by **Sokwe** » February 9th, 2024, 8:20 am

New wickstretchers
(by Keith Amling, Frank Everdij, Matthias Merzenich, and Hartmut Holzwart)
More new types of wickstretchers were found in 2023 than in all past years combined, including three new speeds! First, we have the non-adjustable stretchers: