Difference between revisions of "LifeWiki:Tiki bar"

From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 112: Line 112:
  
 
:: The named Generations rules in the MCell pattern collection are Banners, Bombers, Brain 6, Brian's Brain, Burst, BurstII, Caterpillars, Chenille, Ebb&Flow, Ebb&FlowII, Faders, Fireworks, Frogs, Glisserati, Nova, Rake, SediMental, Snake, Spirals, StarWars, Sticks, Swirl, Transers, TransersII, Wanderers, and Worms. There's also an "Other Rules" folder, but it has just a couple of patterns in it -- one in the Star Wars family, and an unnamed explosive one (345/24/25) with a side-effect production of some Rule-90-ish behavior. [[User:Dvgrn|Dvgrn]] ([[User talk:Dvgrn|talk]]) 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 
:: The named Generations rules in the MCell pattern collection are Banners, Bombers, Brain 6, Brian's Brain, Burst, BurstII, Caterpillars, Chenille, Ebb&Flow, Ebb&FlowII, Faders, Fireworks, Frogs, Glisserati, Nova, Rake, SediMental, Snake, Spirals, StarWars, Sticks, Swirl, Transers, TransersII, Wanderers, and Worms. There's also an "Other Rules" folder, but it has just a couple of patterns in it -- one in the Star Wars family, and an unnamed explosive one (345/24/25) with a side-effect production of some Rule-90-ish behavior. [[User:Dvgrn|Dvgrn]] ([[User talk:Dvgrn|talk]]) 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Criteria for notable INT rules ==
 +
 +
The discussion at [[LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2019#Non-notable isotropic rules]] inspired me to move OCA:Wlife to User:Evin/Wlife. Previously the reason for proposed deletion was "non-notable rule; forum thread only has 9 posts in total". Sounds reasonable, right?
 +
 +
But then here come the questions. Can we develop some universal criteria for a section in [[LifeWiki:Notability]] about an INT rule? Which rule warrants an article on OCA namespace, and which rule is at most qualified for a User subpage? Rules differ greatly in behaviour and potential for interesting technology, but still I think "Well-explored syntheses", "Turing-complete", "Orthogonoid/Demonoid engineered explicitly", or something along these lines, may suffice for the judgement.
 +
 +
Related, should we encourage users to write about their custom INT rule ''in their User subpage first'', and move it to the official OCA namespace after reaching a consensus that it is well-developed and notable enough according to some guideline? [[User:GUYTU6J|GUYTU6J]] ([[User talk:GUYTU6J|talk]]) 02:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:52, 3 June 2020

Taka Tiki Break

Welcome, one and all, to the Tiki bar! This page is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of the LifeWiki. Or just sit down, relax, and enjoy a cocktail.

Welcome to the Tiki bar

Wikipedia has the Village pump, Wiktionary has the Beer parlour, but the LifeWiki's lacked a central page for discussion so far other than User talk:Nathaniel. So I took the liberty to create the Tiki bar to facilitate discussion in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere. Welcome! Apple Bottom (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussions

Note: active discussions are never archived while still active.

CiteDiscord template?

Was thinking about this since User:Dvgrn added a Discord citation to the Max article. Would there be any objections to a template to cite the Conwaylife Lounge Discord server? It is a public server, after all, and there have been quite a few notable discoveries and developments announced there over the years. Ian07 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd also like a Templates Cheat Sheet page under How to Contribute somewhere, probably just a section in Help:Templates. There are examples there of how to use some templates, but for many of them I currently just go hunting around randomly in articles until I find a good example of how it's used, and then copy and modify that. As the number of templates increases, this is starting to seem more and more, um, suboptimal. Dvgrn (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I know it's been two months, but Template:CiteDiscord is now up and running on the Max article. Thoughts? Ian07 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Black ribbon

Briefly popping out of the woodwork to mourn Rich --- I had the idea of adding a black ribbon in the lower right corner of pages. This is added by a bit of code in MediaWiki:Common.js, with some supporting CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css. To turn this off again, simply comment out the line that says

$( document ).ready(function() {
    console.log( "ready!" );
    addMourningRibbon();
});

near the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.js. (Actually, commenting out the call to addMourningRibbon there will be enough.) Leave the rest of the code and the CSS in though; that way the ribbon can be reused next time there is a death in the community. (The link on the ribbon is set a little further up, and can easily be adjusted as needed.)

N.B. --- the ribbon itself is a bit fiddly and doesn't always appear; I suspect this has to do with page caching, but I know too little about Javascript, Mediawiki and all that jazz to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps someone else who knows more can help. Using jQuery (which, thankfully, is included in MediaWiki) fixed this, so we should now have a ribbon on all pages, always. Apple Bottom (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The black ribbon has been there for over ten days now; anyone want to suggest an appropriate total time period for it? I wandered over to MediaWiki:Common.js to see what would have to be done to turn it off, but found that I didn't have permission:
Permissions for editing of sitewide CSS/JS/JSON files were recently separated from the editinterface right.
If you do not understand why you are getting this error, see mw:MediaWiki_1.32/interface-admin.
Luckily I had permission to give myself permission, so I can now comment out the relevant line. The Internet suggests there are common 7-day and 30-day traditional mourning periods. Dvgrn (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
10 days seems fine to me. And yes, I had the same issue with permissions. Bit weird that MediaWiki doesn't give the relevant right to admins by default, but perhaps this is so that admins who're not aware of what they're doing won't accidentally break things. Apple Bottom (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

LifeViewer and RLE on OCA subpages

I was just looking at some experimental pages that Hunting/Ultimium has put together for LeapLife. For example, the small knightship in LeapLife is called a "lepa", so it's presumably going to go under OCA:LeapLife/Lepa.

But that brings up all kinds of questions. Look at Hunting's experimental Lepa page. If RLE is added in the RLE: namespace for a lepa, and for all the other things Hunting will want to document, then those patterns will end up in the main pattern collection, right? That doesn't seem like such a good idea. It would be nice to be able to put RLE someplace where LifeViewer can still find it, but it doesn't end up in the main LifeWiki pattern collection. We only have a few non-Life patterns so far, like Bomber, but it seems as if things could get out of control pretty fast if people want to add LifeViewer support for OCA pattern articles.

It seems like some different templates might be needed, to point to the alternate RLE namespace (if that gets created), and to get rid of irrelevant stuff like the links to Catagolue syntheses which won't exist for OCA patterns.

Thoughts on this? Would it be better to skip the templates, and just recommend that OCA patterns should keep their RLEs directly in the articles, as part of embedded LifeViewer text? Then I think the "RLE: here Plaintext: here" template won't work too well, and an alternate embedded-LifeViewer template for OCA patterns might be a good idea. (?) Dvgrn (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate category, say OCARLE: and an option in the template |rle = oca for checking specifically under that header. Either that or one of the three other options:
  • Removing the pattern collection.
  • Creating a new wiki for other cellular automata.
  • Excluding all OCA RLE pages from the collection.
I agree with OCARLE. Ultimium (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Giving a quick search for RLE:bg gives 5 RLE pages as well, all in LeapLife. I think those should be excluded even if the others can't be, especially if I'm going to create more. (and Hunting's too, afaik there's only RLE:Lepa and RLE:Crawfish so that shouldn't be too hard) Bubblegum (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't object to either of these ideas, just want to point out that the latter option actually won't require the creation of a new template - if rle is specified instead of pname, the links won't appear. Ian07 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer to use a seperate collection instead of the RLE embedded in the page, and a template for OCA patterns, for, um, for no reason. I mean they will be easier to access and manage. Ultimium (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
So far, the only good way to add patterns to OCA pages is what Hunting/Ultimium has done, e.g., with User:Ultimium/LeapWiki/Crawfish. But this currently means that the crawfish RLE is going to get added to the omnibus RLE collection downloadable from the main page. There are currently 66 OCA patterns scattered in among the 2300+ Life patterns. Might it be a good idea to split out all OCA patterns and provide a separate downloadable collection?

[[RLE

I'm just mimicking Apple Bottom's Day & Night Wiki. I agree, we should split out all OCA patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimium (talkcontribs)
Also it might be worth adjusting the template used there somehow, to clearly label the crawfish spaceship in the infobox as being in a non-B3/S23 rule. (?) Dvgrn (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I like the current idea of adding a new OCA RLE category so they won't get lumped into the B3/S23 stuff. Yes, I think adjusting the infobox template to make it more visible that the pattern is not a CGoL pattern is worth doing. Also, there are some RLEs I'm using in some of my user pages for OCA patterns. They are RLE:Smosmos, RLE:Sakaphipush, RLE:Sakacapush, RLE:Sakaw2, and RLE:Sakasaladc8 if I didn't miss any. Saka (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I've compiled the list of OCA RLE pages here: RLE:Ttetrominotlife, RLE:Pole2rotor, RLE:B36s245replicator, RLE:Pole3rotor, RLE:Pole4rotor, RLE:2x2glider, RLE:Awesoman3000/10p84h2v2, RLE:Lepa (hunting version), RLE:Bglepa (bubblegum version), RLE:Pedestrianlifep106gun, RLE:Mazeperiod2, RLE:Briansbrainp3, RLE:Jellyfish, RLE:Sakaw2 (i was surprised that this works), RLE:Awesoman3000/9p7h2v2, RLE:Replicator (highlife's), RLE:Bgpsgriddleblock, RLE:Tlifegatekid, RLE:2x2linepuffer, RLE:Bgrigel, RLE:2x2stills, RLE:Bgrollor, RLE:Highlifefourboats, RLE:Bomberpredecessor, RLE:Sakasaladc8 (same thing), RLE:Awesoman3000/ant, RLE:Dayandnightbutterfly, RLE:Mazewickstretcher, RLE:Lfodmoon, RLE:2x2period2oscillators, RLE:Awesoman3000/hawk, RLE:Smosmos (saka why these line-break tags with wrong-side slashes), RLE:Gemsc5648, RLE:Dayandnightbug, RLE:Dayandnightfatbug, RLE:Dayandnightsnail, RLE:Replicatorpredecessor (highlife again), RLE:Sakacapush (you know the drill), RLE:Crawfish, RLE:Movepuffer, RLE:Dayandnightflameball, RLE:Drylifeflowergarden, RLE:B36s245spaceships, RLE:Highlifereplicatorxp96, RLE:B36s245-14c300spaceship, RLE:Bgstar, RLE:Sakaphipush (i swear, all of saka's rles do this), RLE:B36s245gun, RLE:Movestilllifes, RLE:Lifehistoryexample (does this count?), RLE:Dayandnightmilkbone, RLE:Dayandnightfireball (please ab get better names), RLE:Jasonsbow, RLE:Dayandnightrocket, RLE:Dayandnightp60fireball (...), RLE:Dayandnightp120fireball (is the fireball like a variable-speed ss or what), RLE:Dayandnighttotempole, RLE:B36s245-28c1200spaceship, RLE:Dayandnightp220fireball (aaa)
I probably missed some so great
Also RLE:1234_synth uses b2s23 instead of b3s23 so that's just lovely Bubblegum (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Non-Lifelike" CAs -- cleanup suggested

This post by BokaBB got me looking at the rule pages that have been collected in the OCA namespace. Category:Life-like cellular automata includes several isotropic non-totalistic rules (OCA:GlideLife, OCA:Goat Flock, OCA:Just Friends, OCA:Salad, OCA:Snowflakes, OCA:Tlife, and OCA:Wlife, so far, and I might have missed something.) There seems to be standard wording in all of these saying " {Rule R} is a non-totalistic Life-like cellular automaton". But this just plain isn't right: a non-totalistic CA can't be Life-like.

The standard wording links to Non-totalistic Life-like cellular automaton, which shouldn't really exist because technically there is no such thing. I guess the right name for that article should probably be just Non-totalistic cellular automaton, and "Life-like" should also be removed from Isotropic non-totalistic Life-like cellular automaton and Non-isotropic_Life-like_cellular_automaton (both the titles and the article text).

Does anyone have any objection if I do a bunch of editing to fix this, before the problem gets any worse? Or does someone really want to LifeWiki-officially redefine what "Life-like" means? The current definition is so widely accepted that it's even on Wikipedia: "Life-like" implies an outer-totalistic rule, so it's much more limited than the space of isotropic non-totalistic rules.

I'd like to add a couple of new LifeWiki categories (or have someone competent do it for me): one for "Other Cellular Automata" in general (Life-like and isotropic NT rules), and one for isotropic NT rules specifically. At the moment it seems kind of hard to find a category page for all OCA: namespace articles -- you can't just search for "OCA" or "OCA:" (right?)

If we want to be really brave, we could make the isotropic NT category something like "Iso-NT". If that caught on -- big "if" -- then there would finally be a short standard way to say "isotropic non-totalistic". Maybe someday people could just say "isont" or "anisont" and expect to be understood. ("Aniso-NT" would be the equivalent category for "anisotropic non-totalistic", but there doesn't seem to be any point in creating that category since nobody's come up with a rule worth naming in that rulespace yet.)

... If anyone does have an objection, please suggest something we could do instead! Dvgrn (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is probably a bit late, but I think those bunch of edits are a good idea (Which it appears you have not done yet). And yes, I do agree with defining "Life-like" as strictly for Outer-totalistic rules. Nope, you can't just search "OCA" or "OCA:", so yeah, it's currently impossible to find a category with all the OCA rules and nothing more: The "Life-like_cellular_automata" category doesn't include LTL and multistate rules, while the "Cellular_automata" category also lists a bunch of non-rule pages such as the general articles for rulespaces and the lists of rules investigated on Catagolue (which, aren't they obsolete?).
Back on the definition of "Life-like", the inclusion of IsNT (Isotropic Non Totalistic) rules in the category of Life-like CA on the wiki will probably make new CA-Enthusiasts think that they are included in Life-like CA, which might have an effect on the forum.
Also, over on the Discord the standard way to write "Isotropic Non-Totalistic" quicker seems to be "INT", and Heavpoot suggested (somewhat jokingly?) "AINT" for "AnIsotropic Non-Totalistic" (Perhaps "AiNT" is better), or we could just refer to them as "MAP Rules", although yeah, that isn't very good, as MAP includes Isotropic and totalistic rules as well. Saka (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Expanding Covered OCA Rules

Does anyone think that having articles for rules beyond Life-Like and Isotropic Non-totalistic should be on here, like Wireworld or Langton's Ant? These would still go under the OCA namespace, obviously. If anyone has any thoughts on this, that would be great. AforAmpere (talk) 5:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, articles for any reasonably well-known rule would be very welcome in the OCA namespace. Wireworld and Langton's Ant definitely count as good examples.
A big reason for inventing the OCA namespace was to provide a place for this kind of information, without accidentally cluttering up the "Life" part of the LifeWiki. Dvgrn (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to contribute to these pages. Ultimium (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, a similar discussion took place three years ago, see LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2017#Lists_of_rules. Speaking of articles for other cellular automata, how about those red links in the list of Generations rules? There are a variety of rules, and therefore it will be a huge amount of work if we want to write a page for each. Or should we consider their historical/current significance first? Need Generations experts here. (I dislike red links...Wait, I shouldn't show personal feelings here.) GUYTU6J (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal feelings? Nah, that's just on the actual article pages. I really like red links, because they encourage other people to do documentation work... It would make sense to me to add a page for each of the major Generations rules in the old MCell 4.20 collection, just for starters. There's usually some descriptive text that could be lifted out of Mirek's representative {RULENAME}.mcl file, as a starting point.
The named Generations rules in the MCell pattern collection are Banners, Bombers, Brain 6, Brian's Brain, Burst, BurstII, Caterpillars, Chenille, Ebb&Flow, Ebb&FlowII, Faders, Fireworks, Frogs, Glisserati, Nova, Rake, SediMental, Snake, Spirals, StarWars, Sticks, Swirl, Transers, TransersII, Wanderers, and Worms. There's also an "Other Rules" folder, but it has just a couple of patterns in it -- one in the Star Wars family, and an unnamed explosive one (345/24/25) with a side-effect production of some Rule-90-ish behavior. Dvgrn (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for notable INT rules

The discussion at LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2019#Non-notable isotropic rules inspired me to move OCA:Wlife to User:Evin/Wlife. Previously the reason for proposed deletion was "non-notable rule; forum thread only has 9 posts in total". Sounds reasonable, right?

But then here come the questions. Can we develop some universal criteria for a section in LifeWiki:Notability about an INT rule? Which rule warrants an article on OCA namespace, and which rule is at most qualified for a User subpage? Rules differ greatly in behaviour and potential for interesting technology, but still I think "Well-explored syntheses", "Turing-complete", "Orthogonoid/Demonoid engineered explicitly", or something along these lines, may suffice for the judgement.

Related, should we encourage users to write about their custom INT rule in their User subpage first, and move it to the official OCA namespace after reaching a consensus that it is well-developed and notable enough according to some guideline? GUYTU6J (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)