LifeWiki:Tiki bar

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.

Click here to start a new Tiki bar discussion.

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.

• See LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2016 for Tiki bar discussions started in 2016.
• See LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2017 for Tiki bar discussions started in 2017.
• See LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2018 for Tiki bar discussions started in 2018.
• See LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2019 for Tiki bar discussions started in 2019.

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)

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 [[1]] 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 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)

"Non-Lifelike" CAs -- cleanup suggested

This post by BokaBB got me looking at the rule pages that have been collected in the OCA namespace. 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)