![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
four categories? well what are they? it seems rather odd to state that they can be divided into four categories and then completely fail to present those four categories. can somebody rectify this who knows what the four categories are because I don't, I came here to look for information. 2.124.218.28 ( talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Mark - what is criteria for 'value of article' in your opinion, why don't you elobarate. I want to see 1. What is your criteria, 2. How does other websites fit into your opinion and not mine. I see in your comments, you have marked on one site that it has some historical puzzles? If I add those puzzle to my site would that satisfy you? cyclopediaofpuzzles (the site in question) did not invent those puzzles, so its again NOT original content. So how does it fits into criteria?
Let me argue point you made on my talk page:
Some of the items on this page are clearly games not puzzles. A distinction should be made. -- REMAIA 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A sentence crying out for references if ever I saw one. I've linked sangaku which is my best guess at what is being referred to, but I have doubts as to whether they qualify as puzzles in the usual sense. — Blotwell 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this image (currently at top of article) actually a puzzle? It looks like the pieces are stitched in place?
-- Malcohol 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The very page on tangrams correctly points out that there is no evidence that the puzzle type is thousands of years old, so that legend shouldn't really be on the topic page either. MatthewDaly 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
if so would it go in this section?--The penfool 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim Loy's Puzzle Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Independentdependent ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
I notice that Zest Online Riddle redirects here, all the other online riddles redirect to the Online_Puzzle page. As Zest is the same as the others, should it not be redirected to the same page? VampBites 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We need a history of the puzzle on when the first puzzle was made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What this page really could use is some legal info on puzzles. Are puzzles patented, copyrighted or is it like a free-for-all once someone comes up with something new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.9.228 ( talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been featured in Not Always Right. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the customer was being a nuisance, non-stop talking to the shop assistant for over half an hour (thus preventing him from serving other customers - the shop assistant had repeatedly hinted that he ought to either buy something or get out) and disparaging puzzle games, so the shop assistant gave him a taste of his medicine. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The article used to have a section devoted to the term metagrobology, which it claimed was the study of puzzles. It was extremely poorly sourced, though. The article on that same name only had two sources. The first was a really minor trivial mention lacking in serious information from a page that does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The second was to a source that normally counts as reliable but explicitly mentions that the information it was presenting about metagrobology came from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia cannot prove something is real by citing a source that cites the same Wikipedia entry. At any rate, the term was extremely trivial even if it were true, poorly sourced, and incorrect anyway (it's well known by those into puzzles that enigmatology is the preferred term). Wikipedia should not be used to promote a neologism's use to try to popularize it. DreamGuy ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mathematical puzzles include the missing square puzzle and many impossible puzzles — puzzles which have no solution"
If something is impossible is it really a "puzzle"? It is, after all, trivially simple to create an impossible mathematical situation (e.g, experss the exact value of Pi as a positive integer), or a mechanical situation (e.g., separate two interlocking complete metal rings, without cutting or otherwise destroying either ring).
A. Mirriam-Webster defines "puzzle" as "to offer or represent to (someone) a problem difficult to solve or a situation difficult to resolve". "Difficult" is not synonymous with "impossible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 20:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
four categories? well what are they? it seems rather odd to state that they can be divided into four categories and then completely fail to present those four categories. can somebody rectify this who knows what the four categories are because I don't, I came here to look for information. 2.124.218.28 ( talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Mark - what is criteria for 'value of article' in your opinion, why don't you elobarate. I want to see 1. What is your criteria, 2. How does other websites fit into your opinion and not mine. I see in your comments, you have marked on one site that it has some historical puzzles? If I add those puzzle to my site would that satisfy you? cyclopediaofpuzzles (the site in question) did not invent those puzzles, so its again NOT original content. So how does it fits into criteria?
Let me argue point you made on my talk page:
Some of the items on this page are clearly games not puzzles. A distinction should be made. -- REMAIA 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A sentence crying out for references if ever I saw one. I've linked sangaku which is my best guess at what is being referred to, but I have doubts as to whether they qualify as puzzles in the usual sense. — Blotwell 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this image (currently at top of article) actually a puzzle? It looks like the pieces are stitched in place?
-- Malcohol 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The very page on tangrams correctly points out that there is no evidence that the puzzle type is thousands of years old, so that legend shouldn't really be on the topic page either. MatthewDaly 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
if so would it go in this section?--The penfool 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim Loy's Puzzle Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Independentdependent ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
I notice that Zest Online Riddle redirects here, all the other online riddles redirect to the Online_Puzzle page. As Zest is the same as the others, should it not be redirected to the same page? VampBites 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We need a history of the puzzle on when the first puzzle was made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What this page really could use is some legal info on puzzles. Are puzzles patented, copyrighted or is it like a free-for-all once someone comes up with something new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.9.228 ( talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been featured in Not Always Right. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the customer was being a nuisance, non-stop talking to the shop assistant for over half an hour (thus preventing him from serving other customers - the shop assistant had repeatedly hinted that he ought to either buy something or get out) and disparaging puzzle games, so the shop assistant gave him a taste of his medicine. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The article used to have a section devoted to the term metagrobology, which it claimed was the study of puzzles. It was extremely poorly sourced, though. The article on that same name only had two sources. The first was a really minor trivial mention lacking in serious information from a page that does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The second was to a source that normally counts as reliable but explicitly mentions that the information it was presenting about metagrobology came from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia cannot prove something is real by citing a source that cites the same Wikipedia entry. At any rate, the term was extremely trivial even if it were true, poorly sourced, and incorrect anyway (it's well known by those into puzzles that enigmatology is the preferred term). Wikipedia should not be used to promote a neologism's use to try to popularize it. DreamGuy ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mathematical puzzles include the missing square puzzle and many impossible puzzles — puzzles which have no solution"
If something is impossible is it really a "puzzle"? It is, after all, trivially simple to create an impossible mathematical situation (e.g, experss the exact value of Pi as a positive integer), or a mechanical situation (e.g., separate two interlocking complete metal rings, without cutting or otherwise destroying either ring).
A. Mirriam-Webster defines "puzzle" as "to offer or represent to (someone) a problem difficult to solve or a situation difficult to resolve". "Difficult" is not synonymous with "impossible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 20:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)