Talk:Crossword

message: Surely this Crossword article should cross-reference a primary source describing the massively available crossword dictionaries such as the Apple Mac OS X Unix Terminal's:
$ cat /usr/share/dict/words | egrep -i "^cr.s.w..d$" | cat -n
     1	cressweed
     2	crossweed
     3	crossword
$ 
$ cat /usr/share/dict/words | egrep "^C........$" | cat -n | tail -2
   380	Cytophaga
   381	Cytospora
$ 
Words_(Unix) is a stub of a Wikipedia article that by now almost explains that that crossword dictionary/ Scrabble dictionary exists.
Contrast the "could not find any results for crswd" of such places as http://www.google.com/search?q=scrabble+dictionary
-- Pelavarre (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossword Dictionary (Unix Terminal) 

message: There are other aspects of crosswords that ought to be discussed, probably.  In particular, American style crosswords have some conventions, among them: 180-degree rotational symmetry (which is mentioned), no two-letter words, no "unches" (an "unch" is an unchecked letter, i.e. a letter appearing in only one word).  Almost all crosswords that appear in serious fora (e.g. the New York Times and other major newspapers) are square, and are in fact an odd number of squares--15x15 is fairly standard for a daily newspaper crossword. This is for standard American-style crosswords.  Variants exist, of course, such as the spiral (mentioned above), marching bands, labyrinth, and so forth.  --Tahnan, passing through —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.43.104 (talk) 20:42, October 17, 2002
:Perhaps also mention the convention of using each letter of the alphabet at least once? Of not repeating words? (Back in the day, Roy Blount, Jr. in Spy created a crossword in which "intersection" intersected with "intersection", and another without 180-degree rotational symmetry, which last prompted at least one letter of complaint.) Robertd
::speaking of repeating, the NYTimes seems to always use one word from the previous day? and within one puzzle it is acceptable to repeat the same clue if it yields a different answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.38.157 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventions 

message: Should this article mention the wikinews n:crosswords (n:Crosswords/Current) since its a sister project of wikipedia? Bawolff 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are that if someone looks up this article he's interested in things like this. So, yes, why not? Shinobu 07:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should thisarticle mention wn:crosswords? 

message: From the introduction: "The creating of crosswords is called cruciverbalism, and a creator is called a cruciverbalist."  I've always thought that these were slightly facetious coinings, and I'm sure they're not universally used. "Compiler" and "setter" are much more common names for a creator of crosswords. I'll (boldly) change the sentence. AndrewWTaylor 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruciverbalism 

message: 1875 saint nicolas crossword (?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.160.137 (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History seciton 

message: "The crossword is the most common variety of word puzzle in the world" Can anybody verify this as a fact, or is it just assumed? If somebody can't, then shouldn't we change it to something like "The crossword is one of the most common varieties of word puzzles in the world? It communicates the same message. That is, unless there actually is proof that the crossword is most common, in which case it would be worded perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.14 (talk) 15:57, February 24, 2006
:Hmmm... actually, such a statement is nearly impossible to confirm or deny.  However, change "common" to "frequently published" and we have something to work with; in fact, I'd suspect we could then delete "word", although I have no statistics to point to.  It must certainly be the case that the crossword is the most frequently published puzzle in the United States (Sudoku hasn't completely conquered us yet), but I could not speak for other countries (although I hear it's true for Japan as well, and I'd expect that nation to be the only exception if there were any).  - ZM Zotmeister 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I dislike tagging the lead sentence of an article, I have done so in the hopes that someone can provide verification (and because the tag is desirable per Wikipedia policy). I agree with ZM that this statement might be difficult to confirm or deny, but if anyone can do so, it would be nice to leave it there rather than water it down. - Eric --WikkiTikkiTavi 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to prove that it is the most common, we just need to find a Reliable source that makes such a claim. Cacophony 05:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most common ''in the world?''

message: The "common clues" sub-section, which lists words "generally accepted" as common in crossword puzzles, smacks very strongly of original research to me. Can this be backed up by sources? If not, I don't think it (or its recently-created spinoff article, List of words frequently used in crossword puzzles) can be kept on Wikipedia. ~Matticus TC 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed  - in any case, I greatly doubt that these words are actually more common than random others across the totality of crosswords. Barnabypage 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Clues sub-section 

message: WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a collecton of links to external sites. Please categorize this giant list, or prune them (or do both).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are getting too long, why don't we just take all of them off? if people want to do the crossword puzzles they can look for them on yahoo or google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.165.235 (talk) 15:32, October 27, 2006
I got rid of all the nonencyclopedic links (sites trying to sell software, sites with just free puzzles trying to earn money off ad views and affiliate links, ten skrillion sites offering apps to try to solve clues), which didn't leave many. The .edu was questionable to me, but at least it had a long list of news stories linked in, which is something anyway.
And, as a general rule, if the links are long enough that you think you have to categorize them into subsections, there are way too many. Subcategories are just an excuse for more people to drop more worthless links. 172.144.210.91 20:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a solid essay that's very informative. Removing it because it's not written by one of your friends or yourself is a very petty reason, so I would strongly object to its removal based upon your stated concerns. DreamGuy (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason you're insulting me? Did I say anything about the writer of this particular essay as to whether they were my friend or not? Did I propose any essays of my friends? In fact, did I propose any essays at all? As to this particular essay, it is not the best essay that can be found, if we were looking to link to any essay at all. I am suggesting we link to none. If you wish to go argue for this essay, please explain why this essay is better than others, like ones on the cruciverb site, or, indeed, the whole set of essays on cruciverb. You seem to argue against external links almost everywhere. Why are you arguing for this link here? Do you have a COI? RoyLeban (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up elinks 

message: Could we create a list of famous constructors?
:To most people, the editors are more famous. New York Times: Margaret Farrar, Will Weng, Eugene Maleska, and Will Shortz. BTW, I wish there was a place and a measure for qualitative differences: those old timers were literary and clever, you felt so smart figuring out their wit; Will Shortz creates flat and dull arrangements of letters. Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon appear in the NYTimes from time to time, and they create the puzzles for the Atlantic Monthly. If one were to visit all those articles and add the category tags, would that start the list you want? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.38.157 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, (some) constructors are more famous than editors. However, I feel we shouldn't list them unless they have an article of their own - otherwise there's the danger of this article becoming an endless list. Barnabypage 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is fame a good matrix for deciding whether or not to include something? An editor list would be nice as well, though I am unsure how you would go about creating a qualitative measurement. I am also unsure what you mean by flat and dull arrangements of letters. Most would say that Shortz's career has been built on publishing less flat and dull puzzles than those of Maleska et al, who eschewed modern idioms altogether. That said, a constructor list need not go on forever. There are a finite number of regular constructors in the major mainstream crosswords.::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.71.205 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fame is the best measure available!  My understanding is that Will SHortz at the NYT will consider a puzzle from anyone.  I don't know how many different constructors he has used but I'd guess maybe 40 people appear at least once a year.  UK papers typically have 10-20 people on their setting teams, though series like the Listener are at least in theory open to all.  --PeterBiddlecombe 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard Will Shortz state several times, including last night at the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament in Stamford, Connecticut, that he uses about 110 different constructors in a typical recent year.  By the way, having a puzzle selected for the paper during the weekend of the tournament is considered to be a special honor. --Badboy2k 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merl Reagle is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia entry, so he might be worth a mention  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.53.24 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of constructors 

message: The graphic of the British-style crossword grid (and I assume the others?) should be square, not rectangular. The image has got squashed somehow, and really needs fixing. Does anyone know how to do this? Matt 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can fix them. The original images seem to be created rectangularly, not square, so they would have to be re-drawn. They're just lines and numbers, so it should be easy. (And while we're on the subject of graphics, see below.) —  Michael J  19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —  Michael J  00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect ratios are wrong 

message: "In a vast majority of Polish crosswords, nouns are the only allowed words."  This sounds extremely improbable.  If there's no evidence for this, I'd suggest removing this claim.  --PeterBiddlecombe 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish crosswords 

message: Just wondering whether it would be appropriate to post an image of Arthur Wynne's first crossword puzzle in the History section, near where it is mentioned? I have an image of it. Does anyone know the copyright status of such a thing? It was published in 1913 by a newspaper that is no longer in existence. I won't add it until someone advises on this because I am uncertain. But I think that readers would be interested in seeing the original, and how it differs from modern crosswords. (Not that I mind the stamp image — it does show recognition of the cultural influence of crosswords.) —  Michael J  20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL but: I would imagine the crossword itself is out of copyright (assuming a crossword counts as a literary work for copyright purposes), but the photograph may not be, depending on when it was taken. Barnabypage 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything published before 1923 in the US in in public domain. A photo or scan of something that just reproduces it would also be in the public domain. Someone recreating the old crossword with new graphics might have a new copyright, but if this is a straight copy of the original it's very PD. I'd say you could add it. If it turns out there is something wrong with it somehow that I didn't think about I'll comment when I see it, but you should be fine. DreamGuy 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded the image. I have seen a number of websites with the first puzzle recreated in modern type, but if you'll notice the original has hand-lettered the word "FUN" and the numbers (also hand-lettered) fill their squares and aren't up in the corners. I printed this out from a library microfilm years ago, and I cleaned up the scan — erasing smudges, enhancing the contrast, etc. ... I think "FUN" was the title of the New York World's humor section or magazine section or something like that, but I'm not certain. —  Michael J  02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, and it's definitely public domain the way you have it. DreamGuy 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History — first puzzle 

message: I don't think that the "Common Crossword Clues & Answers" section is needed, as it seems more of a "guidebook", and doesn't help with any further understanding of crosswords (there have been already examples earlier in the article, anyways).
I'm a bit hesitant to remove it though, as I may be wrong.
68.238.252.115 (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common clues section needed? 

message: The type previously named German-style has been changed to Swedish-style. It is true that this type of cross-word is called Schwedenrätsel in German, but I would like to have more evidence for it being used in Sweden. If it is the type common in Sweden, I am fine with this usage. But it might be the case that the German name is a misnomer, which would not be surprising. All kinds of words with country attributions are misnomers in German. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  German style and Swedish style 

message: I removed the link to the Nat Geographic story and replaced it by a link to a similar but more detailed article by a Crossword Editor of the Daily Telegraph.  Also removed the "no independent evidence" comment and report of scepticism by Marc Romano.  It wasn't clear from this exactly what he was sceptical about, or what his arguments were.  ALso, the new link includes some evidence of confirmation. 
PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telegraph Wartime Codewords story 

message: I wonder whether this should be a separate (linked) page.  Crosswords are written in dozens if not hundreds of languages and as people pass by and record their own local subtleties, it will just get longer and longer.
A separate page would allow grouping into closely-related languages, for which the differences may be similar.
(The stuff about the Kannada crossword compiler seems at leastpartly irrelevant, though if he's the only person making puzzles in this language I guess some personal stuff is inevitable.  But the regular updating of the numbers is futile (just say 20,000 puzzle up to May 2008 or whatever) and giving the count of clues is even more unnecessary.  Tell us the typical number of clues as a feature of these puzzles and leave the sums to the reader!  [And I'll bet a lakh of some coinage that a lakh is 600,000 - NOT 6,000,000 as implied.] )
PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hold your bet. Please send 100.000 Z$ to me, a lakh is definitely not 600,000 ;-) I think that cross-words in non-Roman scripts are interesting, like Japanese, Hebrew of Kannada. French, Polish and Italian are probably not note-worthy (but could be put in an article List of crossword types per country??)  Jasy jatere (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: F and I seems to be mostly on formatting choices 9x13, thick lines, black squares etc. That information could possibly better be presented in table form Jasy jatere (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: French disregards diacritics in crosswords, Spanish disregards ' but not ~, treatment of rr, ll, and ch is also particular in Spanish. German expands ä  to ae, ö to oe etc. I think that these aspects could be mentioned, the preferred format seems to be secondary (and smells a bit of WP:OR)Jasy jatere (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xwds in non-English languages 

message: Someone asked for expansion about the NP-complete bit.  I don't mind expansion IF it tells us something useful about crosswords.  All I understand the statement to mean is that there are many ways of filling most crossword grids.  This seems too obvious to bother saying!  It also says nothing about the question of which of the mathematically possible sets of words are appropriate for use.  Choosing the right bunch of words is very important.
But the "construction of crossword puzzles" also involves writing clues, so if I've understood correctly, we're really just saying "finding a bunch of words that fit the grid" is an NP-complete problem. 
So unless I've misunderstood the statement, I think this section says so little about crossword puzzles that it would be better to simply delete it.  If it is retained, the "problem" being described should be defined more accurately.
PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the sentence contributes to the encyclopedia article. Unless the section can be expanded to make clear its relevance, I would advocate its deletion. — Malik Shabazz  17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational Complexity - expand or delete? 

message: One thing that I am curious about but could not find is how a crusiverbalist (or what ever they're called) actually goes about making a crossword. Do they start interlocking words and then finalize the grid? Do they ever get stuck, etc. Being a fairly sharp scrabble player myself ( looking at my screen name I suppose this is obvious), I know how hard it is to make words intersect. I imagine most crossword makers to be quite intelligent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imascrabblefreak (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -Added this in. Take a look at what I added and correct as necessary Frumptydoo (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How crosswords are made (?) 

message: I note that throughout the text of this article, to date, the squares not to have letters in them are described only as "black". At the risk of seeming pedantic, I think this is an erroneous oversimplification. A crossword is not disqualified from being a crossword if its blanked squares are not black. In many printing processes, pure solid black squares can be a technical nuisance; so, for puzzles that I compile, we have long used a grey shade because, on almost any printing system (including  a normal personal use DTP printer), these are implemented as a fine grid pattern of black ink or toner and white (unmarked) gaps. 
Also, note that the Britannica online article on crossword puzzles refers to these squares as  "cancelled" and describes them as black, shaded or crosshatched (I think the latter is a little excessive as a detail of one kind of shading).
I propose to mention black once and then to refer to the blanks as shaded.
Iph (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanked squares are not always black 

message: Is Cruciverb website for American-style crossword constructors (subscription needed to access some features) needed as an external link? Seems like self promotion to me. Please remove if others feel the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashesnz (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty useful. I think it needs to be in. The pay features are only part of the site -- it's the only place I know of where the specification sheets for all major crossword publishers (NY Times, LA Times, Simon & Schuster, Games mag etc.) are gathered all in one place, and where there is a truly comprehensive collection of construction advice and knowledge. Frumptydoo (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: What happened to a former article on arrowords? Did it get deleted? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the state of the article prior to the merge I can see why the merging editor wouldn't have reason to consider it controversial. Doniago (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: It's just another type of crossword puzzle, as discussed in books about crossword puzzles and this article. The differences are very minor. The arroword term seems to be one of many such terms used. DreamGuy (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I've removed your addition, as there was no sourcing provided for your information. Please feel free to re-add it with appropriate referencing. Doniago (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all sure that puzzler.com meets the reliable source standards, but I'll leave that to other editors. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to a former article on [[arrowords]]?

message: The section with sub-heading "Straight or Quick" is rather a mess  - a lot of it talks about are, actually, cryptic clues! This article needs to distinguish cryptic and straight clues more clearly. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryptic and straight clues

message: Why does the section "orthography" say that characters are ignored in French,when
accents do have to be over French capitals?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignoring accents in crosswords

message: The article didn't mention about the first crossword book which created by Richard L. Simon and M. Lincoln Schuster in 1924 from the New York World.It was a great leap of the development of crosswords.Well actually,it was just a compilation of crosswords in the archives.But it was kind of the first crossword book at that time.
PortalandPortal2Rocks (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need a source for that. Doniago (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of crosswords 

message: I realize "common knowledge" is not a viable source, but deletion versus help with sourcing is a bit mean-spirited when what I wrote was exactly accurate.  I could have just ref'd The Grauniad and a couple of crossword blogs, but that would have been a waste, wouldn't it? I'm just trying to improve the article. Huw Powell (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may or may not be considered "best practice" to delete unsourced material rather than tagging it, it is permissible. Many editors feel that removal is the best option, especially if the material was recently-added and the contributing editor can be readily identified, as they are presumably in the best position to add a reliable source. Additionally, some editors dislike tagging material, as tagged material can remain in the article indefinitely; there is no significant impetus to do anything about the situation short-term. Generally the best course of action, in my opinion, is simply to reinsert the material with appropriate sourcing. Also, for what it's worth, blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, and I'd recommend not using them in citations. In any case, my advice would be not to take it personally but rather to look at it as an opportunity to improve your material. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits (all reverted I think) 

message: I think this article should be titled "Crossword Puzzle" because the term is a more accurate description of the subject. The word "Crossword" can refer to any words that cross per se, for example as the words cross within a game of Scrabble. Whereas "Crossword Puzzle" refers more specifically to the puzzle game which is the subject of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.117 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Moving a page discusses how you can proceed if you'd like. I think this will likely require discussion by editors interested in the matter. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of the article

message: Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paser_Crossword_Stela
This was a huge inscription which split words into squares and could be read in multiple directions.  It may or may not be ancestral to the crossword puzzle, but it's worth a mention.  I have also encountered other crossword-like inscriptions in Latin.
Dwarfkingdom (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation of reference to Egyptian "Paser Crossword Stela" c 1150 BC 

message: What do you call the number counts: like (3,7)? Is there a term for these? Also, for a word like CD-ROM (where the first part is pronounced as letters, "see dee", but the second part as a single syllable) should I clue as 2-3, or 1,1-3, or 1,1-1,1,1? Thanks. 86.164.23.31 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you call the number counts: like (3,7)? 

message: Lights anyone? 92.24.64.78 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank squares 

message: Added subheading and paragraph under History. The decline of women constructors over the past 50 years, particularly in the New York Times and other major papers, has been remarked upon by many in the field, including Will Shortz. All statements are sourced. Laurabrarian (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women crossword constructors 

message: The section on the cryptic crossword says that these are also known as "cryptics" and that in the United Kingdom, these are often called simply crosswords. I live in the United Kingdom and I have never heard them referred to as anything but "cryptic crossword puzzles."Vorbee (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the parenthetical noting that it lacked any sourcing. Editors are welcome to reinsert it with a reliable source, though ideally in a more tonally appropriate manner. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I've frequently heard them referred to as "cryptics", though not generically as "crosswords" (unless of course it's obvious from the context that the person is talking about cryptics). However - it's hardly a crucially important point, and certainly needs a source! Barnabypage (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryptic crosswords

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crossword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420160823/http://www.crosswordtournament.com/articles/inq042907.htm to http://www.crosswordtournament.com/articles/inq042907.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the article, under "American style crosswords," it says, " in the sample "parts of a tree" theme shown above, ". However, the sample is nowhere near "above"- it's several sections away. Any ideas on to make this clearer to the reader? I'm repeating the paragraph which is a messy kludge but perhaps someone has a more elegant solution. 18:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I don't have the knowledge of the means of building out the History section, but I just want to note that any encyclopedic history of crosswords is obviously incomplete if it only focuses on the history of American crosswords, especially given the rich history of crosswords in Britain and the Commonwealth nations, not to mention of course non-English-speaking parts of the world. Mpaniello (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History Section is Very US-Centric 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bashiba88 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CSCW

message: Despite "British style" being used in comparison when describing conventions in other languages, (for Bengali, "The grid system is similar to the British style" and "In Poland, crosswords typically use British-style grids) there doesn't seem to be any clear statement in the article of what the British style even is. The closest I can find is at the start of the American-style section: "Crossword grids elsewhere, such as in Britain, South Africa, India and Australia, have a lattice-like structure, with a higher percentage of shaded squares (around 25%)"
So, what I'm seeing as a newcomer to this article is a huge section on American-style, a substantial exploration of variants and non-English formats, yet nothing really on the in-between, despite comparative references to another set of English conventions. A glance over the current table of contents further illustrates my point.
I am not an avid crossword puzzler. I came here because I saw "American style" in a puzzle description somewhere and wanted to find alternatives. I have little idea what "British style" would mean, nor what other English styles may have prominent forms. So, I am merely posting here to suggest that someone with the knowledge and references could add that content. Or, if that content is already buried in the article, organize it more visibly. --jandew (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British-style definition and subsection