Talk:Sudoku/Archive 2

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 23, 2005 and Nov 8, 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Sudoku/Archive 3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. angusj 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Along with selecting a few high quality links ourselves, we might also consider providing links to a page that itself lists large numbers of Sudoku resources on the Web. That way, the reader gets the best of both worlds; he can visit the "reviewed links", but he also has a way to find lots of sites if he chooses — and this is achieved without cluttering the article with dozens of links. — Matt Crypto 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this is what I'm thinking of: Sudoku/Resources. This could then be linked from Sudoku under "See Also". CiaronNixon 16:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe pages that are solely collections of external links are discouraged: see this policy: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not... mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (Emphasis not mine, by way ;-) — Matt Crypto 17:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This occured to me too, however my interpretation of that policy is that an article should not consist just of ("mere") links , therefore there is nothing wrong with an established article having a sub-page that is just basically links. In my opinion a sub-page would solve the 3 problems we have here: 1) not cluttering an article with 101 links 2) having to constantly revert people adding links 3) allowing people to add sites without this kind of moderation process. CiaronNixon 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, OK, I (at least) don't have any objection to a subpage, although I think we should still decide on a handful of links for this main page. — Matt Crypto 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm also not keen on a large links page. If you want that then use a search engine. The oustanding benefit of Wikipedia is it's edited & maintained by enthusiasts & experts who should collectively be able to decide what's meritorious. --angusj 11:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My point above still applies, its not as if we're replacing Sudoku with a bunch of links and just links. This way we still have the established article, but with an additional subpage for the links that are not chosen to be included in the main article. After all an encyclopedia is a tool for research and in doing research you need sources. CiaronNixon 12:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sudoku/Resources will be impossible to control (as it was before when on the main page). Every young enthusiast with their new xls or javascrpt solver will be adding their "contribution" and the editorial control will remain non-existent. --angusj 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Metalinks (links to link pages)

message: Subsection titled "Commentary on the sudden popularity of Sudoku in Britain and India"  
Votes to exclude:
* angusj (too many links, too 'parochial' and of limited general interest)
* — Matt Crypto 09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsections or Links for exclusion:

message: The article reads: "Nikoli still holds the trademark for the name Sudoku". Is this true outside of Japan? — Matt Crypto 09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that question.  I know that Nikoli is getting their puzzles published outside Japan now, still under the title Sudoku, but the actual nature of their agreements with those publishers is unknown to me.  Whether or not any licensing agreements include any mention of trademark handling is of great interest to me.  - ZM  Zotmeister 19:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you look at the Nokoli website - http://www.nikoli.co.jp/en/ - you'll see Sudoku mentioned quite a few times but never with a TM or (R) symbol. If Nikoli does claim a trademark over the name Sudoku (registered or otherwise) - which appears unlikely, then they're not defending it. -angusj 13:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found a webpage at the Nokoli site - http://www.nikoli.co.jp/puzzles/1/index_text-e.htm - containing this: "Sudoku" is Nikoli's registered mark in Japan. So, other companies call it "Number Place". So they do appear to be defending their trademark over Sudoku in Japan at least. -angusj 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademarked?

message: Two notes: (1) The obvious: the References section is only for links whose material is used as part of the article's composition.  No one should be adding a link to it unless they are adding more info the article based on what lies beyond it.  (2) The easily verifyable: I have confirmed that all links present in the References section (as of my typing this) are in fact used properly as article references.  They all belong there and should not be deleted.  (One person tried to delete a link from it that his own edit referenced!)  - ZM Zotmeister 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, or slightly more generally, the References can be used by a reader to verify the facts in the article for themselves; they don't always have to be the same sources as originally used to write the article, although that will often be the case. — Matt Crypto 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The References section

message: I notice that somebody has created a separate page, called Sudoku/Resources, containing nothing but external links. This goes against several established Wikipedia policies, and seems to be a bad solution to the problem of managing external links on this page:
# Wikipedia:Subpages explains why subpages should not be used in the main namespace. At the very least, the fact that the software does not treat "/" specially in article titles means that the page should be moved - to List of sudoku resources, perhaps.
# Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states unambiguously that Wikipedia is not a link repository - Sudoku/Resources contradicts the policy that articles are not "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." 
As for the problem of the article being a magnet for links, I think we just need to be extremely harsh in choosing which links stay. If there are only a bare handful of links on the page, people are not going to think that their link is significant enough to fit in; the larger a list of links grows, on the other hand, the less big a deal it seems to add one more link. 
My solution would therefore be to import a very small number of links back from the "resources" page, and diligently stick to our guns that that's all we need. If there's a category on dmoz or something with a good long list of links, we can link to there, since that's their job - but it's not ours. - IMSoP 14:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. --angusj 14:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I created it as a subpage specifically for the reason so it wasn't just an article containing just links, think of it as an appendix to the main Sudoku article if you will. As I said above I do not believe this contravenes "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" as the main article still exists and in fact Sudoku/Resources is not an article in itself. CiaronNixon 15:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but that's where Wikipedia:Subpages comes in - there is, in terms of the software configuration and in terms of policy, no such thing as a sub-page in the main namespace. So something called "Sudoku/Resources" is as much an article in its own right as if it were called "List of Sudoku resources". Furthermore, even if we do consider the extra page as an "appendix", we're back where we started, which is that the Sudoku article now has far more external links than are necessary for an encyclopedia article - pages such as Wikipedia:External links talk about adding a few relevant links. I can see that this was a well-meaning attempt to solve the problem, but I don't think it fits well with accepted Wikipedia practice. - IMSoP 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There is indeed a category on dmoz: Games: Puzzles: Brain Teasers: Sudoku. I am sure the editor(s) there would love to get some good quality link suggestions. Al 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And since I just reinstated my editor account primarily to flesh out the Sudoku section a dmoz, I can unequivocally say yes, please, send over your links. Al 14:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Al - I've submitted a few links to that dmoz category in response to your suggestion. I'll submit more if I see any response there. However,  you could just go to  for links - they are already sorted, etc.. As a sweetener, I cleaned up the "Palm" subsection there ( I have 9 Sudoku programs on my Palm). Another good source is Top Sudoku Sites or Essential Sudoku Links RAFowell 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding. I'll see if I can free up a little time to do some editing there. Of course someone has removed the link to the ODP category in the External Links section. Al 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Sudoku/Resources" is a bad solution 

message: A recent edit changed:
:"Originally called simply Number Place, the first puzzle was created by Howard Garnes, a freelance puzzle constructor, in 1979." 
to
:"The puzzle was created by Leonhard Euler a swiss mathematician from the 18. century. He called it Carré latin."
I looked up "Carré Latin" on the French Wikipedia and it seems to be referring to Latin Squares. Completed Sudoku grids are Latin squares, of course, but they have additional structure (the 3x3 subsquares are permutations too). So I'm reverting, unless there's a source which identifies Euler as creating Sudoku's specifically. — Matt Crypto 23:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't the first time someone has tried to reduce Sudoku to "Latin square" in this article.  In fact, it's frequent enough to make me view it as vandalism.  I've been reverting them whenever I find them.  - ZM Zotmeister 16:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: People?  Plural?  I'm not convinced that it isn't the same individual over and over again.  At any rate, the Latin square is not a puzzle - it is a mathematical construct, and as such is referenced in the Mathematics section of the article.  (It was one of my earliest additions to the article!)  Latin squares have their own Wikipedia article, which is linked to and by the Sudoku article; any more information on Latin squares one may have belongs in that article, not this one.  - ZM  Zotmeister 17:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin