Talk:Crossword

Crossword Dictionary (Unix Terminal)

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)[reply]

Dutch "cryptograms"

As to the popularity of 'cryptics': in the Netherlands these puzzles are called cryptograms. They are hugely popular among the puzzle solvers for whom normal cross-words have become too easy. Especially the cryptograms of the Volkskrant are very popular, but the Volkskrant is (or rather claims it is) a high-brow news paper—I am not sure if the 'working class' news papers carry a daily cryptogram. --branko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.199.98 (talk) 00:52, August 9, 2002

In the UK, the 'working class' papers ("tabloids") tend to just have a normal crossword; "broadsheets" (the allegedly high-brow ones) have both. --Bth 01:00, August 9, 2002 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "tabloid", but certainly the Daily Mail and Daily Express have both "quick" and cryptic crosswords. I don't know off-hand about the Sun and the Mirror. AndrewWTaylor 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also notice that the letter games entry refers to cryptograms as a separate category of puzzle. --branko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.199.98 (talk) 00:52, August 9, 2002

Dealt with. (Hope you don't mind that I've used the UK phrase for the main article with cryptogram as a redirect, given that this is the English language Wikipedia.) --Bth

I removed the HTML comment?does that help?--branko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.199.98 (talk) 01:24, August 9, 2002

Yes, thanks! Could you tell me what browser you're using? (so I can make a sensible sounding bug report) --User:Bth 01:36, August 9, 2002 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 5.0 Win--branko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.199.98 (talk) 01:40, August 9, 2002

Thanks. And thanks for the "blah" fix ... (very sloppy of me) -- Bth 01:53, August 9, 2002 (UTC)

Variants

Some crossword grids don't have black squares -- instead some gridlines are bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 00:54, August 9, 2002

Then they're not really crosswords, imho, they're a slightly different form of word puzzle. I've also seen circular ones, with clues that go radially and tangentially. Perhaps a more general "variants" section is needed... -- Bth 01:00, August 9, 2002 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking. I wrote a comment to this effect the other day - it must've somehow not got saved. But I see someone's started on a variants section. I'll work on it a bit more when I've time. But I'm particularly surprised nobody who's worked on this piece so far appears to have heard of the crossnumber (or '"Number Word" as the Daily Mail Weekend used to call it inappropriately). -- Smjg 12:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, naming policy is for singular, not plurals -- so other articles can say "solving a [ [crossword] ] puzzle" (for example). I'll do an admin move -- Tarquin 08:56 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks. -- Bth 01:00, August 9, 2002

page moved. all sorted. :-) Tarquin 01:05, August 9, 2002 (UTC)

In the UK, all the puzzles that use bold gridlines are called crosswords. So are all the ones with circular grids (or other exotic shapes used from time to time). By all means count the grid-type as variant, but the puzzle type is the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterBiddlecombe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Conventions

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).[reply]

Outline on article page

I removed the following outline from the main page -- it's not generally considered appropriate to put unfinished outlines on article pages. Once it's fleshed out, feel free to add the relevant information to the article. (I left the paragraphs themselves in the article -- I only removed the outline itself.) (to be added, when I've checked my facts) Outline:

evolved from "word squares"
diamond shapes
dates (find them out)
In 1913, Arthur Wynne published a puzzle in the New York World which embodied most of the features of the genre as we know it. This puzzle, which can be seen at this website, is frequently cited as the first crossword puzzle, and Wynne as the inventor.
Crossword puzzles became a regular weekly feature in the World. The first book of crossword puzzles, however, did not appear until 1924, published by Simon and Schuster. The book was an instant hit and crossword puzzles became the craze of 1924.
tradition of pseudonymous compilers
D-Day landings
In 1944, Allied security officers were disturbed by the appearance, in a series of crossword puzzles published in the London Daily Telegraph, of words that happened to be secret code names for military operations. "Utah" (the code name for one of the landing sites) appeared in a puzzle published on May 2nd, 1944. Subsequent puzzles included the words "Omaha" and "Mulberry" (the highly-secret artificial harbors)
On June 2nd, just four days before the invasion, the puzzle included both the words "Neptune" (the naval operations plan) and "Overlord." That was the last straw, and the author of the puzzles, a schoolteacher, was arrested and interrogated. The investigators finally concluded that the appearance of the words was just a coincidence. The event has been so described in histories, and has even been used as an illustration of how seemingly meaningful events can arise out of pure coincidence.
According to National Geographic magazine, though, in 1984 the schoolteacher revealed that one of his students had picked up the words while hanging around army camps. When the teacher had asked his students to provide unusual words as ingredients for his puzzles, he had innocently passed them on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Conover (talk • contribs) 16:18, April 10, 2004

About that National Geographic bit...first of all, is the crossword stuff even true? (Sounds kind of urban legend-ish.) If so, how could some kid hanging around army camps (assuming some kid would even be allowed to do so) be able to pick up those words? From random soldiers? Would random soldiers know those codewords at that time, or at all? Adam Bishop 00:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the article is mine. The stuff about the code words appearing in the crosswords is true, or at least I've read many different accounts in books on World War II, codebreaking, etc. At the time I'd read about it, all the sources just regarded it as a truly amazing coincidence. I probably should have cited the sources I googled for when I wrote that section, but I just felt it was well enough known not to need it. (I just now tried Googling on "crossword overlord neptune" and got a pretty good bunch).

I hadn't known about the 1984 explanation of how it supposedly happened. I regard the National Georgraphic as a pretty credible source, but mentioned them specifically because I hadn't seen this account anywhere else. I see there's now a new account of the whole thing, including the "schoolboy" explanation, written in 2004 in The Daily Telegraph, where the puzzles originally appeared. Oh, and http://safariexamples.informit.com/0130320722/amazing/forgetful.html#Ford mentions it, credits the "schoolboy" explanation to the Daily Telegraph, and the story about the codewords appearing in the crossword to two sources: "The Longest Day" by Cornelius Ryan and "Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown. The latter is probably where I first read about it. Dpbsmith 01:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There was a film made about this incident in which a schoolboy was forced to create the crosswords as punishment. The schoolboy was friends with an officer who was connected enough to have the secrets in his office... the schoolboy sneaked a look at the office and used the words he saw there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.239.225.78 (talk) 11:23, August 9, 2005

POV?

Does the following sentence meet the NPOV criteria? "In 1968 and 1969, composer and lyricist Stephen Sondheim published an astonishingly inventive series of crossword-like puzzles in New York magazine." Has it been previously claimed that they were "astonishingly inventive" and if so who claimed this? Alternatively is it the POV of the contributor? TigerShark 01:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but that doesn't really warrant the use of a POV tag, so I removed it. POV tags should be reserved for things which the reader might want to be warned about, and not for things as trivial as to whether these crosswords were inventive or not. --Fastfission 05:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put the tag back, I don't see what harm it is doing. I placed a tag there rather than just edit the text so that I could get the opinion of others first. Which criteria are you using for deciding that it doesn't warrant a POV tag? TigerShark 13:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Man, I just took the tag out and took out the word 'astonishing.' Inventive can still be neutral, but astonishing isn't all that neutral. Simple, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.97.185 (talk) 13:02, February 13, 2005

just as a by-the-way, there is an out of print http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Sondheims-Crossword-Puzzles-Sondheim/dp/0060907088 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.38.157 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Should thisarticle mention wn:crosswords?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How much does a crossword puzzle writer make a year? Helmsb 21:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This varies wildly. Only a select few can make a living doing it, but Merl Reagle apparently makes six-figures. However, he keeps the rights to all the crosswords he constructs, and resells them in books. Since the most someone can make for a single 15x15 crossword is $200, --and only the New York Times pays that much, and there's certainly a standard of quality to be expected there-- and a 21x21 can fetch up to $1,000 --again, only the Times pays that well. Games magazine, for example, only pays $200 for a 21x21, and just $50 for a 15x15--, so if someone can consistently make --and sell-- crosswords, there's still a pretty limited maximum income. 24.22.53.24 09:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruciverbalism

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)[reply]

History seciton

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that linking to a "history of crosswords" website is a lousy substitute for actually entering the information on WP? I mean, is WP outsourcing its material now? I suggest that these links be moved to the end (along with the translation crossword link, escpecially since it's a paid site), and that information actually be provided in the article. - RealGrouchy 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sample cryptic clues

I figured it'd be a good idea to discuss these so we can discern each other's criticisms and develop ideal examples:

1 Across: the new "sounds woolly?" clue is genius. I think that's a keeper.
3 Across: I don't get the current clue. For starters, it's not an "&lit" clue, so that exclamation point shouldn't be there. I'm guessing some corruption of 'soiled' was intended, but indirect anagrams, especially those further altered, are seriously frowned upon. I admit, however, that on second examination of my own clue, the "'s" is extraneous. We need something better here.
5 Across: the question I ask myself is, would it make sense to me if I saw a standard crossword with a three-letter entry clued as "Wilde's"? Would I think that a fair and accurate clue? Your mileage may vary, but I don't like that. I thought my clue rather smooth-flowing for a simple container.
1 Down: The word "sees" is extraneous. My version doesn't have extraneous terms.
2 Down: Forget word flow; the current clue is backwards - it describes 'owall', not 'allow'! In a vertical clue, 'on' as a locator is unambiguous. My clue's word flow is bad, hence why I'm not just outright replacing the erroneous one, but we can't let that sit there.
4 Down: This is okay as is; I just didn't realize it was a container at first ('t' for "time" is a standard scientific variable, so I was erroneously wondering where the wordplay of 'do' was). I wonder if perhaps some other punctuation than the question mark would still read sufficiently smoothly; I believe a dash would work.

I'm curious to know what criticisms others have for my own examples, especially for those believed to be worse than the ones I replaced. Let's get this section sparkling clear! Zotmeister 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zotmeister. Thanks for opening up the debate. My main criticism of your clues was they seemed to be just an alternative set of clues, without being any particular improvement on what was there (with a couple of clues that were, imho, not as good as the originals). Given that we could spend the rest of time replacing the examples with completely new sets of clues, I think a better approach would be to gradually evolve what we have here until everyone is more-or-less happy. For example, the changes made by Barnabypage, and then the later changes by myself all evolved the original clues, rather than rewriting from scratch, which is how I think we should continue.

Some specific replies:

1ac - thank you!
3ac - probably the weakest clue. It is a little too obscure for the purposes of this article, though I don't think your comment about indirect anagrams applies. Have amended it - see what you think.
5ac - I think this is fine. The 's is an abbreviation of "is", rather than a possessive. The standard clue would therefore be "Wilde", rather than "Wilde's", which I think is fair. You might put "e.g. Wilde" or something similar, but I don't think that would be a requirement.
1dn - Maybe, but your clue also doesn't read very well. How could a sandwich rise or clear a table? The current clue is better because it makes sense in its own right as well. Also 'clear a table' does not quite equate to 'bus', which additionally is quite an obscure word on this side of the Atlantic.
2dn - Agreed. I have amended.
4dn - A hyphen may work.

--HappyDog 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Didn't think of 5 Across that way; I fell for a classic trap. Regarding 1 Down, maybe if we swapped it around so that we can use a proper connector rather than 'sees': does "Rising submarine becomes ferry" sound too contrived? As for 3 Across, though, I think an entirely new clue is warranted - I think it's just too much to be fair, and I also think the letter 'e' as "drug" is a major shot-in-the-dark. (Incidentally, I thought "for real!" was better than "real" as a definition for 'solid' - the latter loses the colloquialism that makes the connection.)

I openly admit that logic-based puzzles are more my forte, but I still have an instinct for wordplay, and it has reservations here. Hmmm - I have an acquaintance who is a linguistics student at MIT who adores cryptics; maybe he can be persuaded to provide some input for us. ...Actually, he'll probably tell us all of our suggestions are terrible, but maybe it'll be educational for us all. It's a bit of Pandora's Box, but the article will be better for it in the end... - ZM Zotmeister 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that 5A would be disallowed in US cryptics is false I think - I'm sure that double-def clues are permitted. It's "cryptic definition" clues that are disallowed in most US cryptics. --PeterBiddlecombe 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Crosswords

Japanese crossword grids have two rules guiding their construction: black cells may not share a side. This statement is not generally true; I have confirmed it with people living in Japan who were able to check out Japanese crosswords. It should be removed unless somebody can cite evidence for it. Unfortunately, somebody has reverted my attempt to remove this statement without any confirmation of the facts. Mysteronald 21 January 2006

I have strong evidence, but not conclusive evidence. The problem here is twofold:

- Websearching on "Japanese crosswords" is unhelpful - all you get is Paint by numbers references;

- All other references I have are either in the context of puzzles other than Japanese crosswords (as a pair of rules to be applied to a logic puzzle, the "dynasty" rules) or are written in Japanese.

Off the top of my head I have two websites to point to.

This page is in Japanese, but details what is and isn't legal in Japanese crossword grid construction; the penultimate sentence explains that it applies to crossword puzzle construction as well as "dynasty" puzzles: [1]

This information is duplicated in their publications, and their crosswords and crossword variants do indeed follow those rules unfailingly (I have visually confirmed this - I've imported many of their books). Nikoli is apparently the largest publisher of pencil puzzles of all kinds in Japan, much like Penny Publications (Dell/Penny Press magazines) in the United States.

Buried in this other page (search for "Black-cell Handling") is an off-hand reference to those rules, but what makes it significant is its source - Wei-Hwa Huang is a former World Puzzle Champion: [2]

The colloquial presentation implies that this is common knowledge.

Certainly, not all Japanese-language crosswords constructed in Japan follow these rules, just as not all English-language crosswords published in the United States follow the symmetry, entry-length, and letter-checking rules our article prescribes (I direct the morbidly curious to the crossword in each issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly). However, I believe professional grids follow those rules in both cases. You won't see a Dell grid that doesn't follow the U.S. "rules"; you won't see a Nikoli grid that doesn't follow the Japan "rules". I believe this professional requirement is a sufficient basis for including the descriptions of both in our article as "general rules". The actual truth can only be stronger than the evidence I have, and I believe this is already enough. I am, however, open to counter-evidence, if there is any. - ZM Zotmeister 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is plainly misleading to describe these as "Japanese crossword rules". My friend who is actually in Toyama confirms she has checked three different nationally published crosswords on my behalf, and none of them conform to these rules. Even if Nikoli publish crosswords with these rules (where?), then they are Nikoli's rules, not rules which define Japanese crosswords.

I would argue that this is better evidence than a throwaway phrase used on a single occasion by someone in the language-free-logic-puzzle community (who might be mistaken), and by the (poorly evidenced) style of a single publisher. It is a convenient idea within the puzzle community, but it is not universally correct.

I have still not seen a Japanese-language crossword which does follow these rules, constituting no verifiable evidence. The paragraph should at least be edited (I would still suggest that it should be removed) to make it clear that not all Japanese crosswords do follow these rules, and that it is not necessary for a crossword to follow these rules just (or only) because it is Japanese. Mysteronald 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I not think of this? I'll give you a link to Japanese individuals corroborating those construction rules: [3]

This is Wikipedia's own article on the crossword - the Japanese Wikipedia, that is. It should have been the first place we looked. In fact, it also adds that the corners shouldn't be black cells either, something I know the "dynasty" rules do not adhere to. These rules are explained in the article as being desirable; although exceptions are possible and on occasion acceptable, puzzles are considered more professional if they are adhered to - placing those rules at the same level of pertinence as the rules of American and British grids in our article.

For the record, I have seen Japanese-language crosswords that adhere to those rules - quite a few in fact. I have not seen any that do not adhere. I have seen them in print and online. Ultimately, however, what you've seen and what I've seen doesn't compare to what Japanese Wikipedians have seen, and I am certainly willing to defer to them on this. - ZM Zotmeister 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot read Japanese, I will place it on trust that you can, and I have updated the article accordingly. Mysteronald 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most common in the world?

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Types of grid

The last paragraph in the "Types of grid" section says: Answers are printed in upper case letters. This ensures a proper name can have its initial capital letter checked with a non-capitalizable letter in the intersecting clue. I don't understand what's this all about. Could anyone provide an example of this situation, or at least of some letters that are 'non-capitalizable' (and yet ought to be 'printed in upper case')? TY. Jokes Free4Me 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, across answer = 'butter'; down answer = 'Thames', linking at the second 't'. Without all-caps, this would make the across answer 'butTer' -- but we don't capitalize in the middle of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.228.40.142 (talk) 08:31, June 21, 2006

Thank you. -- Jokes Free4Me 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Clues sub-section

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 ^T_C 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clean up elinks

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of constructors

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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) (Jay Keller)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aspect ratios are wrong

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).

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)[reply]

Done. — Michael J 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish crosswords

"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)[reply]

This can be proven by reading any Polsih magazine with crosswords in it. I'm an avid crossword solver here in Poland, and I have never seen a crossword here which use any other word than a noun. Korodzik (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History — first puzzle

Just wondering if 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks great, and it's definitely public domain the way you have it. DreamGuy 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fad category

An editor keeps removing the fad category for some unknown reason. When he asked for sources, I added them, but he still removed the category. He now claims "Nothing in article justifying "fad".", but ignores that the article says "The book was an instant hit and crossword puzzles became the craze of 1924." -- Now, granted, we could have more on the history and how crazed it was (with Crossword songs, plays, jewelry, etc.), but I am getting tired of someone removing a perfectly good category when the category listings do not insist that the article itself has to devote much time to the topic. I'm going to give the editor who removed the category time to rethink this pointless edit warring, and then I will restore it again later if he doesn't do it himself. -- DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was considered a fad in its early days... and one that would quickly fade. The New York Times repeatedly used that very word. It was also considered harmful, of no intellectual value, and a frivolous waste of time:

"Topics of the TImes." The New York Times, November 17, 1924, p. 18: "Latest of the problems presented for solution by psychologists ... is created by what is well called the craze over cross-word puzzles. [many mah-jong players] now are creating the same sinful waste in the utterly futile finding of words the letters of which will fit into a prearranged pattern, more or less complex. This is not a game at all, and it hardly can be called a sport... they get nothing out of it except a primitive form of mental exercise, and success or failure in any given attempt is equally irrelevant to mental development."

"Puzzles Please Insane." The New York Times, December 13, 1924, p. 13. "Adopt the Cross-Word Fad Now at Pennsylvania Mental Hospital."

"Condemns Cross-Word Fad." The New York Times, December 23, 1924, p. 17. "The working of cross-word puzzles 'is the mark of a childish mentality,' Dr. D. L. Marsh, pastor of the Smithfield Street Methodist Episcopal Church, declared last night in an address to his congregation. 'There is no use for persons to pretend that working one of the puzzles carries any intellectual value with it,' he said."

"Queen Tries Cross-Word Fad." The New York Times, January 12, 1925, p. 19. "The prevailing cross-word puzzle craze has extended to Sandringham, where it is stated that Queen Mary has taken up the pastime of solving the problems published by the newspapers. The lesser members of the royal family are also addicted to the word-hunting game."

"Paris Likes Word Puzzles." The New York Times, February 15, 1925, p. w16. "... the Paris editions of Anglo-Saxon newspapers started the fad three weeks ago, and three of the Parisian dailies have now come out with problems..."

"Topics of the Times: Sees Harm, Not Education" The New York Times, March 10, 1925, p. 20. "Fortunately, the question of whether the puzzles are beneficial or harmful is in no urgent need of an answer. The craze evidently is dying out fast and in a few months it will be forgotten."

Brockelbank, Harold (1925): "The Cross-Word Puzzle Fad" The New York Times, March 16, 1925, p. 18: "... a good many of your readers will disagree with the views expressed and especially your summary that 'the craze is dying out fast and going the way of mah jong,' ...while it is found necessary at times to use a "freak" word to complete a section, that particular defect is not sufficienct to condemn the "so-called fad" to ultimate and quick extinction..."

"All About the Insidious Game of Anagrams" The New York Times, December 29, 1929, p. BR3 "The cross-word puzzle, it seems, has gone the way of all fads and now comes to take its place the game of anagrams...."

Tingley, Richard H. (1930), "The Lure of the Puzzle." The New York Times, February 4th, 1930, p. 20 "Together with The Times of London, yours is the only journal of prominence that has never succumbed to the lure of the cross-word puzzle.... I can assure you there is little warrant for your editorial assumption that their end is near. The craze—the fad—stage has passed, but there are still people numbering ito the millions who look for their daily cross-word puzzle as regularly as for the weather predictions.

Dpbsmith (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Interactive Tutorial Site

Just wondering how Online Interactive Crossword Tutorial qualifies as a game (As there isn't any other crosswords to play)? What I was trying to show the reader was how a crossword looked "visually". This is a crossword site, it is not like I'm promoting inappropriate material. Would it make you more happy if I locked the crossword down, so they could not type in the cells (so doesn't feel like they are playing it)? They can reveal the answers to the clues by clicking on the show button on each of the clues. If you want, I can place the crossword grid on the wiki page, however I don't believe I can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.51.149 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site calls it a game, you solve just like any other (British-style) crossword game. Calling it a tutorial seems to be a convenience so you can justify putting up a link to it.

Furthermore, if you are in a position to lock the crossword down, it's clear that it is your site, and adding the link violates our policies on conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and Wikipedia is not a site for free advertising. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, if you would like I can place the visual crossword on this wiki page (or any other website you desire, so that it doesn't promote any advertising on my part, as I will not put anything linking back to my site, however I'm not sure how). I'm not here to promote my site just to give users a better idea of how a crossword works, however you seem to get think that is not the purpose of why I placed that external link.

Considering your edit history of placing links to your own site onto other articles, I don't think I would be wrong in concluding that you were hoping for the site traffic. DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and me in bed oh ya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.216.191 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by Adrian