Talk:Slitherlink

untitled

It would be cool to have a section on generating the puzzles; what makes them harder? I have thought about the algorithm but don't quite have it all yet.

I have another rule not listed, but no figure for it - perhaps someone could generate a figure? It's that a 2 adjacent to two or more linear 3s has a bar thus:

 _
 2   
|3|3|
   2
   _  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.76.6 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Slitherlink really needs a good strategy page somewhere, and I think Wikipedia is the best place for it. I submit that the strategy be divided into three sections, all with diagrams: Basic, Advanced, and Expert. Basic should consist of simple pattern recognition: Set's of 3's, Diagonal series of 2's, etc. Advanced should be more difficult topics: 2's diagonally located with 3's, 1's in corners. These are difficult to explain with words only. Diagrams will be needed to show these. Expert would get into the mathematical aspects. Things like what is mentioned on the main page as well as what I call Parity - Counting the number of endpoints in a certain area and recognizing whether one of those endpoints will remain in the area or will have to connect with another endpoint somewhere else - and closely related to that is Bottlenecking - When in order to connect up with the rest of the loop, the line must continue through an area where only one path can go.

Additonal Rules for edges

•	X	•	X	•	X	•
		X	0	X
•		•	X	•		•
•		•		•		•

Where a Zero sits on an edge, the surrounding lines are invalid.

•	X	•	X	•	X	•	──	•
		X	0	X	2	│
•		•	X	•	──	•		•
				│
•		•		•		•		•

Where a Zero sits on an edge next to a 2, the area surrounding the zero are invalid, leading to known lines being shown.

•		•		•
	1	X	1
•		•		•
•		•		•

Where two ones are next to each other on an edge, the line between them is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.71.144 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

strategy

Why don't you write a Wikibook? :) MrD 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I've had a go at tidying up some of the text, adding text where it was missing for some of the examples and adding a few images. However, I feel that some clarity and consistency is needed in the descriptions of the examples. Different people have used different terms to describe the presence or absence of lines. E.g. Line = closed = filled and Blank = open = X'd out. I found this very confusing when I first read the page. Even more confusingly, 'line' sometimes means the side of a square (whether open or closed) and 'corner' sometimes means the corner of a a square and sometimes the corner of the grid. I'm willing to edit the page so that the terminology is consistent. May I therefore make the following proposal for terminology with which to describe rules and hints:

• Corner = corner of the grid The context ought to make it clear whether it's the corner of the grid or a square.
• Edge = edge of the grid
• Point = any point, whether at the corner, edge or centre of the grid
• Segment = the interval between any two points
• Side = the side of a particular square (i.e. a sub-set of Segment)
• Closed Filled = a segment/side which has a line
• Open Empty = a segment/side which doesn't have a line
• Line = the line itself

OldSpot61 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Revised OldSpot61 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I moved the pictures into the center of the wiki beneath their respective sentences, as it was horribly hard to figure out what picture went where when they were all stacked on the right side. The only thing better than this solution would be for somebody to go to the time of putting them on the right again, and then introducing lots of blank lines so that they still are to the direct right of the sentence referring to them. Sudoku424 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that some examples are missing pictures, but I don't have the means to add them. Sudoku424 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The pics were all in the right place when I edited the page on my wife's computer at home (running IE7) but then I saw they were out of place on my computer at work (Firefox 3, in case that makes any difference). I think the answer is to turn the bulk of the page into a two-column table with the pics in the right-hand column but I haven't had time to do that. But thanks to Sudoku 424 for trying! OldSpot61 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Android Slitherlink

I am the author of Android Slitherlink implementation. I don't feel that I should be modifying the article myself. At the same time I think it's worth including in the video games section. Up for discussion. Thanks. 66.27.211.66 (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't do ads here. sorry. DreamGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say anything about ads. Just saw the video games section and to me it looks incomplete. It should either be dropped altogether or expanded. What's the point of listing only DS game implementations? 66.27.211.66 (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Page Image

The image at the top of the page is currently a "Moderately difficult Slitherlink puzzle" with a link to the solution. I think it would be better to show the solved puzzle in that spot. A solved puzzle illustrates the rules ("a simple loop with no loose ends. In addition, the number inside a square represents how many of its four sides are segments in the loop"), so it makes sense to have a solved puzzle at the top of the page where the rules are. I'll probably make the change in a couple of days if there are no objections. Also, I don't think it's useful to rate the difficulty of the puzzle, since it depends on the solver, and won't mean anything to someone learning about Slitherlink for the first time. I think the caption could simply be "A solved Slitherlink puzzle." Axenicely (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A rule for closed regions

The rule was initially: "In a closed-off region of the lattice (from which there is no path for any lines to "escape") there cannot exist an odd number of unconnected segment-ends (since all of the segment-ends must connect to something)."

To which this was added: "and 2) if the first condition is met, and the region contains lines, there must be at least two lines exiting the region (otherwise the segment-ends inside the region could not connect without forming a loop)."

The same rule can be expressed more concisely: "If a closed region is not empty, there must be a non-zero, even number of lines entering the region that begin outside the region." When solving a puzzle, it is only necessary to inspect the boundary of a closed region and count those lines, because the lines that begin and end inside the region will necessarily have a combined even number of segment ends. So, expressing the rule more simply also makes it easier to apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axenicely (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slitherlink. 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://archive.is/20130421213014/http://word.chaos.co.za/2012/10/12/slitherlink-notation to http://word.chaos.co.za/2012/10/12/slitherlink-notation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Solution strategies are out of place here

I've just reinstated a change that removes the list of solving strategies. These seem to be out of place here -- as suggested above starting a Wiki book would be more appropriate if you'd like to keep them around. Or refer to something like Bram de Laat's Slitherlink pattern guide: https://puzzleparasite.blogspot.com/2011/11/slitherlink-pattern-guide_23.html

Rvollmert (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how one person can decide to overrule the judgment, and delete the work, of so many others. Do you have some kind of special authority to take this action? I'll wait a couple of days for a reply, and if there is none, or the answer is no, I will definitely undo your revision. You can propose that the solving strategies be deleted, and try to convince others that it's appropriate. But to take such drastic action on your own as an ordinary user with no special authority is completely unacceptable.

Some time ago (two years at least as I recall) there was a warning at the top of the article about it being nonconforming because of the strategies. But at some point that warning was removed, and now at the top of this page there is a message indicating that the "article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games." So there appears to be no justification for the deletions that were made.

Axenicely (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Slitherlink article was created on Sep 6, 2005, by a contributor named GLmathgrant. The very next day GLmathgrant added the first solution strategies with this comment: "Added Solution Methods -- please expand this section!" Since that day, dozens of contributors, working together, have done exactly that (check the history). Then, 14 years later, on Dec 24 of last year, someone named Rvollmert popped in and -- consulting with no one, and without ever having made a contribution to the article -- decided to delete those 14 years of work. This was the full explanation: "remove solution strategies, those seem out of place here." Rvollmert says, simple as that! On Feb 16 of this year, an unnamed user undid Rvollmert's deletions without comment. Three days later Rvollmert undid the action of the unnamed user, giving the same explanation, and added the Talk page section in which I'm commenting.

I've read the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution page, and one of its recommendations is to assume good faith. But I can't make that assumption in this case. For someone to blithely delete 14 years of work because they personally have some notion that the content has been published in the wrong place is outrageous. It's absurd. If Rvollmert believes that the solution strategies belong in a Wiki book instead of a Wikipedia article, then Rvollmert should create that book and copy the strategies to it. THEN it would be reasonable for Rvollmert to come to this Talk page, explain what s/he did and why, and announce that s/he planned to remove the solution strategies from the article, giving other contributors a chance to weigh in. THAT would be acting in "good faith." That would show respect for other people.

So, after announcing my own intention to undo Rvollmert's deletions, and waiting two days for a reply, I've restored the solution strategies.

Please note that I'm not disputing the suggestion that a Wiki book would be a more appropriate place for the strategies. I'm personally fine with that; I'm also fine with them where they are. I'm only insisting that the strategies not be removed from the article unless they (with the illustrations) are first moved to a Wiki book. Simply tossing out 14 years of good work performed by dozens of people makes no sense at all.

Axenicely (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your point of view. I consider it misguided and stand by the opinion that the strategy guide is out of place in an encyclopedic article, and that removing it improves the article. I'll leave it to people with more patience to pick up this fight, though. Rvollmert (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I do recommend reading and taking to heart Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTHOWTO. Rvollmert (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: should the section on solution methods be removed?

The Slitherlink article currently has a detailed list of solution methods at Slitherlink#Solution_methods. Would removing this section improve the article? Rvollmert (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes 95%+ of this article is being devoted to 'Solutions method' and Wikipedia shouldn't be an instruction guide per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTHOWTO. Some1 (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is whether the solution methods should be moved (to a Wiki book), then removed from the article. And if the answer is yes, then you should do the work. Don't forget to include the illustrations. Then, to preserve existing links, leave the section heading in the article, and link to the new item you created in the body of the section (in place of the solution methods). If you feel so strongly about this matter, then go ahead and do the work!

The question isn't whether the article would be improved by removing the solution methods without moving them somewhere else; the answer to that question is no, absolutely. As I explained, that content has been part of the article from the very start - for over 14 years - and it's safe to assume that a significant percentage of visitors have come to the article for that content. It makes no sense to simply delete it. Your concern is maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, not improving the article. That's a legitimate concern. But the quality of the article will be of equal concern to anyone who, unlike you, has put some work into it. You should respect the work that others have done. If you want to move the solution methods to help preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, then fine. Then do the work.

--Axenicely (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)