Answering your questions:

   1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
   included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
   matter.) The full reference is
   http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
   2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
   included.

Ruslan

2015-12-28 19:50 GMT+03:00 Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a
> single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
> some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about
> it
> used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively
> short
> sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
> However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
> "non-Encyclopaedic".
>
> Right now there's only this section -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks
> about the
> fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
>
> I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
> "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers
> (including
> I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the
> sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
>
> Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists,
> then
> at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
>
> *
>
> http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper-Paper.pdf
>
> * There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
> fc-solve-discuss
> Yahoo Group:
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/1388
>
> The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000
> Microsoft
> FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were
> written
> outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less
> fashionable
> there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were
> written
> by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
> first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
> impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
>
> Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to
> verify
> that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
> future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
> my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
> minutes.[Verification]
>
> ===========
>
> Now my questions are:
>
> 1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
> source
> that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
>
> 2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
> are
> hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
> "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
> does not mention them at all.
>
> ===========
>
> Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts.
> As you
> can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the
> hoops
> one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
>
> [Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not
> verified/proved
> as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
> , so
> there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that
> I
> did write some automated tests for them.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality
>
> The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
> Hubris.
>     — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to