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)

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)

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)

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).

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).

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

History seciton

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I removed this link to the NYTimes crosswords.

• Online version of New York Times Crossword Puzzle

My logic is that anyone who wants to get to the NYTimes puzzle will have no problem finding them. If we include a link to the NYTimes, then we should also link to the puzzles from the LATimes, the Tribune, the USA Today, The Onion, etc. The list is large. While many of us (including me) think of the NY Times as the best daily puzzle, that is POV. I vote for none. RoyLeban (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove the following link:

• Monograph on crosswords

This is not an indictment of this particular essay, but there are many, many essays on crosswords on the net, including those by many notable constructors (even including myself). A number can be found on cruciverb. I see no reason to link to this particular essay over others. Does anyone have a solid reason? RoyLeban (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

History — first puzzle

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Yes, it was (as in past tense) considered a fad, and such can be cited within the article. It is being inappropriately categorized as such. Fads, by definition, are short-lived. I think that the subject matter has passed that particular hurdle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your entire argument is self-contradictory. But then what else is new. You always seem to revert anything I do, even on articles you've never touched before, and then try to come up with some bizarre rationalization for it afterwards. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never have to explain my presence in an article to you. If your page keeps coming up in edit-conflicts, that is your deal, not mine. Now, you want to try and focus your efforts on the article, or do you want to keep attacking me? Understand that continuing the latter will result in being reported elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it may meet the definition at the category page of "a fashion that becomes popular in a culture (or subcultures) relatively quickly, remains popular, often for a rather brief period, then loses popularity dramatically, as it either fades into obscurity, or becomes a regular part of a society's culture" (my emphasis). I suppose the question is whether the crossword's popularity today is comparable to that of the 1920s, or whether it is substantially less - in the latter case it would surely qualify as a fad of the '20s. Barnabypage (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is substantially less. See discussion above.DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

After having read the discussion above, I would note that the assessment is substantially less than it was in the 1920's is bizarre; crosswords are literally everywhere; completing the NYT crossword is considered a feat in many sectors. If anything, Soduku would be a fad, simply because it has been around for considerably less time in the West.

The role of categorization is to help organize information accurately. Categorizing crossword puzzles as a fad is simply inaccurate; that's something we try to avoid here in an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hate this. The unreasonable, insulting editor, who calls people who disagree with him stalkers and accuses everybody he can of COI, is actually right in this case, while the reasonable, sensible editor hasn't thought it through.

DreamGuy: Knock off the insults. Don't use words like "stalker" and "bizarre". Don't assume everybody has a COI. Does it occur to you that you run into the same people in multiple places because you happen to share interests? Stop acting like you're the only person who knows anything. Stop deleting stuff just because you personally don't find it interesting or you personally don't have access to a reference. If you start acting like a reasonable editor, maybe it won't be so hard for people to agree with you.

Arcayne: Believe me, I know DreamGuy can be frustrating. I know it can be hard to read his argument between insults and condescension. But, he happens to be right here.

On the argument: Crosswords were a fad in the 1920s. They're certainly not a fad now, though they are still very, very popular. But, in the 1920s, you saw all sorts of crazy things, like crossword contests in almost every newspaper every day, and there were hundreds of thousands of people solving as many crosswords a day as Tyler Hinman does today. Many people, not just Jim Jenista, wore crossword clothing. Certainly, many fads die (like bell bottoms and pet rocks) while some fads level off and stick around (like Slinkies, Lincoln Logs, Mahjong, and crosswords). Similarly, today, Sudoku can be considered a fad, but only time will tell if they vanish or they just level off in popularity.

Crosswords should stay in the Category:1920s fads. RoyLeban (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good lord. Personal attacks left and right and a general assumption that anyone who hates me must be a "sensible editor" even when you admit that what they are saying is completely wrong. Marvelous. You and Arcayne are the last ones who should try to tell anyone to knock off the insults. If you want to see sensible, see Malik Shabazz, below, and Barnabypage, above. They can make a case while being polite. I was actually pretty polite too, considering the circumstances. DreamGuy (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, i guess that's a convincing enough argument. Anyone else? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think anybody familiar with the history of crossword puzzles would say they were a fad in the 1920s. I agree with RoyLeban—they've shown staying power, but crossword puzzles were an absolute craze in the 1920s. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Common clues section needed?

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)

Difficulty of puzzles

I like the addition of the difficulty section. I have a proposed addition which I don't want to make to avoid COI. Here it is:

Other crosswords that have used the increasing difficulty pattern include the Los Angeles Times and the New York Sun (now defunct), and the pattern has also been extended to some other types of Puzzles, including Puzzazz.com.

Why COI? Puzzazz is my site, but it's the only non-crossword site that I know of that does the increasing difficulty (and, FYI, I do publish mini-crosswords on Sunday and occasional full-size crosswords). RoyLeban (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for the newspapers, but Puzzazz is just not a notable site. At all. The Cruciverb and NPL discussion lists don't even talk about it except when you hype it yourself, and the threads are usually ignored by the others. This is not the place for free advertising. DreamGuy (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Do you hate everything? If it was the case that the Cruciverb and NPL lists talked about Puzzazz all the time, you'd trash them as stupid and irrelevant. The lists also don't talk about Barack Obama -- I guess he's not notable either. Seattle Magazine (print, not web) thinks Puzzazz is notable. The Seattle P-I thinks its notable. A Way With Words (Public radio show) thinks its notable. But DreamGuy doesn't. Luckily, the site's success doesn't depend on you. There are two things here you seem to not understand:

1. Notability is situational. A particular piece of information may be notable in one context or article while not notable in another. Obama is very notable, but the fact that his name appears in a crossword is not notable in the least (you can't find a President who hasn't ever been in a crossword). Obama's notability elsewhere has nothing do with it. Similarly, I am notable as a crossword and puzzle constructor, and I'm notable in the article on the FullWrite word processor and elsewhere, but I am not the least bit notable in cooking, despite having written an unpublished cookbook.
2. I have a COI here, so I state it publicly and openly and I recuse myself. You act like you have a COI in many places, but you feel you should force your opinion on others. I put the information out for others to decide. I trust consensus -- you apparently do not. Should I not propose an addition to the article which I think will improve it just because I have a COI? No, I trust others to decide. I've had puzzles published in the NY Times and the LA Times. Should I not allow myself to edit because you'll accuse me of COI? No, I'm using my real name and there is no secret as to who I am and where I'm published -- I do not have any more of a COI than anyone who has solved or is a fan of any of those puzzles. And I trust consensus.

I think the extension of Will's difficulty pattern to other crosswords and to non-crosswords is appropriate for the article. I think Puzzazz is a good example of this and is the only one I know of personally. I have not looked at all sites with daily puzzles to see if others follow the same pattern. The ones I'm aware of don't, but I would not be surprised to find others. I don't solve daily sudokus, so I don't know if any of them follow the same pattern. If true, I think that would be interesting as well.

To others besides DreamGuy, please note that the length of this reply is not to convince you for or against the addition I proposed above or for or against the mention of Puzzazz in such a statement. For some reason, I still think there's a chance that DreamGuy can learn how to be a better editor and consensus builder.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

German style and Swedish style

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)

I can't offer any information about whether it's used in Sweden, but I'm sure I've seen the description "Swedish-Style" elsewhere - a Google search for [swedish-style grids] locates it in the description of a crossword software package: "It builds clues-in-squares (Swedish style) crossword puzzles."

I don't think it actually matters whether this style has significant use in Sweden. What matters is whether it's an accepted name. We don't worry about how many Frenchmen eat French toast, how many Dutch people "go Dutch", or ... [other examples ad infinitum]. PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph Wartime Codewords story

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)

Xwds in non-English languages

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)

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)

It's a fair cop guv but I think you knew what I meant - 100,000 not 1,000,000.

I don't agree that the European variations are not noteworthy. Some of the differences in non-Roman script puzzles are down to the differences in scripts, and therefore not a matter of choice. I'm sure puzzles in Fr/It/Pol/etc could be produced following precisely the same rules as in Eng-speaking countries. The fact that they don't means that somewhere in their history, a conscious decision was made to use different rules. PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Computational Complexity - expand or delete?

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)

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 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How crosswords are made (?)

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)

-

-Added this in. Take a look at what I added and correct as necessary Frumptydoo (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanked squares are not always black

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)

External Links

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)

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)

What happened to a former article on arrowords?

What happened to a former article on arrowords? Did it get deleted? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that, rather unusually, the article on arrowords was merged with this article, without any discussion what so ever. I know that the article did not say very it much, but I do wish that there had been some discussion of this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

But the link you give in hypertext there was only a very early version of the article - I did agree that it needed expansion, and expanded it to:

An arroword is a word puzzle. It is similar to a crossword but the clues are on the grid. The puzzle will feature a square divided into smaller squares, similar to a crossword grid but, unlike a crossword puzzle, there will be no black, shaded squares in an arroword grid. The puzzle also differs from a crossword puzzle in that whereas clues for a crossword will be one side of the grid, the clues in an arroword are in the grid itself, accompanied by arrows indicating to the solver where words are to go (hence their name). These puzzles have proven to be quite popular in the United Kingdom, where it is possible to buy magazines devoted to these puzzles. There is also a pocket version of the arrowords magazine, and arrowords puzzles can be found in woman's magazines. Strategy for working out answers to an arroword may involve considerable general knowledge.

I had also put in, at one stage, that it was known as "the Scandinavian crossword", because it is believed to have originated in that part of the world. The arroword is not actually the same as the crossword, and there may be enough to justify a separate article on this form of word puzzle. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Well, as it seems as if typing arroword gets one redirected here, I have put in some information about this type of puzzle in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Well, thank you for being gracious enough to explain why you deleted it. I have now added it and put in a reference:

http://www.puzzler.com/Puzzles-encyclopedia/Arroword.htm

I very much hope that this can salvage it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Cryptic and straight clues

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)

Ignoring accents in crosswords

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)

History of crosswords

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)

You'd need a source for that. Doniago (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] These are actually the only source I've found today. PortalandPortal2Rocks (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My recent edits (all reverted I think)

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)

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)

Title of the article

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)

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)

Unsourced material

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)

Terminology

== Terminology == The horizontal and vertical lines of white cells into which answers are written are commonly called entries or answers. The clues are usually called just that, or sometimes definitions. White cells are sometimes called lights, while the shaded cells are sometimes called darks, blanks, blocks, or just simply black squares or shaded squares. A white cell that is part of two entries (both Across and Down) is called checked, keyed, or crossed. A white cell that is part of only one entry is called unchecked, unkeyed, or uncrossed. The creating of crosswords is called cruciverbalism among its practitioners, who are referred to as cruciverbalists, from the Latin for cross and word. Although the terms have existed since the mid-1970s, non-cruciverbalists rarely use them, calling crossword creators constructors or (especially outside the United States) setters or compilers.

Recommendation of reference to Egyptian "Paser Crossword Stela" c 1150 BC

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)

What do you call the number counts: like (3,7)?

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)

• That's called the "enumeration". [7] I think most setters would enumerate CD-ROM as (2-3). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, the term is enumeration. Although commas for spaces has been common, as crosswords have evolved to include phrases, names, etc., some editors and constructors (US term; UK term is setter) have switched to using spaces for spaces. For example, the enumeration (4, 6 & 6) matches "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" and (2 2, 3 3) matches the Neil Young song "My My, Hey Hey". Neither of those phrases have a proper enumeration when comma stands in for space. And, "CD-ROM" is absolutely (2-3) RoyLeban (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Blank squares

Lights anyone? 92.24.64.78 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Women crossword constructors

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)Laurabrarian

Cryptic crosswords

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)

 Fixed 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)

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)

Here's the Sunday London Times Crossword (no "Cryptic"): https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=T%2BR7%2F16ZdezsTEt58veWuw%3D%3D — is that a good enough example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyLeban (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgarrick (talk • contribs)

The History Section is Very US-Centric

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)

Wiki Education assignment: CSCW

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Free03greedo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SparksCap95.

— Assignment last updated by Bashiba88 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

British-style definition and subsection

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)

"Cruciverbalist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cruciverbalist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26 § Cruciverbalist until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)