Talk:Nonogram

Historic meaning

I think the original historic meaning of "paint by numbers" deserves a standalone article. But I'm hesitant about what to call that article for purposes of disambiguation. Some ideas that come to mind:

• Paint by numbers (art)
• Paint by numbers (craft)
• Paint by numbers (hobby)

I also thought of "Paint by numbers (pastime)", but that doesn't strike me as distinct enough from the topic of logic puzzles.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on this. —LarryGilbert 16:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would actually say make it "Painting by numbers", and link it from the top here. Solves all problems. --Golbez 18:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd always known the non-puzzle activity by the name "color-by-numbers". That would certainly distinguish them, although a link from here to there would certainly be necessary. - ZM Zotmeister 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Paint By Number" is the most accurate name for the activity you are referring to. It definitely deserves its own entry; it was a very popular hobby in the 50s and the kits and paintings are being recognized as collector's items (and even art) today. Here is a useful link for anyone who wants to begin researching this and write an article. http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/introduction.html - Aglie 00:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why has the reference to the 500x500 puzzle and the Internation Meeting in Delft been removed? That meeting was organized especially to solve this puzzle. The fact that it hasn't been solved yet doesn't mean it's not an interesting item for this topic. As far as I know there had been no other meeting like this one before. Jeltje00 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't notable... it's mere trivia. DreamGuy 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

The external links section is fast becoming a web directory. There are a great many sites offering free puzzles, we can't link to them all. I propose removing all links to external site which provide online quizzes, and aren't specific references for the article. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All sites and applications with educational value that reach beyond the value on the wiki page should remain included.. That is what WP:LINKS page suggests. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the top link down for anyone else? ESachs 06:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were too many links a few days ago, but guys, there are no of them right now! At least, the links to sites that teach how to solve should be included. Especially those which are not on the dmoz.org. So, I will add them back, to end this flamewar (those that are teaching and not on dmoz.org). Remove them only if feel they are of no teaching value. Wikipedia is a resource for teaching for many. johnnn. 213.151.217.135 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All free teaching resources should be kept. At least, these free teaching things are what many people search for here, aren't they? 81.88.128.138 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

conceptispuzzles.com

I believe, that the http://www.conceptispuzzles.com/ should be included within the external links section, as the site seems to be a bit more than just a play puzzles online. But, the site is alreadylinked from DMOZ, so there seems to be no reason to link to it either. Since the only users that keep adding that site do not even have a login name, it is hard to communicate with them. Please, post here. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 09:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

External link to the gameLO.net

Considering the Alexa page rank and Google page rank of the site, I do not believe, that "Several thousands people are using site gameLO.net". Anyway, the site requires registering to start with and there is no other refference to GameLO name of the Paint by Numbers anywhere. To add the link, you need to prove that it is worthy (see WP:LINKS) and also that gameLO is the name of the Paint by Numbers at least in some country. While I am not the only one reverting your links, I guess I am not missing the point. You will have to do more than keep adding them. What you are doing right now is considered vandalism and self-promotion. Please discuss it here and stop adding the link unless it is resolved here otherwise. Thank you. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... but there were other worthless links there too, so I got rid of those as well. There's already a lonk to DMOZ, that lists a bunch of sites, Wikipedia policy for External links is for those sites with encyclopedic value, not just "hey, you can play games online" or "hey, look, I'm trying to sell some crazy variant I cooked up but nobody has really heard of." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.158.131 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Gamelo seems to be spaming wikipedia for links. I also found a link beneath the Marios Picross Wikipedia article. The link was named Picross. I guess someone is on a mission to improve gamelo's page rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volumemy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

jsimlo.sk link

The jsimlo.sk link was recently restored by WP editor Jsimlo. Assuming the similarity of names is not coincidental, this appears to be a conflict of interest. I have re-removed the link, and I suggest that this link only be restored again after: a) a consensus has been reached that this link is notable and fits the goals of Wikipedia, and b) someone (besides editor Jsimlo) integrates the notability of said link into the article text proper.

Otherwise, it is reasonable that this link be added to dmoz and linked to indirectly by the article, such as is done with numerous other links on this topic.

Thanks, 208.127.59.165 02:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence, you are right. However, I also think that it is not a coincidence, that the link to http://jsimlo.sk/griddlers/ was removed directly after several other links were removed due to #External links discussion. Is this supposed to be a retribution for removing the http://www.griddlers.com or the http://www.conceptispuzzles.com ? Because it was not my decision at all and it violates other rules as well.. I reverted your edit only because you removed a link with no explanation and due to no reason on the talk page.

My opinion about the link notability.. The application was used to create the Paint by numbers Animation, which is the primary image of the Paint by numbers page. It was also used to create all other images in the Paint by numbers#Solution techniques section. Besides that, it follows the techniques described in that section, therefore the application is a good educational resource for the page itself. Why? Because, it offers only those hints that are also achievable by a human logic described in the Solution techniques section (unlike many other auto-solvers I have seen). It leads the user to the final solution, slowly, step by step, the same way as a human tutor would do. Plainly, it is the main purpose of the application - to think as the humans do. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This was my first edit to this article, and not retribution for anything. 208.127.59.165 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Add. I think this link is notable enough to this page. Although not completely, the application does indeed calculate very reasonable hints and solution steps. They all can be reached by using the techniques described on the page. I have also used this link to learn and practice some of the methods from the page. Therefore, I support its value. 81.88.128.138 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like both of you are WP:SPAMming the board with your own websites. The Conceptis site makes more sense than either of the sites you added, as it's the company that intrioduced the puzzle to the US and has tons of info and samples. It's not 100% necessary as it's already included in the DMOZ link, so I won;t fight for it, but this lane-ass personal websites that offer nothing of any value have to go. 216.165.147.36 07:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you do not understand the value of programming, do you? Algorithms and source codes are indeed resources for those that can read them and understand them. Calling it lane-ass and spam when it is completely free, with no advertising nearby, written as teaching material for peer review; well it gives an idea you are not very qualified to tell. Instead, you do promote Conceptis, which is mainly a News and play online site. So before you go and remove them again, try the talk page please. There are many points of view.. For me, I have used some of them for my own school research. 195.113.20.80 08:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A spammer you call me? Well, I have spent with these puzzles a lot of time. Solving it, studing its NP-completeness, teaching other people; and finally, writting an algorithm that would also be reasonably powerful and also quick enough. How many algorithms are there like mine? Is it really lane-ass and personal? I am being referenced by several academical people as someone, who can help with writting such algorithms. Whether a link to my work is included on wikipedia or not is no more my business. Yes, I have added it while writing the Solution techniques section, but only because I thought it was proper. It was then deleted by someone and then added back by someone else. So please, do not call me a spammer. My interest with this article remains: to improve the solutions section, because I know about it. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed at a rather rude remark targetted at 216.165.147.36 (thus violating Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons). But I too believe the solver to be extremely interesting and helpful. It's quite powerful and intelligently programmed, if only it weren't so slow on the "old tree" puzzle: but that's an extraordinarily hard puzzle. I'd like to compliment jsimlo for this beautiful solver.

192.169.41.44 26 February 2007

Links, AGAIN

We seem to have a chronic problem here with people putting their own websites here and so forth. Wikipedia:External links policy expressly prohibits this, and some anonymous IP address just happening to agree with a chronic spammer is very convenient and all in a sockpuppet sort of way. I removed the Griddlers site as it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so no reason to link to a site just because you can play games there. Similarly, Wikipedia is not a directory of vanity programming projects of little to no value to anyone other than the programmer's publicity and ego. Any anon accounts or owners of the site in question putting the site back will be reverted as many times as it takes to stop it from being here. DreamGuy 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you must be pretty self-righteous barging in here and automatically assuming all anon edits to be sock puppets. While you're right about the griddlers site, you couldn't be more wrong with the solver site. Are you going to smash in the Sokoban entry and remove all references to the solver and call them "vanity programming projects" as well? If you had any modicum of intelligence, you'd realize that Sokoban and Paint-by-Numbers, both being NP-complete, are very very interesting problems (and from the point of complexity theory, equivalent). Since you lack even basic knowledge on this entry, it surprises me that you'd swagger in here and delete references without any knowledge to what they mean. (i) have you tried to program a Paint-by-Numbers solver? (ii) have you tried to program anything at all, other than your VCR? (iii) do you even know what a computer program is? And yes, I'm an anonymous coward here, so remove this paragraph. I don't care. [ PS. No, I'm not adding the solver site back - I've got it in my bookmarks and it doesn't hurt me if people who're similarly interested can't find it here. ] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.120.68.75 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Yup, anonymous coward making personal attacks is about right. "Since you lack even basic knowledge on this entry" and so forth is just sheer nonsense. But I do thank you for alerting me to the fact that the Sokoban article had external links that were also full of spam... I took care of that now. So even someone with nothing to contribute here roundaboutly helped the project... albeit inadvertantly. DreamGuy 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy, that there is no need for any external links to any programs or solving engines out there. Please note that there is a vast amount of nonogram solvers, and that there is no objective criteria to choose which are better. Google solves this for us, doesn't it? Although DreamGuy has shown his lack of knowledge in the computer science here [1] pretty much, he has a point in removing all sites with play or solve nonograms online or offline. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Web directory

I've removed the the very many "Play nonograms online" links from the bottom. If any are needed as specific references we can add them back. I've left the dmoz link for people want to visit a web directory. Zeimusu | Talk page 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.... Wikipedia is not a web directory, or a place for free advertsising, so it's disturbing people keep coming back to readd sites with no informational content, or, worse, to plug nonnotable variants as part of some business they are trying to do. 216.165.158.131 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Griddlers.net

I think that griddlers.net would be a great external link to add as there are thousands of puzzles available to anyone to do online. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution Methods

I started a section for solution methods. I think the language is very confusing, but it's a start. Feel free to ruthlessly edit, naturally. ESachs 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I (re)added a link to a nonogram page on my personal web site. I hope it's useful. - Jehoshaphat 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't find it very helpful. Do you have any links as to more information on how to solve these? They're fun but not so fun because I have no idea what I'm doing. Robot Chicken 18:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a {{confusing}} to the page. Much as I love Picross an' all, I can't get my head around a single sentence of the Solution Method section. The Japanese article seems to talk more about the puzzle itself (contrasting the English article, which seems to focus more on the history of the game), but I can't read Japanese. If anyone can translate, please do. Ppk01 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to write some more global info on the solving process. Hope that it's better than the previous version. I will also try to rewrite all the specific solving methods as well later. --jsimlo 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I started to describe the solving methods one by one. I use my own diagrams for my own examples, which, unfortunatelly, causes inconsistence in the diagrams. I hope to replace them all eventually. I use Griddlers Solver application to generate the diagrams. --jsimlo 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort on that. Even I did not know some of the techniques - pretty surprised.. 81.88.128.138 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mario's Picross

The information would be more suited to the Mario's Picross article than a section here. But before moving it across, I think we should think about fixing the inaccuracies and/or systemic bias.

It mentions that it was released in Japan and US, but makes no comment on anywhere else. I can tell you that the original game was released in the UK, though again the game never made it big. I used to have it myself. The UK (and probably European in general) version is also a little different from what is described here. The menu structure was like this:

• How to Play
• Easy Picross
• Picross
  • Kinoko
  • Star
  • Time Trial

Easy Picross, Kinoko and Star are sections each comprising 64 puzzles. Easy Picross puzzles range from 5x5 to 15x15; puzzles in the other sections are all 15x15. The hint facility is simply an option when you start each puzzle, which completes one row and one column for you, and there's no time penalty for using it - it simply records in your score if your best time for the puzzle was with the hint.

And the time penalty for a mistake isn't as the Mario's Picross article says - it's 2 minutes for the first mistake followed by 4, 8, 8, 8. Of course, you can't make more than five mistakes because the clock counts down from 30 minutes. Time Trial is the same as what's been described as Wario's Picross, and a further difference is that it gives you a random puzzle (from a catalogue separate from the other sections) instead of letting you choose one to play. So the name Wario doesn't appear at all in this version.

I'm not aware that Mario's Picross 2 was ever released anywhere in Europe, but I can't be certain that it wasn't.

-- Smjg 12:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations

The current illustrations are good (1nov06) but it would be even better if the puzzle example at the top were accompanied right there afterwards by an illustration of the final completed solution. Then people could immediately understand visually what this article is all about. 69.87.204.132 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the animation is the best way to tell, what the puzzle is about. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 08:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

copyright violation

As far as I can tell, huge chunks of the history section come directly from http://www.puzzlemuseum.com/griddler/gridhist.htm with little or no editing. 68.190.89.38 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of the puzzle, name of the page

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be titled by their most common name. I'm not sure what it'd be in this instance, but doubt it would be "paint by numbers". Nonogram, pixel puzzle, griddlers and some others seem more likely. They should also be mentioned in the lead and not just in a long list of names, many of which are very obscure. 68.190.89.38 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I belive, that Paint by numbers is the official and original name of the puzzle, but well, I have no proof. Anyway, both Griddlers and Nonograms should be redirecting correctly to prevent troubles with multiple names of the same thing. Note: Pixel puzzle is not even a common world-wide name, though Griddlers seems to be the most popular. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IT most certainly is not the official and original name of the puzzle... read the freaking Wikipedia article itself if nothing else... "Nonograms" was the first name. Wikipedia naming conventions say we go with the official or most common name, "paint by numbers" certainly isn't it. "Griddlers" is, I believe, just the Daily Telegraph's name for the puzzles, which is fine if you are in England but not elsewhere. 216.165.147.36 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to do some survey about this and here are my results:

• Paint by numbers - 496000[2] and 112000[3] google hits. Often referenced by sites using griddlers/nonograms/picross, as if it was an elderly name, or something. Could not find when and where it originated.
• Picross - 1300000[4] and 311000 [5] google hist. Usually appear along with Nintendo related words.
• Nonograms - started to appear sooner, as history section suggests, invented in 1990. 89900[6] and 67700[7] google hist. Popular on half of the play online sites, e.g. conceptis, dmoz.
• Griddlers - started to appear later, as history section suggests, invented in 1998. 87100[8] and 63300[9] google hits. Popular on half of the play online sites, e.g. multinational griddlers.net.

Therefore, I begin to disagree that Nonograms is the most official and most common name here. I would like to suggest we start a new collection of wide opinions about this. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please state your own opinions, new suggestions, and votes:

• Paint by numbers - although not the most favourite name, seems to be referenced along favourite names. Most common by google. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Picross takes it in the Google results race; 136,000 even when excluding Nintendo terms ([10]). The "paint by numbers" hit count is skewed by the non-puzzle paint by number activity, and when adding "puzzle" to the search term it gets fewer hits than "picross". ~Matticus ^T_C 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Nonogram -- listen, folks, a mere Google search isn't going to solve this one. The problem is that a variety of people have taken the same puzzle and advertised it under their own preferred names for marketing purposes. Picking one of those is going to be biased by corporation, which is further biased by geography. I've never heard anyone refer to this as a Picross for anything except the Nintendo video game, and this article is not about the Nintendo video game. Paint by numbers is the name GAMES magazine came up with. Google hits are going to reflect how many pages refer to each company's version and not reflect what people as a whole call the puzzle for all variations of the puzzzle. Nonogram is the name used by the person who invented it and popularized it to the world, so that's basically our best bet here, to be as fair and accurate as possible without favoring one company over another. DreamGuy 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is over a year old, but I'd like to note that there are several ROMs of the Super Famicom games floating about the net, and their official name from the game itself is "Oekaki Logic Puzzle" (oekaki rojikku paazuru in the romanization). I'm reasonably sure this is another "brand name" for the puzzles, however it may be possible that oekaki is the actual Japanese term for the puzzles, as "nonogram" is an eponymous tag created by someone other than the creator himself. Thought I'd throw it in, as it may still be worth noting in the games section that this is the name those games were released under. Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the paint by number activity (which is the more popular search result) can easily be conflated with the nonogram concept, would highly suggest not using this phrase. "Oekaki" simply translates into "drawing," so the Super Famicon reference is just "Drawing Logic Puzzle," which is still more accurate than "paint by number." Since it's been established that "nonogram" comes from one of the creators' names, this would seem to be the more appropriate term; however, a deciding factor in general might be which, if any, of the terms in the "Names" section are trademarked or represent a company's brand (such as "Kleenex" versus "tissue"). A relevant example: In the US, "Picross" is actually trademarked to Nintendo of America. Regardless of the final decision, article needs to be edited for consistency. 2600:1700:6A96:60:113B:18FD:47BD:F751 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"DO NOT FIX THIS NUMBER" under Joining and splitting

"and the clues of 2 will split the last two blocks by a space, because a box would produce a block of 5<!-- DO NOT FIX THIS NUMBER. IT IS CORRECT. SEE THE PICTURE, IF YOU ARE NOT SURE.. --> continuous boxes, which is not allowed there."

I beg to differ. This step is likely to be applied before actually filling in the 2s, as a step towards establishing their position. The picture doesn't even show this step, but instead shows the application of these two steps and the filling of the 2s in one go.

Consequently, by my judgement 3 is the correct number. Before the cell is marked as a space, what's to stop one of the 2s extending into this cell? The logical solution process, starting with the first row in the image is:

1. Join up the 5, as currently described.
2. Split the two blocks on the right-hand side, as to join them would create a block of 3, which violates the clue. Then, and only then, is the binding between the blocks and the clue 2s established.
3. Each of the 2s then has only one possible position, so finish it off.

Maybe a better picture, which separates the joining and splitting steps from the completion of the 2s afterwards, would help. -- Smjg 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed correct.. My fault.. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Griddlers Solver with Animator

I guess you might be interested in Griddlers Solver with Animator and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griddlers Solver with Animator‎. Give it back 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No that independent editors have unambiguously declared that software to be nonnotable spam, I trust that the owner of that site will not be trying to reintroduce links to his own site on this article, either on his main account or sockpuppet accounts... DreamGuy 05:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out where "independent editors have unambiguously declared that software to be nonnotable spam"? Tim (Xevious) 11:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The deletion vote. You were there, you saw it, so please don't play dumb. Every non-sock account there called it nonnotable spam and voted to delete. it was deleted. You, oddly, were there making an argument to add a... gosh now, nonograms in computing section to this article, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with the deletion vote. And what are we currently in conflict over now? That's right, the sockpuppets creation of a computing section full of original research and linkfarming. DreamGuy 12:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw people decide it was non-notable enough for its own article. I saw no concensus on it being spam, nor on it being irrelevent to be included in other articles. Are you calling me a sockpuppet? Please do. Oh, and how can a section be linkfarming if it contains no links? Tim (Xevious) 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonograms in computing

Since there was a revert to my latest edit (Was my English really that bad? And why am I a grumpy editor who lash out? Do you really think I care about the stupid link? [11]), I guess I could explain a little. I think a section about computing if justified, since nonograms are a common theme for bachelor works at universities and since all verifications of published nonograms are done by computers (validity, dificulty, single solution) today. This section might cover creation of nonograms from photos (by computer) and verification of validity and dificulty (by computer). I think that this section should be further extended. I doubt that a separate article about Nonograms in computing is needed right now.

But, as the text is currently reading (and was also reading before my edit), it tells, that the problem is NP-hard. Thus, we can not assert, that this is not a major problem, because it would be a false information. I am doing some speedy calculations right now and (not surprisingly) less than a 0.1% of all valid single-solution grids are solvable by humans even for black&white grids with only 10x10 cells. Well, it is NP-comp, after all and there is 2¹⁰⁰ valid puzzles for 10x10 grid. Also, I do not think that NP-completness is a theoretical limitation. I think it is a property of the puzzle, which has to be dealt with, when each nonogram is being constructed for publication. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, what is your problem with my text? Is it false? Is there an error? Or a grammar mistake? Is it not encyclopedic? Well, then please correct it. And what link do you refer to, because I fail to see a link I have added recently? If you refer to #jsimlo.sk_link, then let me remind you it was February 1, when it was discussed (almost 5 months ago). I have explained there why I have added that one, and then I have withdrawn from adding any links ever since. I have better things to do. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not revret to your version, without trying to suggest that it is at least correct, when I say it is not and when I provide a simple explanation of why even for those who do not understand NP problems very much. If you feel the section is good enough, remove the stub (though I still think there is a lot more to add). And no, the section is not about solving nonograms by computers (most nonograms can't be solved even by computers). The section is about what computer science can say about them. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to talk like this? You, using summaries with no facts, just (false) accusations about other accounts, and me keeping this monologue? I guess I can not revert any more to abide 3RR, right? And I guess you do not think I try to improve an article as I always did throughout my history. Well then..

This is jsimlo's proposed change:

In computing, solving nonogram puzzles is an NP-complete problem, which means that their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm. An algorithm, which is capable of solving all valid nonogram puzzles runs in an exponential time complexity. As a direct result of the NP-completeness, only a very small portion of the large set of all possible puzzles can be solved by the means of deterministic methods available to the human players. Puzzles presented to human players are typically verified, whether they have only one possible solution and whther they are solvable without a deeper recursion.

This is DreamGuy's proposed change:

Solving nonograms is an NP-complete problem, which means that their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm. An algorithm capable of solving all nonogram puzzles runs in exponential time complexity. This theoretical limitation, however, is not a major problem for most nonograms as the puzzles have to be constructed in such a way that they are solvable by human players or else the entertainment value would be lost. Anything a human can be expected to solve in a reasonable amount of time can be solved by a computer in a fraction of the time by using the same strategies human players use.

Well then, let see what others think about it. Computer science geeks are welcome. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neither paragraph is great English, to be frank. It's also relatively complex lanhguage, which isn't entirely suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest:

In computing, solving nonogram puzzles is an NP-complete problem, which means that their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm. This in turn means that an algorithm which is capable of solving all valid nonogram puzzles runs in an exponential time complexity. As a direct result of this NP-completeness, only a very small portion of the large set of all possible puzzles can be solved by the means of deterministic methods available to human players, since they do not have access to the time needed to test all possible solutions. Because of this, puzzles presented to human players are typically verified for solvability, to test whether they have only one possible solution and whether they are solvable without overly deep recursion. This limitation on solvable puzzles is less of an issue when solving by computer because of the faster speed and ability to test deeper recursions.

Tim (Xevious) 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase since they do not have access to the time needed to test all possible solutions: It is not the time, that is the exact problem. In order to progress further, a player would need to either go non-deterministic (which requires an oracle), or use a computer-like stack (which could take 100 lifetimes). This is one of abutments of the NP-comp. If we have an oracle (black box is the propper and common term), we can solve every NP-comp problem quite quickly. I would suggest something like "access to required resources". Because the stack version simply simulates an oracle (with fallback to lifetime problem), this would be an accurate information, hopefully still understandable for common users and leading to further reading for geeks. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uff, regarding the phrase when solving by computer: Also not very accurate. Although it is true that computer is 1000 times faster than a human, it does not really matter, whether it takes 1000 lifetimes to a human being, or just one lifetime to a computer. I guess this is why this dispute have started in the first place and why I keep disagree with DreamGuy. Computers can not solve nonograms much better than humans. They can only reach the solution a bit faster. This difference is not even notable, since they are less than 0.00000001 (give or take) faster than humans in most cases on 10x10 grid (give or take). I think we do not need to compare humans and computers, everyone knows computer is faster. How about these:

• Replace ...an algorithm which is capable of solving all valid nonogram puzzles runs in an exponential time complexity, rendering most of the puzzles unsolvable.. (the word rendering may not be the most appropriate..)
• Remove the This limitation ... is less of an issue sentence. Or maybe replace it with something like If an algorithm resorts to a deeper recursion (note: second level is like very hard, the third level is immortal :)), a puzzle is probably not solvable by non-oracle humans. (rewording would be needed of course, I just tried to explain it expressively).

Hopefully, not too confusing to scare my only peer away.. Thanks for the help, btw. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous coward again (from above). :) Technically, the first statement is not known to be true: "Solving nonograms is an NP-complete[1] problem, which means that their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm." A more accurate statement would be: "Solving nonograms is an NP-complete[1] problem. This means it is the hardest possible NP problem, in the sense that a deterministic polynomial algorithm to solve it would also give a deterministic polynomial algorithm to solve any NP problem. It is not known whether there is such an algorithm to solve NP-complete problems, although most computer scientists believe in the contrary, i.e. that P != NP (see the pages on NP, NP-complete and P=NP for further details).

I agree. You guys are worrying too much about the wording, when the real problem is what you're saying, not the way you're saying it. As pointed above, the claim "cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm" is not known to be true (since it's a famous open problem to determine if P=NP). The other version, "an algorithm capable of solving all nonogram puzzles runs in exponential time complexity", is even more wrong than the previous one, since even in the hypothetical case that P != NP, non-polynomial time is not the same as exponential time. The error in question is much more relevant than the rest of this discussion. 201.36.233.11 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope it helps. Sorry I have no references at hand.

Yes, it is indeed not known, whether they can be solved by a P alg. Which means (at least today) that they still can not be solved. I guess the text is getting harder to read if we try to explain the entire nature of an NP in this article. Although, mentioning that nonograms are one of the hardest possible NP problems might be a good idea. Currently, the truth is on either version, because nonograms can not be solved as P (because noone invented/prooved such alg yet), and this will remain true until there comes the greatest crisis in the IT security ever.. :)) How about this version, it is a merge all previous suggestions.. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something is not known to be possible is quite different from being impossible, and in particular, the claim "any algorithm which is capable of solving nonogram puzzles runs in an exponential time" is quite different to "any known algorithm which is capable of solving nonogram puzzles runs in an exponential time". Seriously. 201.36.233.11 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good points. Though it would be nice to provide a true information, with a wording better than on the most informatics pages on the wikipedia. So it always goes, when I engage in NP talks. They correct me and the rest just do not understand. But I still hope we can provide accurate info, with an understandable phrases. :)) Another proposal.. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• In computing, solving nonogram puzzles is an NP-complete problem, which means that it is one of the hardest NP problems, convertible to SAT problem for example. Their answers cannot be discovered by any known deterministic polynomial algorithm. In other words, any known algorithm which is capable of solving nonogram puzzles runs in an superpolynomial time complexity. For most puzzles, such algorithms never reaches the solution in a reasonable time.

  As a direct result of the NP-completeness, only a very small portion of the large set of all possible puzzles can be solved by the means of deterministic methods available to human players, since they are not oracles and do not have access to the time needed to test all possibilities. Because of this, published puzzles presented to human players are typically verified for solvability, to test whether they have only one possible solution and whether they are solvable without overly deep recursion. Such tests can also establish puzzle difficuly.

Oh, look... Jsimlo, an editor known for using sockpuppets to spam this article, is now merrily talking with an anonymous IP address that has never before contributed to Wikipedia to try to make consensus.

Sorry, but that's not going to fly at all. And Xevious' comments on the vote for deletion page of the spam article created by Jsimlo's sockpuppet were bizarre and unrelated to the deletion debate, so there's something fishy about him/her as well, but at least it's not a fresh brand new obvious sockpuppet account. DreamGuy 06:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Beware. Tetonka had spoken! And he does not like pale-face talking about things he can not understand. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) This will not help us, will it? Please, accept my appology. Now, as I would like to try to cease this weird fire, let me say a few things:

• First, if I have added a link to my site, it was before February 1, 2007. I have done so while writting the Solution techniques section (see [12]). I have done so simply because the program was doing what I was writting about and I though it could be useful to readers. I have had no idea about WP:LINKS or WP:COI then. After this discussion, I have learned my lesson, withdrawn from adding the link (or any other links) again, and agreed that there is no point in having such app linked from WP.
• Second, when the link to my site was present on WP, the average amount of daily incoming visitors to that site from WP was less than 4%. There would be no point in trying to pursue the acceptance of that link on WP, even if I cared about how much people visit that site. My site is well indexed and ranked by search engines and I believe that users interested in my page can find it through google anyway.
• Third, regarding the Give it back. I guess you keep refering to this user when talking about my sock/meat puppets. Yes, I know him. He contacted me some time ago by e-mail, asking for a source code of my solver. I said no. Then we kept talking about the algorithm, suggesting good and bad methods. Not really important. He said he found me through this talk page. I have never asked him to contribute to WP. He did that on his own. I have had no idea about his actions on WP until he dropped me a message. Even then, I have not helped or assisted him in any way. I just told him he have picked a bad starting point. I do not think I have violated any of the WP rules (sock or meat) simply by being an author of a software, which some fan of mine (no offense, plz) decided to write about.
• Finally, so far, in my history on WP projects, I have always tried to improve things in my best conscience, not destroy or spam them. See Guard byte, Valaška, Nonogram#Solution techniques, meta:StringFunctions, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation shortcuts, etc. If I have ever spammed WP, then I have done so inadvertently before reading WP:LINKS. I can appologize for that.

So, now I would like to continue improve this article, because I think there is some verifiable and sourced information that can be typed. If you still fear that I strive for an excuse to add a link to any of my sites, then I can promise you that it not my point and I will not do that. With you around, such link would not survive long anyway, would it?

Btw, I think that going through all this is a big waste of my time as well as yours. You can not prevent verifiable and sourced information from being added. If I fail to find peace with you and contribute it myself, I will type my proposals here. Some other (well-established and well-educated) user will place it on the article sooner or later. You can only obstruct the way. So, what say you? -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 01:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Some other user will place it on the article soon or later looks like more calls for meatpuppeting/sockpuppeting. You are assuming your proposals would be accepted by nonbiased third party editors. This has not been the case, as every conflict you have had, every spam link you tried to add, every competing product whose link you removed (until they were all removed and pushed to the open directory instead), has been opposed. You on yor sockpuppet stated straight out that you would just make another account to continue making edits you want. That account is the one that mysterious started the exat same section you are now trying to force down the throats of people here, and you magically have anon accounts and others with suspiciously lacking edit histories here and so forth showing up to "support" you. Your edits stink to high heaven, and since your spam links were opposed you know are switch to a tack where you can try to present your own original resaerch as if it were reliable, and it's clear you intend to do so to furthe promote your own work, both your name and your site (as that section was specifically created originally by your sockpuppet to find a sneaky way to link to you). You have horribly tainted the process here, and don't expect anyone to fall for it. DreamGuy 12:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I have tried to find truce with you.

• First, you might think what you want, but you obviously keep assumming bad faith no matter what I say. Do you even read what I say?
• Second, you continue to harass me by repeated accusations without any kind of proof or investigation. If you really feel I engage in sock puppeting, I suggest you file me for a check user. Several other users have suggested you to do so as well. Why do you refuse to seek broader investigation in my alleged disruption? So far, I have not been blocked, disciplined or even investigated upon.
• Third, you bite all non-logged in users by calling them either anonymous cowards or my sock puppets without filling me or them for a check user investigation. Yet, there was a time when you have said on your user page that you do not feel logging in is necessary. Now they are cowards.
• Fourth, you harass other well established editor by saying "there's something fishy about him" because he dares to opose you.
• Fourth, you keep this conversion in the plane of my personality instead of the my proposal. Thanks to this, we are both intruding this talkpage with a stupid personal quarrel. Yet, you still have not challenged my proposal. Other users have done so.
• Fifth, why do I choose to improve this section? Because your version is inaccurate (it reads what is not true) and POV (you bias the view on what NP-comp means for puzzles). You can still remove the sentences that are disputed from your version. Then, there will be no dispute at all. It is better to provide less information than disputed information.
• Sixth, if you feel I only edit wikipedia to promote my work, name and site then right now it seems to me that you only help me to do so (although I doubt that anyone is going to read this lengthy section on their own soon). I am simply being bold by disagreeing with you and by writting about what is discussed in this referenced [13] document (although I agree I have made some mistakes in the beginning, e.g. the exponential instead of superpolynomial time, which is my common mistake). If you wish to speak about original research, your "not a major problem" claim is an original research challenged by me; your "can be solved by a computer in a fraction of the time" claim is an original research also challenged by me (e.g. humans can sometimes guess the best next step (like an oracle) from the revealed picture, which computers can not).
• Seventh, my assumption and hope that a non-biased third party editors will come and take my torch is based on a todays fact that noone has challenged my last proposal yet and that several users have worked toward its rewording and correction. (Yes, I know you are confident that they are my socks, but what can I do about that? I can only wait until you decide to file me for check user.) I simply assume the poposal is notable enough. So I do not really call for any new sock/meat puppeting by saying sooner or later, nor am I canvassing to get attention. Actually, I think you have discouraged any non-well-established users from taking part in this dispute. But I still do welcome them to correct mistakes in the proposals. I simply see a piece of information which seems to be (so far) correct, acurate and notable, written on this talk page; and I see a piece of biased original research on the article. Nothing else.

-- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this. I suggest you remove the challenged phrases from your version and you can remove the disputed tag then. I am going to take a break, at least from this article. I fail to see a point in arguing with you further. Thank you very much. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, isn't this an exemplary show of a talk page discussion degraded into a personal fight... I move to focus on the meritum. Alright, the current form of text still has some problems, which as far as I can see weren't, at least partially, addressed. Specifically:

Solving nonograms is an NP-complete[1] problem, which means that their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm.

What is "standard"? What is "polynomial"? Polynomial in time? Polynomial in space? Polynomial in what formalism?

Let's not forget that the complexity classes are usually defined in the context of a specific formal construct - namely, the Turing machine. NP (and, by subsumption, NP-complete) problems can be solved in polynomial time by a nondeterministic Turing machine. Which, of course, as stated in the text, means that with the current state of knowledge programs on the most widely used computer architectures require an exponentialy-bounded amount of time to solve the problem.

The latter, in my opinion, is all the information the article reader needs. I propose the following form of the disputed paragraph:

Solving nonograms is an NP-complete problem. This theoretical limitation, however, is not a major problem for most nonograms as the puzzles have to be constructed in such a way that they are solvable by human players or else the entertainment value would be lost. Anything a human can be expected to solve in a reasonable amount of time can be solved by a computer in a fraction of the time by using the same strategies human players use.

The remainder of the section is IMHO explanatory enough to give an idea about the difficulty of the problem. As already stated, anyone interested will simply access the NP-complete article.

Comments?

Oh, and two things that I've noticed in the preceding discussion:

• Complexity is the property of the problem, not of the puzzle (ie. the data). You can use the same data to solve a different problem, such as counting the number of fields (which is trivially in P).
• It is a bit dangerous to equate oracles with NP. Firstly, because oracles can be of different types (not only NP), secondly, since oracles usually add an additional level of complexity - P^NP is not (proven to be) the same class as NP (to my knowledge).

PS. Note that I haven't actually discussed the paper that declares NP-complete membership for the problem. I leave that problem to some other, more interested kind soul :). Miki 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

---

This article should not be giving unsourced opinions of what NP-completeness means for nonograms. This is a complicated issue for mathematicians and editors here are unlikely to get it right. It would also be better to link to Complexity classes P and NP, which provides a more elementary introduction. --agr 13:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is mischievously wrong in this entire sekcion, especially with "their answers cannot be discovered by a standard deterministic polynomial algorithm" and "exponential time complexity" and "problem for most nonograms" and "can be solved by a computer in a fraction". Could it be please at least removed before this, ehm, "factual accuracy dispute" is settled? Every sentence in that sekcion has apparent mistake in it. I just could not believe what I was reading there. Thank you. 195.113.33.46 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading the postscript paper (http://www.phil.uu.nl/~oostrom/oudonderwijs/cki20/02-03/japansepuzzles/complexity.ps) and it only says that "Nonograms are NP-complete" and that "there is a reduction from 3DM to nonograms". Everything else (e.g. reduction to/from SAT, superpolynomial time complexity, oracles, lifetimes and establishing difficulties) might by true, but happens not to be discussed in the provided paper. If we can not say anything else than what comes of the paper, then we can only say that "In computing, solving nonogram puzzles is an NP-complete problem, which means that there is parsimonious reduction from 3DM problem for example." Then, we could use the NP-complete page (see Imperfect solutions sekcion) to say "In other words, any known algorithm which is capable of solving nonogram puzzles require time that is superpolynomial in the input size." Although, if you could use wikipedia as a reference, you could sometimes end up with anything, don't you? 195.113.33.46 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't say even that because it isn't true. First of all P=?NP is an unsolved problem. Second, saying a problem isn't in P only says an algorithm that solves it is not bounded in time by a polynomial in the size of the problem. It says nothing about how an algorithm behaves on most problems. I would suggest something like "Solving nonogram puzzles is an NP-complete problem. A famous unproven conjecture in mathematics says that the time required for a computer program to solves such a problem can grow faster than any polynomial in the size of the problem for worst case examples."--agr 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first supposed problem would be irrelevant (because of the word "known"), but that's beside the point.

I'm currently unable to view PostScript files. Do I understand correctly that the paper only asserts NP-complete membership for the general Nonogram solving problem? If so, I propose to drop the entire section, due to lack of proper sources.

Otherwise, I move to only leave the first sentence of agr's proposal. Like I said, IMHO there's no point in doing the same job twice. Miki 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the enclosed postscript asserts only the membership of the general Nonogram problem among NP-complete problems. That paper is actually primarily about something else, but it does contain a proof about nonograms. The rest of the section is, as suggested, original research. Or it at least does not come from that paper. 195.113.33.46 06:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And why are the nonograms no human can solve outside this article's topic? I thought the word "nonogram" described a specification of a grid with numbers and a set of rules that must be followed in order to properly reveal the solution. There is no "rule" about some recognizable picture hidden and no "rule" about some solveability by humans. If you think, some users can solve nonograms that the most users can not. And some genius might even solve more puzzles than the rest. Does that mean that they all have a different definition of nonograms that are inside this article's topic? And where is the border between "in" and "out"? AFAIK, every nonogram with only one solution could be solvable by humans. We just might not know the technique yet. We might simply not be clever enough right now. So what? We bury heads in the sands? Tough problems we do not see? 195.113.33.46 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What I actually meant to ask is - does the paper provide a proof to NP-complete membership? If not, we should drop the claim. Also, I agree - the entire following text (within the section) is ill-formulated, including, as you've mentioned, such vague concepts as "human solvability"... Miki 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to that paper 2 years ago (although I did not write it and do not know the authors). "Does the paper provide a proof to NP-complete membership?" Yes, by demonstrating a reduction from 3-dimensional matching (a known NP-complete problem), the authors prove that the decision problem associated with the puzzle (ie, the question, "Is this instance of the puzzle satisfiable/consistent/solvable?") is NP-hard. By showing that a solution can be verified in polynomial time, they then show that the problem is in the complexity class NP. So, by Richard_Karp's celebrated result, the decision problem is NP-complete. Since the reduction in this case is parsimonious (meaning that the number of solutions to the original instance of 3DM is preserved under the reduction), the author shows that, given an instance of the problem and one solution to that instance, it is an NP-complete problem to determine whether that solution is unique or a second solution exists. For puzzles like Nonogram, where convention has it that good puzzles should have unique solutions, this could be seen as a relevant, interesting result.

It's not obvious to me that the article needs to have a section mentioning or summarizing the results of this paper (I think it's interesting, but then, of course, I would, and so maybe I'm not the person to make that decision), but if it did, I would second agr's suggestions above. Quaternion 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

References

link to website with nonogram solving programs

I found a useful website that contains programs for solving nonograms. Would this link be appropriate? --Ixfd64 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

another solving technique, is it worth mentioning?

When one row or column needs all but the two outside spaces filled in, and an adjacent row or column needs only the two outside spaces filled in, the two rows/columns can be used simultaneously to help solve a puzzle that would otherwise require using contradictions.

An example would be the 2X4 puzzle:

		1	1	1	1
1	1
	2

I can give a 6x6 puzzle example if necessary.

There are probably other cases where two adjacent rows/columns can be used simultaneously, but I don't know them.

I thought I'd mention that, even though it might be too rarely useful to add to the article. 206.146.234.45 06:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

...

Whoever added the 'multiple rows' section to the main page did a much better job explaining succinctly than I could have done. I'm impressed.

Here is a bit more in-depth explanation, but I don't really think this belongs on the main page. I think what's there is good.

"Here are two cases where two adjacent rows or columns can be used together, to avoid having to guess.

first case: File:Http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/slo bro/games/me.jpg

Try to solve either the bottom two rows, or the rightmost two columns not counting the zero column. Just the 1 1 and the 6 or 8 are enough to solve those rows/columns. Similarly, in one 15x15 puzzle, all the columns ended in 1, and the bottom two rows went 2 4 3 and 4 2. That is enough info to solve those two rows.

The second case is useful more frequently:

File:Http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/slo bro/games/slick.jpg (This puzzle is copyright SeroNLink of the www.gamefaqs.com community)

Look at the bottom two rows. Using just the 4 5 and the 10, along with the numbers along the top (specifically whether the bottom number of the column is a 1 or not), the bottom row can be narrowed down to just two possibilities.

The rightmost two columns can be narrowed down too, using the 4 4, the 10, and the numbers along the left side. The 10 must include all the rows whose numbers end in a 1, to avoid producing a number bigger than a 4 in the second-to-rightmost column.

In this example the puzzle is far easier to solve with this method than without, but that is probably a rare occurrence." 206.146.234.45 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Undo the following text

The largest known nonogram has a size of 500x500, although so far it has only been solved by a computer. It was introduced on the International Griddlers Meeting, 2nd-4th September 2005, Delft Netherlands.

---

DreamGuy's reason to remove it was: nonnotable trivia. This is not a trivial info. There is no such puzzle anywhere else in the world. It is the biggest created ever, hence - important to mention.
In the external links there was a link to show this puzzle, but DreamGuy removed it as well. No link? No reference? We - who love these puzzles so much - wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagitmaor (talk • contribs)

The "biggest" whatever is by definition trivia. Biggest created anything is by itself not important enough to mention. You may also want to read WP:COI, as it might apply in your case, considering that the only edits you have ever made to Wikipedia have been to try to get mention of this minor event. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it noteworthy that a puzzle that size is considered that difficult? Certainly a 500x500 Link-a-pix puzzle is not unsolvable by a human. Also, there are some types of logic puzzles (e.g. Kakuro) in which the size of the puzzle does not matter at all, and others in which the size does matter (e.g. Sudoku). This fact shows, without a doubt, that Nonograms belong to the latter category.

I just created a 501x501 puzzle that is easily solveable by humans. So there. Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Other picture logic puzzles

I know that Nonograms are the most widespread of the picture logic puzzles that Conceptis hosts, but I think that other puzzles, especially Link-a-pix, should have more space dedicated to them. I am not sure if there is enough information on any one given other picture logic puzzle, but perhaps the page on Nonograms should be changed to "Picture logic puzzles," and have a section for other puzzles as well. Mostly, I think it is important to have a section on solving techniques for other puzzles.RheingoldRiver (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

External link

Hi, i'm alright with the external link policy, but dmoz is pretty dead and completly inactiv for littles sections - so i purpose this link : http://nonogram.freehostia.com/ it's a simple poll who group some of new web site where you can play to nonogram... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.29.62 (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of the puzzle

Nonogram seems to be a good generic name, after the Japanese inventor Non Ishida. Should we make a separate article for him? (Maybe just a redirect.)

But Paint by number dates back to Leonardo da Vinci. We might say that a nonogram is kind af paint by number puzzle.

There are many names for this puzzle. Are some of this brand names or trademarks? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonogram constant

Is there a “nonogram constant”, which describes the growth of the number of all n×n-nonograms with a unique solution? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Luca"!?

Anybody know, why as of the 19.10.2019 the Section "Names" was changed to "Luca"? Kinda threw me off guard, seen as my name is also Luca.^^' Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Mario Hack (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Video games

This section seems to exclusively focus on games run on dedicated computers. There is a large set of games run on - at least - Android smartphones. Those are missing completely. This section also reads as a Nintendo Nonogram history lesson. I'm not sure how relevant this is to Nonograms as such. I would suggest a re-write of this section. Shieldfire (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There are also dozens of Picross games available for PC on Steam. -- kazerniel (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I submit a link for a Nonogram implemented in a spreadsheet file. Basically the game that runs in either Excel or Open Office. The original concept was to teach kids the power of a spreadsheet while also learning the game (Games implemented on spreadsheets). A Sudoku game is also implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grpistoia (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Solution Techniques: Remove ¶ on Impossible Solutions

It is sometimes impossible to avoid guessing. For example, at the end of a puzzle if two rows and two columns each contain one unaccounted-for box there is no information to determine whether the boxes reside in the upper-left and lower-right cells or in the upper-right and lower-left cells. 

From the section Solution Techniques

This paragraph implies there are puzzles which are impossible to solve. During which one must guess the next step. I propose the elimination of this paragraph as a properly made Nonogram's solution can be deduced completely. There should be no guessing. WK 24.52.199.240 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If "a properly made Nonogram's solution can be deduced completely. There should be no guessing" is an actual, widely accepted rule, you're welcome to add it to the article - with proper references, of course. As the article stands, it appears that any black-and-white pixel image can be made into a nonogram. TroyVan (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Number of Picross S games for Switch

Jupiter is up to S7 in the Switch S series, but the Sega themed Picross for the Switch is named 'PICROSS S GENESIS & Master System edition' in the eShop, making it part of the S series. This should put the number of games in the S series at eight. This article says there are six. 2603:6011:3601:7E24:914C:D00A:6FED:297C (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources for 'Other picture logic puzzles' section

I am not finding a lot of reliable info on Fill-a-Pix, Pentomino paint-by-numbers, or most of the other variants of Nonograms online. I don't think a lot of people have written about them, and websites that have, like Conceptis Puzzles or GrandGames have a conflict of interest (as they are trying to sell these puzzles). Any help? Nowhed (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)