Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  • Category makeup no longer seems clear (or perhaps has never been), e.g, sliding (block) puzzles could fit in both under transport puzzles and under shuffling puzzles.
    • Agreed. Is there a reference we can cite for "types of puzzles" that would help with this organization? --Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • But there are so many puzzle topics, shouldn't there be intermediate entries for various levels in the hierarchy? See the rec.puzzles archive at [1], for example.--Canon 18:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I decided not to worry so much about a perfect classification (which might belong here, indeed).--Charles Matthews

four categories? well what are they? it seems rather odd to state that they can be divided into four categories and then completely fail to present those four categories. can somebody rectify this who knows what the four categories are because I don't, I came here to look for information. (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • I came here from User talk: (please read discussion there). There are probably quite a lot of External links in this article which don't really provide 'a valuable service to our readers' (Wikipedia:External links). People might want to check and prune some. — mark 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, let's do it the other way round. Here are the links that were listed. Way too much, I would think. Which ones are really an asset to the article, and which ones can we do without? — mark 21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have taken it upon myself to add and subtract some external links. I have used the following criteria:
1. The main purpose of the site is not to sell products.
2. The site contains a variety of puzzles, so that Wikipedia readers can see the true range of this broad category, "puzzle." Sites that only contain specific types of puzzles (i.e., only math puzzles or only word puzzles) would best be linked from Wikipedia pages devoted to those specific types.
3. The site is updated frequently or acts as a historical archive.
--shamblen 19 April 2006
        • As criteria for what to keep, this seems like a reasonable list to me.--Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not OK[edit]

Under review[edit]

Mark - what is criteria for 'value of article' in your opinion, why don't you elobarate. I want to see 1. What is your criteria, 2. How does other websites fit into your opinion and not mine. I see in your comments, you have marked on one site that it has some historical puzzles? If I add those puzzle to my site would that satisfy you? cyclopediaofpuzzles (the site in question) did not invent those puzzles, so its again NOT original content. So how does it fits into criteria?

Let me argue point you made on my talk page:

  • Lifting of PR - thats not possible. Google clearly ignores links from wikipedia knowing that its editable by anyone. I myself have rather high PR sites (upto PR8) to get link from for algogeeks.com, if at all that is my purpose.
  • Why I added it to multiple articles in to wikipedia - Becasuse all those articles (algorithms, puzzles, riddles) are 'related' to www.algogeeks.com. The external link is added ONLY to related articles and not spammed to any unrelated articles. I think its important to give a thought before calling something spam!
    • I'd like to suggest that this conversation be relocated, especially since it no longer seems germane to this page. I'd also suggest that the list of links that have been removed from the page could also be removed from the Talk page. There appears to be consensus, mostly via silence, about the links that have been kept or discarded. I certainly agree that they are almost all specific to a particular puzzle type, rather than belonging with this general article.--Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzles in History[edit]

  • The Etymology section is great. However, reading for the first time, I wanted to read the context of how Dudley forst used the word 'puzzle'. Could a short quote from Dudley's book where uses the word 'puzzle' be placed here? One line would be enough. As a reader, I'm just left wanting more.Drakonicon 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know of any puzzle-masters that could be referred to in a short history section? Or modern puzzle-masters, so to speak?Drakonicon 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "puzzle-master"? Will Shortz uses that title in his radio broadcasts and certain publications. Quite a few other people are masters of puzzle-solving or puzzle-creation, either as professionals or amateurs. What are you looking for? --Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, the page doesn't even have a "puzzles in history" section. While I am of the opinion that this page should remain as general as possible, if there's anything that ought to be fleshed out here it is this. What is the history of puzzles, generally? --Glp 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games vs Puzzles[edit]

Some of the items on this page are clearly games not puzzles. A distinction should be made. --REMAIA 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Issues[edit]

(from article text) In certain temples of Japan monks used to write mathematical puzzles on on temple walls.

A sentence crying out for references if ever I saw one. I've linked sangaku which is my best guess at what is being referred to, but I have doubts as to whether they qualify as puzzles in the usual sense. —Blotwell 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image (currently at top of article) actually a puzzle? It looks like the pieces are stitched in place?

An example of a simple puzzle.

--Malcohol 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The very page on tangrams correctly points out that there is no evidence that the puzzle type is thousands of years old, so that legend shouldn't really be on the topic page either. MatthewDaly 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, and am removing the reference.--Glp 23:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Issues[edit]

  • Zentangle Does this kind of new art-form fit into the concept of puzzle that this article would benefit from? Developing the idea of a puzzle as a philosophical and artistic tool?Drakonicon 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone know if the nine dot problem is on wiki anywhere?

if so would it go in this section?--The penfool 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I need to do more research, but let me raise the question here. Is this the place for a section on puzzles in fiction? Puzzles in art? Or perhaps just links to those topics elsewhere.--Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with similar comments above that LESS IS MORE on this page. Shouldn't this function as a generalized definition and introduction, with links to more specific entries? --Glp 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links revisited[edit]

  • Per Wrathchild-K's edits and some brief discussion with him, I now advocate minimal linkage here. This is both policy (see Wikipedia:External Links, specifically, "Links should be kept to a minimum") and, in the case of this page, necessary lest this become a web directory, which Wikipedia decidedly is not. Websites that enhance the reader's understanding of what a puzzle is would be relevant in an encyclopedia; websites that simply have puzzles on them, commercial or otherwise, are not. A link to a site that presents the archetypal example of a particular puzzle, should such a site exist, might be relevant here, but more likely belongs on that puzzle-type Wikipedia page. I'd love to hear more commentary regarding this issue, here or on my talk page. Thanks.--Glp 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history of this article, there has been an ebb and flow in the external links section. This is understandable given the money to be made from linking to advertising-supported sites. Some of these advertising-supported sites are quite good, in that they contain large, organized collections of well-edited puzzles with solutions. However, once one of these sites is added, it is invariably quickly followed by a number of sites of lesser quality. Then someone becomes concerned and deletes the entire external links section. Then the cycle starts anew. In addition there is your observation that perhaps this page should mainly be a gateway to pages on other puzzle types. This is what the rec.puzzles archive [2] has evolved into over the years. The topic of "puzzle" is perhaps so general as to be meaningless. Canon 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of external links continues. IMO, the link to Puzzle Page is as spammy as earlier ones to the National Puzzlers' League and other .org websites. Per the discussion above, I think this type of link should be kept off this page. --Glp 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this link?[edit]

Jim Loy's Puzzle Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Independentdependent (talkcontribs) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A fair question. Take a look at the post above, under "External Links Revisited", and also at the External Links page on Wikipedia. The relevant parts of that page, I'd say, are:
1) "Links should be kept to a minimum." The issue re puzzles is that there are literally thousands and thousands of non-commercial sites with good puzzles on them, including two that I had added a while back, the National Puzzers' League site and the Grey Labyrinth forum. Both would be of great interest to puzzle people and are entirely non-commercial ventures. But Wikipedia is not a web directory, it is an encyclopedia. From the External Links page, again: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
2) Under Links to be avoided, see "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." Whatever the caliber of Jim Loy's puzzles and his webpages, they appear to this reader at least to be personal webpages. Loy is not IMO a recognized authority on the subject, though he is a man of diverse interests and great enthusiasms. In other words, while his pages may have great merit, they don't fall, as far as I can see, within the purview of this encyclopedia. And, again, to include all the webpages of everyone who loves and creates puzzles would be not only inappropriate but foolhardy.
That's my thinking. I'm happy to see more discussion on the issue.--Glp 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I notice that Zest Online Riddle redirects here, all the other online riddles redirect to the Online_Puzzle page. As Zest is the same as the others, should it not be redirected to the same page? VampBites 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I was redirected from Not Pr0n, notpron, etc. JellyFish72 03:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

puzzle's History[edit]

We need a history of the puzzle on when the first puzzle was made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're right. The earliest known word puzzle was the Sator square, which was found in ancient roman ruins. Mechanism-based puzzles like chinese locking rings are much older. I don't really have any references though. Marasmusine 09:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this page really could use is some legal info on puzzles. Are puzzles patented, copyrighted or is it like a free-for-all once someone comes up with something new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point of interest[edit]

This article has been featured in Not Always Right. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the customer was being a nuisance, non-stop talking to the shop assistant for over half an hour (thus preventing him from serving other customers - the shop assistant had repeatedly hinted that he ought to either buy something or get out) and disparaging puzzle games, so the shop assistant gave him a taste of his medicine. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The article used to have a section devoted to the term metagrobology, which it claimed was the study of puzzles. It was extremely poorly sourced, though. The article on that same name only had two sources. The first was a really minor trivial mention lacking in serious information from a page that does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The second was to a source that normally counts as reliable but explicitly mentions that the information it was presenting about metagrobology came from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia cannot prove something is real by citing a source that cites the same Wikipedia entry. At any rate, the term was extremely trivial even if it were true, poorly sourced, and incorrect anyway (it's well known by those into puzzles that enigmatology is the preferred term). Wikipedia should not be used to promote a neologism's use to try to popularize it. DreamGuy (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Impossible" genre?[edit]

"Mathematical puzzles include the missing square puzzle and many impossible puzzles — puzzles which have no solution"

If something is impossible is it really a "puzzle"? It is, after all, trivially simple to create an impossible mathematical situation (e.g, experss the exact value of Pi as a positive integer), or a mechanical situation (e.g., separate two interlocking complete metal rings, without cutting or otherwise destroying either ring).

A. Mirriam-Webster defines "puzzle" as "to offer or represent to (someone) a problem difficult to solve or a situation difficult to resolve". "Difficult" is not synonymous with "impossible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]