Talk:Nonogram

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? ), 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 I have explained there why I have added that one, and then I have withdrawn from adding any links ever since.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^[1] 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^[2] 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^[3] 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^[4] 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 ). 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 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^[5] problem. This theoretical limitation, however, is not a major problem for most nonograms ^{[dubious – discuss]} 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^[6] 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^[7] 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)

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

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)