Talk:Pseudo-polyomino

Requested move 5 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to pseudo-polyomino. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 14:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polyking → Polyplet – Both Wolfram MathWorld and LifeWiki use this term, not “polyking”. 165.91.13.38 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: members of WikiProject Mathematics have been notified. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither: move to pseudo-polyomino. I don't consider either MathWorld or LifeWiki to be a reliable source for this term. Our only reliable source in this article, Golomb, calls them pseudo-polyominos. (I just removed another source listed as a footnote which doesn't consider the topic of this article at all.) Although I found some unpublished preprints in Google scholar that use the polyplet terminology, the same word "polyplet" was also used in other papers to mean unrelated things [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and in one of these meanings apparently goes back to the work of William Rowan Hamilton [6]. So it's too ambiguous and too poorly supported by reliable sources to be a good title. Polyking is even more poorly sourced, though, so of the three options it is my least favorite. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to pseudo-polyomino. For the reasons given by David. Also, both "Polyplet" and "Polyking" do not give any indication on the content of the article, while "pseudo-polyomino" shows a relationship with the widely known concept of polyomino. D.Lazard (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to pseudo-polyomino per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to pseudo-polyomino per the above. It's an extremely clear case. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.