Talk:KenKen

Name origin

It appears the name origin is incorrect/imcomplete. It doesn't explain where "ken ken" comes from and knowing Japanese myself, I can tell you that kashikoku naru pazuru doesn't translate to anything "squared" it simply means "a puzzle to get more clever." This should be revised pending agreement. 38.117.247.14 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Importance overstated?

I kind of have the feeling the importance of this type of puzzle is rather overstated in the article. There are many sudoku variants without their own wikipedia page. One that has been around for quite a while is one with only the + operator; this puzzle is merely a simple extension of that principle as there are many. Since it seems this puzzle type is claimed to be brand new I think it still has to prove itself being worth of all the praising going on here. Also the large table is... huge. Johan.de.Ruiter (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• By now, American puzzle guru Will Shortz (presumed prime mover of Wordplay (film) and puzzle editor of The New York Times has discovered and endorsed KenKen, called it

  The most addictive puzzle since sudoku

on the cover of volume 3 of Will Shortz presents KenKen Easy to Hard (ISBN 0-312-54636-X / 978-0-312-54636-6), and presumably spearheaded the puzzle's appearance in the Web version of the NYT.
--Jerzy•t 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

KenKen puzzle

The solution to the KenKen puzzle on the page is incorrect according to the rules it states. There are two 3s in one column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anctel (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Anctel (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the 3 and 6 in the top row (Col 2 & 3) have just been transposed. Anctel (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Diagram fixed by transposing 3 & 6. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would get a headache trying to solve from this diagram: the difference between the bold and plain is to slight & invites eyestrain on my system. Anyway, does this have to be done as a graphic rather than a wiki-table that is easier to edit?
  --Jerzy•t 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  

Data Table

In the Data Table, shouldn't there be two entries under 240 for 4 squares? Anctel (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Online Games

Should be an area that lists where you can play KenKen games online?
From searching Google, I've found the following:
<redacted> Akamain (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there should not be. See Wikipedia:External Links - MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's being just a wee bit pedantic. Playing KenKen is the best way of educating oneself as to what it involves. Try this one: http://timesonline.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Myles325a (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not pedantic, it's policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Uniqueness of Solution

The current article makes the claim: "One major distinction of KenKen from sudoku is that there are multiple ways to an answer." However according to the official kenken site's faq this is false: "4. Can a puzzle have more than one solution? A puzzle will NEVER have more than one solution." Thus I am removing this claim. --Ray andrew (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A puzzle *can* (theoretically, at least) have more than one solution - if they do not, they have been specifically designed to not have more than one solution. This means non-official KenKen puzzles can potentially have multiple solutions. Might be worth mentioning this. 78.86.82.240 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it's theoretically possible? It wouldn't be too hard to prove — someone just has to come up with an example puzzle that has two solutions, and anybody could confirm they found an example.

Certainly if most of the mathematical symbols are omitted, then it should be pretty easy to come up with an example with two (or more) solutions. But the above statement was probably referring to puzzles that have all the operators specified. --Underpants 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is absurdly easy to have a puzzle with more than one solution. If you had a puzzle with one two by two box contained the numbers 1 and 2. You could have them reversed and every other square would be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Any KenKen with more than one solution is by definition an invalid KenKen puzzle. They are specifically made -- as are other logic puzzles of this type -- to only have one possible solution. DreamGuy (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about the example

In the fisrt step of the example, it states that the +11 can only be 5,6. Why couldn't it be 6,5? As an example, it doesn't explain how you determined where which number goes. It looks like someone started with the finished puzzle rather then showing how a new one was solved.

If the example section wasn't supposed to be showing how one was solved, then perhaps I misunderstood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.64.66 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First appearance in U.S.A.

The article states that KenKen first appeared in America in the Boston Globe in November 2008. One of the local papers here in Hawaii started carrying it on September 29th, 2008 . Hawaii does have an influx of Japanese culture due to its proximity, so I can easily believe that the local paper might have been first. However, the referenced page is attributed to the Associated Press, so I don't know if it was syndicated to other papers as well. — Mordomo (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

References

KenKen initially appeared in the USA in Readers Digest, September 2008 edition. Nextoy (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External links

I have added the link to kenken.com. I don't see how it runs afoul of WP:ELNO—the only plausible counterexample is "mainly intended to promote a website". The intention is to provide readers of this page access to an interactive online puzzle generator. Moreover, since KenKen is a trademark, kenken.com is, fundamentally, and "official site", which is specifically suggested per WP:ELYES. Bongomatic 05:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking we only link to sources of information. Playing games is not a reason to link to something. This link fails pretty much all standards, but, bcause it appears to be th official site, it thus can be accepted per that standard. OTherwise it wouldn't be allowed here, as has been shown time and time again across multiple similar articles and when it has been discussed on the talk page of WP:EL. 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Critical diff. between KenKen and other Sudoku variants

Surprised no one has mentioned this. I got into KenKen recently after doing a fair bit of Sudoku and Hyper Sudoku. As a teacher, the first thing that struck me was that, UNLIKE all the other sudoku variants, most of the work that goes into KenKen by the solver is arithmetical in nature, whereas Sudoku is pure logic. Ken Ken requires looking at factors, division and multiplication. It might be a very good tool to get kids learning about times tables and the rest of it, as KenKen gives you a reason for learning arithmetical operations - to solve this damn puzzle! And of course, the teacher could give out the easier ones first, and then the harder ones as the student got the jist of the game. In vanilla Sudoku of ocurse, the numbers could just as easily be letters or geometric shapes. Not so with KenKen. Myles325a (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More difficult ones

Now that I can do the 9x9 ones from the official site, I am wondering if there are more difficult ones. Has anyone seen, for example, a 12x12 ken ken. Also, I know that even the smaller 6 and 7 games can have much more difficult variants. Sudoku, for example, has lots of examples of puzzles which are almost impossible to solve, and these would never appear in the press. But not ken ken. This is not just for my personal interest. I think that if such puzzles, like 12X12 DO exist, then that fact should be in this article. In the meantime, I'd be happy if any other fan could give me some pointers on where I might look.

I have found just such a site, which I have added to as a link to the bottom of the article. It keeps getting deleted, I don't know why. Look, if you are conversant with the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will see that EVERY article of any substance has extended bibliographies at the end. This would be regarded as advertising by the people who delete such links as the one I added.

Look, don't be pedantic. The link is not trying to SELL anything. It is most helpful for readers interested in the subject of Ken Ken to know that such a source of more advanced puzzles exists. There is no harm in including it, and a very useful piece of information goes if it is deleted.

In fact, I have noticed in Ken Ken boards, quite a few people have asked for EXACTLY the kind of puzzles which this link provides. And they are very good indeed. They take me hours to solve. In fact, I'm going back to one right now. Myles325a (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is "trying to sell" something—it is an advertising-sponsored web page. Please read WP:EL and explain how the link qualifies. Until then, please leave the link out. ^Bongo_matic 12:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My link to Kenken sites page being deleted.

For some time I have been trying to insert a LEGITIMATE link to a site which simply lists other Kenken sites and variants. There are, at the moment, two bullies who keep repeatedly deleting that link as against WP:EL rules, and have yet to tell me WHY, even though I have asked them many times.

That link is: http://find-kenken-and-minuplu-puzzles.com/ (lists sites for kenken and its close variants. As you can see, there is nothing there out of the ordinary, or which is offensive, ideological, exploitational, vandalistic or illegal.

Quite simply, it provides a useful list of sites which fans of the game would appreciate. Of course, the Kenken WP article is a good start, but it would be impossible to dwell on the finer aspects of the game, or broach the different variants extant. I just CANNOT understand why the link keeps being deleted. I am taking this up with the Administrators as well. Here are the comments I have left with superbly named Bongomatic and Dreamguy.

___________________________________________________________

You have removed my link on the Ken Ken page to a site which presents Ken Ken puzzles which are larger and more difficult than the ones found at the official site.

I have read the characteristically verbose site WT:EL page. I cannot see ANYTHING there which would preclude the inclusion of this link. There is nothing in the “20 links normally to be avoided” which says that you can’t link to a site which contains advertising, as you maintained. In fact, the poster is advised that it is quite permissible to link to Youtube, which is a site solely maintained by advertising, at massively larger rates than the small site run by ONE person, Patrick Min. Why would it be OK to link to Youtube but not any other site which has some commercial input? To rigorously maintain such a position would be to cut Wikipedia off from most of the internet.

OTOH, my link conforms to all the criteria laid out in the WT:EL article for inclusion. It is a site that is assessable to the user, and which deals directly with subject at hand, i.e. Kenken. There is nothing malicious or controversial about it, and it does not violate copyright.

Commonsense should be used in this case. I would expect that less than 1% of the data stored by Wikipedia is in the form of articles. The rest is talk pages, user pages, and history. Of the 1% that is presented, a great deal is concerned with matters such as somebody’s side street in High Wycombe and is of no use to anyone. Ken Ken is a very popular game, and newspapers only present the simplest problems. The official Ken Ken site itself also presents only simple problems. I believe that simple commonsense would show that quite a few readers of this article, who had played the game in local media and were now finding those too easy, would be gratified to see that there is a site which provides them further challenges in this field. What possible harm can there be in that? Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things, and the best way of teaching them about some procedure is let them have a go at doing it! It is completely in keeping with the scope of the article.

I present this explanation for why I included this site, and hope for a reply. If you decide that you do not want it there, I would like some mediation on this matter, from higher sources. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you seek consensus on the article's talk page? Bongomatic 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OP myles325a back live. In the first instance, you alleged that the link I made from the Kenken article to a site which has other Kenken material was "commercial", and thus against WP:EL rules. I examined those rules, I found that having some commercial element did NOT mean there could be no valid link between a WP article and that site, and that there were hundreds of sites with some commercial element, most visibly on Youtube, which have many such links to WP. When I pointed this out, you simply "forgot" your original complaint, and now asked that I take it up on Kenken's talk page. Even after I replaced the link in question with another one, you keep deleting it, and like your compatriot, Dreamboy, have never afforded me an explanation as to how EXACTLY that link contravenes WP:EL rules. The points I have made below pertain to his latest comments on that link, and I am reprinting them here as BOTH of you continue to exercise high-handed and bullying behaviour with me on this harmless and worthwhile link. Myles325a (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The following comments are the ones I posted just now to Dreamguy, your compatriot who keeps deleting the link in turns with you. And like you, he offers no explanation as to why. Dreamguy had written, FINALLY:

Between the behavior above and the fact that another person has agreed the link should be removed the rules you have broken are WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, beyond just the putting up a link that violates WP:EL rules for being encyclopedic in tone. I also suspect you may have a WP:COI about this site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And I replied:

OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points:

1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules.

2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me.

3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business.

4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject.

I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill.

Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic?

I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It fails WP:ELNO #11 for one thing and you have been reverted several times. You do not have consensus. It is a fansite. There is more reasoning...but one reason is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh yes, a "fan site". It reminds of that old joke where the company boss is interview a young man for a job. "Do you have any outside interests?" asks the Big Boss. "Well", says the candidate, "My avocation is model airplanes." The Big Boss gives him a long look. "Young man" he says, "I have an avocation. The floor manager has a hobby, What you are doing is 'mucking about with...' ". Now you see, if this link was one to examples of art in Florence, it would be termed an Introduction to Fine Art Intended for the Aficionado" But as it is a maths puzzle, it is a "fan site". Let me fill you in: There are two things on the Internet: Commercial sites, and "Fan sites". If it isn't making money, wtf do you think it is there, and how is it maintained? By well, "fans" to use the degraded term that would otherwise be "aficionados", "erudite scholars", and so on.

Wikipedia might be a non-commercial site. Annually, it passes the bucket around for people to throw in money. Do you seriously expect that EVERY link to the internet from this charity must be to sites which are maintained by raffle tickets and weekend sausage sizzles? People have to make a living, you know? The newspapers that are being linked to have (gasp!) advertisements, and without those ads, those papers would not exist.

I repeat that Kenken is a reputable pastime, just like pottery or programming or whatever. The link I provided is nothing more than a list of USEFUL sites intended for the fan interested scholar. In the end there will be enough people who are sufficiently open-minded to realise that the deletion of this link is prejudicial bullying and makes no sense whatsoever. Myles325a (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate spammy link, and unacceptable revert warring.[1][2][3] 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, for someone who isn't even a registered user, you really know how to mouth off. The link is not spam, and anyone who is fair can see that. It just happens to be on a subject about which you have no interest or skill. Myles325a (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Insulting people accomplishes nothing. Four editors have tried to explain to you why the link is unacceptable. Portraying it as mere bullying and anti-intellectualism is ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The ANI thread on this link will be enlightening to those interested in its inclusion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Trademarked name

Should an article about a type of puzzle use a trademarked name as its title? And if it does, shouldn't the lead (at least) make it clear that it's trademarked? I mean, to my eye, it only mentions it in passing. —Frungi (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there are no objections, I’m going to move this article to Mathdoku, which is not trademarked, and edit the article accordingly. —Frungi (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The references refer to KenKen, and there is no reference suggesting an alternate name is more prevalent. MOS prevents the trademark symbol being used but doesn't preclude mention that the puzzle was invented and name trademarked, or that identical puzzles are published under alternate names. But moving the article would be a mistake. ^Bongo_matic 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

NP-completeness

I believe that KenKen is NP-complete. If it is not, please let me know. GreyMatterEchoUKfan (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)