Talk:Maze: Solve the World's Most Challenging Puzzle

Original Research

Admittedly I myself has recently cotributed a small part of this so I hope I don't sound hypocritical bringing this up. Unless there is DEFINITE evidence that one can find in the book that the Narrator is indeed the Minotaur, the Minotaur section should be removed. And even if this isn't original research then without any evidence it becomes conjecture/speculation which should still be removed. -WarthogDemon 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's standards are exactly, but I'm not aware of anywhere else online that this information can be found, so I think it's valuable. Dan Knapp 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards go against inclusion of Original Research. If somebody else hasn't talked about it outside of Wikipedia, we can't talk about it here. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 06:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm expressing some concerns about the notability of this book. Please review Wikipedia's section on notability and add some information to reinforce the relevancy of this book. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia subject to the same spatial concerns, it is also not a collection of indiscriminate information. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 06:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who happened to come here looking for discriminate information about this book, was pleased to find some, and then dismayed to see that its right to exist is being questioned, I am of course inclined to defend the article's notability even before I consider any of the would-be principles of Wikipedia. Those guidelines you link to seem awfully anxious considering, as you point out, Wikipedia's lack of spatial restriction - to my mind there is no loss of encyclopedic function, dignity, or clarity of purpose if Wikipedia contains articles on thousands of books that would not meet the notability guidelines of other encyclopedias. I understand that, yes, some subjects really don't merit articles except in the minds of the fanatics who then write them, but I showed up looking for this article, so I assure you there's an audience. Another simple defense of this book meriting an article is that there are things to be said about it, and being said about it, that go beyond mere description - e.g. information about the puzzle solutions and the expired contest. That made-up principle works for me, but if it doesn't work for you, how about this: the article is not exclusively about the book but is also about the puzzle and contest represented by the book, which surely are notable by virtue of the fact that thousands of people participated in them - independently, but still. But honestly, I never understand what the Wikipedians who go around vigilantly questioning notability are trying to accomplish. What's it to you whether this article is here? Vs. what's it to me, who actually wanted to read it? Admittedly it's not much of an article right now, but I'm still glad there's something here. Deletion is not the first step to improvement; nor, I think, is the threat of deletion. If you have a question about the book I'd be glad to try to answer it. If you have no questions about the book, you haven't read it!--24.45.5.66 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I came here looking for this article and was pleased to find it. If the idea of getting rid of this article is still being bandied about, I'm piping up to argue against it. This is a book of notability for its shear uniqueness. Though it may not be well known, it would be a shame for Wikipedia to not participate in its documentation. Pirchlogan (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for keeping. I was happy to find that there is indeed an article on the book, and the article told me many things about the history of the book that I didn't know. Craeburn (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MAZE Manson.png

Image:MAZE Manson.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are These the Official Solutions?

While there is certainly a good deal of credible analysis - I think it is important to establish whether these are the official answers - or that such answers indeed do exist or, at least, have been inquired after 140.139.35.250 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The solutions given seem plausible enough, but w/o some reference they are clearly original research, which is verboten.Pirchlogan (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually curious to see if there are any solutions besides the one posted that requires the use of the secret door from room 29 to room 17. Room 17 seems to be the only room that directly leads to room 45, and no rooms seem to directly lead to room 17. Is there any possible way to solve this puzzle that does NOT use some kind of secret passage (i.e. unlabeled door)? - Zach, the guy with no wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.252.90 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are what the official solutions? None are posted on the Wiki page. The websites IntoTheAbyss.net and Mazecast.com both offer user submitted solutions to both the book itself and room-level puzzles. I am not confident Wikipedia is the venue to be discussing such "spoilers", unless it is in the context of the history of the contest. I have seen other Wiki pages go off onto tangents and drawn attention to themselves as to what is pertinent to a Wiki, so although a lot of material could be added on the contest, I cannot help but imagine it will bring the ire of stricter editors on this site. Sp12345678 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]