Talk:Cryptic crossword

The "cryptic solution" clue type

I believe there is another kind of clue we might consider mentioning in the list. This is where the answer to the clue actually contains cryptic wordplay. I can't think of a really good example, but it is like giving "Gab offers diverse selection?" [5,3] as a clue, with the answer being "MIXED BAG". Or supplying the clue "Me, at intermission" [4,4,], with the answer "HALF TIME". Did I just hallucinate this kind of clue or is it out there in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.60.110 (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly out there. No universally recognised name, but some call it "wordplay in the answer". The best-known example is the (unsound by Ximenean standards) clue: GEGS (9,4). Answer SCRAMBLED EGGS - wrdplay on this occasion is of course an anagram. As the wordplay can be any kind, you have to classify it like &lit - a trick, on a different level to a list of tricks like anagram, charade, etc. --PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Visual clues

i'm not an old hand at cryptic crosswords so didn't want to edit the page, but i've seen a lot of visual clues: mainly representing 'I' (e.g. 'one') or 'O' ('circle', 'ring').

or am i just trying the wrong crosswords? cheers, dan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.68.41 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect one should be "I" primarily because "I" is the Roman numeral for 1, but Crossword abbreviations says:

One - i (the letter I looks like 1) or rarely a, an (not normally used in British crosswords)
Fifty - l (Roman numeral (lower case L))

and so on. This could be an issue with that page. Anyways I think "O" is probably visual and kind of an agreement between setters and solvers. colfulus‽ 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to the-puzzler.com

Why was http://www.the-puzzler.com taken off from the external links? It relates to the material on this website. Half the external links don't even provide the correct information for this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashesnz (talk • contribs) 25 June 2008

(I moved your comment to the end as it is easier to follow talk pages if new points are started here.)

I removed the link, because I looked at the page you linked to and I could not see that it added any information that added to what was already here. So I couldn't see what value it added. See point 1 at WP:ELNO. If you think there is some other page at the-puzzler.com that meet the criteria at WP:EL, feel free to add a link to it. It will help if you include an edit summary explaining your choice. Grafen (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment about removed blog links

I write as the 'manager' of one of the two blogs (communities, strictly) whose links were removed a month or two ago - the "Times for the Times" one about (London) Times puzzles. I write about 20% of the material on the community and contribute comments on most days, and as I'm a two-time winner of the Times Crossword Championship, I might count as a "recognised authority". A few setters of the Times crossword also contribute via comments, and some of the other people who write about the puzzles have competed in the championship final, which makes them very proficient solvers, certainly as far as speed goes. The other community, "fifteensquared", can't be measured in quite the same terms as few of the puzzles covered have any competitive element. But the contributors are of a similar standard, and again, some setters of the puzzles concerned contribute.

So my (arguably biased) view is that links to these communities merit inclusion on the "recognised authority" principle. In practical terms, they've been recognised as a very useful resource by both setters and new solvers because they provide the "why is this the answer" information that the newspaper solution grids don't.

In support of my view, when Don Manley's "Chambers Crossword Manual" book was adapted for a free version supplied with the Independent on Sunday newspaper, he added the two blogs to the book's list of useful internet resources. I believe Tim Moorey's forthcoming book on solving the Times puzzle will mention at least one of them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBiddlecombe (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Times - Mephisto

If anyone knows when the Laws/Moorey/Feetenby trumvirate started, the text that says "for the last 10 years" should really be amended to "since 19xx". —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBiddlecombe (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What needs citations?

I made some changes this morning and all of them seem to have been marked "citation needed". The previous bald assertions such as the Times puzzle being the hardest were not marked "citation needed". If this marker is appropriate for this new material, it's probably also appropriate for dozens of sentences in this article - which already has a "no sources quoted" comment covering the whole article. Final Q from a hacked-off contributor: what do you want here: information that's closer to the truth than what you had before, or nothing because I need to find citations? There is no annual survey of crossword difficulty - just the impression of various people. So you get an opinion - from someone who has tackled hundreds of puzzles from the three newspapers mentioned, and has heavy involvement in daily solving blogs relating to all five broadsheet puzzles. This is as good as you're going to get! PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Zimmian discussion??

Historically there used to be much discussion about the difference between The Guardian style crosswords and The Times. Many years ago a set of Zimmian rules were proposed for cryptic crosswords. This area merits at least a mention if not full discussion.

Tredigar (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you maybe mean "Ximenean"? In which case, the issue is indeed already mentioned briefly in the article. Barnabypage (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A few more "locations" to add...

The Harvard Magazine runs a puzzle (published 8 times a year, I think). Also, do we list web-based regular puzzles? In which case puzzlecrypt (a particularly fiendish style) could be on here, and there was another place I had bookmarked but seem to have lost somehow. Huw Powell (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We should give illuminating examples rather than try to list every crossword - not only because of WP:NOTDIR, but because it would be an utterly unattainable goal anyway. Is there anything the examples of the Harvard Magazine and Puzzlecrypt would add to the reader's understanding of the subject? Barnabypage (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, the list is pretty exhaustive, and should be rewritten by that criterion, I guess. Referring to setters, papers, or editors should all support improved understanding. That said, the HM and PC puzzles are brutally cruel in their format, which is basically unique among cryptics. I think we describe the "leap" from conventional grid puzzles to barred puzzles, so the step of dropping any blocking (every letter is checked) and having answers wrap from row to row and column to column might be interesting. They guy who sets the HM puzzle also has some even more outrageous puzzles ("The Village" is my favorite ever), but that pretty tenuous OR. I think we should list the HM, though. If we stick to "print" puzzles, the list doesn't get much longer anyway.

And thanks for your answer, I'll try to give this some more thought. Huw Powell (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

About "!" clues

The "!" clues in the article seem to have a different style than what I often see in my newspaper; in these examples, the whole thing is the definition, and the whole thing is the cryptic wordplay definition. However, the ones in my newspaper usually do have the whole clue as a definition, but can also be split up into a wordplay + definition pair; for example, taken from one of these puzzles:

Sounds absolutely divine! (4)

The answer is HOLY (which sounds "wholly", or absolutely), and divine is the definition, and the whole phrase as an exclamation itself also leads to the answer. However, this clue would work without the exclamation point, which doesn't work with the examples shown in the article. Should this type of example be noted here? Aurora Illumina 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard to tell. I suppose it depends on how Ximenian the setter is? Huw Powell (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Is it improper to mix these two styles in one crossword, as I have done on mine? (For example, E8 across is an example of one that works without the exclamation point. A15 down is an example of one that doesn't.)

• E8. Seal and deer bothered? Let them go! (8) -> splits to "anagram the letters of 'SEAL' and 'DEER'" to make a word for "Let them go", and also works as the whole definition
• A15. Unpiled... sorted! (5, 2) -> doesn't split; works as an anagram of "UNPILED", but the whole thing is the definition.

Aurora Illumina 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some setters use that style and some don't. I've heard it called a "semi-&lit". One of my own was "Is Help! nice diversion for them?" (CINEPHILES). I might avoid it if trying particularly hard to create a newspaper-worthy puzzle. With your E8 (presumably RELEASED), I would dispute the definition: "let go" would work, but "let them go" probably not. The "them" is redundant: "let them go" could clue "RELEASED THEM" but not "RELEASED". Equinox (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Another clue type: "Near anagrams"

Another type of clue I've seen that wasn't mentioned in the article would look something like this: (Example taken from a newspaper puzzle)

One with backbone gets nearly every batter out (10)

The answer is VERTEBRATE, which is almost an anagram of EVERY BATTER, except that the clue gave an extra Y, hence the "nearly" included in the clue. Is this a common type of clue, and should it also be included in the article? Aurora Illumina 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed these in the Daily Telegraph Toughie a few times, presumably because they add to the challenge. I can't cite one from memory, having disposed of most of the paper copies, and don't have a subscription to the online version. I'd say it's fairly rare and just one of the many types of combination clue where more than one cryptic device is used together, and thus not especially worthy of separate mention. Much more common is to provide the anagram fodder and specify that a certain specific letter or letters must be omitted, though again this is much rarer in anagrams than in charades. If taken too far it goes against the real objective of the setter which is to set a challenge which will tax the solver but which is fair enough that the solver will ultimately win and 'defeat' the setter. I forget who said that, but I read it online recently - possibly Roger Squires?Dynamicimanyd (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nina - further links & possible further mention

The Nina seems to be a coming thing, a new development that's becoming more common, and while not essential to solving (one can complete a crossword and be completely unaware of the Nina) it can add a level of enjoyment for the solver. See "What Is A Nina?". I'd suggest that the external link above may be sufficient if we decide not to provide a sub-section about Ninas or a mention in the History and Development part.

I'm not sure it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia article but it is being mentioned more often in crossword enthusiasts and setters circles, including as a brief part of a 70 minute video interview with Brian Greer (Virgilius for the Independent) about cryptic crosswords, education, mathematics and socio-politics. He noted that it is a growing development, fairly recently introduced, named after American cariacaturist Al Hirschfeld's habit of including the name of his daughter Nina in his drawings. Matt Groening, I believe, includes his own initials in his drawings of Homer Simpson, too, for example.

In the Wiki article at the moment, Nina is mentioned only in reference to the Independent (British newspaper) where it's quite commonly employed. For example a phrase around the perimeter of the solved grid or through some of the other unchecked letters elsewhere is common, and other ninas or special features include using a double-letter in each answer) and seems to be a bit of a "house style", but it's also being seen more in other newspapers, sometimes with particular setters (e.g. Enigmatist in the Guardian, who sets under the name Nimrod in the Independent has occasionally used put a phrase in the perimeter of his Guardian crosswords, sometimes using slightly crude language, as in Guardian 24635 (Enigmatist)). Other tricks used recently (Guardian or possibly Telegraph Toughie in Oct 2010) include a puzzle where the end of every across clue was the beginning of the next across clue. For setters, sometimes the boundary conditions they set with a Nina or a Themed Crossword pose a more interesting problem and produce a more entertaining, challenging or varied crossword. Conversely, sometimes for solvers, spotting a Nina or Theme can help solvers to guess answers or unchecked letters that are proving tough to decode and can add to the enjoyment. Dynamicimanyd (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should wikipedia be helping interested newbies?

Before I spend any time researching, writing, and tuning, could someone tell me if it would be acceptable to add a section describing online resources that help people who want to improve their skills at solving cryptic crosswords? Also, is there a model (in any domain) for sections of this type?

The reason I ask is that in August 2008 someone removed a number of links to external sites that "didn't abide by WP:EL rules", including, for example, fifteensquared.net. I've looked at the rules and I can see how this removal was within the letter of the law. However, from my own experience, and as recommended by many setters and solvers, the best way to improve your technique is to try to solve and then look at the hints, explanations and/or annotated solutions for the answers that you couldn't work out on your own. As I see it, the section would also provide links to the newspaper sites that provide facilities for online discussion of their crosswords (the one I know best is the Guardian, but I'd check all the papers listed). For the record, these sites are not only educative but can also be a lot of fun...

PS. I'm in two minds whether the section should mention sites that overtly allow the publication of spoilers for clues. My current inclination is to say that they exist but state explicitly that the local policy is not to name them. Any thoughts?

--Machiajelly (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Machiajelly,

I think the section would be a very good idea. Much of the information in the article is aimed at getting readers to understand how clues work, presumably so as to help them to tackle actual puzzles (or why else include it). But there is no substitute being show how the clue you failed to understand actually led to the word to be entered. Sites such as fifteensquared or Times for the Times (which I need to consult a couple of times a month) are invaluable in this respect.

I write as one who is somewhat shaky on the incredibly (and necessarily) voluminous rules of Wikipedia but whose major interest for the past fifty years has been UK cryptic crosswords (even my username is crossword-related). DreamGuy knows all about Wikipedia but he's American and I doubt if he knows much about UK cryptics. I think he made a mistake in deleting the links.

I also think that had he been approached at that time he could probably have been persuaded to restore them. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I also think that he could well the best person to advise you on whether your section would be acceptable and how to avoid potential conflicts. He might even choose to consult other people who have edited the article. For his information, therefore, I will mention that Wikipedia editor PeterBiddlecombe is crossword editor of the Sunday Times and extremely active and well-respected among the UK crossword fraternity.

Best of luck – I look forward to reading your new section

Dinoceras (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

fifteensquared.net was presumably removed under the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy - Wikipedia only links to a blog if it's been written by a "recognised authority", otherwise articles' link sections would fill up with people adding their own favourite blogs and personal sites. "Recognised authority" is a good rule of thumb for cutting through that. Do we know who actually writes fifteensquared?

Regarding helping newbies within the article itself, though - no, I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't include "how to" guides for the subjects it covers (per WP:NOTHOWTO). We could maybe write a little about how reading existing solutions is widely regarded as the best way to understand cryptics (if we could cite a source that had written about that), but policy wouldn't support an in-depth tutorial. --McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the general approach is on collaborative blogs, but I'd suggest given the frequency it is linked to from outside and that a number of compilers are also regular commentors (indeed, one is married to one of the main bloggers on the site), I'd argue that it is authoritative.

20:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LNWWatcher (talk • contribs)

The Times ought to be disambiguated

The article mentions The Times, referring to the London newspaper. But the identical phrase is often used to refer to the New York Times. For that reason I added (London) after The Times to disambiguate it.

In less than 24 hours, another editor who seems deadset against disambiguation when there are other ways for the reader to infer which newspaper is intended, reverted my edit. He also rejected my attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page, suggesting instead that I take the discussion to this talk page "so that other editors can participate".

In about 9 years of editing here I don't think I have ever encountered such a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation before, but this editor seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Must we leave The Times ambiguous?Daqu (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The one place that it's confusing (and I agree it is confusing here) is this section:

Cryptic crosswords do not commonly appear in U.S. publications, although they can be found in magazines such as GAMES Magazine, The Nation, Harper's, and occasionally in the Sunday New York Times. The New York Post reprints cryptic crosswords from The Times. Other sources of cryptic crosswords in the U.S. (at various difficulty levels) are puzzle books, ....

I agree there should be some sort of clarification there. In other mentions, no – no one confuses the two; The Times without attribution is always the UK Times; same with Sunday Times. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not "always" to me and my U.S. friends, who use "The Times" continually to refer to the New York Times. What I don't understand is why, if there is a possibility of confusion between two things that share a name, why anyone would object to a one-word disambiguation. And the above quote from the article is particularly confusing with "The Times" (London) used in a sentence referring to the New York Times, within a passage about U.S. publications.

Maybe people from elsewhere aren't familiar with the extent that "The Times" is used in the U.S. to refer to the New York Times? But above all, why would anyone object if other people are being confused?Daqu (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is just ignorance. The Times (and The Sunday Times) is always the UK times (because that is its official name), and it never needs further attribution. Any usage referring to NYT is just slang and shorthand, not official usage; any confusion about encyclopedic/official usage is unfortunately provincial and uninformed and U.S.-centric bias. The only instance in this entire article where it is confusing is the point I mentioned above. And I'm an American who has lived 12 years in NYC and who has never set foot in the UK. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this so courteously. I made no claim whatsoever that the phrase "The Times" is the least bit ambiguous in the U.K. The problem that I mentioned involves only the fact that in the U.S. — another large English-speaking country — the very same phrase almost always refers to the New York Times. Since many readers of the English-language Wikipedia are from the U.S., it's better to write so that as many readers as possible will understand the writing.

If trying to make Wikipedia articles understandable to more people is ignorance, then so be it.Daqu (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I just reread more carefully Softlavender's screed and I am thoroughly flabbergasted by the extent that it displays a massive lack of comprehension of what an encyclopedia is for. An encyclopedia is for the purpose of dispelling ignorance. It is not just for brilliant people like yourself who already know everything. The fact that "The Times" is not the formal name of the New York Times (which is technically "The New York Times") does not make the phrase the least bit easier for a U.S. person to recognize as the U.K. newspaper. That is why it is often incorrectly referred to in the U.S. as either "The Times of London" or "The London Times" — both of which I'm well aware are wrong. Which is why I did not suggest using the wrong name for it, only a single word that clarifies which "The Times" is being referred to.

The arrogance of your post is overwhelming, Softlavender. You know stuff, so nobody who is ignorant should have any help in understanding it??? Unbelievable.Daqu (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cryptic crossword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130602033112/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/the_bugle/article3160711.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/the_bugle/article3160711.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cryptic crossword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429171831/http://www.crosswordtournament.com:80/more/wynne.html to http://www.crosswordtournament.com/more/wynne.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Another clue type

Another clue type is the hidden word, where a word is hidden in the clue. Vorbee (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cockney

The words ‘Cockney’, ‘East End’, ‘Bow’ and a few others normally indicate the need to delete an ‘h’ (eg. ‘hand’ becomes ‘and’), occasionally turn a ‘th’ into an ‘f’ (‘thought’ becomes ‘fought’) and less often it’s an indicator for Cockney rhyming slang (‘Cockney stairs’ = ‘apples’ or ‘Cockney apples’ = ‘stairs’ for example). This might be worth adding into the article. I completely agree with Peter Biddlecombe that it’s ludicrous that Times for the Times and Fifteensquared aren’t allowed to be linked to this article by the way, for what it’s worth Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"British-style" crosswords

I moved the statement about cryptics being called "British-style" crosswords to later in the article and changed it to "cryptics have sometimes been called". The reference is 44 years old and I do not believe anybody calls them that now, so having it in the intro seems inappropriate. If the reference is accurate and not misinterpreted, then the new phrasing is also accurate and the new location appropriate. (And, if it's not, then the sentence should be removed.) FWIW, I could not find the book in Google Books. RoyLeban (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: I have acquired the book; the relevant section reads:

Though the Atlantic can be crossed in a matter of hours now, it has remained a wide and apparently impenetrable barrier between the crossword puzzles as the British and American know them. The British puzzles, say the Americans, are often abstruse and heavy on wit. And, with so many unkeyed letters in the diagrams, they are little more than guessing games. To the British, the American puzzles offer no challenge at all to those who delight in threading through baffling clues and coming up with the answers.

Weng, Will (1977). Introduction. The New York Times Guide to Solving Cryptics, Crosswords & Anagrams. By Higgs, Barry O. New York: Quadrangle. p. vii.

I'll remove that sentence accordingly, nothing in the introduction gives any sort of name like "British-style" to cryptics.. Umimmak (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Need for illustrative diagrams

This article is mostly useful to people already familiar with the contents. Many words might be replaced by diagrams and graphic examples. Nat (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What kinds of diagrams would you like to see here? Umimmak (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Article needs to mention and display bar diagrams

Most variety cryptic puzzles use bar diagrams (also called "barred diagrams"), where all squares are white and will be filled in with letters when the puzzle is solved, but some bars (edges of the squares) are printed heavily to indicate the beginnings and ends of words.

The article would be enhanced if it displayed and discussed this type of diagram.