Talk:Jigsaw puzzle

Complexity

Hi! Just wondering if anyone knew something about the complexity of solving these kind of puzzles? Some of the other puzzles, like Sokoban, have a paragraph describing how "hard" it is. Which I feel is essential when it comes to puzzles. Mats 129.241.124.223 (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

30 August 2008

Perhaps someone can make some corrections to the opening section. The first puzzles were not painted on rectangular boards nor were they cut with jigsaws. The first puzzles were published maps that were glued to boards, not necessarily rectangular, they were often irregularly shaped to follow the outline of the country being cut. They were known as "dissections" and were hand cut with fret saws. The term jigsaw did not come into popular use until the 1870s and it referred to a foot-powered saw. I know of no example of a puzzle being labeled as a Jigsaw Puzzle prior to that time. Jill Shefrin's research for her book (Such Constant Affectionate Care, copyright Cotsen Family Library,2003) uncovered a French woman, Mme de Beaumont, who was working as a tutor in London and was charging her students one-half guinea for their geographical wooden maps. Mme de Beaumont was almost certainly using dissected maps while John Spilsbury was still a young man and had not yet completed his apprenticeship. It also should be noted that while many, many websites mention John Spilsbury as the inventor of what we now know as jigsw puzzles, almost none of these sites credit Linda Hannas for publishing that information. Joe S. www.icollectpuzzles.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.216.158 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jigsaw Puzzle Accessories

Hi, I'm new to writing in Wikepedia and I will be grateful if you folks will help get me off on the right foot.....

I have a commercial interest in Jigsaw puzzle accessories but I am also a lifelong jigsaw puzzle enthusiast. I have written a page on jigsaw puzzle accessories and also included a short paragraph in Jigsaw puzzles that points to the page that I have written. I believe I have presented a neutral point of view but I will be grateful for your opinions and any suggestions for improvements. Many thanks. ColinKing 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cutting Styles of Jigsaw Manufacturers

At the Jigthings website there is a page that illustrates the styles of wooden and cardboard jigsaw cutting used by 20 different jigsaw manufacturers - see http://www.jigthings.com/t-cutting-styles-of-jigsaw-manufacturers.aspx. The illustrations show sections of completed jigsaw puzzle in which the edges of the pieces have been enhanced so that the reader can clearly see the different cuts employed. As far as I know this is the only serious attempt to compare cutting styles of leading manufacturers by the use of photographic images. I have an interest in Jigthings and, being new to Wikepedia, I don't want to be accused of being biased and therefore I will not add a link to the jigsaw page at this time. However, if some of you long-standing Wikipedians think that the site is relevant and a valuable addition to the jigsaw article then please feel free to reference it! Alternatively, if you think that the link should NOT be added then please be kind enough to let me have your views. Many thanks ColinKing 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Draw Backs to Recent Technology

Laser and water jets always remove some material - it's unavoidable. This results in a loose fit with all the surrounding pieces. Please point out the errors in this - if you can't then please leave it alone ! Gciesek 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lasers can be focused down to spot sizes of microns, I find it hard to believe your assertion. Perhaps if you had a reference to back it up? --Chuck Sirloin 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps laboratory lasers, but not inexpensive industrial CO2 lasers such as the puzzle cutters use. They are anywhere from 100 to 400 microns (75 microns is the thickness of a human hair) Look into it - http://www.parallax-tech.com/faq.htm#cut . In any event material is certainly burned away both inside the spot of the beam and some of the surrounding material as well. It also has the unpleasant side effect of creating toxic fumes. Traditional die cutting removes absolutely nothing - it is simply impossible to get a closer cut. --User:Gciesek 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links...

Mr. Sirloin and Mr. WriterListener

You both seem intent on leaving two inappropriate links to commercial sites and yet deleting all others. Perhaps you can explain this. Do you each have some affiliation with these sites ?

Also the following sentence makes absolutely no sense in the section Puzzle Pieces.

"Bigger puzzles commonly are also divided into two or more sections, sometimes rotated against each other, that were cut with the same standard-sized die."

Yes, larger puzzles are cut in multiple sections. Perhaps you can explain what "sometimes rotated against each other, that were cut with the same standard-sized die." means. It is not a logical sentence.

User:Gciesek 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not have affiliations with either website. As far as the sentence goes, it makes sense to me. If you want a puzzle that is twice as big as your die, you cut it in two sections and to keep the sections from being a complete repeat, you rotate the second section die cut 180 degrees from the first one. It could maybe be written better though. --Chuck Sirloin 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not had practical experience doing this - we have. All that is necessary is that the portion having the puzzle cuts be on an outside edge when being cut with the cutting die. Absolutely, nothing has to be rotated or turned around. As I said previously - I have practical experience with this. --Gciesek 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I is great with kids

Removed...

I removed the sentence " This is a fairly rare practice today, but was more common at a time when puzzles were more of a novelty." because it has no factual basis. There are no sources listed, and personally I know several people who do it as a hobby. It doesn't belong in the article.

The French term for jigsaw puzzle is "casse-tête" and the Spanish term is "rompecabezas", both meaning "break-head", referring to the imputed difficulty of solving.

I'm removing this sentence because as far as I can tell from the respective language Wikipedias (fr, es), both of these words are more general and refer to any type of puzzle (the pages reference tangrams, Rubik's Cube etc.) They make clear that the French and Spanish for "jigsaw puzzle" are both "puzzle" (fr, es). Moreover I don't know (and Wikipedia doesn't link) any other French/Spanish word to mean "(more general) puzzle". -- Blotwell 01:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard French people use case-tete (Parisians anyway, that's who taught me) to describe both general puzzles and the jigsaw variety.

-Mr. Tachyon

I removed the sentences relating to a puzzle found at timtang.com. It felt like an advertisement for his site and didn't seem to contribute any significant information about jigsaw puzzles. Willoh 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I Q the "around 1760" bit. I've seen the first jigsaw dated to 1762. Can we get a more accurate date? Trekphiler 07:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Parker Brothers page claims that they made the first jigsaw puzzle, which would place the date much later. The 1760's date sounds more plausible, but I have no source.

I've fixed the contradiction on the Parker Brothers page. no problemo! grrowl 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed a request

This request was inserted into the body text of the article. I've moved it here:

Request: Would someone please add a section on (or a link to)what can be learned from doing puzzles? E.g. it gives one better spatial sense, it facilitates the brain moving info from one side to the other, it helps one better identify shades of color, recognize patterns. Thanks.

--Brandon Dilbeck 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon practice?

The article says "It is possible to glue completed puzzles to a backing for permanent display. This is a fairly rare practice today, but was more common at a time when puzzles were more of a novelty." Is this true? In Hungary (where jigsaw puzzles are common) this is by no means a rare practice, and indeed, even specific puzzle glues are available for purchase. (They are mostly made in Germany and Italy, so I assume gluing puzzles together is not so rare in those countries, either...?)

By the way, puzzles these days are glued together not on the back (to something, as the article suggests), but on the front. (There is even puzzle glue for puzzles with a metallic finish so that the - transparent - gluing doesn't react chemically to the finish.)

I can add details on gluing jigsaw puzzles together, but I'd like to know how much of a "worldwide view" I have...

--prezzey 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In my entire puzzle solving experience, most puzzlers I've met in Canada do not glue their puzzles for a permanent art piece. Instead they break them down again for later solving, or give them away. One family I know does a puzzle circle, sending puzzles on to another family member until it get back to the one who sent it first. It would have to be a particularly striking puzzle to be immortalized like that in my home. At the same time, if I liked a puzzle that much, I'd want to do it over again. Searching Google turns up hundres of ads for puzzle glue, and only a few sites of people who admit to gluing their puzzles. No conclusions there. This site: http://www.imaginatorium.org/shop/epoch.htm claims that at least one Japanese jigsaw maker includes mounting accessories in the box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.122.93.214 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Conflict

Under Variations, one can read "currently the biggest commercially available size is 18,240 pieces." whereas it is also read "The worlds largest commercially available puzzle has 24,000 pieces" under Trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.48.117.251 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Edited. Just be BOLD. Femto 13:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Links

Under the topic "Links" at least two of these links do not work.I do not know what do do with them.

1. Jigsaw Puzzle Virtual Exhibit at the Elliott Avedon Museum & Archive of Games
2. The First Jigsaw Ever Sold, from the British Library website

Returning one of the deleted external links.

Recently, two of the external links were deleted, with the reason that they didn't follow the WP:EL standards. Well, one of those links was one that I put up there almost 2 years ago, this being the first time it has been challenged. The reason seems to be that someone recently changed the link in order to add their own, obvious link-spam. Their link is directly to a business website with the intent purpose to sell their puzzle. My original intent with the link was to share our story of putting together what was then the world's largest commercially available jigsaw puzzle. But now, after 2 years, it is a page filled with comments and resources from around the world concerning the putting together of these exceptionally large puzzles. Included are even some references to the 24,000 piece puzzle for which the recently added link was advertising. But it is simply a very good resource for anyone attempting to take on this type of project, and I feel it qualifies under the category "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Hathawayc 06:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The content is relevant to the topic at hand. If the main concern is that it's a COI for you to add it, I'll re-add it to the article. Editmaniac 07:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Main concern is that it has no content that meets WP:EL rules, is a personal/vanity site, AND is an ad-delivery site. The fact that it was WP:COI just sealed the bargain. I've removed it again as serving no encyclopedic purpose and being spam, basically. DreamGuy 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about this link, I have to agree with DreamGuy. No offense to the websites' owners, but the link is a personal webpage, forum discussion, blog, ad served etc etc. It doesn't really contribute to the article, but it is also not about the world's largest puzzle. Not WP:EL in my opinion. --Chuck Sirloin 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I wasn't aware of the COI regulations. I went ahead and removed the ads; they weren't really paying much anyway. It just seems to be a shame to not let people find the resource when they are looking for ways to put together an extremely large puzzle. It has quite extensive advice and other's experiences, and I sure wish I had found something like that before we started. I'm also curious as to how it lasted for almost 2 years if it's against guidelines. I've seen several other links come and go, but no one has had a problem with this one until now. I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it's a shame to exclude it, I think.Hathawayc 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are campaigning for its inclusion is indicative of the COI problem. Again, this is not a personal attack in anyway. --Chuck Sirloin 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Puzzle globe

The article Puzzle globe has a merge tag pointing here, which was added April 2007. I expanded the article a bit, and I think it can stand alone by now (compare the previous version to the current version. If noone opposes I'll remove the tag within a week. Waldir ^talk 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. RedSpruce 10:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, I forgot to mention: I have to give props to RedSpruce for his previous expansion, which added most of the current content of the article :) Waldir ^talk 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it — Jack · talk · 03:23, Saturday, 17 November 2007

I agree with Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.46.204 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasgij

What would be the most appropriate place to mention the "wasgij" puzzles by Falcon? Are they notable enough to warrant a separate page, or should Wasgij be a redirect to this page? --Slashme (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made wasgij a redirect to this page in the meantime. --Slashme (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add please about developmental milestones

ie. when children are expected to be able to complete 2, 3 12, 36 puzzles etc. I would be very interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.152.47 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Force required for cutting

The article states that 700 tons of force are required to cut a 1000-piece puzzle, though a ton is a measure of mass, not force. It would be interesting to learn of the actual amount of force (ideally in Newtons) required and of the surface area of the blades' contact with the card, thus enabling us to establish the amount of pressure required. JPBarrass (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

information required

I have question about the puzzleball in the image,where did you find it ? I am puzzle maniac,will be happy to buy and complete it.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablavanya (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation unneeded

Is it just me or is someone being ridiculously pedantic about the strategies section? Vahokif (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointless Photograph

The photograph titled "Putting a jigsaw puzzle together at Our Community Place in Harrisonburg, Virginia" might very well be the most pointless image in all of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 81.99.193.239 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty good photo of people doing a jigsaw puzzle.. as it stands, it's the only such image in the article. 137.82.175.12 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link

There is something wrong with the link to the largest jigsaw puzzle. It leads to 24,000 pieces and articles claims that 32,256 is the largest one. Could someone correct this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.171.95 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Heading: Variations, source removed

I added another variant of types of puzzles called "Family Puzzles" under the heading "Variations". The information was removed due to external links and possibly internal links. I'm fine with the removal of sources as those were just added because this article requests more sources and citation needed, but I think the information is important. The fact that Family Puzzles exist and it's a very different form of puzzle specific for families and people of varying skill levels to enjoy is relevant. Having three different sized pieces in one puzzle so that little hands and large hands are better able to grasp a puzzle piece is notable. I think the information should be added back, with the removal of internal and external sources. --Lindacoudray (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideally information in Wikipedia should be sourced, but I reverted it because it had one very spammy looking link to a specific store selling these puzzles. If you restore the information without any problematic links I won't revert. Siawase (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Heading: "Benefits" removed

I also don't see what is wrong with this information regarding benefits of doing jigsaw puzzles. I think a USA Today source and the fact that one can look up MacArthur study to see the benefits of doing puzzles is relevant. If the intention was to remove the source from the "The Healing Power of Jigsaw Puzzles", I would agree that is okay to remove. But again, I'm trying to make sure I quote sources and not just randomly throw information out there. But I do think this is good information for people as we are working in a world where so much of us are dependent on electronics and media for entertainment, so finding an old past time like jigsaw puzzles, that is also claimed to have health benefits, is of notable interest. I think the information should remain, but removing that link to the selfgrowth.com site is fine with me. But I think the USA Today artilce is worthy. --Lindacoudray (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Research such as the notable Mac Arthur study, found that doing jigsaw puzzles can lead to a longer life expectancy, a better quality of life, and a reduction in various mental illnesses. USA Today reported that people who practiced brain exercising activities like doing jigsaw puzzles are 2.50 times less likely to develop Alzheimer's Disease. --Lindacoudray (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I consolidated the two topics into one to make it easier to discuss, I hope you don't mind. The problem is that as far as I can tell, these are not reliable enough sources to use for medical claims per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If you disagree with my assessment of the sources, feel free to ask about them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a wider community input. Siawase (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a different source, that you may find more reliable since I am specifically speaking about benefits related to Alzheimer's. So please take a look and let me know if you still disagree. If so and you remove it, then I'll definitely ask for more input, but thought I'd start with you again for your assessment. I cited from Alzhemier's Society of Canada, but there is also similar information at Alzheimer's Association of US (alz.org). The reason I think it's important is 1) there are actually specific puzzles made for Alzheimer's; I've seen them done from Springbok Puzzles and I personally know Alzheimer patients that actually do puzzles for this reason 2) If one were to visit the Alzheimer site I cited or the alz.org site and found a suggestion to do puzzles or [jigsaw puzzle]'s, then they may "google" [it] and certainly a Wikipedia result would come up. I think having this information would reassure the user of what a jigsaw puzzle is and that it in fact may have benefits to reduce the risk of Alzheimer's. That was more verbose than I wanted it to be, but hopefully you see why I think it's important. I think it adds value to 'jigsaw puzzle'. Thanks! --Lindacoudray (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the segment sourced to alzheimer.ca closer to what that source said and removed the material that was sourced to less reliable sources. I think it would be great if you brought all these sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we could get some wider input on them. I hear what you're saying about the importance of the alzheimer information (WP:WEIGHT) in wikipedia lingo) and I agree, but only if the sources to support the assertion are actually encyclopedic (ie, academic, scientific.) Siawase (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Studies like those are correlations without pointing to any direction of cause-and-effect. It may simple be, rather, that people who have the potential to stay mentally active longer and to live longer are more likely to enjoy doing jigsaw puzzles -- which I think is the more likely case.

jaknouse (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

related puzzles

There is no discussion (or reference to) the once-popular foam 3D puzzles. These usually represent some architectural or historic landmark. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Common sizes

It says that 1000 pieces puzzles are most commonly 38x27, and that 500 pieces are 27x19. Personally I had never seen such - all 500 pieces puzzles I have are 20x25, and 1000 are 40x25, with one exception - a 27x37 (yielding 999 pieces). Where did that information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.76.165 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at box top line. Why is this even in the article?

'Some jigsaw enthusiasts[who?] suggest that it is bad form (against the rules) to look at the picture on the box while working on the puzzle, but most people find it to be perfectly normal to look at the box.[citation needed]'

In my opinion, this should be removed completely. I don't think there is any rule about this other than whatever the individual sets for him or herself. If it's a group working together on a puzzle, then maybe the host would set the rule. But to state that some think it's against the rules to refer to the box while others find it perfectly normal to do so is pointless. The only "rule" about a jigsaw puzzle is to put the thing together to make whatever image it's supposed to make. 98.193.177.44 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Knife puzzle

I've reverted this edit which added an unsourced and implausible "Knife puzzle" section. The editor who added it has a total of two contributions to the encyclopedia, the other of which is chat to another editor. Wasn't the article on anyone's watchlist in February? PamD 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New section: Autism awareness

The puzzle piece is often used to symbolize autism and autism awareness. Notable? Muffinator (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Muffinator:Sounds worth adding if you've got a good source for the fact. PamD 05:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy about jigsaw puzzle origins

This article says "Jigsaw puzzles were originally created by painting a picture on a flat, rectangular piece of wood, and then cutting that picture into small pieces with a jigsaw, hence the name. John Spilsbury, a London cartographer and engraver, is credited with commercializing jigsaw puzzles around 1760".

It that's the case, that contradicts this other Wikipedia article, which mentions the jigsaw (tool) "first emerged in the 19th century": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_(tool)

If jigsaw puzzles were originally created by cutting a picture with a jigsaw, which was invented in the 19th century, how could John Spilbury commercialize jigsaw puzzles around 1760?

Also, this definition suggests "Jigsaw puzzle first recorded 1906; originally one with pieces cut by a jigsaw" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jigsaw

Some of the above information must be wrong. I just don't know which one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OMA2k (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@OMA2k: Have a look at the "History of jigsaw puzzles" reference: the kind of puzzles existed, known as "dissections", and made using marquetry saws, before the jigsaw (tool) was invented. Then they started to be made using a jigsaw and took its name. PamD 08:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: I see. Thanks for the heads up. So this section may be deleted.

Springbok page?

I'm terribly surprised that there is no wikipedia page for Springbok Puzzles. Surely they are notable enough to have a page about them. Does anybody know why they don't? Have they in the past? Centerone (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

heh, two years later and I go searching for a page and the question here is by me! :D Centerone (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Centerone: well, you know what they say: WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the company is WP:NOTABLE (and a quick look on Google, including Google books, suggests they quite probably are), then create the article. There's certainly interesting stuff at http://www.springbok-puzzles.com/aboutus.asp, though independent sources are needed too. There's an article on Wentworth Wooden Puzzles already. I'll watchlist the redlink Springbok Puzzles and await developments. Good luck. PamD 07:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jigsaw puzzle. 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/20150613212211/http://www.hrp.org.uk/NewsAndMedia/TheArtFundKewPalacejigsaw_ to http://www.hrp.org.uk/NewsAndMedia/TheArtFundKewPalacejigsaw_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

World record for the most pieces in a puzzle

The article says:

"The jigsaw with the greatest number of pieces had 551,232 pieces and measured 14.85 × 23.20 m (48 ft 8.64 in × 76 ft 1.38 in). It was assembled on 24 September 2011 at Phú Thọ Indoor Stadium in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, by students from the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City."

I added the following:

"However, in reality, this was really just 3,132 separate puzzles with 176 pieces each, which made it many magnitudes less complex and time consuming than a single puzzle with 551,232 pieces all mixed together would have been."

Thaddeus Bradshaw (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that is called original research and not allowed. Also the source you are referring to does not say that it was "really just 3,132 separate puzzles", but it does say: "the 3,132 sections, each containing 176 pieces, into which the jigsaw puzzle had been divided". So according to the source its 1 puzzle divided into 3,132 sections each containing 176 pieces and you conclude that its actually 3,132 puzzles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Libby Kane (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

hi!

in [3][4][5][6][7] they say that the puzzle with the most pieces was build in ravensburg (germany) in 2008. it had 1141800 pieces. -- seth (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

At the www.jigsaw-wiki.com/wiki/Puzzle_piece_shapes, they refer to the protuberance of a piece that fits into the "hole" of its neighboring piece, as the "nose", not the "tab". —Jerome Potts (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Largest commercially sold jigsaw puzzles

Amongst the list of the largest (by piece count) commercially sold jigsaw puzzle is one titled "Rubix Cube" at 32,000 pieces, by Ravensburger. This puzzle might not exist. However, what does exist is a 32,000 piece Ravensburger puzzle, titled "New York City Window" (catalogue #178377), which is not included on the list in this article. 2600:1012:A011:D23D:F02F:EE59:581:BCDD (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nancyrm127 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nancyrm127 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

saw nomenclature seems wrong

The article describes jig and fretsaws in a particular way but what is called a fretsaw is commonly called a jigsaw at least in the north east US eg when I was growing up, I never or rarely heard the term fretsaw for this item https://www.fine-tools.com/grobet-laubsaege.html it is true that google agrees with wiki, but I really don't think this is right at least in common, current parlance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)