I've always liked the SiGN notation because it's the least verbose. Any outer turn is capitalised, while any wide turn is lower case. Only for cube sizes 6x6 and above does numerical prefix need to be used to indicate 3 or more layers. So for example (for progressively larger layer turns) a 180° turn on R would be written as:
Well, yes, but it's also generally a bad decision to use two suffixes, both of which can be 2. It just gets confusing, and besides, what happens when you want to notate turning all but the left layer on a 23x23 cube? Rw22? Your notation breaks down. That's why the WCA 6x6 and 7x7 notation, and SiGN notation, all put layer depth in a prefix. Everyone who has used any cube notation at all before is used to the 2 suffix being used for a 180 degree turn, so IMO any notation that can put a 2 after the letters to mean anything but a turn of twice the normal angle is unacceptable for community use.
That is definitely sensible. Obviously WTM is merely an extension to the "simple notation" for larger cubes without changing how the notation applies to the 2x2x2-5x5x5 cubes.
It cannot be, if the WCA still contradicts it.
Only if you accepted Rw on 3x3-5x5, which I never did (first it was the weird "Japanese notation", like [r] for rotations, then the WCA adopted it for some reason, but I still didn't want to use it) and which isn't all that common on the forum or in practice. It's pretty much an unofficial standard (in English-speaking communities, anyway!) to use r for a double-layer turn on 3x3. Take a look at people's posted 4x4 and 5x5 averages, too - I think most people scramble with r-type turns, rather than Rw, even though qqTimer gives you an option for either
Wait, are you saying that the cubing masses *should* use a different notation than the theorists/patternists/BLDers do?
I view SiGN as a completely normal extension of the normal 3x3 notation (using r for a double layer turn, again, as I see almost everyone do). It keeps r for a double layer turn on any cube. The only new thing is the use of numbers as prefixes. To me using w for wide is as icky as using i for inverse, even though logically there is nothing really WRONG with either.
The WCA doesn't "contradict" anything. It just currently uses a non-SiGN notation (actually, TWO SEPARATE non-SiGN notations), but I think the WCA would be willing to change if the community was.
No, I was trying to say that the standard notation should be a "simpler" one. If puzzle theorists wish to use other notations, they can use them, but should they provide links to virtual cube animations for others who use the standard notation to understand.
True, but some people who use that 3x3x3 notation can also view big cubes as separate because they didn't mind using WCA for them. To them, "r" is would be no different than moving all slices but L +90 degrees (if that 3x3x3 notation was translated to larger sizes). Why? Well, "r" moves the M slice. On the 5x5x5, would "r" be the 3 right-most layers or all 4 right layers? I don't think the logical assumption would initially be wide turns because a "wide" turn on the 3x3x3 is equivalent to a slice turn + a cube rotation.
Of course the standard notation should be simpler - it has less possible turns to cover. But it's inefficient and silly to have beginners and advanced cubers using totally different things. Fortunately the simple variant of SiGN is pretty simple to use. In fact, in scrambling it uses fewer characters than the Rw style. (SiGN's efficiency weakness is algorithms that use lots of slice moves.) 3Rw2 is quite a lot of characters for one move, and if you were using a global Rw system you'd see that type of thing a lot on 6x6 and 7x7 scrambles.
Are you referring to actual people? I've never seen someone take this particular approach. Anyway I find that if you explain "R moves one layer and r moves two, just like 3x3" people will get the idea very quickly. On the other hand if you explain "now that we are on 4x4 and 5x5, r suddenly means a slice turn, and Rw is the new thing for 2-layer turns" it might be a little confusing at first.
Of course there is a need to discuss it. Looking from the point of view of a beginner, a notation should be simple, and then have simple *extensions* to deal with more complicated things. You offer no extensions and in fact explicitly say that anyone who wants anything more complicated has no business using the standard notation at all. That is ridiculous.
-I don't need to provide an example, because you've already shown all possible move types. But here: turn the 2nd and 3rd layers (from R) of the 5x5 clockwise.
Why are you putting effort into showing your ignorance?
