I noticed the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages don't feature authorship or comments, like the 4x4 parity page does.

The 3x3 page uses Template:Alg while the 4x4 parity page uses Template:Alg5 which supports author and algo name but doesn't display like in fixed width.

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Template:Alg5
Do you think it's worth asking the community to try to track down who invented each algorithm?

Also I think it's helpful to mention comments, like some anti-sune algorithms are simply inverses of the sune algorithms.

First of all, I am glad that you appreciate my effort in implementing this template (and writing the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page). This is a very good question, and

aerocube gave a pretty good TLDR answer.

Now, the longer version . . .

Your inquiry about the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages is not so straight-forward to do without a fuss from the community (let alone be free from major guesswork and let alone be nearly (if not entirely) impossible). I will explain in more detail below why such detailed documentation exists (and can exist

**without a fuss from the community**) for 4x4x4 parity algorithms but not for 3x3x3 algorithms.

I went out of my way to make

Template Alg4 and

Template Alg5 primarily to encompass the longer 4x4x4 algorithms; but I also decided to include authors because, unlike 3x3x3 algorithms,

**the majority of 4x4x4 algorithms listed on the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page required specialized knowledge (which most people do not have nor care to acquire) to create**. So naturally there are fewer people who are knowledgeable enough to find short (or maybe even move optimal) and/or speed optimal 4x4x4 parity algorithms, as they, more often than not, must at least in part be found by hand (2-gen is one example of an exception -- they can be found exclusively with computer searches, as the search space for 2-gen is far less than allowing all turns).

Since move optimal 3x3x3 computer solvers are time-feasible to use and are readily accessible, it's impossible to attribute a 3x3x3 algorithm (OLL, PLL, COLL, etc.) to an author, as doing so would not do the other hundreds (if not thousands) of other authors justice (despite that if someone finds an algorithm entirely with

*someone else's* 3x3x3 solver, some would think that that individual should not claim credit for the algorithm). Don't get me wrong,

this subset of move optimal 4x4x4 parity algorithms, for example, can actually be found indirectly with a 3x3x3 optimal solver (as I explain in the yellow box). Therefore, the majority of them are not attributed to a specific author because there are quite a few people who have done searches using that technique to find such algorithms. But this number of individuals is far fewer than those who have found algorithms to cases for popular 3x3x3 sub-steps.

Current 4x4x4 move optimal solvers are pretty much incapable of finding some of the move sequences I attributed my name to on the 4x4x4 parity algorithms page

**in our lifetime**,

for example (but that 18 move single dedge flip algorithm was found by

my custom written 4x4x4 parity algorithm solver), and almost all "algorithm bars" which attribute an algorithm to an individual cite the first post which the algorithm was released publicly on the internet.

All in all, 4x4x4 parity algorithms (in general) have been found in brief 4x4x4 parity algorithm exploration "renaissance bursts" within the last 20 years. On the other hand, algorithms for cases in popular 3x3x3 sub-steps can (and are) being found (

**and refound**) all the time by various members of the community.

In closing, I have a few honorable mentions when there was more than one (independent) founder of a 4x4x4 parity algorithm. "Lucas Parity", one of the most popular 4x4x4 parity algorithms to date, was provably found by two different authors (as I explain in the

**Interesting Note** in

this part of the introduction of the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page). Kåre Krig and I also provably (and independently) found the same 4x4x4 parity algorithm (Rw' U R' U2 R U' Rw' U2 Rw' U2 Rw' U' R U2 R' U Rw') in

this section. (If you follow the posts, you will see why this is "provably true" (undebatable)).

Maybe you can see now why such an analysis is not doable for 3x3x3 algorithms found for the

**most popular** sub-steps for solving the

**3x3x3**! Such an analysis (which would most certainly involve more than two independent authors) would need to be conducted; and even if it was conducted, it would be debatable (for reasons already mentioned).