• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Wiki Discussion Thread

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,912
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Visit Channel
So, there are a few of us who have decided we're going to try to clean up the wiki. So far, we have an excel document containing our thoughts on all the articles. If you would like to contribute to the wiki, please pm @PapaSmurf for editing access. If you decide to vandalise the doc, you will be removed without warning. If you are too inactive once the plan goes into effect, you will be removed.

If you don't want to commit, but still want to raise an issue or disagreement with the indicated decision, feel free to pm one of the document contributors.

We'll also likely be keeping an eye on edits and new articles from now and require them to be of a certain standard (if the article is not up to standard, we'll dm you asking to fix it. If this isn't done, it will be removed.

We'll add any further updates later on in this thread. Feel free to ask any general questions below too.
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,487
WCA
2007KELL02
So, there are a few of us who have decided we're going to try to clean up the wiki. So far, we have an excel document containing our thoughts on all the articles. If you would like to contribute to the wiki, please pm @PapaSmurf for editing access. If you decide to vandalise the doc, you will be removed without warning. If you are too inactive once the plan goes into effect, you will be removed.

If you don't want to commit, but still want to raise an issue or disagreement with the indicated decision, feel free to pm one of the document contributors.

We'll also likely be keeping an eye on edits and new articles from now and require them to be of a certain standard (if the article is not up to standard, we'll dm you asking to fix it. If this isn't done, it will be removed.

We'll add any further updates later on in this thread. Feel free to ask any general questions below too.
Great to see people want to contribute to the wiki. Why not start making the edits mentioned in the spreadsheet instead of noting it in the sheet? Anyone can contribute to the wiki at any time.

As for removing pages: avoid removing pages unless absolutely necessary. It's good to keep old pages for reference if nothing else.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
Could a new section be added got methods called "developers"? There are a lot of people that have unknowingly reinvented methods, but developed it more. Also, there are multiple wiki pages with the same method but by different people. Could we remove those and add the reinventors name to the 'History' section if they didn't develop it and 'developers' if they did?
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,912
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Visit Channel
Great to see people want to contribute to the wiki. Why not start making the edits mentioned in the spreadsheet instead of noting it in the sheet? Anyone can contribute to the wiki at any time.

As for removing pages: avoid removing pages unless absolutely necessary. It's good to keep old pages for reference if nothing else.
At the moment, I'm mostly using the doc to prioritise what to do and allow anyone to object. Most of the articles which we want to delete are pages such as this and this which have no real useful info on them. If the articles have anything useful, the information on them will be moved to an appropriate larger page (denoted as S in the doc). An example of this would be something like this which would be better placed on a this page as it would make indexing or research easier as well as eliminating stub articles. Another example would be methods which create extra pages for each of their steps without any real reason.

No deletion will take place without the consensus of a supermajority (at the moment, we're considering all but one need to vote for deletion) and most pages will be turned into subsections if at all possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pjk

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,487
WCA
2007KELL02
At the moment, I'm mostly using the doc to prioritise what to do and allow anyone to object. Most of the articles which we want to delete are pages such as this and this which have no real useful info on them. If the articles have anything useful, the information on them will be moved to an appropriate larger page (denoted as S in the doc). An example of this would be something like this which would be better placed on a this page as it would make indexing or research easier as well as eliminating stub articles. Another example would be methods which create extra pages for each of their steps without any real reason.

No deletion will take place without the consensus of a supermajority (at the moment, we're considering all but one need to vote for deletion) and most pages will be turned into subsections if at all possible.
Sounds great! The more people contribute, the better it is for everyone. Post here if you need more help so others can jump in too.
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,487
WCA
2007KELL02
Could a new section be added got methods called "developers"? There are a lot of people that have unknowingly reinvented methods, but developed it more. Also, there are multiple wiki pages with the same method but by different people. Could we remove those and add the reinventors name to the 'History' section if they didn't develop it and 'developers' if they did?
Sure, go ahead and add this if you see fit. The power of the wiki is the whole community can contribute without distinct permission.
 

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
66
As a reminder, people can use the Discussion / Talk pages for documenting or proposing changes to individual pages. (This is heavily utilized in other MediaWiki based wikis) That way it won't get lost in a separate forum thread.
 

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
66
Also how many times will I have to type Robert Yau when adding algorithm links? Is there a edit minimum before becoming trusted?

Also: I cannot edit the talk page of F2L. It says there's an edit conflict when I'm clearly the only one editing the page.
If an admin can help sort this out that'd be great.

Screenshot from 2020-05-28 16-15-07.png
 
Last edited:

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,045
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
I'd like to suggest a rule where you cannot create a wiki page for yourself or a method you created. I've seen several wiki pages that really have no reason to exist, with the sole editor being the person the page is about/the inventor of the method. Also maybe a standard for a person to qualify for a wiki page? I recently saw a page for someone(only editor being the person the page is about), and when I looked it didn't really seem like they deserved a wiki page. They didn't have an outstanding number of subscribers on youtube, and the only notable WCA results were:

top 200 3x3 single
top 50 OH single

Both of which are great, but nothing else was noticeably amazing. Most of the "accomplishments" listed were getting close to a state record
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
I'd like to suggest a rule where you cannot create a wiki page for yourself or a method you created.
I agree with making a page for yourself but making a page for your own method should be allowed since the creator of a method would know the most about the said method, at least during the early years of the existence of the method. Maybe some sort of screening should be required but overall as long as the method is either A: Viable or B: Very un-orthodox/"funny" (For example, CFinity) the creator should be able to upload a wiki page about it (speaking of which, should I make a page for True Freestyle and Partial Freestyle?)
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,045
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
I agree with making a page for yourself but making a page for your own method should be allowed since the creator of a method would know the most about the said method, at least during the early years of the existence of the method. Maybe some sort of screening should be required but overall as long as the method is either A: Viable or B: Very un-orthodox/"funny" (For example, CFinity) the creator should be able to upload a wiki page about it (speaking of which, should I make a page for True Freestyle and Partial Freestyle?)
There's nothing wrong with him editing it, but I feel like he shouldn't just be like, "Yeah I think this is a good idea ima make a wiki page about it," the actual creation of the page should be done by someone else because it's a good/funny method, not because the creator wants to feel cool that his method is on the wiki
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
I've never heard of it, and I'm not good at mega so I wouldn't be a great judge lol
Something I came up with since I was already kind of using it since I did not do that great of a job sticking to Balint. Basically, its "Freestlye" as the name suggests, here is the post I made proposing it.
Partial Freestyle and True Freestyle. These are megaminx methods, and as the name applies, integrate freestyle techniques. I was using Balint for a while but I found myself straying off the path and then I figured, why not just do a freestyle solve. The entire solve aside from LL and Star (at least for TF) has no structure and you do what you want. The difference between Partial Freestyle (PF) and True Freestyle (TF) comes with the F2L. In PF, you always do F2L completely before working on any S2L. In TF you can build blocks and sides before you are done with F2L. A PF Solve would have 4 steps. Star, F2L FS2L (Freestyle S2L), LL. Now TF, that's where the fun begins. After star, you can basically do whatever you want. A TF solve would have 4 steps as well, but instead of having F2L and then FS2L, you would do F2L + S2L Building. I think this method would be harder to use then PF but it would also potentially cut down on move count. I have not found anything on the Wiki like these 2 methods and I have been "accidentally" using them for a while now, so I figure I might as well share them with the public. Let me know if something like this already exists before I make a fool of myself
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,045
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
Something I came up with since I was already kind of using it since I did not do that great of a job sticking to Balint. Basically, its "Freestlye" as the name suggests, here is the post I made proposing it.
It looks kinda cool, but I think(again, I'm not that great of a judge) that the freestyle nature will make extremely challenging lookahead, making the TPS much lower(kinda like Roux, but I dunno if this has the movecount advantage), especially in TF. I'd try reposting it and seeing what other people think though. Although I feel like because it's just freestyle, there's really nothing to put on a wiki page. The method is literally just: intuitively solve everything except one layer using any technique you want, then normal LL
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
It looks kinda cool, but I think(again, I'm not that great of a judge) that the freestyle nature will make extremely challenging lookahead, making the TPS much lower(kinda like Roux, but I dunno if this has the movecount advantage), especially in TF. I'd try reposting it and seeing what other people think though. Although I feel like because it's just freestyle, there's really nothing to put on a wiki page. The method is literally just: intuitively solve everything except one layer using any technique you want, then normal LL
That's fair. I think the move count would theoretically be much lower but the lookahead would be much harder. I'm gonna go ahead and tag the best megaminx solver I know and see what he thinks. @CuberStache, Analysis!
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
922
Location
0, 0, 0
I completely disagree with the idea that someone shouldn't be able to create a page for their own method.

Reason 1: A creator has the ability to make a good looking page. Sure there are people creating pages that aren't well-made. However, there are also people creating pages that are great. Look at my A2 method page. It is one of the most detailed pages on the wiki. Look at my Transformation wiki page. It is also extremely detailed. Look at any of my pages and its the same level of quality.

Reason 2: Obscurity. For around five years I stopped posting on this forum and was just visiting a few times a week. I recently started posting again and now three of my developments have other people being praised as geniuses for developing them. All of my work was in various posts on the forum and I didn't put them on the wiki. Why didn't I put them on the wiki? Because of this view that a creator shouldn't do that. I was afraid of what people would think. And look now. It has "hurt" me. I developed things back then that people weren't interested in or thought weren't possible for people to implement in speedsolves. It was incredibly frustrating to know that I have something good then all of my hard work faded into obscurity. People didn't care. Then a few years later someone else re-develops and they now get credit for it. They re-developed because they didn't know about my developments and no one put them on the wiki for me. If I had put the developments, and my name, on the wiki I would today have my name associated with these things that many people are now using in speedsolves.
 
Top