qwr
Member
Is there a page on 4x4 last two edges for edge pairing?
Is there a page on 4x4 last two edges for edge pairing?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Sure, go ahead and add this if you see fit. The power of the wiki is the whole community can contribute without distinct permission.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?
That’s actually the only alg ( and its reverse) you need for the full cube( including 3x3 algs)u' R U R' F R' F' R u
There's the only alg you need
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?)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?)
Well, is TF and PF for mega considered "good"?the actual creation of the page should be done by someone else because it's a good/funny method,
Well, is TF and PF for mega considered "good"?
I'm still not used to your new pfp
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.I've never heard of it, and I'm not good at mega so I wouldn't be a great judge lol
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
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.
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!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