Wiki Discussion Thread

[ProStar]

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.

There's nothing wrong with editing the page, I'm saying you shouldn't create your own page. It shouldn't be the creators choice whether or not the method is good enough to have a wiki page, but the people's choice

 

[Owen Morrison]

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.

What methods did you invent that others took credit for?

 

[Athefre]

There's nothing wrong with editing the page, I'm saying you shouldn't create your own page. It shouldn't be the creators choice whether or not the method is good enough to have a wiki page, but the people's choice

But no one ever created pages for anything I developed. So there would be nothing for me to edit. Which means no one knew about them and so someone else re-developed. The same thing could happen to others that has happened to me. I had to create pages myself recently, years later, to restore the credit. A developer shouldn't have to be afraid of someone else getting credit.

If the people don't think something on the wiki is good, then it can be ignored or deleted. I disagree that something being good is the people's choice. Things change over time. Something once seen as not good can eventually be seen as incredibly useful. Look at EOLR. Roux users were only using a few cases 8-10 years ago. Now every Roux user is learning a lot of it. Also look at the Meyer method. No one was using that years ago. It wasn't seen as a good method. Now it has some popularity among Roux users.

What methods did you invent that others took credit for?

The concept of transformation, the 2x2 method (A2) that it applies to, and I also fully developed Roux 4a+4b which is now called EOLR. Back then Roux users didn't care much about using a lot of 4a+4b because they thought it was too difficult. Only a few people used a few cases. Another thing, kind of minor, is LEG-1, which I was the first to develop. I became less active then a couple of years later someone else re-developed. There is also another thing I've noticed many people using which may be an expanded version of something I developed. There was no negative intent on the re-creators' part, they just didn't know.

 

[Hazel]

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.

This is valid! And in your circumstance, I do agree that you should have been able to.
The issue comes with people making wiki pages for methods that are bad, have been made before, et cetera, which would make the wiki littered with the standard Roux/CFOP hybrid along with any other method pages that really shouldn't be there. I'd say that anybody should be able to make a wiki page for their own method as long as it's the general consensus among people that the method is deserving of its own page.

 

[Cuberstache]

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!

Freestyle S2L is basically what the best of the best do. The efficiency is really good, especially taking advantage of good blockbuilding cases. I've been trying to freestyle my S2L more and more during the quarantine with some success. The lookahead is obviously more difficult and that's the only problem with it. As for full freestyle, the main problem is that S2L blocks have to go "on top" of F2L pairs. If you're going to build a yellow S2L side, both yellow F2L pairs basically have to be done or you'll have to do some awkward preserving.

 

[Owen Morrison]

Freestyle S2L is basically what the best of the best do. The efficiency is really good, especially taking advantage of good blockbuilding cases. I've been trying to freestyle my S2L more and more during the quarantine with some success. The lookahead is obviously more difficult and that's the only problem with it. As for full freestyle, the main problem is that S2L blocks have to go "on top" of F2L pairs. If you're going to build a yellow S2L side, both yellow F2L pairs basically have to be done or you'll have to do some awkward preserving.

Should I have a pattern in how I solve my S2L or should I start it on whichever part is easiest? I am just now getting serious about Megaminx and I want to start out with good habits so I don't have to change them later.

 

[qwr]

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

I think if an individual has any top 50 WCA result then they can justify having a wiki page. It's not like the wiki is running out of room and if someone is top 50 global they are probably in the top 5 or top 10 of their country. I lean towards top solvers of any country (not just US or whichever country has lots of solvers) should be acknowledged with a page.

 

[ProStar]

I also think we should have a set list of WBs(the events) and not just make new ones so you can "have a WB". I mean, looking at the wiki page, here are just a few:

3x3 with nose
3x3 with face
2x2 with socks on hands
2x2 with socks on hands BLD

all of these are honestly ridiculous. I think we should have a list of UWRs, including:

Huge cubes
Other OHs
Master Pyra
Redi
Other FMCs
15 & 8 puzzle
2BLD & huge BLD
BLD OH
WF and other WF events
Rob's challange & variants
Guilford & Mini & OH

Obviously this isn't a complete list, but just a few examples. I just don't think we should have these ridiculous events added by someone just to say they have a WB

 

[Cubingcubecuber]

I also think we should have a set list of WBs(the events) and not just make new ones so you can "have a WB". I mean, looking at the wiki page, here are just a few:

3x3 with nose
3x3 with face
2x2 with socks on hands
2x2 with socks on hands BLD

all of these are honestly ridiculous. I think we should have a list of UWRs, including:

Huge cubes
Other OHs
Master Pyra
Redi
Other FMCs
15 & 8 puzzle
2BLD & huge BLD
BLD OH
WF and other WF events
Rob's challange & variants
Guilford & Mini & OH

Obviously this isn't a complete list, but just a few examples. I just don't think we should have these ridiculous events added by someone just to say they have a WB

But tomorrow I was gonna finally get to doing a stupid event

 

[xyzzy]

I also think we should have a set list of WBs(the events) and not just make new ones so you can "have a WB". I mean, looking at the wiki page, here are just a few:

3x3 with nose
3x3 with face
2x2 with socks on hands
2x2 with socks on hands BLD

all of these are honestly ridiculous. I think we should have a list of UWRs, including:

Huge cubes
Other OHs
Master Pyra
Redi
Other FMCs
15 & 8 puzzle
2BLD & huge BLD
BLD OH
WF and other WF events
Rob's challange & variants
Guilford & Mini & OH

Obviously this isn't a complete list, but just a few examples. I just don't think we should have these ridiculous events added by someone just to say they have a WB

While we're on the topic of pruning the UWR page: singles and mo3 for anything that takes less than a minute should be completely removed.

No 444 single, no 555 single, no 3BLD mo3 (fight me), no OH single, no mega single, no clock single, no kilominx single, no feet single, no 222 wf mo3, no pyra wf single/mo3, no skewb wf single, no Ivy Cube wf single, no 2OH single, no 4OH single, no skewb OH single/mo3, no squan OH single, blah blah blah I'm not going to type out the whole list.

Relays don't get to count unless they're done standalone (no multiple-counting a 2-7 relay under 2-5 and 2-6 as well). I'd even go as far as to say relays shouldn't count unless there's video of the scrambling process as well—I suspect people often selectively re-scramble bad scrambles, which is obviously cheating. (I've seen Kevin Hays done this on his livestreams.)

Scrap the Redi Cube results currently on the wiki for using bad scrambles. The Pentacle Cube results are incredibly fishy too, but I don't have hard evidence.

 

[ProStar]

User Ganc2 has created a bunch of new WB events, all having to do with X with socks on hands. Due to my previous post I think it's easy to tell that I think that's ridiculous, but I have a different point. Today he updated the 4x4 with socks on hands record to 49 seconds, in the description saying he used Beginner's Method with LBL. It's basically impossible to get a time like that with LBL and beginner's(not to mention socks on hands which makes it slightly harder to turn), so I'm pretty sure it's fake, leading me to believe that possibly some of his other solves are fake

 

[qwr]

Perhaps an admin should lock or semi lock the page. Or maybe there should be a section with video evidence? I have no doubts about Max Park's times but everyone else you have to take with have some skepticism

 

[ProStar]

Perhaps an admin should lock or semi lock the page. Or maybe there should be a section with video evidence? I have no doubts about Max Park's times but everyone else you have to take with have some skepticism

I think it should be deleted, about 99% of the records are either fake or for a stupid event

 

[1973486]

I gave up trying to "moderate" the UWR page years ago. Honestly it looks better than I expected. Still too many stupid events and too many formats of the sensible ones though.

People often want to know what the UWR of an event is, so it's natural to make a list of these for easier reference. But when you try to regulate such a list you realise there's no point even trying.

I'm not sure what the best solution is. If it continues in its current state it will eventually list every conceivable combination of event and restriction, in however many formats necessary to grant someone the UWR they need to feel special by having their name on the page. There'll also be a questionable Pyraminx average by an ID-less nobody who will re-add it if anyone dares to remove it. And if you try to answer someone's question by referring to the list, some top cuber tell you that they beat that months ago, and that the entire page is useless.

Maybe deletion is the best option...

 

[qwr]

also idk what the point of the thread is because it's just a less organized (harder to search) version of this https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Speedsolving.com_Wiki:General_discussion and afaik the wiki admins don't even read this.
I propose this thread be locked since it duplicates where discussion should be taking place, the wiki talk pages itself.

 

[ProStar]

also idk what the point of the thread is because it's just a less organized (harder to search) version of this https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Speedsolving.com_Wiki:General_discussion and afaik the wiki admins don't even read this.
I propose this thread be locked since it duplicates where discussion should be taking place, the wiki talk pages itself.

No one reads the talk pages because you can't see that they've been changed

 

[qwr]

No one reads the talk pages because you can't see that they've been changed

that's what watchlists are for

 

[RedstoneTim]

also idk what the point of the thread is because it's just a less organized (harder to search) version of this https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Speedsolving.com_Wiki:General_discussion and afaik the wiki admins don't even read this.
I propose this thread be locked since it duplicates where discussion should be taking place, the wiki talk pages itself.

Wiki admins do read this thread, but most of the time they either don't have anything valuable to contribute or aren't even needed for the discussed changes. The wiki is a community effort and if most people agree that for example UWRs should contain video evidence, the community can do that on their own. If the admins don't agree, they'll tell you.
This thread is useful for longer conversations or simple questions since people usually check the forums more often than the wiki and because otherwise, the talk pages would get too big. I agree though that most of the time, talk pages are a better alternative since they're more structured.

 

[ProStar]

that's what watchlists are for

I only get notifications if someone posts on my talk page

 

[qwr]

I added some square-1 products based on some quick internet searches and memory https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Square-1_(puzzle_type)#Product_History

If any cubing historians want to add references or add products, please do. Idk if this wiki supports citations but it really should, as otherwise any historical info has no backing.