View source for Talk:NxNxN Notation

I think the notation page should mention only basic notation ideas (like UDRBLF) and like to pages like "3x3x3 notation," "WCA notation," etc.

:Yes, that's good, else the page will be wery hard to overview. -- [[User:Kenneth|Kenneth]] 06:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

== Definition for E ==

As it was, it was inconsistent.  I changed it so that "relative to you", "following D", and the picture were all consistent.  However, it strikes me that the original "left relative to you" (i.e., following U) would have been the more obvious way to define it.  Given the previous inconsistency, it strikes me that the picture could be wrong, and that "following U" was what really had been intended.  Is there a way to resolve this for certain? [[User:DrHow|DrHow]] ([[User talk:DrHow|talk]]) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

==Swiss Notation==

I added a section for Swiss Notation. I support the following:
* Splitting the page into separate articles for each flavour of notation.
* Splitting the image into separate images for each section, and floating them to the right.
* Adding system-wide CSS to improve and standardize the appearance of tables.

Perhaps I'll fix these some day.

== Naming of Double Moves ==

It seems somewhat ambiguous the way that "double moves" are worded. There are "double moves", as in a 180 degree rotation, but there are also "double moves" a.k.a. "double standard moves", as in rotating two layers at once.

Maybe we should call the former "double moves" and the latter "wide moves"? The latter would also neatly align with the "w" symbol used in WCA notation for these.