# Proposition - Let's fix some cubing terms!



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

[attempt to make use of this sub-forum]
There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.

Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.

Some quick examples of things I'd like to change/stop/do.
1-ZBF2L->ZBLS, as well as any other LS variations to be named as such.

2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.

3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?

4-CLL/CMLL/CoLL/CIDFKLL. I can't even explain this naming convention. Sure, "CLL" means what it should in whatever context is appropriate, but I'd like to direct a reader's thinking of what CLL I'm referring too without setting up context.
4a-This idea also somewhat follows with ELL, on 3x3 LL(U) vs 3x3 LL(M) vs 4x4 LL(U)

5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.

6-"2-gen". Without giving context.

7-Can we de-popularize "EJF2L" or at least change it to "I(m)CLS"?

8-Notation for grips.


Please feel free to address these points formally, and make your own as you see fit.
Perhaps it would be easiest to reference particular propositions as such;
"7 - That sounds awesome."

Let's get this rolling,
statue


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 27, 2011)

9- "lucky" v.s. "nonlucky"


----------



## Muesli (Sep 27, 2011)

CFOP/Fridrich is the same debate as Vacuum cleaner/Hoover. I don't see the problem myself. When I read Fridrich I read CFOP, and when I read CFOP I read CFOP.



Sa967St said:


> 9- "lucky" v.s. "nonlucky"


 
I count either an OLL or PLL skip lucky. Xcrosses aren't really because they can be actively made to happen. OLL skips can too with fancy LS tricks but it's still lucky to get a case that you can use.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

>9 I think someone suggested "if you skip a step that has more than an 80% chance of having to be dealt with" or something along this mindset.
I'd rather think about it in terms of move-count. For example, if I do an average of 100 move-count solves with 90% of the solves being withing a range of 45-55 moves, something below this would be 'lucky' and something above this could be 'unlucky.' Just a thought, not sure how that'd work out.

Another solution would be to just never ever use those terms and rather use 'no-skip' or 'full-step' if that's what you mean.


Muesli
>2 My issue isn't about whether one is right or one is wrong. I just hate having to 'hear' so many debates over such.
Likewise with Roux vs CFOP debates that just should be given up on at this point.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 27, 2011)

10. One big one is the use of the term "F2L", particularly in context of CFOP-type methods. F2L stands for "First 2 Layers", and IMO it should mean "First 2 Layers," not the rather arbitrary and commonly used "The rest of the First 2 Layers after already solving part of it in the first step of the solve." Going with that, and I've said this before, I always look at the F in CFOP as meaning "*Finish* First 2 Layers", rather than just plain "First 2 Layers".


11. Another thing that so many people seem to have a different interpretation on - use of the term "parity" in bigcube solves. Some people look at it from the purely mathematical point of view (i.e. "PLL parity" is not parity), and this definition makes sense in terms of non-reduction methods. However, as the majority of people use reduction methods for bigcubes, the majority of people use a reduction-based definition of parity, in which case you can have two parities in one solve. Personally, despite being a user of a method that ends up with reduction, I do not like considering "PLL parity" parity.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 27, 2011)

4a - I realize this would be difficult. Could we possibly change to using the prefix UL rather than LL? To remove ambiguity between M layer finishes and U layer finishes. e.g. PUL for CFOP, PML for Roux. 

5 - This would be super cool. I'd like to see what ideas you have. 

7 - Or maybe COLS? I never understood CLS' nomenclature...


----------



## Bob (Sep 27, 2011)

8 - I actually attempted to do this years ago. See http://cubewhiz.com/fingertricks.html. I think this page is circa 2006.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 27, 2011)

You forgot the debate over exactly what we mean by "parity"  For the record I prefer my definition (when you try to reduce to a particular subset, a parity case separates that subset from a coset that is visually similar but not actually solvable with only those moves) over the pure-math one.

1. Sounds good; it's definitely not a full F2L method.

2. I don't think this debate can end, because you have people like me who think Fridrich should be recognized for it, and then other people who think a descriptive name is better since she wasn't the inventor. And I guess there's a third class who wants to call the method Dockhorn-Treep.

4. It's difficult because there are a whole bunch of different things you might want to include/exclude, and so it'd be hard to make concise names that capture those distinctions. One possibility is to use N-CLL+X-Y for CLL on NxNxN cube keeping X and ignoring Y, and only using the identifiers that are actually necessary. So you'd have 2-CLL for 2x2x2, CLL+EO for COLL, CLL-M for CMLL, etc. And similarly for ELL: 3-ELL for the 3x3x3 algset (although 3- should be the default), 4-ELL for the 4x4x4 thing, ELL-C for solving edges before corners. For LL we could include a "which layer" in the prefix... 3M-LL (or just M-LL) would be the Roux last layer step.

5. How about a format like the one I used in http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11896 ? You'd have a bolded title of a step, then a bunch of text/images/whatever describing the step, then some space before the next step. Small numbers of algs could be inserted inline; large numbers should be put in a spoiler either in the relevant section or at the very end.

6. Yes, we ought to avoid this - but I think it's fair to say that <R,U> (or any equivalent) is the default assumption when we see "2-gen" without any other qualification.

8. Why do we need a standardized notation for grips? How many people actually use grip notation at all?


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 27, 2011)

1- Yes! ZBLS and VHLS make much more sense than ZBF2L and VHF2L

7- I agree. Giving a small subset a whole new name after someone else doesn't really make sense. 



Cyrus C. said:


> 7 - Or maybe COLS? I never understood CLS' nomenclature...


COLS.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 27, 2011)

Perfect starting thread <3

It's a shame my method classification system didn't get finished by now 

1 - This is already starting to catch on. Wonderful.

2 - There's no debate - either is valid

3 - This is quite a cluster****. The problem is deciding /how/ meta your description becomes. F2L+EO falls outside of the F2L>LL meta description but is essentially in the same class with a small variation. You cannot simply put each method into a specific group, because many methods belong to many groups.

4 - I've pretty much given up on this and started calling everything either CLL or CLLEO. People generally understand what I'm talking about from context. No idea how to fix this properly yet. There should be a system for this stuff.

And if we're fixing this with a system - we could fix /every/ acronym. OCLL and COLL are two very different things, but you would have no idea which is which without checking. CPEOLL is a specific thing (yuk btw), but could mean any number of things. 

5 - Publishing a method is the least difficult part of it's creation, I don't think this is an idea with much merit. More attributes on the wiki pages (like # algs is already there) would be good. Like listing the group types it belongs to. (CF, Reduction, etc)

6 - I believe 2-gen when discussed in the context of cubing should be assumed to mean "an algorithm that uses only two types of move" (or whatever the correct wording is, you know what I mean). Making it include all commutators etc removes any value the word has for us. 

7 - "EJF2L" shouldn't even be a thing. 

8 - Useless.

9 - The 'lucky' term has annoyed me for a long time. I've advocated phasing out the use of it for a while. When lucky solves can have higher movescounts and more difficult execution than non-lucky solves, what's the point of using the term to describe how easy a solve is? If you had a skip, say you had a skip. If F2L was unordinarily easy, say F2L was unordinarily easy. "nonlucky" just serves to validate easy solves with good times - it's at the point where my brain parses 'nonlucky' as 'fullstep but easy'.

10 - F2L.

Aaargh. It refers to a 2x2x3 block - the first two layers, yet CFOP has used the term to refer to that step that finishes the 2x2x3 block. It's akin to calling Step 4 in Petrus "F2L". I'd like to change the term CFOP is using but can't think of anything good for it - no one will adopt it if it's not snazzy. Pairs works but feels forced and awkward. Also, changing this will destroy the name "CFOP". Problematic 

Very interested to see people's ideas - especially for 3 4 and 10.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I'd like to change the term CFOP is using but can't think of anything good for it - no one will adopt it if it's not snazzy.


Here's something - cross, *fill in*, orient, permute. It's not perfect, but it captures the idea of the step, and it starts with the right letter. Plus, it means we don't have to use an acronym inside another acronym (which I've always hated about the name CFOP).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

I like CSOP. Cross, slots, OLL, PLL.
The problem with any 'new' name would be enforcing it. It'd be near-impossible.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 27, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> The problem with any 'new' name would be enforcing it. It'd be near-impossible.



No need to enforce it, just start using it and watch it get adopted. I see this happening with ZBLS already. Changing wiki information will help.

Cross 
Four Slots
OLL
PLL

bam.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> No need to enforce it, just start using it and watch it get adopted. I see this happening with ZBLS already. Changing wiki information will help.
> 
> Cross
> Four Slots
> ...


 
I think this works quite well, that way the term CFOP can still be used since it is already quite engrained.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

That works too - it's no worse than "First two layers" 

Another thing to debate: slightly unusual notations. If we want to standardize on a single notation for larger cubes (4x4x4 and up), what should we use - SiGN, WCA, Randelshofer, or something else entirely? Should we keep the Rw type stuff even though it doesn't cohesively extend to anything bigger than 5x5x5? What should the universal Megaminx notation be (U,R,L,F,D are agreed upon, but the rest much less so)? How about denoting rotations, tips, and face turns on the Pyraminx?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

Heh. I like that we've freed up F2L now - this fixes a few problems. It now refers to a more meta group that various steps are members of. CFOP now has a more fitting and descriptive name for it's second step too.

Also - this doesn't even invalidate people saying things like "I messed up while doing F2L", because they were working on the first two layers. It's just like saying you messed up on LL instead of messed on on the specific part (OLL/PLL/w/e).


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 28, 2011)

@qq - is L6E or LSE too ambiguous for Roux LL? While LSE could pose some confusion, L6E doesn't. Or are you aiming for a standardized name.

The Fridrich/CFOP debate will stop when you start giving other methods acronyms names too. Since CFOP/Fridrich is the only method of the big-4 that has acronyms for the steps, people will conform to using name. (ZZ is just ZZ, because who wants to call it the Zborowski method).


----------



## Athefre (Sep 28, 2011)

I've always been a fan of calling it LSE. It's a consistent three letters instead of a number thrown in the middle and english rules say to spell out the smaller numbers. Plus, L6E looks ugly.


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 28, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I've always been a fan of calling it LSE. It's a consistent three letters instead of a number thrown in the middle and english rules say to spell out the smaller numbers. Plus, L6E looks ugly.


Going by that, F2L should be called FTL.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 28, 2011)

Yes, but L6E is more intuitive than LSE, I think. 'S' could mean 6, 7, 16, 'sexy', etc. 6 is six.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 28, 2011)

There are some good naming conventions there. ZBLS is a natural improvement, however it could be difficult changing people's meaning of F2L as it's such a popular term.

8- I still think grip notation could be useful, if it's kept simple enough that people can understand/use it easily. I started a thread on it a wee while ago in which Xishem had a nice idea about using codes in < > brackets, but I think it still needs some work.

9- I think we should just use the terms 'skip' and 'full step' more often and leave 'lucky' as just a non-defined judgement call. People know for themselves if there solve was lucky so it probably doesn't need to be clearly defined.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 28, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Yes, but L6E is more intuitive than LSE, I think. 'S' could mean 6, 7, 16, 'sexy', etc. 6 is six.


 
I'm not saying my preference should stay and a change or different standard shouldn't be made. I'm only giving reasons why it would be a difficult change for me.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm not really sure whether I prefer L6E or LSE. L6E is more accurate and probably a better way to describe the case, but LSE is more aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## asportking (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm sort of split between the two as well. L6E is a little more easier to understand, but LSE just looks nicer and is easier to pronounce ("el es ee" instead of "el six ee"). Would it be that bad to use them interchangeably?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 28, 2011)

Well, the question would be "are we looking for a standard?"

if not then I think it's perfectly fine to use either LSE or L6E .Personally I'm torn between the two but typing LSE is just so much easier and so much nicer in terms of pronunciation.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 28, 2011)

Honestly, I've used both L6E and LSE, sometimes even in the same conversation. I don't really think this is something that needs to be an issue, since as far as I know, we don't have anything else that could go with the other possible meanings of LSE.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

No idea why you seem to have a problem with LSE. Seems fine to me.

Gilles calls it 6E4C, fyo.

Ok some personal stuff. I've been calling this OLLCP Rainbow, because it reminds me of rainbow tables. I'd also like to phase out "KCLL" and replace it with CLLEO (or whateverEO). 

I've wanted a new name for Human Kociemba for a while. Mainly because it's not really like kociemba at all and people keep getting confused. I like 'Redux' but I changed the name from redux in the first place because of the bigcube (meta-)method. Any ideas?

I think after we reach a consensus I'll go add all the changes from this thread to the wiki. We cool with that?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I always look at the F in CFOP as meaning "*Finish* First 2 Layers", rather than just plain "First 2 Layers".


 
I hope you realise that this suffers from the same problems. There are many different steps that finish the first two layers.


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 28, 2011)

You could have a systematic labeling
A: DC BC DC BC

Where A is the starting grip of the algorithm, B is the fingers pushing a piece(described in a bit). C is the standard notation for the move that is done. finally, D is used to show that you wristed a turn and the grip of the cube is different.

as to labeling the fingers used, you can use this simpleish labels
||||- and -||||
While it may seem that typing this out many times would be very tedious, you can make it a bit shorter by dropping the remaning slashes as they are a bit redundant if you don't use them.
To indicate where to push you would use blind notation to identify the sticker pushed

A example of this could be
Standard: R U R' U'
S(tandard grip): RR lub-U RR' bul-U'
This identified that you wristed the R, you used your left index finger(since the finger noted is to the left of the "thumb") you wristed the R' with your Right hand, and then pushed the BUL sticker with your Left index...

While this seems a bit much to write out for ALL algorithms, it can be used to identify unusual fingertricks.

Example 2:

Standard: R2 D R U R' D' R U' R
R(shows that the Right hand is in the position after wristing an R):RR2' bld||-D RR -burU RR' lbd||-D' RR bul-U' RR
R:RR2' bld||-D RR -burU RR' lbd||-D' RR bul-U' RR

you could also use the stickers of edges to show MU style moves
M' would be a bd||-M'
and a M2 could be either a bd||-M2 (suggesting a double trigger), or bdbd|-M2
^You could probably label something bd-|- the second dash showing you use the above finger.
the same could apply for corner pushes U2.

Feel free to ask some questions.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> No need to enforce it, just start using it and watch it get adopted. I see this happening with ZBLS already. Changing wiki information will help.
> 
> Cross
> Four Slots
> ...


 
I prefer "Fill slots." A solve with an X-Cross really only solves 3 slots for the second step but it should still be considered a CFOP solve IMO.



qqwref said:


> How about denoting rotations, tips, and face turns on the Pyraminx?


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?16004-Proposed-notation-for-pyraminx-rotations

Pretty straight-forward I think. I always thought tips were just <u,r,l,b> since that is how they appear in all scramblers. Face turns could be <D,F,BR,BL> since that is their position based on standard RULB grip, but I hate using BR and BL. Also it can be confusing to have the same typeset refers to two different types of moves.



> OP and Sarah


1- Yes please.

2- Both are valid, though I'd like to encourage the use of CFOP since people misspell Fridrich SOOO MUCH.

3- Why? A lot of the more obscure methods would likely possess characteristics of multiple meta-methods, which would either get confusing or require the creation of a new meta-method classification.

4- I like classifications like CLL, CLLEO for what is now COLL, CLLM for CMLL, CLLEF works as it is. I think we should be consistent with CLL then letters to denote variation.

5- I always thought this was straight forward- description of substeps with number of cases and avg/min/max movecount for each substep.

6- Since most people take 2-Gen to mean RU, why don't we try to phase out the phrase 2-gen entirely and just use RU? It's shorter and clearer, and a lot of people seem to have trouble with the concept of a generator.

7- EJF2L is not the same thing as I(m)CLS. EJ2F2L refers to the entire concept of building a 2x2x3 with a twisted corner in order to save moves, then using CLS to twist it and the LL corners later. The name EJF2L does not suffer from the same naming inaccuracies as VHF2L and ZBF2L. However, I agree that "EJLS" should not become a thing. Instead we should clarify that EJF2L actually applies to the entire F2L, and that I(m)CLS is a substep of EJF2L.

8- I don't think grip notation will never be as effective as watching a video. There are too many variables to create a readable but still useful grip notation.

9- "Lucky" and "non-lucky" should just not be used. There are a lot of things that make a solve lucky- skipped steps, low movecount, low number of rotations, lookahead is easy because the pieces you need are always visible, etc. This is another thing where there are too many variables to objectively say that a solve is lucky or not. Not even movecount can be used here, because a solve with an unintentional 2xcross, sexy*3 for last two slots, doublesune OLL and Jperm PLL can have an average movecount, but is definitely much easier than an average solve. I whole-heartedly approve of using full-step and (insert step) skip for all good singles. "Easy" is a good word as well.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 28, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> 4- I like classifications like CLL, CLLEO for what is now COLL, CLLM for CMLL, CLLEF works as it is. I think we should be consistent with CLL then letters to denote variation.


 
When hearing the term "CLLEO", my impression would be that it would solve the corners and actually orient the edges.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 28, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> When hearing the term "CLLEO", my impression would be that it would solve the corners and actually orient the edges.


 
Ah fair enough, but I think we should hold to CLLx rather than mixing xCLL, CxLL, and CLLx. Open to suggestions.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 28, 2011)

CLL+O (Orient Edges, or just CLLO)
CLL-O (Misorient Edges, haven't seen this used and maybe unnecessary)
CLL/O (Don't care about orientation, or just CLL)
CLL~O (Preserve orientation)
CLL/MU (Roux)
CLL/2 (2x2x2)
CLL/4 (4x4x4)

And if those aren't pleasing to look at:

C+O
C-O
C/O
C~O
C/MU
C/2
C/4

Plus mix and match. If wanted, change the symbols to something most agree makes sense.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 28, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> [attempt to make use of this sub-forum]
> There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.
> 
> Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.
> ...


Strongly in favor. I started using "ZBLS" after creating "MGLS", and it's nice to see that LS is relatively recognizable as a suffix now.



StachuK1992 said:


> 2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.


I don't know why people really care. See Stigler's Law to see why I think this is so petty.

EDIT: Note that I am still strongly in favor of attribution for new ideas. But Fridrich/CFOP is established and at this point it's just a name. Maybe we should put up a clear wiki section explaining the history, but "Fridrich" is still clear and accurate while people can like using "C"FOP all they like.
(Also, names can be changed. e.g. Husita-Justin axioms.)



StachuK1992 said:


> 5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.


I think I have some pretty decent ideas, and plans for cubing.net. Whether I can implement them in a reasonable time depends on if I can assign this to any class projects.



Kirjava said:


> StachuK1992 said:
> 
> 
> > I like CSOP. Cross, slots, OLL, PLL.
> ...



I've wanted to do this for a while, but haven't had the chance to advocate for it.




12. Is anyone in favor of introducing N for M' ? This could either be a really bad idea if it doesn't catch on, or a really good idea if M can be phased out pretty quickly. (The biggest issue is legacy material.)

I think the choice of N instead of M is pretty logical because it's a closely related letter (looks similar, sounds the same, adjacent in the alphabet), but distinguishable. If we *could* switch over, things would feel sort of like before, except we don't have to put silly primes on all the nice algs with slice moves.


----------



## irontwig (Sep 28, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> 3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
> A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?



A half-jokingly proposal: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-Discussion&p=641913&viewfull=1#post641913



Kirjava said:


> I've wanted a new name for Human Kociemba for a while. Mainly because it's not really like kociemba at all and people keep getting confused. I like 'Redux' but I changed the name from redux in the first place because of the bigcube (meta-)method. Any ideas?


 
Yeah, and it doesn't get better that it's a subset of domino redux (pretty much "actual human kociemba"), which is a pretty rare method as iirc I've only seen Fredlund and Okayama use for 1h+ solutions.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> I prefer "Fill slots." A solve with an X-Cross really only solves 3 slots for the second step but it should still be considered a CFOP solve IMO.


 
A solve with an XCross doesn't start with a Cross, either. I don't think minor variations should make a difference to the main idea of the method.


----------



## asportking (Sep 28, 2011)

Athefre said:


> CLL+O (Orient Edges, or just CLLO)
> CLL-O (Misorient Edges, haven't seen this used and maybe unnecessary)
> CLL/O (Don't care about orientation, or just CLL)
> CLL~O (Preserve orientation)
> ...


I think CLL works better than just the "C." For me, symbols in general work a lot better than big long abbreviations. The "+,-,/,~" notation could probably be used for things other than CLL as well.


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 28, 2011)

We should probably make a thread for each of the things we want changed. This is getting messy.

Also, would it be a good idea to rename OH turning techniques? I've heard the terms "Western" and "Japanese" thrown around a lot.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

CLL isn't something that always affects the last layer only.

On the other hand the effect it has is on the last layer corners.

Conflicted on this issue. An alternative more descriptive suffix could be useful.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 28, 2011)

Create new topics as you see fit, and be sure to include all details from this thread.
This thread should be a starter from discussions - once it has some headway, and interest is shown, a new topic being made is definitely appropriate.


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 28, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> 3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
> A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?



Some meta definitions:
CF
EF
EOF (edge orientation first)
Face or FF (Face First)
BB (Block Building)
BCE (Blocks, Corners, Edges: proposed by Kenneth in 2007, would fit Roux)
BEC (Blocks, Edges, Corners: shameless “copy” by Cubenovice in 2011, would fit Heise)
F2L>LL (Fits Alot)

Going out on a limb: OC (treating Opposite Colored pieces as being the same color)

My question: just how detailed may / should a meta definition be?
And what is the final goal?
Is it:
-	Fitting each method into a single meta definition?
-	or
-	Assign meta tags to each method?

I would prefer the latter.
Some examples:
LBL: meta tags face and F2L>LL 
HTA: meta tags EOF and OC
ZZ: meta tags EOF + F2L>LL
Roux: meta tags BB and BCE
Petrus: meta tags BB and F2L>LL (BCE excluded as there are various options to solve LL)
Guimond: meta tags CF and OC
Human Kociemba: meta tag OC

This could be of some use in the Wiki methods page.
Perhaps the tags could even be assigned to posts by the OP (A drop down box would ensure consistent tagging)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 3, 2011)

Two small comments in case no one brings then up:

- Adjacent numbers should always be delimited. Rw22 should mean (Rw Rw... Rw) 22 times, it should never mean (Rw2)2.
- I am particularly against '2 instead of 2'. It looks worse, is harder to read because it separates the "larger" letters and digits, is unnecessarily inconsistent with convention (e.g. WCA regs, but that's due to me)

(Also, I actually don't really mind Rw as an alias for r in SiGN because the notation is still unambiguous – but it detracts from the consistency and simplicity.)


----------



## qqwref (Oct 3, 2011)

As far as NxNxN cube notations I most prefer notations which:
- correspond with existing 3x3 notation as much as possible, and
- express the most common types of moves succinctly and unambiguously, on any size of cube.
Keep in mind that these are subjective and that other people might not agree that these are important, or might think that other things are very important (completeness, efficiency, easiness to parse, etc.).

Objectively your notation is fine, cmowla, but it doesn't really fit either of my criteria. It doesn't really correspond with 3x3 notation in that it uses Rw2 for a double layer turn, and since Rw* is the most common type of move on pretty much all physical cubes, both in scrambling and solving, it's also pretty big to use 3 characters for it when you could get away with fewer. And I personally find it subjectively awkward to write something like "Rw32", but that's just me. Jaap's scrambler uses a roughly similar idea, with subscripts, and it got pretty tough to read.

IMO SiGN does fit these criteria pretty well (especially so if we define "Rw" as an alias for "r" and "(r)" or similar as an alias for "x"). It doesn't seem like a huge number of people use it though, and I'm not sure whether that's because the WCA doesn't use it, or because there's something fundamentally wrong with it, or simply because people just don't care enough about bigcube notation.


----------



## Sa967St (Oct 3, 2011)

About the term '2-gen', if we get rid of it (it was brought up on CubeCast) what would 2GLL be re-named to?

I don't know if everyone will like acronyms that contain names of faces such as RULL (for <R,U>LL), it doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the acronyms (other than CMLL, but the M in it is just lol anyway).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 3, 2011)

<RU>LL = new name for 2GLL.
<MU>LL could be for ELL.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 3, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> <MU>LL could be for ELL.


 
That's silly, ELL is not MU.


----------



## Sa967St (Oct 3, 2011)

Yeah, ELL is fine the way it is as long as it's specified what puzzle it's for. Same for CLL being "corners of the last layer", given the context.

Suggestion: 3ELL, 4ELL, 2CLL, 3CLL etc.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 3, 2011)

Relevant PM I received


adragast said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think this is really important but as the private forum is trying to "fix some cubing terms" I thought you may want to discuss on the "layer by layer" name. It may not be precise enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## TMOY (Oct 4, 2011)

adragast said:


> The main issue comes from the sandwich method. This is not what we have in mind when someone mentions a layer by layer method. However, strictly speaking, it does solve one layer of the cube, then another one and finally the last one.



WTF ? Strictly speaking, the methods of the sandwich family solve the extreme layers first, period. There are different strategies for that, solving one layer then the other one is only one of them. I think he meant the Waterman method.

Another case in point is the face+CLL method for 2^3 (it is technically a LBL method but generally not called as such).


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 5, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Relevant PM I received [adragast's stuff /]


I've thought about this in regards to Waterman and also beginner's methods adapted from layer-by-layer that don't explicitly solve the cube layer by layer.
For instance, the method I used before my transition into CFOP was
1.) Cross
2.) Middle layer
3.) FL corners
4.) 4LLL

Even though it does, in a way, solve the cube one layer at a time, I wouldn't consider it a layer-by-layer method and rather a beginner's method. I think that "The Beginner's Method" has so many variants that instead of being grouped as one collective concept, all of the beginner's methods are under the term "beginner's methods". The layer-by-layer method in which one solves Cross, FL, 2nd layer, and LL in my opinion should be renamed "Traditional Layer-by-Layer" under the Layer-by-Layer methods umbrella. Just my two cents (and hopefully sense as well).



Sa967St said:


> Yeah, ELL is fine the way it is as long as it's specified what puzzle it's for. Same for CLL being "corners of the last layer", given the context.
> 
> Suggestion: 3ELL, 4ELL, 2CLL, 3CLL etc.


 
I've already gone about calling CLL for 3x3 3CLL; in my opinion, the different types of CLL and whatnot should be classified by colloquial names, as it has been done with PLL cases (Allan, Bert, and the like).



Sa967St said:


> About the term '2-gen', if we get rid of it (it was brought up on CubeCast) what would 2GLL be re-named to?
> 
> I don't know if everyone will like acronyms that contain names of faces such as RULL (for <R,U>LL), it doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the acronyms (other than CMLL, but the M in it is just lol anyway).



As far as 2-gen goes, I think the usage of the term '2-gen' should be lenient. Just as Lucas (or whoever) proved the cube was 2-gen (using two algorithms to solve the cube from any state), 2GLL uses only the R and U faces. Both are correct, and any feuding against the true definition is in my opinion unnecessary. Just don't be a dick about the whole thing like some people are being, saying "Well <R U R', D> is 2-gen!" Even though it is technically true, the kind of 2-gen a particular writing or whatever is talking about should be able to be figured out.


----------



## macky (Oct 8, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> I don't know why people really care. See Stigler's Law to see why I think this is so petty.
> 
> EDIT: Note that I am still strongly in favor of attribution for new ideas. But Fridrich/CFOP is established and at this point it's just a name. Maybe we should put up a clear wiki section explaining the history, but "Fridrich" is still clear and accurate while people can like using "C"FOP all they like.



I rewrote parts of it: [wiki]CFOP[/wiki]


----------



## mrCage (Nov 21, 2011)

irontwig said:


> A half-jokingly proposal: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-Discussion&p=641913&viewfull=1#post641913
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it doesn't get better that it's a subset of domino redux (pretty much "actual human kociemba"), which is a pretty rare method as iirc I've only seen Fredlund and Okayama use for 1h+ solutions.


 
You haven't seen Mirek Goljan use it?? I'm surprised ...

Per


----------



## irontwig (Nov 21, 2011)

It's not like I've looked through every FMC solution...


----------



## mrCage (Nov 22, 2011)

irontwig said:


> It's not like I've looked through every FMC solution...


 
Yes, but i used it in in same fmc round as Mirek - at the old fmc site. If i'm not completely mistaken that was my only time to use domino style ending.

Per


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

*Naming Convention*

We all know Winter Variation (WV) and Summer Variation (SV). I think their mirrors might as well have names following the same style. I propose Fall Variation (FV) for the mirror of Winter Variation and Spring Variation (SpV?) for the mirror of Summer Variation. It just saves from saying "the mirror of Winter Variation".

In fact, I will start calling these by these names anyway whether people like it or not.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bob said:


> We all know Winter Variation (WV) and Summer Variation (SV). I think their mirrors might as well have names following the same style. I propose Fall Variation (FV) for the mirror of Winter Variation and Spring Variation (SpV?) for the mirror of Summer Variation. It just saves from saying "the mirror of Winter Variation".
> 
> In fact, I will start calling these by these names anyway whether people like it or not.


 Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 20, 2012)

I really like this. 

Ditto about using these names anyway regardless of whether it's proper naming or not.



jskyler91 said:


> Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.


Yeah, we know, but whatever. It's convenient to name the mirror and inverse cases this way. 

edit: Instead of Fall Variation, how about Autumn variation?


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.


 
Yes. However, somebody already decided to name the R U R' cases "Summer Variation" (probably out of ignorance, but maybe not). It's too late to change that now.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 20, 2012)

Bob said:


> Yes. However, somebody already decided to name the R U R' cases "Summer Variation" (probably out of ignorance, but maybe not). It's too late to change that now.


That was Chester. It looks like he thought of the name "Summer Variation" before he realized that Winter Variation was named after someone. I still think it's fine. 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...mer-Variation-quot-set-of-algs-without-a-name


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 6, 2012)

I keep thinking that HTM (half turn metric) should be standardised to FTM (face turn metric). It makes more sense intuitively, imo.


----------



## Mollerz (Mar 7, 2014)

Ok so, Skewb.

I'm sure there are like 8 Z Perms. We need to standardise algs and their names, I've seen so many different ones for the same things. The only ones that are pretty much fixed are U Perm, Pi, Pure Pi and Peanut.

So let's sort this out. Learning Skewb is annoying right now


----------



## TMOY (Mar 8, 2014)

Mollerz said:


> Ok so, Skewb.
> 
> I'm sure there are like 8 Z Perms.


What exactly do you call a Z-perm ? For me the definition is pretty clear: two pairs of adjacet centers swapped, with the two solved ones being opposite to each other.

Even counting all possible double 2-cycles of centers, I see only 5: opp-opp (H-perm), the Z-perm described above, opp-adj and the two adj-adj with adjacent solved centers (mirroring each other).


----------



## qqwref (Mar 8, 2014)

You guys should try to make up single-letter names for all the center permutations. How many different ones are there? Can we assume the bottom center is solved? (I don't do Skewb)


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 9, 2014)

Mollerz said:


> Ok so, Skewb.
> 
> I'm sure there are like 8 Z Perms. We need to standardise algs and their names, I've seen so many different ones for the same things. The only ones that are pretty much fixed are U Perm, Pi, Pure Pi and Peanut.
> 
> So let's sort this out. Learning Skewb is annoying right now



There are only three Z-perms, but different locations dependent on cube orientation.

The way I've been referring to them has been that "Z" refers to F-R B-L (or equivalent), "Za" refers to F-R B-D (or equivalent), and "Zb" refers to F-R L-D (or equivalent).

What really troubles me is the notation for skewb. "R" can mean one of three things, depending on notation (acubist, FCN/FCeN, Rubik'skewb).



qqwref said:


> You guys should try to make up single-letter names for all the center permutations. How many different ones are there? Can we assume the bottom center is solved? (I don't do Skewb)



There are 14 unsolved cases covered under the umbrella of L5C:
U, Oa, Ob, H, Z, "my" H, Za, Zb, Swirl-a, Swirl-b, Wat-a, Wat-b, X-a, X-b.

As much as I hate to use my method as an excuse, it's not safe to assume the bottom centre is solved, which is why I included the D centre in my descriptions of the Za and Zb L4C cases.


----------



## Mollerz (Mar 9, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> There are only three Z-perms, but different locations dependent on cube orientation.



I was exaggerating to make a point but yeah, 3 Z perms is still silly, why not S, what's wrong with that. Also H and "Your" H is another problem. For L5C, I've never seen anyone else call them Swirl or Wat (And why aren't they letters, the whole point of at least PLL was to name them after letters, wouldn't it make sense to stick with that?


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 9, 2014)

Mollerz said:


> I was exaggerating to make a point but yeah, 3 Z perms is still silly, why not S, what's wrong with that. Also H and "Your" H is another problem. For L5C, I've never seen anyone else call them Swirl or Wat (And why aren't they letters, the whole point of at least PLL was to name them after letters, wouldn't it make sense to stick with that?



Since the methods were (more or less) independently developed, there's a lot of naming conventions from different methods that don't make as much sense when put side by side.

I propose:
U, Oa, Ob
H, Z, T, Ja, Jb
Ga, Gb, Ka, Kb, Xa, Xb.

Same order as last time.

Now about skewb notation.
As far as I know it, there are 7 notation schemes, and it gets really annoying to have to constantly ask "What notation?" Whenever anyone posts anything.
I propose that WCA FCN become the standard for scrambling, and rubik'skewb be the standard notation for solutions i.e. in reconstructions


----------



## Mollerz (Mar 9, 2014)

I agree with what Ranzha is suggesting, that at least keeps it in like with the notation given to PLL and so we have our standard.

For scramble notation, if WCA FCN becomes the norm then it helps competitions run better since people don't use a different notation outside of competition (Think clock).

For reconstructions, Rubikskewb notation is very good as it makes sense given skewb at its core is not defined by its faces, but by its axes of rotation, a very good point made by Ranzha.

Also I think given the chosen notations people could be tripped up with U and D. I think the problem with U and D is the way skewb is engineered and our connection to U and D being standard moves on pretty much every single puzzle. And I agree with lower case letters being used that for example something like RB, as they are both already moves on the puzzle.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 1, 2015)

Requesting a mod now to move this to a public forum of a mod's choice.


----------

