 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article has an unclear
citation style. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I got a new world record 2.98 sexond I’m 7 82.16.188.39 ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/98
The WCA has ruled that Yiheng Wang’s recent 2x2 average does not stand due to him not requesting an extra attempt until after he finished the relevant solve and got a time. (Judge lifted cover early) 2600:1014:B1EE:336A:3495:96BF:50AE:C17F ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The current article states (without sources) that the ZZ method is "unfavourable" and "sub-optimal," however, the ZZ method is not only being actively used, it has been developed beyond EOline, and now uses EOCross -> ZZF2L -> ZBLL. Who decided it was abandoned? Why are there no citations? Why describe an old version of ZZ? Vfluorine ( talk) 05:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
eux ml dix @ 41.77.16.153 ( talk) 19:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
For consistency we probably should choose either to use 3x3 or to use 3x3x3 and replace the other. Do folks think "3x3x3" or "3x3" is better? I'm leaning towards "3x3x3" since it appears to be the term used by the WCA (and is used 3 more times than "3x3" in the article at the moment) but it is slightly clunkier imo so I don't know for sure. AquamarineKangaroo ( talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
| This article has an unclear
citation style. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I got a new world record 2.98 sexond I’m 7 82.16.188.39 ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/98
The WCA has ruled that Yiheng Wang’s recent 2x2 average does not stand due to him not requesting an extra attempt until after he finished the relevant solve and got a time. (Judge lifted cover early) 2600:1014:B1EE:336A:3495:96BF:50AE:C17F ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The current article states (without sources) that the ZZ method is "unfavourable" and "sub-optimal," however, the ZZ method is not only being actively used, it has been developed beyond EOline, and now uses EOCross -> ZZF2L -> ZBLL. Who decided it was abandoned? Why are there no citations? Why describe an old version of ZZ? Vfluorine ( talk) 05:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
eux ml dix @ 41.77.16.153 ( talk) 19:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
For consistency we probably should choose either to use 3x3 or to use 3x3x3 and replace the other. Do folks think "3x3x3" or "3x3" is better? I'm leaning towards "3x3x3" since it appears to be the term used by the WCA (and is used 3 more times than "3x3" in the article at the moment) but it is slightly clunkier imo so I don't know for sure. AquamarineKangaroo ( talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)