Talk:Rubik's Cube/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

A new alternative notation, (Straub notation), is designed to make memorizing sequences of moves (algorithms) much easier for novices.

This notation uses consonants for faces (like Wolstenholme notation), but more variation option offer to turns (moves). The differences are the use of the vowels E and I (high vowels) for clockwise, of the vowels A or O (low vowels) for counterclockwise, finally of the vowel U for 180-degree turns (the shape of the vowel remind us the turn), so numerous word sequences can be formed.

Possibilities for vowel variation will serve the purpose of making the algorithms different form (although equal value) can be written, so these algorithms much easier to remember and memorize.

Bruno34 (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 13:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This changes please edit after "An alternative notation, Wolstenholme notation is designed ... ... of the cube around its right face." The reliable source is: http://www.miaz.hu/solving_the_rubiks_cube_easiest_way_beginners_step_by_step.html#straub_notation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno34 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

re-edit request

I'm bringing this issue to here (first edited 08:10, 15 April 2013‎ Spinningspark (talk | contribs)‎)- Rubik's cube solution walkthrough as external link (www.rubiksplace.com). This website was shown under external links as how to solve the rubik's cube walk-through. Along the way the guide had added "java applets" of the rubiks cube, so it got removed from the entry. it is against wiki links guidelines. Website had been modified so java applet shown only as an optional in a separate page for the comfort of all potential visitors (old browsers, no java add-ons)- no more java on the walk-though. Was advised to post it here to restore this edit. The guide is a very detailed solution which crafted according to many new cubers along the way. Maor. +1 for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

Hello sir, I am submitting an edit request. Getting straight to the point; here are the reasons:

1. I have come to tell you that this page has a lot of bias towards Panagiotis Verdes. The page is promoting his products by: Calling the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 "V-Cube 6" and "V-Cube 7" respectively. Also, DaYan 3x3x3 cubes do not infringe any patents, if so, there is no evidence (and I know that it does not infringe the patents.) I feel this content should be removed.

2. Cube manufacturer ShengShou has been reported by cubers to have infringed Verdes' patents. Thus, their products are ilegal. There is plenty of evidence to prove that it makes pure knockoffs (while it remains the only company to have physically made the 8x8x8, 9x9x9 and 10x10x10.) It should not be promoted either.

3. 13x13x13 cubes are in production, their manufacturer MoYu has made their own patented designs. I feel that they must be mentioned.

Thanks, hope you give me permission. Jacobright23 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested any specific changes.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Most importantly, you must cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

---

V-Cube is a trademark, and whether other similar puzzles infringe on patents or not, they do exist, and ought not be simply ignored. If mention of existence constitutes promotion, then every mention of Rubik's or V-Cubes should be removed as well.

The article mentions that Verdes' patent covers cubes up to 11x11, which means that unless Verdes' has filed another patent that is not mentioned, Moyu's 13x13 cannot be in violation of his patent.Small Brown Cow (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

other "versions"

This has recently been added: "All five platonic solid versions of Rubik's cube". Since out of the 5 platonic solids, only 1 is actually a cube, should we say something like "Permutation puzzles have been made in the shape of all five platonic solids." I realize that it's a common practice, because the rubik's cube is so much more popular than other permutation puzzles, puzzles that are not close to be cubic in shape are often advertized for sale in ebay as "rubik's cubes". What do you think? Dhrm77 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cycle length for FRT?

If the Cube is turned Front Clockwise, then Right Clockwise and the Top Clockwise, how many turns does it take to get back to the solved cube?Naraht (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Try it and count. I recall it took 15 minutes or so. - Richfife (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

80 cycles (240 turns) and much less than 15 minutes for me. After 16 cycles, 5 corners are moved around and the rest of the pieces are in place. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it feels like 15 minutes when you're 12 :). Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you start with a correct Cube, (otherwise it isnt possible to get a correct cube) I think you have to do FRU 40 times (120 turns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.129.111 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

There exists a fully functional 22x22x22 3D printed cube designed by an individual that goes by the online alias of corenpuzzle. This cube technically beats out the 17x17x17 record currently in place. Some videos have surfaced of a 28x28x28 cube however these have proven to be fake; the illusion created by re-stickering a 13x13x13 cube.

References: Video Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzzD1aNsLVU 3D Print Design Docs: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1267855 The Fake Cube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G1mY5VSDY8 The Fake Cube P2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTmLkWB5n1c

Patsnyder (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a very convincing primary source, but it's still a primary source. Is there a professional article that covers it? - Richfife (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's one. I'll get on it when I have a moment. - Richfife (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. - Richfife (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Definite article? ("Rubik's Cube" or "The Rubik's Cube")

The definite article ("the") is usually not used for possessives (it causes ambiguity). Should "Rubik's Cube" be considered a possessive or as if it was a single word? The article has it both ways, but for me at least leaving off the "the" feels stiff and formal. - Richfife (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My advice is to trust your instincts. I agree, leaving off the "The" is kind of odd, so WP:BEBOLD and do it.

Hmmm... If you think the British to American drive-by's are bad, imagine the "Add missing 'the'" crowd. Probably best to leave it alone. - Richfife (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate page for notation

Notation is a big topic of its own - I thus created a separate page to accommodate it, with the intention of expanding it over time.

However, my new page, of which I had spent hours, was promptly deleted and redirected back to the main Rubiks page.

I mean FFS is this why no one want to edit Wikipedia anymore? I have a lot to contribute but am about to give up and make my own website so that arseholes can't delete good material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noledj (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. A number of people (I won't give names) seem to be a little too trigger-happy about reverting and deleting everything and anything... Your page hasn't been deleted yet. It was just blanked and redirected. You can still contest the deletion, or work on it in your sandbox. I believe there is probably enough material for this subject to be its own article. There are quite a few pages that are much smaller (namely 241 (number), 243 (number), 244 (number), 246 (number), 248 (number), 249 (number), etc..). Just in case it happens to be deleted in the near future, I saved it in my sandbox.

On the subject of various notations, I created my own notation here: "Rubik's cube notation". a number of years ago, and that I use throughout my website "Main puzzle page".. The reason being that I wanted every algorithm to be portable to every puzzle such as the 4x4x4, 5x5x5, 7x7x7, megaminx, gigaminx, teraminx, and even the 3x3x5 or any other variation. If you need to name with a different letter every single layer of a big permutation puzzle, pretty soon you run out of letters to use. Furthermore, you can't rotate the middle layer of a Megaminx for example, so different notation system is needed, in order to have a coherent system to describe moves on every permutation puzzle. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "|from=1977 (as Hungarian Magic Cube)" to "|from = {start date and age|1977} (as Hungarian Magic Cube)" to correspond to the Rubik's Cube's official release date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Error in Kociemba algorithm link

There is a spelling error in a link to Kociemba algorithm. Currently this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_solutions_for_Rubik%27s_Cube#Kociemba.27s_Algorithm Should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_solutions_for_Rubik%27s_Cube#Kociemba.27s_algorithm (lower case a in algorithm)

Cheers PiotrParadzinski (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. SpinningSpark 23:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

10th November 2016 Rubik’s Cube lost a key trademark battle after the European court of justice (ECJ) said its shape was not sufficient to grant it protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/10/rubiks-cube-puzzled-losing-eu-trademark-battle Juhalassila (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 11:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Numerical Notation

I recently made a change to include numerical values (2,3,5, etc.) as an addition to the English text (two, three, five, etc.). I did this because numerical notation (2,3,5, etc.) is compact and language-neutral. It is also programmer-friendly IMHO. However, my edit was retracted because it didn't "add new information". I think my edit gave a valid, alternative description. Not only valid, but without an English-language bias. I'm not sure why additional/accurate information is being deleted... is it a fear of Too Much Information (TMI)? Hydradix (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:NUMBER. SpinningSpark 20:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

LITC (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Name	Fastest Solve	Competition
Feliks Zemdegs	4.73s	POPS Open 2016
Mats Valk	4.74s	Jawa Timur Open 2016
Lucas Etter	4.90s	River Hill Fall 2015
Hyo-Min Seo (서효민)	4.94s	Korean Championship 2016
Keaton Ellis	5.09s	River Hill Fall 2015
Rami Sbahi	5.22s	Shaker Fall 2016
Collin Burns	5.25s	Doylestown Spring 2015
Alexandre Carlier	5.40s	Nancy Open 2016
Drew Brads	5.50s	Princeton Fall 2016
Mats Valk	5.55s	Zonhoven Open 2013
Pavan Ravindra	5.58s	US Nationals 2015
Cornelius Dieckmann	5.58s	Swiss Nats 2016

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Replaced References with Further reading

Hi, I got rid of the very random list of "references" on this page, since none of them seemed to be actually references for this article. Most of them are just 1981 cube craze books (a lot of Rubik's Cubes books were published in 1981-2). I replaced it with a "further reading" section containing various reference books. I'll stick the old "references" list here, in case I've made a mistake, or someone wants to see one of them returned to the page. I kept the Bizek book and the Dan Harris book in the new list, since they seemed, at least, to be newer or still relevant. Pasicles (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Bizek, Hana M. (1997). Mathematics of the Rubik's Cube Design. Pittsburgh, Pa: Dorrance Pub. Co. ISBN 0-8059-3919-9.
• Black, M. Razid; Taylor, Herbert (1980). Unscrambling the Cube. Burbank: Zephyr Engineering Design. ISBN 0-940874-03-2.
• Cairns, Colin; Griffiths, Dave (September 1979). "Teach yourself cube-bashing" (PDF). Cairns Families' Website. Demon. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
• Eidswick, Jack (1981). Rubik's Cube Made Easy. Culver City, Calif: Peace Press. ISBN 0-915238-52-7.
• Harris, Dan (2008). Speedsolving the Cube: Easy-to-follow, Step-by-Step Instructions for Many Popular 3-D Puzzles. New York: Sterling Pub. ISBN 978-1-4027-5313-8.
• McKinney, Todd (7 April 2008). "Photo: Blue-bik's cube". The University Record Online. The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
• Nourse, James G. (1981). The Simple Solution to Rubik's Cube. New York: Bantam. ISBN 0-553-14017-5.
• Taylor, Don; Rylands, Leanne (1981). Cube Games: 92 Puzzles & Solutions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0-03-061524-0.
• Taylor, Donald E. (1981). Mastering Rubik's Cube: The Solution to the 20th Century's Most Amazing Puzzle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0-03-059941-5.

Three books removed

I noticed some books got immediately removed with the edit summary: "Removing three, already being used as references". I was a little confused at this since a Further Reading section is "to help interested readers learn more about the article subject." It is true that one shouldn't try to duplicate the content of the References section, but WP:FURTHER says "unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." Pasicles (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that exception is something that has been added since I last looked. Thanks for pointing out to me that the guideline has changed. Feel free to put the items back if you think that it applies here. SpinningSpark 17:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for that. Well, I'll put one book back for now: the "Handbook of Cubic Math", since that still seems to be the main introductory text for Rubik's Cube mathematics. That other maths book in the section: "Mathematics of the Rubik's Cube Design", whatever it is about, seems to be a book that's very hard to find. Pasicles (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016

Please change the statement on the top to the statement on the bottom. MoYu/YJ is one of the most popular and highly esteemed brands in the world.

Today, the patents have expired and many Chinese companies produce copies of, and in some cases improvements upon, the Rubik and V-Cube designs. The most popular are Bao Daqing's (包大庆) DaYan (大雁, literally Great Goose) company, which produces the GuHong (孤鸿, lit. Lone Swan Goose), ZhanChi (展翅, lit. Spreading Wings) and now PanShi (磐石, lit. Solid Rock) models, amongst others. They are often preferred over the originals by expert speed cubers because of their ease of movement.[16]

Today, the patents have expired and many Chinese companies produce copies of, and in some cases improvements upon, the Rubik and V-Cube designs. The most popular are Bao Daqing's (包大庆) DaYan (大雁, literally Great Goose) company, which produces the GuHong (孤鸿, lit. Lone Swan Goose), ZhanChi (展翅, lit. Spreading Wings) and now PanShi (磐石, lit. Solid Rock) models, and the MoYu/YJ company, which produces the Aolong V2, the Aolong GT, and the YueXiao, amongst others. They are often preferred over the originals by most speed cubers because of their ease of movement.[16] TheGoldenParadox (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You will need to supply a reference from a reliable source to support that. - Richfife (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you want me to support. It is a fact that MoYu/YJ exists and has created these cubes. Here is their Facebook page to prove it. https://www.facebook.com/yjmoyu — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoldenParadox (talk • contribs)

Nobody is questioning their existence. The issue is that a reliable source, independent of the company making them, needs to be supplied that confirms the significance of these cubes. The company's own Facebook page is not sufficient. SpinningSpark 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I do not know what is a reliable source though. Social media is not, but maybe Amazon is? Here is an Amazon page to prove it. Its description says clearly that MoYu is a very popular brand. http://www.amazon.com/D-FantiX-Aolong-Stickerless-Enhanced-Version/dp/B00Q094SIU

I hope you approve my request.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC) TheGoldenParadox (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Now, I'll just do it myself.(with the Amazon link, of course)TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If a site is selling something (amazon, thecubicle, ebay), then it's almost certainly not something that can be used as a reference. Honestly, I think you should just let this go. - Richfife (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if that particular brand is very popular or not, but if it is, it should be mentioned. Perhaps interviews of competing speed-cubers, if any journalist ever asked that type of question, or perhaps surveys done by the WCA, would be relevant. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the person wishing to add the material to provide such sources. SpinningSpark 12:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How about the fact that the world record for 3 x 3 speedcubing was set using a MoYu cube? Is that "reliable" enough proof of their worth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noledj (talk • contribs) 11:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I am extremely sorry for adding that part. I was a new user then with almost no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Now that I understand Wikipedia more, I cannot believe that I ever thought that Amazon was a reliable source. I hope you forgive me.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations

There is no citation for the following chart:

Top 5 solvers by single solve

Name	Fastest solve	Competition
Feliks Zemdegs	4.73s	POPS Open 2016
Mats Valk	4.74s	Jawa Timur Open 2016
Lucas Etter	4.90s	River Hill Fall 2015
Hyo-Min Seo (서효민)	4.94s	Korean Championship 2016
Keaton Ellis	5.09s	River Hill Fall 2015

Top 5 solvers by average of 5 solves

Name	Fastest solve	Competition
Feliks Zemdegs	6.45s	WLS Lato 2016
Sebastian Weyer	6.81s	German Nationals 2016
Mats Valk	6.83s	POPS Open 2016
Lucas Etter	7.05s	Mason Cubing Challenge 2016
Seung Hyuk Nahm (남승혁)	7.06s	Valentine in Daegu 2016

SHould I delete this information, or else try to provide a reliable source?TheGoldenParadox (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Definite article

Does anyone besides user:TheGoldenParadox think that this article needs the definite article? SpinningSpark 12:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry about adding the definite article "The," I thought it was a good idea at the time but then other Wikipedians argued well on the subject of adding "The," and I realized my mistake. This was the seond time I reverted it. However, before I could change it back to "Rubik's Cube", it was already changed. I am extremely sorry for this mistake. TheGoldenParadox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Dialect change

This page appears to be written in British English. Is there a reason for this choice? The extraordinarily high incidence of words like "colour" and "centre" makes BE a strange dialect to choose for this article as most readers will be confronted so frequently with an unfamiliar spelling.

What are the objections to changing the Dialect to American English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.51.174 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are asking for a system-wide change of policy for the English Wikipedia. The best place to make a case for it is at the Manual of Style talk page. - Richfife (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that "color" and "center" look just as strange to people more used to British spelling. The rule that covers this is WP:ENGVAR. Short version: "If the article is about something American or British (or Irish or Canadian, etc.), use that variety of English. If it isn't, use whatever variety of English the first major contributor used." Since the R cube, which was invented by a Hungarian, isn't American or British (or Australian or Scottish), we keep the article the way it is. But yes, if you got consensus among contributors that this specific article is somehow better in American than British English, you'd be allowed to change it, but it looks six to one half a dozen to the other to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm against it. The two dialects are equally valid and unless the writer is intentionally trying to be obscure, there's no reason that the reader shouldn't educate themselves on the words and spelling being used. If you can round up support from native British speakers, then I'll be willing to revisit. - Richfife (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"most readers will be confronted...with an unfamiliar spelling." Most readers are not American. There are 1.7 billion people on the Indian sub-continent (many times the population of the US) where English is used as a lingua franca and British spelling is commonly used. SpinningSpark 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should 'formalise' the issue with a 'use British English' template? 220 of ^Borg 04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On the actual article I meant. I note that there is a 'British English' template at the top of this talk page, and the issue has been mentioned before as long ago as 2006. [1] --220 of ^Borg 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Visible templates should only be used on the article when there is a problem that needs fixing. This is not such a case. However, there are {{Use British English}} and {{Use British (Oxford) English}} (I haven't checked which one this article is) which are hidden templates to aid scripts that do spellchecking. SpinningSpark 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

They're the template/s I meant. 220 of ^Borg 09:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the English Wikipedia should use American English, and there should be a new Wikipedia that uses British English. However, this is just an opinion. I think the best thing to do is make a poll to actually ask users.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Why limit ourselves to British and American English? Let's also have a Canadian, an Australian, a New Zealander, a South African... Wait... Let's have one for every State of the US, every time there is a subtle variations of language, new version... Dhrm77 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Because most states use American English, and most countries use British English.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) But I also see your point. I agree with SpinningSpark that most readers aren't American.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My sarcastic point (which wasn't aimed at you in particular) was that instead of fighting about if the dialect should be British, American or some other flavor, we should all (and I mean ALL people of the world) aim to adopt a common language such as Esperanto, that doesn't have the flaws and awkwardness of every other languages of the world that "evolved" naturally to the point that they need an awful amount of rules to justify their insane spelling, grammar or pronunciation. A language should be a tool to communicate, not a barrier to prevent people from communicating, and not an aim in itself (see grammar nazis). A language should be simple, logical, easy to learn, with no exceptions, so that we spend less time learning it and more time learning other more interesting things like solving rubik's cubes. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That is asking for a system-wide policy change for the WORLD! Many people are struggling to learn just one language, and ~775,000,000 people around the world cannot read or write. Much of the world is focused on getting two meals a day, and you have to have different languages for different economies. Right now, it is going to be really hard to create a wroldwide language. And if it is, it is probably going to be Mandarin Chinese, as there are about 1 billion people that speak it as a primary language. TheGoldenParadox (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

"Relevance and application of mathematical group theory"

This article neglects to mention that the creation of a game or toy was a secondary consideration. Rubik's point was to physically embody principles of group theory in a manner that could be easily visualized. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

...

Hello,

This paragraph under "Trademarks" is now incorrect:

Rubik's Brand Ltd. also holds the registered trademarks for the word Rubik and Rubik's and for the 2D and 3D visualisations of the puzzle. The trademarks have been upheld by a ruling of the General Court of the European Union on 25 November 2014 in a successful defence against a German toy manufacturer seeking to invalidate them. However, European toy manufacturers are allowed to create differently shaped puzzles that have a similar rotating or twisting functionality of component parts such as for example Skewb, Pyraminx or Impossiball.[43] On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over a key trademark issue. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice ruled that the puzzle's shape was not sufficient to grant it trademark protection.[44]

It should read:

On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over the black and white 3D grid trademark. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice set aside the ruling of the General Court of the European Union, the trademark invalidation case was sent back to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which ruled that the puzzle function could be inferred from the trademark protection. Rubik’s are appealing this decision and there are other forms of intellectual property protection such as passing off, copyright, 3D colour trademarks and 2D figurative trademarks all protecting the visualisation of the Rubik's Cube and also numerous word trademarks in existence.

Thanks,

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris6409 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

Hi,

This paragraph is inaccurate:

"Non-human solving: The current non-human time record is for Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887 second solving time using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm."

It should be:

Non-human solving: The current non-human time record is for Sub1, a robot made by Albert Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887 second solving time using a ShieldBuddy TC275 Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm.

Thanks! Mbeachhitex (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: This is not an immediately-obvious improvement to me. Izno (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you want to improve. Would you please provide a citation?TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017

Hi, The world record for the 3x3 single is inaccurate. The current official record for 3x3 is by Patrick Ponce and is 4.693 seconds. It was broken on 9/2/17 at Rally In The Valley 2017. Feliks Zemdegs currently holds the #2 position for 3x3 single, please update the chart for 3x3 world record single to this.

Thanks,

Tai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai Phan (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Optimal maximum number of moves to solve equation query

In the article it states that a cube of size n×n×n can be optimally solved in Θ(n² / log(n)), or in other words "as much as" the n-squared divided by log n.

When I do that relatively simple calculation for a 3×3x3 cube, I don't get the expected answer of 20 (which has apparently been worked out by Google and some very clever people, and considered optimal as there is supposedly a set of starting conditions that need at least 20 moves), but 18.836 - 3² being 9, and log(3) being 0.4771.

Obviously, 18.836 ≠ 20. So, have I done something glaringly wrong, or is there an error or bit of fudging in the formulae (or article)?

FWIW this makes the lowest bound of maximum predicted moves-to-solve for a 2×2×2 cube = 13.288, a 4×4×4 cube = 26.575, and a 5×5×5 cube = 35.767, with the largest produced 17×17×17 cube = 234.874 and the theoretical 22×22×22 model = 360.542. Obviously the decimals are a bit ridiculous, so we can instead say it progresses 14, 19, 27, 36 ... 235, 361.

It does at least, however, work in a sensible fashion for a 1×1×1 cube, giving an answer of zero moves (!) in order to solve it. Which is self evident, given that no "moves" are actually possible, and the cube is always solved.

trivia - did you know that the special symbols like × and ♥ appear to take up 3 bytes/ASCII character spaces, not the expected 2 of Unicode, at least when inserted into the edit summary? Maybe it's a UTF8 thing or something? 51.7.49.61 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That isn't meant to give you exact answers, see Big O notation. It expresses the way size of the solution grows with n, not the actual numerical size of the solution. Nobody curently knows the exact size of the maximum optimal solution for the higher order cubes. SpinningSpark 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2017

Change X to Y

X "On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over a key trademark issue. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice ruled that the puzzle's shape was not sufficient to grant it trademark protection.[44]"

Y "On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over the black and white 3D grid trademark.[44] The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice set aside the ruling of the General Court of the European Union, the trademark invalidation case was sent back to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which ruled that the puzzle function could be inferred from the trademark protection. Rubik’s are appealing this decision and there are other forms of intellectual property protection such as passing off, copyright, 3D colour trademarks and 2D figurative trademarks all protecting the visualization of the Rubik's Cube and also numerous word trademarks in existence." Chris6409 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The included source cited, the Guardian article supports the first sentence but not the requested extended content. I see no single source that can cover the multiple claims concerning the life of this trademark dispute. If you are aware of one, please add it here or provide the other sources necessary to substantiate this history. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rubik's Cube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20090212000345/http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2657 to http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2657
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216125521/http://www.patents.jp/Archive/20030210-02.pdf to http://www.patents.jp/Archive/20030210-02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422104222/http://ny1.com/content/top_stories/93988/toy-fair-kicks-off-at-javits-center/Default.aspx to http://www.ny1.com/Content/Top_Stories/93988/toy-fair-kicks-off-at-javits-center/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

There are a few new records for the fastest non-human-solving time. The current one is 0.38 seconds (http://build-its-inprogress.blogspot.nl/2018/03/the-rubiks-contraption.html).

This beats the old time of 0.637 seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1b6iPYj3YQ)

That time beats the entry that is currently in the Wikipedia page.

Could the current entry for the fastest non-human-solving time be updated from 0.887 by the Sub1 bot, to 0.38 seconds by the Rubik's Contraption? And add the previous (0.637) record after that?

So change this:

The fastest non-human Rubik's Cube solve was performed by Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887-second solving time using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm. Next record is 3.25 seconds, set by CubeStormer III, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S4.[86] This beats the prior 5.27 seconds, set by CubeStormer II, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S2.[87] This had in turn broken the previous record of 10.69 seconds, achieved by final year computing students at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia in 2011.[88]

to this:

The fastest non-human Rubik's Cube solve was performed by the Rubik's Contraption, a robot made by Ben Katz and Jared Di Carlo. A YouTube video shows a 0.38-second solving time using an Nucleo with the min2phase algorithm. Next record is 0.637 seconds, set by Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.637 second solving time. This improves the robot's old record: 0.887 seconds, performed using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm. Next record is 3.25 seconds, set by Cubestormer III, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S4.[86] This beats the prior 5.27 seconds, set by CubeStormer II, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S2.[87] This had in turn broken the previous record of 10.69 seconds, achieved by final year computing students at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia in 2011.[88] 87.195.247.180 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (Please read the guideline on reliable sources if in doubt as to what constitutes one. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43331049 Judith Sunrise (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@ user:Rivertorch - can you hav a look at this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Sunrise (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

This bullet point is inaccurate.

• Multiple blindfolded solving, or "multi-blind", in which the contestant solves any number of cubes blindfolded in a row (No longer a WCA event)
  

should be changed to

• Multiple blindfolded solving, or "multi-blind", in which the contestant solves any number of cubes blindfolded in a row

2600:1700:C280:8E10:C0F3:21E:4785:E29D (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Variation: Rectangular Cuboids instead of cubes.

Variation: Rectangular Cuboids instead of cubes.

I recently acquired a Rubik's cube like puzzle with Rectangular Cuboids of varying sizes instead of colours.

It seems that this sort of puzzle should be mentioned in the Variations section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Catch (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC) 

Already covered, in the sentence "There are also puzzles that change shape such as Rubik's Snake and the Square One.". Incidentally, the illustrated puzzle is called the "Bump Cube" or "Mirror Cube". — Korax1214 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

Please add an area in the "Competitions and Records" section (section 7) to cover robotic speedcubing, as for some reason this is not currently present. I will list all the references needed below, followed by some suggested sample text at the end of this message. First, the references:

Here are two articles on the most recent record set in this area, a solve in 0.38 seconds:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/07/this-robot-can-solve-a-rubiks-cube-in-38-seconds/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/homemade-robot-smashes-rubiks-cube-record-with-0-38-second-solve/

Here is a link to the previous record, a solve in 0.64 seconds (this previous record is also referenced in the second article above):
https://www.livescience.com/56828-robot-sets-rubiks-cube-world-record.html

All the technical details of the new record-holder's Rubik's Cube solving robot can be see at these two blog entries of the creator's personal / project blogs:
http://build-its-inprogress.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-rubiks-contraption.html
http://blog.cactus.zone/2018/03/rubiks-solver-software.html

Finally, here is my suggested sample text to add to the Wikipedia article under section 7, "Competitions and Records". I am putting this text in bold to distinguish it from my previous text, but it should be formatted just like the rest of the page:

Robotic Speedcubing

Robotic solutions to solving Rubik's Cubes have resulted in multiple robots which can solve the cube (including imaging, determining a solution, and then making the appropriate moves) in less than a second. The designers of the two most recent record holding robots are:

Ben Katz and Jared Di Carlo, MIT - 0.38 seconds
Albert Beer, Infineon - 0.64 seconds

See the linked to articles for more information on these robotic speedcubing records. RiTides (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh, Ben Katz and Jared Di Carlo are mentioned in the "Records" section. Judith Sunrise (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Judith, although I think the additional references / information I posted here would be helpful. Since it's not a simple copy/paste change, I can make this update myself next week. RiTides (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Appears to have been done. Fish+Karate 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Please add a citation to the speed cubing methods to Lars Petrus' site that shows his solution. Just like there is one for the Roux Method.

<ref name=larspatrus>{{cite web|url=https://lar5.com/cube/ |title=Rubik's Cube Solution - Petrus Method |publisher=lar5.com |accessdate=8 November 2018}}</ref>

195.81.168.216 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We unprotected page~!

We’re unprotected the page right now ~! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8937:2126:468:9B09:4946:A8F3 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019

Change

Rubik's Cube in scrambled state

to

Rubik's Cube in scrambled state

This is to correct the colour of the scrumbled Rubik's cube image to be consistent with the colour of the solved-state cube (the first image in the article). Imk3nnyma (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Both pictures are the standard colour scheme. Judith Sunrise (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(reply to the above message): In the old scrambled cube picture, the red tiles are almost pink and the blue are very light, compared to the rest images which have dark red and blue tiles.

 Done AdA&D 23:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

2.30.166.128 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

People in the cubing community sometimes calls this cube the "Nice Rubric". Please may I add this to one of the names.

No, -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"... and the red, white, and blue are arranged in that order in a clockwise arrangement"

Since the location of each color relative to the others is given, this statement seems unnecessary. But if someone feels it is necessary, then it needs to be further qualified. The statement is ONLY true if one of these three color is placed on top, with those three colors facing the viewer. In any other orientation, the arrangement of red, white, and blue is NOT necessarily clockwise.

Should probably be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ex mars cube

Robotick rubik's cube. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Update outdated record

The article states "Highest order physical n×n×n cube solving: Douglas Shamlin Jr. solved a 17x17x17 in fifty two minutes and fifteen seconds". However, this is now outdated and should be updated as Jeremy Smith was able to solve the 17x17 in 45:59.40, as seen here --TheThatLucas (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mechanism

The introduction refers to the Rubik's cube as having an "internal pivot mechanism." This is kind of confusing. Should it be clarified in the introduction? Timato24 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A similar mechanism is used for science to enable different combinations of handling microfluid. TGCP (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there some rationale behind cube vs. Cube in the article? If so, I am finding it hard to detect, so please feel free to explain it to me! A WP:MOS reference as to why it should be one, or the other (or both??) would be most welcome too. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DBaK. if a word is a noun, you need to write the first letter is Capital form. If it is not a noun, then the first letter should be in small form. So, since the word cube is a noun, it should be written as Cube. Also, if you look at the article about the Rubik's Cube, the word cube is always written as Cube. So, You have to write cube as Cube. Hope it helped! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Cuber (talk • contribs)

@Anonymous Cuber: English does not generally write nouns in upper case, only proper nouns. "Rubik's Cube" is considered a proper noun so it's upper case. I think "Cube" or "cube" by itself depends on context with many unclear cases. If it's basically short for "Rubik's Cube" then it's sort of a proper noun and "Cube" seems natural. If it's used more as a normal word then "cube" seems more natural. I would have used "cube" more than the article currently does but English is my second language and I'm not making changes when it's unclear. If it's not about Rubik's Cube or another specific brand like in "other brands of cubes appeared" then it's definitely "cube". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

Hello, The mechanics section of the page "Rubik's Cube" has a maintenance template where it states that it needs further verification. I have been speedcubing for 1 year and I think that it is sufficient enough to improve this article. Thanks for reading. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please formulate your request as "please change X to Y." VQuakr (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Anonymous Cuber: Your account becomes autoconfirmed in two days so you can edit the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. And sorry for the inappropriate Question. I did not know that my account will be autoconfirmed and I had also asked a question about this in the Teahouse. Thanks again, and waiting to edit the Rubik's Cube article in 2 days. From- Anonymous Cuber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Cuber (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous Cuber – I have replaced the maintenance template as the situation with references in the Mechanics section is no better right now than it was. Please don't remove the notice until the section is well-referenced from reliable sources, which it is not at present. And, while we are are it, please please have a quick look at WP:ENGVAR and at the British English notice above, and don't change centre to center even though it is very tempting, I know! We do live and let live around here on spelling! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DBaK, Sorry for the inconvenience caused. But, I have to point out that you have added the word "cubelets". What I am trying to say here is that nobody uses the word cubelets in cubing. They often use the term "cubies". Please look into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Cuber (talk • contribs)

@Anonymous Cuber: Please sign your posts with ~~~~. A notification of another user only works if the edit is signed. I did the obvious thing to look into the matter: Make a Google search cubelets Rubik's Cube. It shows many people use "cubelets". What did you do to conclude nobody uses the term? If you just went with personal knowledge then please don't remove Wikipedia content merely because you haven't heard about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry a lot for the mistake that I have made. I have realized the problem. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Cuber (talk • contribs) 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous Cuber: Please sign your posts with ~~~~ without the code and nowiki tags.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also please preview your posts before publishing, by clicking the "Show preview" button and examining your text for correctness and appearance.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Updates for records: Single Put Ruihang Xu (许瑞航) (China) with a 4.06 sec time at Wuhan Open 2021 as the 2nd row Put Lukas Shelley (Denmark) with a 4.42 sec time at the Hangzhou PM Morning 2021 as the 7th row Remove Tanzer Balimtas's time

Average: Remove Leo Borromeo and Drew Brads Put Ruihang Xu (许瑞航) (China) with a 5.48 sec average at Wuhan Open 2021 with the times 5.48/5.52/5.45/4.06/7.51 in the 1st row Put Yezhen Han (韩业臻) (China) with a 5.57 sec average at Guangdong Open 2021 with the times 5.87/5.42/5.30/7.53/5.42 in the 3rd row Source for Lukas Shelley https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/rankings/333/single Source for Yezhen Han https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/rankings/333/average Sources for Ruihang Xu https://cubingchina.com/live/Wuhan-Open-2021#!/event/333/1/all FeliksZemdegsFan123 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove/Update Outdated Statistics

At the beginning of the article it is stated that "As of January 2009, 350 million cubes had been sold worldwide" however this is extremely old. I would suggest that this is either updated, or if not possible, removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVeryBadTypist (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It also states that it's the worlds best selling toy at 350 million. This is not true, as the Barbie Doll has sold well over 1 billion dolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.26.236 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Top 10 solvers by average of 5 solves changed. Tymon Kolasiński is now on the first place. Vereert (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kefortin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I love the references to covering the earth with Rubik's cubes or stacking cubes 261 light years high, however .....

... however, I'm disappointed that there isn't any verification that the numbers would add up and I'm not smart enough to figure it out for myself. I would like to use the analogy in things I'm writing but would like a better citation to use that just referencing this article. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:350B:FC57:5D61:625E (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Jack James

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

Change should be made to the average world record time:

• Change "Tymon Kolasiński of Poland at Cubers Eve Lubartów 2021" to Max Park of the United States at Bay Area Speedcubin' 29 PM 2022"

• Change "5.09 seconds" to "5.08 seconds" Ukutrsh (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pentangle

Do be aware that Pentangle was a very small company, and no large scale sales of the Magic Cube were envisaged - there was no plan for a mass market. Politechnika was not geared for it, and there were no mass sales or major impacts on mainstream pop culture in the UK caused by the Magic Cube. It would be wrong to infer that the UK was enjoying the Cube craze before the rest of the Western World. There simply were not the numbers of Cubes or the publicity. A guide to completing the Magic Cube was published in England by a small Norfolk publishing company in 1980.

(86.177.162.154 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC))

I'm not sure which guide you are referring to. In France, the magazine "Science & vie" published about 4 articles about the Rubik's cube in the 1980s. If my memory is correct, one was about God's number being 20, another had an algorithm to rotate 2 corners in 16 moves. I remember that detail clearly because I knew it wasn't optimal. By removing the 1st and last moves which cancelled each other, it could be done in 14 moves. I'm sure there was other articles in other publications around the same time. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

'A Simple Guide To The Magic Cube', by Bridget Last, published by Tarquin Publications of Diss, Norfolk, England, in 1980. It was a small publishing company - and the book is probably as rare as Pentangle-distributed Magic Cubes. I still have the book somewhere. You can see more about it via the link to my '80s Blog at the end. I also have one of the Hungarian Magic Cubes distributed by Pentangle, before the great renaming, remanufacturing and then the mass manufacturing of the Rubik's Cube in 1980. My Magic Cube is somewhat heavier and rather more delicate than the 1980 version.

https://80sactual.blogspot.com/2007/04/rubiks-cube.html

(86.177.162.154 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC))

I don't have any sales numbers. I learned about the "Magic Cube" from an article in one of the UK's big Sunday newspapers, the Observer and the Sunday Times, I think in 1980, and bought myself a couple of cubes from Pentangle. Some of my friends also bought cubes around then, and many of them knew what it was. While I have your attention − I would appreciate improvements to Draft:Pentangle puzzles.   Maproom (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your draft, instead of just saying "what would later become known as Rubik's Cube", if it was known as a "magic cube" earlier, perhaps it should be mentioned explicitly. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2023

ILikeem (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, All the advanced compananys like

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)