Talk:Combination puzzle

Tower Cube was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 May 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Combination puzzle. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Forum

who from the twistypuzzles forum is this? just wondering 70.237.139.129 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

An alternative to merger into here is to cut out much of the material in Combination puzzles and merge into Magic polyhedron. Leave just a summary and a main article link in Combination puzzles which has become a little bloated. I am not against a merger into Combination puzzles exactly, just wanted to say that this is the way I would have done it when I created the Combination article if I had realised that the Magic polyhedron article existed. SpinningSpark 09:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these two articles should be merged. No opinion on how they should be merged, though.—Tetracube (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Square1 solved.JPG

The image Image:Square1 solved.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Void cube.

Void cube is currently in mass production. I wonder should we list it here and under which category? --Artman40 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's still a rubik's cube puzzle, only the appearance is different. Nigtv (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description Cleanup

A lot of the puzzle descriptions in this article contain unverifiable or irrelevant information. Specifically, many refer to alternate names, percieved difficulty, commercial value, quality of workmanship, among other things, that don't really seem to help describe the puzzles at all. I cleaned up some of the sentences that readlike comments or weren't verifiable, but it's still pretty messy. If anyone has a citation for any of these alternate names, please include it. Most of this information shouldn't be here, I think that may be a good place to start on the cleanup. Nigtv (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geared ones

Don't forget to write articles about: Geared pyraminx: http://www.mefferts.com/products/details.php?lang=en&category=13&id=590 and Geared cube: http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8110&start=30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacesblowlittle (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to lack of support; but suggest perhaps expanding a section of the article towards twisty puzzles and then perhaps forking that out to a new artcile eventually. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combination puzzle → Twisty Puzzle – The term "twisty puzzle" is the most commonly used descriptor. Arkanoid0 (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a good idea as the article stands since it includes puzzles which are not twisty puzzles. The article would need to be reworked first if it were to called twisty puzzle and then their is the question of what to do with the material that does not fit - we should put it somewhere, not just delete it. It would be simpler to reorganise the article with a twisty puzzle section. Also needs to conform to WP:NCCAPS. Spinning Spark 10:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the nominator present some evidence for his or her position. Twistypuzzles.com clearly uses the proposed form, but that doesn't tell us whether that's the WP:COMMONNAME or just one source's preference. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really dispute that "twisty puzzle" is a widely used term (84,000 ghits). It seems to be current amongst speed solvers - see this book source [1]. I also note we used to have a Magic polyhedron] article, which is the same subject, but it was redirected here. Perhaps twisty puzzle could be created and leave this article as an overview in summary style. Spinning Spark 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent removal of content - pattern variations

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: sorry for reverting you, I sympathise with your point, but your edits have some problems. First of all, it is not required that a puzzle be notable before it can be mentioned in this article. It only needs to be notable to have its own article. The Boob Cube can justifiably be included as an example of the lower extreme of the puzzle type. Melinda Green's 2D "cube" is not much more notable but is also an example of a lower extreme.

It's not such a bad idea to have the "Pattern variation" section in prose rather than a table. However, you left the section without any illustrations at all, which is a bad thing. I'm not against converting to prose, that would be a good thing. But it needs to be done with a bit more care and sympathy, and the plan should be to tackle the entire article like that, not just this one section. SpinningSpark 21:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but there has to be some sort of inclusion criteria. Otherwise, people could add literally anything they've heard of that might remotely fit. Some examples, especially ones that people can buy somewhere, are OK, but there isn't too much of a need to explore the possibilities beyond solid coloring. I have concerns about the rest of the article too, but this is a step-by-step process - one thing at a time (and I have other brushfires to deal with at the moment too, I can balance it all but this will take some time). I've noticed this topic area in general has a number of articles that suffer from notability issues, not to say they cannot be resolved but many of these topics do not, at present, seem notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other articles are not really relevant to this one. I would say the inclusion criteria should work like this: we should firt have prose that explains every major aspect of the subject. For each of these aspects, examples and images should be chosen that best exemplify that aspect. Notability of particular puzzles should only come into it if, after that process, a notable puzzle has found to be omitted and an addition should be made to mention it.

I think you are only talking about inclusion criteria at all because the tables give a list-like nature to the article. We would not be having this discussion if the article was structured more conventionally. Now I know you can point out that I created the article with that structure, but I won't defend it. I was an inexperienced editor then and I would do it very differently now, if indeed, I did it at all. SpinningSpark 23:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point isn't really who did what. I suppose, now that I think about it, if we could make it less "listy" and more prose, that would be nice, but I won't argue that point here. I'm approaching this sort of like I would a navbox: It's basically a roadmap that readers can logically follow. We have to take care because Wikipedia does not, and cannot, list every little thing that is relevant to the topic, and besides, before long we have a pretty good idea of what the article is getting at. There are some really explanatory examples and others that add nothing meaningful to the reader's understanding of the topic. I say only notable examples should be included because there are theoretically many candidates under the current circumstances (for example, I've been taking notes lately and I've found that just for cubic puzzles alone there are over six dozen possibilities; sure, most are proofs of concept that have yet to enter mass production, but I have a feeling I'm only scratching the surface here, and besides, they could enter mass production if the demand is deemed sufficient).

All that being said, I suppose we could be more liberal with it were we to split it off into its own article, leaving a hatnote here to lead readers to it. But for a table that is part of this article, not many examples are even needed. My concern about criteria is to limit the examples so that only the best, most helpful ones are shown, and explained in no more detail than is necessary. Leaving things as they are leaves the door open for people, especially well-intentioned newbies, to add things they think are relevant and/or helpful even when what they've added is neither. This sort of thing is the continual thorn in the side of "See also" sections. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Combination puzzle. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.puzzlemuseum.com/month/picm03/200301mcu.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723111931/http://www.mud.ca/puzzler/JPuzzler/JPuzzler.html to http://www.mud.ca/puzzler/JPuzzler/JPuzzler.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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) 12:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combination puzzle. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5UYayN0d5?url=http://www.puzzlemuseum.com/month/picm03/200301mcu.htm to http://www.puzzlemuseum.com/month/picm03/200301mcu.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing images

There are some missing images in the table where there currently are blank cells. Won't that confuse readers? We should put them in. Commuter3 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need someone to upload free images to Commons before we can put them in. If you have any of these puzzles, then please do upload images. SpinningSpark 12:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing non-notable cubes

Seeking consensus before removing Gear cubes, geranium, magic ball, slim tower and other cuboids in the same cell, extended cubes, boob cube, crazy cubes, over the top, calendar cube, fooler cube, junior cube, rubiks cube for the blind, magic cube, bandaged cubes, gigaminx, barrel cube and diamond cube.

I cannot find any reliable references that mention any of them.

I plan on removing any non-notable cubes which have main articles as well, but I'll propose them at AfD.

@Dhrm77 Pinging you since you might be interested. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the puzzles you removed are significantly different from the other ones. For instance the Crazy cubes are far more complex than regular cubes. And the added complexity, not the potential mention on some websites, makes them notable. I tried to restore most of the significant ones, and kept some of your removals. That's a compromise, perhaps not the best. In my opinion, a lot more puzzles are created every year, and should probably be added. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]