Jump to content

Talk:Rubik's Cube in popular culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed

[edit]

The following list was removed from the main Rubiks cube article. I was going to put them in here, but I notice it is now a well referenced article and none of this had references attached. SpinningSpark 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:Deathtrap imp.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. --09:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image and added informations about the film in the Movie section of this article. --Jaqen (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other References in Pop Culture

[edit]

The following pop culture references are not yet in the article:

Art

[edit]

Material removed from Rubik's cube article. I did not put it in the article because I am not convinced the references are RS, but I leave it to people here to judge. SpinningSpark 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large Rubik's Cube built on the University of Michigan's North Campus

Rubik’s cubes have, in recent, been the subject of several pop art installations. Owing to their popularity as a children’s toy several artists and groups have created large Rubik’s cubes.

All to flat [1] faced Tony Rosenthal’s Alamo (“The Astor Cube”) in New York City with cardboard to turn it in to a giant Rubik’s Cube. Similarly, the University of Michigan students covered Endover [2] creating a large Rubik’s cube on the University of Michigan’s central campus for April fool’s day in 2008. In conjunction with the 2008 April fool’s day cube covering, a student group created a large rotating non-functional Rubik’s cube for the University of Michigan’s North Campus. Built out of 600+ lbs. of steel, the cube was an entertaining addition to North Campus. Removed later the same semester, the cube reappeared in the fall of 2009 on the first day of classes. It was later removed, but in response to the cube, the university is planning on a permanent Rubki's Cube art installation on North Campus.

References

  1. ^ ref
  2. ^ ref

Why this should be focused on ART

[edit]

As should be obvious to anyone with the ability to think and reason, an obsessive exhaustive listing of every time someone fiddles with a Rubik's cube on TV or in a movie does not make for an encyclopedia article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it much better as a WP:IPC article, because that has a clear precedent for existence and relationship to the main article, as well as being a place where IPC references can be redirected from that article. Please do not continue to edit war against those who like it here. Rather, attempt to gain consensus for your as-yet-unaccepted changes before re-making them. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to larding down main articles with trivial garbage is to police the main article, not create a separate garbage dump article of "this one time this one dude played Rubik's cube in this one episode of this TV show". Even your beloved WP:IPC essay states "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject." Whereas the actual encyclopedic topic that can be gleaned here, the impact of the Rubik's cube on art, is drowned in a sea of "Brian played with a cube on Family Guy once" crap. So the choice is try to make this article something worthwhile, useful and encyclopedic, or keep it a steaming mass of junk because you like junk. Scores of "Foo in popular culture" articles have been deleted for being just this sort of manure pile. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining about the current contents of the article, but using that as a reason to change the scope of the article. Two separate questions. If you're arguing that popular culture isn't worthy of the same respect as art (whatever that is), well, that's an argument that's been dead for 60 years. I've been paring it back, but I'm not through. The current art section is easily as bloated as the old Movies section. - Richfife (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your "paring it back", do make sure to retrieve the citations you've deleted. While converting lists to prose is fine, dropping citations along the way is not. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean... "Such and such physical object appears in a this movie" doesn't need a citation: the movie is a reference to itself. - Richfife (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your revisions, you deleted at least six references, none of which appeared to be simply a reference to a primary source. What is that all about? Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just convert the lists to prose, I dropped some material outright. Tiger Woods putting a cube in a commercial, for instance. The references aren't needed any more. Anyway, the article the way it is is the what I propose, but I am open to others edits moving forward. - Richfife (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: A user (SDRitchey777) added material with a copyright notice a very long time ago that had gotten absorbed into the article in difficult to remove ways. I attempted to extract it as best I could. - Richfife (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was added to Rubik's Cubism here and later merged into this article. Since the copyright tag was added by the author, it appears to be invalid. I see no reason to excise it, but we can ask one of the copyright boards if you don't find it compelling. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not a fan of the content. It has a COI scent to it. I can only find one reliable reference (it's already in the article) about MacKinnon and the editor who added it did very little else. Seems like undue weight. - Richfife (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We get the fact you don't like any IPC content whatsoever. You're entirely entitled to think that. What you're not welcome to do is unilaterally discard others' contributions just because you don't like them. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No cube in Manhatten Project?

[edit]

I watched the film and did not see a cube in it. Maybe I missed it, however there is a scene where the smart boy solves another puzzle, the scientist dating his mother shows it to him at a dinner and the boy solves it while the scientist is in the middle of saying that one who could solve it within two minutes must be quite smart. I remove the reference to that movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.142.145 (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Thanks! WP:BOLD. - Richfife (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Edited "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" section

[edit]

Incomplete sentence and clumsy wording. Too much detail on peripheral subject. Users can click on inline link if they want details.

Original text:

In the film Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009), the lead character Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) while trying to slow the pharaoh character (Hank Azaria) from his quest of the secret code to the magical tablet, which would grant him total control over the world, told him the "Rubik's cube" was better. This trick worked as for a while the pharaoh seemed intrigued and distracted by what that "Rubik's cube" thing could be. Buddhafool (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) buddhafool —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber

[edit]

So, Justin Bieber can solve a cube in 2 minutes (and on TV at that).[1] This would seem to be a popculture topic about popularity and celebrity. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "20 May 2015". The Late Late Show with James Corden. 21 May 2015. CBS.

Rubik's cube in 1985 Soviet film

[edit]

I propose to add to the article the following info (probably in the copyedited form, I accept, that my English is horrible):

  • Rubik's Cube solution was featured in the 1985 Soviet TV mini series Gryadushchemu veku (Russian: Грядущему веку) in the fifth episode, which had been aired on the Soviet Central Television that year.

The film is available on Youtube, see the place in it I'm speaking about [1]. 88.118.123.255 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rubik%27s_Cube_in_popular_culture&oldid=1173695028"