Talk:Speedcubing/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Art"

In the introduction, and in the "History" section, speedcubing is being referred to as an "art". Is this the most accurate term to use? Would "activity", or "sport", be more appropriate? I'm leaving it as "art" for the time being, as I'm not sure what I think is best -- what do you all think? --Twilightsojourn 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (just fixed a few typos in my comment --Twilightsojourn 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

I think I wrote that, and I was thinking more in the terms of 'martial art' then 'picture art'. I realize at this point in time speedcubing with all it's media attention and competitions is seen by the general public more as a sport, so yes, let it be sport. Consider that 'cupstacking'/'speedstacking' as of a couple of months ago also renamed themselves to 'sportstacking', in order to get a better recognition. -- Blonkm 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew you meant it not as graphical art, but more like "the art of cooking", or something like that. I didn't know that speedstacking had changed their name to "sportstacking", although I don't think speedcubing's classification should be based solely on that bit of news. "Sport" does work, however, as does "practice", I think ("Speedcubing is the practice of solving a Rubik's Cube . . ."). It's hard to find the appropriate terminology, because so many of the words have somewhat loaded meanings and associations. So I'm still not sure what to do. :-) --Twilightsojourn 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then, but I'll change it to activity. The loaded meanings I think are:

• sport - it's an 'official', e.g. Olympic, sport. This is not the case.
• art - it requires creativity. Not. It can be done by following rules, however becoming a top speedcuber does require creativity, as does everything.
• practice - does sound like it is less than a hobby, more like a necessary thing.
• activity - same here, but slightly better, could be a hobby as well. Since it is used for the sport stacking page, let's keep things consistent. Ok, I think that's enough rambling over one word! -- Blonkm 12:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, this seems to conflict with the martial art term. That doesn't have to have creativity either. Ummonk 22:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhauled

I just went ahead and rewrote much of the article, cleaning up a lot of the typographical, grammatical, and factual errors, making terms, spellings, etc. more consistent. I added a "See also" section, re-worded many of the external links (deleting a few I thought shouldn't have been there, and adding one or two I thought were relevant), and alphabetized the "Terminology" section. I essentially rewrote every section of the article, adding more information, reorganizing the way it was presented, and making it easier to read (especially to those who aren't already familiar with much of the information presented here).

What do you think? I worked hard on this, and I hope it helped! Let me know what you think of the new look of the article. (Also -- how does one have the cleanup notice re-evaluated?)

Thanks! --Twilightsojourn 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One word or two?

While both spellings of the term ("speed cubing" and "speedcubing") are listed as valid in the article, I feel that "speedcubing" (one word) is used more frequently, at least within the cubing community. What do you think about changing the name of the article to reflect this (but still having both spellings redirect to the article)? --Twilightsojourn 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original entry for speedcubing and spelled it as such. Later I noticed it was changed (by a bot?) to speed_cubing. I know from the community that the no-space version is preferred, but in proper English words should be separated (door knob, not doorknob). In fact, I am Dutch and in Dutch we do say 'deurknop' for door knob, as is done in German. But we also refer to speed cubing as speedcubing, since we don't have our own word for it. Anyway I am rambling, but we should definitely make it one word, and hope the WikiGods of Spelling won't object. -- Blonkm 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's an interesting point. I know from my experiences, as well, that the one-word version seems to be the one that is preferred (I know that I certainly prefer it). That's strange, about how you had originally written the title as one word, and it was changed. The earliest edit of the page that I can find, however, has it written as two words -- so I'm not sure how it happened, either.

I think we should wait for a little bit longer to see if others reply to this question, but if they don't, I agree that we should change it to be one word. Do you know how to change the title? And to adjust the varying re-directions to this article accordingly? I would want to make sure that both the one- and two-word versions will lead people to this article, and that all links to this article from other articles will still work properly. Thanks! --Twilightsojourn 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the title to one word, and adjusted the intro sentence accordingly. If there are any problems with this, make sure to post it here, and we can fix them! --Twilightsojourn 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

I placed a comment on the Talk page of the person whose bot most recently updated the cleanup tag on this page, but I haven't gotten a response yet. What do you all think about removing the tag? If I don't hear any objections in the next few days, I think I'll go ahead and remove it. --Twilightsojourn 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I´d say remove the silly Tag. Why is it even there? This is a fine article. Cleanup was a good job too. I´d like to see a bit more discussion on the pro´s and con´s of the various methods, what are the pro´s using etc. But that is for another day. Sander123 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll leave it up for another day or two, to see if anyone else has thoughts on the matter, and if they don't, then I'll go ahead and remove it. And I'll be adding some more info to the article later, once I have time to write it up properly. :-) --Twilightsojourn 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can expand a little bit on the methods sections, which I wrote anyway. I think it would be a good idea to make a short classification of method types. There is corners first (e.g. Waterman, Ortega), Layer by layer (e.g. Singmaster and Fridrich), Block first (e.g. Petrus and Roux). See methods

About the cleanup: I don't know why people keep adding links to the external links section. This is a reason to get the cleanup link everytime. I stripped it down to about 4 links, and now there are over 10 again. Please, people! Blonkm 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion about the different methods types is a good one. If I have time, I'll do it soon, but otherwise, I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with!

I don't think the external links section is too overloaded, but I can see a few that could be taken off. I think the first four (speedcubing.com, WCA-approved records, Fridrich, and Petrus) should stay, as well as the Yahoo! group and the Rubik's Cube Wiki. The documentary isn't a bad link to have, as I think it lends further credibility to the subject. As much as I like Jess and Dan H.'s pages (and them as people, too), those links might be taken down, along with Chris's page. What do you think about the competition tutorial, though (along with everything else I've said)? --Twilightsojourn 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree. Personal pages should not be on wikipedia, however important you as a person in the speedcubing community are. So goodbye Dan, Jess and Chris! And delete the tutorial as well, there are a lot of those tutorials on the web and it's nothing official. If this page was just about speedcubing competitions it would be relevant enough. Blonkm 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that personal pages are not out of the question (after all, aren't the pages of Lars and Jessica personal pages?), but I since we seem to agree on this, I went ahead and removed those links. I must say, it looks a lot better! If people have other opinions, though, post them, and we can revert/change as necessary. --Twilightsojourn 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the cleanup tag, as it has been almost two weeks, and it doesn't appear that there are any objections. Please feel free to put it back up again if you feel it is necessary, and we can continue the discussion here as to how to fix the article up enough to remove it. Otherwise, what do you think about it having being removed? --Twilightsojourn 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New image

I went ahead and put a new image up, as I thought that the one we had, while it was nice, was not really an adequate example of speedcubing (as it was just an image of a cube with one side stopped after an eighth of a turn). What do you think? I have a few more that we might use, if you don't really like this one -- I just thought this one might work well. I'd love to hear your thoughts, though! --Twilightsojourn 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

References?

There seems to be something funky going on with the references here -- I've noticed it on other pages, too (though not all). It seems that the references have been doubled, so that all citations are starting with the second set, making it look like there is no footnote #1, etc., and that the first footnote is instead #5. I don't think I'm being very articulate in trying to explain this, but if you take a look at the citations, you should see what I mean. How can we fix this? --Twilightsojourn 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology section

Just wanted to create a place to talk about the editing I just did to the Terminology section. Someone put a lot of work in there, and it was certainly appreciated. However, there was a lot of information that was making that section overly long, and that I felt didn't really belong in a general article about speedcubing. I removed several of the entries, and edited down many of the others. I didn't want it to look like the work wasn't appreciated, or that I had simply reverted what had been written -- this is not the case. Quite to the contrary, I went through the section carefully, weighing what I thought worked and didn't work, removing what I felt didn't belong, and editing/tweaking what seemed fit to stay. Additional input is certainly fine, and this is a space where it would be best to discuss changes related to that edit. Thanks, Twilightsojourn 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked what Doug wrote, and it looked fine, besides some incrowd mistakes (like mentioning algs instead of algorithms). I think the glossary should be as glossaries generally come: just mentioning what the abbreviation or term means. A more detailed explanation can be either linked to the cube wiki outside of wikipedia, or we could decide to create another page on wikipedia about that term. Take e.g. CLL; we could write lots of pages about CLL!! So an important question is: how much detail do you write in an encyclopedia? --Blonkm 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good question. I feel like there shouldn't be too extensive a glossary in the main article, as it isn't really conducive to an understanding of what speedcubing is. A short terminology section might be fine, but I was thinking that perhaps creating a separate article for terminology (either in Wikipedia or in the Cube Wiki) might be a better move -- the main article won't feel like it is becoming a list of facts/definitions, and the information (which is important) will have a place of its own. I won't go ahead and do this yet, but I really think that it would be a good idea. Right now, it is feeling less like an encyclopaedia article, and more like a speedcubing dictionary (again, which is valuable, just not in the main article). --Twilightsojourn 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever. I was hoping someone would go in and refine what I put in. I basically used some material I collected after consulting a few other cubers such as Bob and Macky. This is the way wikipedia was meant to be used. I am not at all offended or in objection. Although I don't think the changes I made where significant, most of the time I just go fix typos and stuff. There are ppl that regularly write entire articles. Although I do believe that the term "alg/algs" should be included since it has become such a popular term that at competitions (in the States at least), people freqently use the abbreviation in speech. It may also be the case that certain terms have caught on more in the States than in other places in the world. I'd also like to point out that terminology changes over time, and although some terms are being depreciated I feel it is best to include them. I can add like 100 more entries to terminology, but it seems to be fine as is. I guess we could have a link to a separate page that gives a much more extensive collection, and I would be willing to contribute to that. I have been a speedcuber for a little over 8 years now so I do consider myself qualified for such a thing. Some help in revising and condensing it would be welcome since I can be overly zealous sometimes. DougCube 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sport infobox

two things, firstly does anyone know of any motto for speedcubing? i dont think there is any but jsut wanted to check to make sure. Secondly when do you think the date of foundation should be? possibillities include

• 1974 (invention of the cube)
• 1980 (introduced to Europe/US)
• 1982 (first official competition)
• 2004 (WCA foundation although this is probably too late)

ive put it as 1980 because that when the cube "took off"

Thatperson 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

any suggestions would be gretly appriciated

Thanks for your effort on this! I have to wonder, however, why there is an infobox for this at all. If one goes to the entries for other sports, there are no such infoboxes. In addition, many of the statistics/facts are either inaccurate or, at least, incomplete. I would prefer to eliminate to box altogether -- what do other people think? --Twilightsojourn 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a response, so I'm going to go ahead and delete it. If this raises problems, let's talk about it here. --Twilightsojourn 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cube used for speedcubing

Do speedcubers just use a standard Rubik's Cube or is there a nicer (more expensive) version produced that most use. Not sure if this is a dumb question, but I was curious about this and think it might be worth mentioning in the article either way. wubb 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It tends to depend on the speedcubist. Different people have different speedcubing styles, which also lends itself to different preferences regarding the physical cubes. Technically, there is more than one variant of the official Rubik's Cube (which just about everyone uses -- I don't know of any speedcubists who use non-official 3x3x3 cubes), depending when it was made. For example, some of the cubes that were made back in the 1980s, in Rubik's Hungarian studio, are considered by some to be superior to any cubes that have been made more recently, due to the way the internal springs are set up, etc. Many people dislike the newer official variants, as they stopped using screws to tighten the axes, which meant that they were less customizable (with regards to tuning the screws, and therefore the tension of the central axes and the relative looseness of the layers) than the older ones. However, since speedcubing has started to see a resurgence, the Rubik's brand has started making a special cube for speedcubers, which brings back the customizability. From what I know, that model has had a positive reaction in the speedcubing community.

I hope that helps! Let us know if you have more questions. --Twilightsojourn 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Do you know where I can find info about the special cube? I don't think I'd want to buy one, but I would be interesting in reading up on it or seeing how much it runs in relation to the standard issue. wubb 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Different speedcubers have different cubing styles and preferences, and many cubers use brands other than Rubik's that have different mechanisms. Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

heise method?

can you please add the heise method? i was told it was unique in not requiring any memorization.--Sonjaaa (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The heise method is an advanced block-building method that only a few people master. Swedishcuber (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

Would anyone mind if I split the terminology section off into a new article? Paiev^Discuss! 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great idea - I was thinking of starting a terminology section myself. You should link to it in the template when you are done.Spinningspark (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Corners First

Currently corners-first solutions are less common among speedsolvers, though popular solutions for the 2x2x2 are based on these methods.

Surely any solution to the 2x2x2 has to be corners first. It is all corners!

Spinningspark (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, agreed. The sentence just needs to be tweaked a little.74.58.215.201 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (not by me).74.58.215.201 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures are stupid

"As can be seen from these two pictures, often the cube will be manipulated very quickly."

The pictures have been taken with a low shutter speed to GIVE THE IMPRESSION that he's moving quickly. The guy could be moving the cube very slowly, but you can just make it look like he's super-fast by using a very slow shutter speed. Honestly, I find this ridiculous.74.58.215.201 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pictures' captions changed to reflect the fact that blurring does not indicate speed. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad info

"Permute : Swap or cycle two or more pieces."

Not possible, you have to swap (1+1)+(1+1) pieces (double 2-cycle) or cycle at least three, it may look like a single 1+1 swap on even cubes but then it is because a qurater turn is missing if it is a 2x2 and on lager cubes because the other two pices that are swaped are center pices of the same colour = it does not show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.240.136 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I have changed the definition to "To relocate certain pieces in a way to achieve a desired result." I have also improved the definition of orienting. Feel free to change either if you know better definitions. Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Petrus method considered by some people

This should be replaced by something like: "is considered to be more intuitive because you only 3 algorithms need to be memorized to solve the cube in the last steps" —82.113.104.245 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest cube

The article incorrectly states that the 7x7x7 is the largest patented cube. However, Mr. Verdes (the inventor of the 7x7x7 cube) also has patents for cubes up to 11x11x11; he just hasn't made the molds to produce them. I thought of changing the text to "largest mass-produced cube" but this is also untrue since a Chinese company now mass-produces the 11x11x11 cubes (which infringe the patent and are therefore totally illegal). Does anyone have a suggestion for how to fix this? 76.232.102.112 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "the highest order puzzle cube that is mass-produced legally is the V-Cube 7, a 7x7x7."

Hardware section

I think this article badly needs a hardware section, especially given how important hardware (ie. speedcubes) has lately become in the speedcubing community. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the cubes preferred by the community to create this section myself. I think it would add significantly to the article if someone else did, though. Some topics to include:

• speedcubes of the 1980s?
• storebought Rubik's Cubes and problems with them (lockups, stiffness, etc.)
• modern DIYs and comparisons between them (AV vs. FII vs. DaYan vs. C4U vs. Edison, etc.), including practical differences and differences in construction

[1] may be helpful. Ravi12346 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a hardware section would be a good addition, but I have doubts as to whether such a section can be written in a neutral fashion backed up by citations to notable and reliable sources. There are many opinions as to which speedcube is best, and no way to actually measure things like stiffness, ability to cut, and resistance to popping. Guy Macon 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A hardware section is certainly needed. Many modern speedcubers use other brands that suit their cubing styles better. The article does falsely imply that the Rubik's brand 3x3x3 is the only 3x3x3 used. Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

World records

Is this table saying that the 2x2x2 cube was solved in under one second? That seems improbable but if it was already solved or almost solved that would be good to note for plausibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IskaralPust (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Catchy122 (talk) 06:17, 03 March 2016 (CST) Yes, the world record is, and for quite some time has been under one second. It is currently .49 with the solve taking 4 moves. The cube is scrambled as per world cube association rules. Because 2x2 can always be solved in at 14 or less moves, this can lead to very fast times

Lubrication

There is a fairly blatant inconsistency in the lubrication section of this article. "CRC Heavy Duty Silicone Spray" is listed as a very popular lubricant (which I believe it is). In the paragraph below, Acetone is listed as a solvent for ABS plastic and should not be used for lubrication. However, the CRC Heavy Duty Silicone contains acetone. I saw it on a can in the store, and the MSDS is at http://www.crcindustries.com/faxdocs/msds/5074.pdf

Can this be clarified somehow?

Wildm4n (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert in chemistry, but I do know that CRC dissolves the plastic a little, and the parts of the cube must be moved while the silicone is drying. Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Catchy122 (talk) 06:17, 03 March 2016 (CST)

Hi, I speedcube so maybe I can be of assistance here. CRC does erode the plastic, but it is still recommended for newer cubers as the first cube because it's very cheap and easy to find. Generally, cubers will switch from CRC to a better, non-eroding lubrication such as Traxis. It seems this issue has at least been resolved somewhat because of the comment to check the MSDS. If any other info is needed, please type that here, and we can try to find it.

"Rubik's" Cube

The article seems to overuse the term "Rubik's Cube." For one thing, the 3x3x3 is certainly not the only puzzle that is speedsolved. Second, there are many other brands of 3x3x3s that have different mechanisms that are preferred by many in the speedcubing community over the Rubik's brand. There are also other minor inaccuracies. Any input? Perhaps a cleanup is needed? Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fish Method??

Is this method one of the mainstream methods for solving the Rubik's cube? I'm a speed cuber, and have been active on the forums and competitive scene. Despite this, I have never heard about this method. If the number of users of this method is not significant, it is suggested that the entry be removed. Cride5 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I've never heard of this method either, nor have I heard of any users. The description given is very short and thus does not add anything to the article. Thus I think it should be removed also. Although I am only speculating, I think the addition of it may simply be a cuber who has made their own method and are adding it to this article despite it having very little to do with the world of speedcubing.

The original section was also full of grammatical errors and unclear method outlines. I've edited it to say what I think the method is about, but with no sources it is impossible to tell - and there is no J Kersey in the WCA database - so the fact that they got an average of 52 seconds (officially at least) is incorrect. EeeeeWarne (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Progression of world records

Hello, the scatter plot of 3x3 world records hasn't been updated since Mats' 5.55. How can we change that? Judith Sunrise (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

References needed

This article is virtually without references, those that are there are entirely primary and involved. The tone of the article is far from encyclopedic much of it reads like WP:Fancruft. Secondary sources and factual non promotional language is needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources for the times come from the WCA and there's nothing we can do about that. For the rest, sources needs to be reconsidered... also, I think that the methods should be moved to their own dedicated page: Rubik's Cube solving methods. Julio974 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Competitions vs. dates of records

I personally find dates more interesting when recording records, but I typically just use both. (Notice that I keep the records up to date for all WCA puzzle pages in this style.) I added dates to this page for consistency. Is there any reason to only use one or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, exact dates are hard to verify. The note on this WCA page, for example, reads: "Since we don't have the schedules, the first day of the competition is assumed here and thus the ages might be slightly off." But even if you did have a foolproof method of ascertaining dates, I still feel it's slightly redundant to include them, seeing as the competition already has the year in its name (e.g. POPS Open 2016). --Oneforfortytwo (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point. For multi-day comps I do use the schedule, but I admit that's a bit tedious. My inclination toward preferring dates is because records are improving so quickly these days that just listing the year loses potentially interesting specificity. Even if we used the WCA method and got some dates slightly wrong, it would still show whether a record is a few days old or a few months old, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What if we used a Competition (Month) format - eg POPS Open 2016 (December) - instead of dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to duplicate the format here, with the dates given as a range (e.g. August 23–24). That removes the redundancy, but doesn't completely remove the dates. --Oneforfortytwo (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

On the french wiki, we just put the month of the competition, while highlighting in red the records set before 2018 in red (no competition name). Julio974 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordination of edits

Hello, I think that we need a better coordination of edits on the speedcubing pages. For that, I created a discord server: [2]

Is speedcubing a sport?

@Wroldwar23: - you changed "activity" to "sport" in the article. I don't think speedcubing is wildly regarded as such (and I say that as a cuber who does call it a "sport" sometimes). Can you provide sources that support that change? Judith Sunrise (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you take the start of the Sports Wikipedia article, then, yes, it can be considered as a sport:

"all forms of competitive physical activity or games which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators"

It is a competitive physical activity/game, which can be casual or organised, and is using, maintaining and improving physical ability and skills. And don't tell me it's not enjoyment for cubers and entertainment for everyone! The rest of the article supports this idea ("physical dexterity"), so I think we can confidently say than cubing is considered as a sport. Julio974 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedcubing is not physical though, it is mostly mental. You do not need to be in good physical shape to be a competitive speedcuber. veganfishcake (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Solving methods

Is it needed that we add mainstream methods for other WCA puzzles XXxSteelVenomxXx (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe put these on the respective puzzles pages? I already think putting 3x3 method on Speedcubing page is too much, I think a dedicated page should be created for that: Rubik's Cube solving methods. Julio974 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Rubik's" Cube (revived talk subject from 2012)

The article seems to overuse the term "Rubik's Cube." For one thing, the 3x3x3 is certainly not the only puzzle that is speedsolved. Second, there are many other brands of 3x3x3s that have different mechanisms that are preferred by many in the speedcubing community over the Rubik's brand. There are also other minor inaccuracies. Any input? Perhaps a cleanup is needed? Lt. Waaxe 01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the occurences of "Rubik's Cube" should be replaced by "speedcube", "cube" or "puzzle" (depending on the context). Julio974 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of Rubik's either, I think the current use in the article is warranted. The work "Rubik" doesn't even appear that often in the article and in many places it's already replaced by "3x3x3". Judith Sunrise (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. (I boycott Rubik's since they sued TheCubicle, so I may have a bit overreacted). But there's a problem with other articles on the subject: the 4x4x4 article is names Rubik's Revenge when only the first words records were made with an actual Rubik's brand cube. Same for the 6x6x6, 7x7x7 and 8x8x8 which have articles named V-Cube 6 and 7, while the cubes from this company are barely used nowdays. We could, for example move the Rubik's Revenge article to 4x4x4 Twisty puzzle or Speedcube 4x4x4, leave a redirect, and create redirects from other brands too, like ShengShou Gem 4x4x4. It would also rename the Template:Rubik's Cube template to Template:Speedcubing. What do you think? It would however need more approvals amongst the Wikubers, Cube-Wikiers before allowing to move the pages (it could take a few days and would create red links problems for some weeks). Julio974 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

For 3x3 the argument can be made that the name "Rubik's cube" has been genericized to the point that "Rubik's cube" is the generic name for any 3x3, no matter who manufactured it. (other words like Thermos, Kleenex, ChapStick, Aspirin, Dumpster, Band-Aid, Velcro, Hoover, and Speedo don't refer strictly to their brand anymore). I don't think that's the case for 2x2 and 4x4-7x7. But discussions for every single one of those have been made in all of their talk pages, and lost. Judith Sunrise (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"YTUWR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YTUWR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Cubesmith Lubricant" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cubesmith Lubricant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sales of Cubes, Retailers

Should retailers such as Rubiks, the Cubicle, Speedcubeshop, etc. be listed somehow? Also, do we need to discuss further that typically most speedcubes are not produced by Rubiks (possibly even list common brands?). These are critical parts of the speedcubing community so I believe they should be added. Gamaldfelice (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Split cube terminology section into new article, remove lubes list.

The section of the article listing cube terminology takes up nearly half its total length and generally isn't that important to someone outside of cubing trying to educate themselves on the subject. Personally, I think that section should either be split into an entirely new article or heavily reduced to just the core terms that you hear commonly.

Cube lubes have also seen a large reduction in use and popularity due to the improvement of the out-of-the-box performance of new cubes as well as setup services, and no longer has such a large influence as it used to, additionally, some lubes which were being sold by now-defunct cube stores are still listed as popular lubes despite rarely, if at all being used today. AVeryBadTypist (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Add more images.

This article would benefit from the addition of more images. Currently there are very few images on this page. For example, an image of a world record solve near the top of the article would help provide a visual aid for when a non-cuber views the article. Images for some of the cubing terms would also be appropriate. In addition the only image of someone speedsolving shows the feet event, which isn't an official event anymore. This Image could be replaced with more popular events such as 3x3, blindfolded 3x3, or 5x5. I'm Impersonating Someone (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More images

More images would be great in this page, but please keep the picture of the person who do a feet solve, I know this event was removed from WCA events but this is not a reason. That represents the diversity of speedcubing. Samuel Je (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we start shortening this page?

I think it would be a good idea to shorten this page. Not because I think it’s too long, but because it is just giving too much information. The whole thing kind of reads more as a guide for speedcubers or an advertisement than an actual Wikipedia article. I’m about to just remove the list of retailers because there is no need for it there, I do think the lube and algorithms list needs to be heavily revised/removed too. AFrickingNerd (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

By “algorithms list” I meant the terminology section. A good example of what I’m seeing as problematic is this part taken directly from the lubrication section: “Checking a lubricant's MSDS is often helpful in identifying cube-damaging ingredients. Cube lubricants should belong to the silicone family of lubrications because these are not going to damage the cube plastic.” This completely reads as a guide/tutorial which is not what Wikipedia is. A more encyclopedic, clear, and concise way to say it would be: “A lubricant’s MSDS indicates potential cube-damaging ingredients. Cube lubricants normally belong to the silicone family of lubrications because these are less likely to damage the cube.” AFrickingNerd (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

is there any need to add a video to a cuber solving rubiks cube

@AFrickingNerd Wiki a man 2 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wdavidson1 (article contribs).

"World's fastest rubix solver" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect World's fastest rubix solver and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#World's fastest rubix solver until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This page needs major improvements

A lot of issues here, in the near future I will try to contribute as much as possible but any other help would be greatly appreciated. I will work on:

- grammar

- citations

- addition of more methods for other events, as considered by the WCA

- cubing hardware itself

- and other general improvements and discussions.

Burgermachine74 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Combinations are missing

Number off possible combinations is missing, is it a good idea to add it? Chytrejclovek (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

can we just add videos to this page so Make us feel of what speed cube are like Wiki a man 2 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

that would belong on the rubik's cube page itself. CookingWithNitroglycerin (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Solving Methods"

The "Solving Methods" section only applies to the standard 3x3 Rubik's cube on a Wikipedia page about speedcubing in general. Maybe it can be removed or moved someplace else? MrRobloxDev lgjavajr (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Although the Wikipedia page for the Rubik's cube also mentions the top 3x3 solving methods, this Speedcubing page focuses more on the techniques used for speed. I think it does belong here. It would be better if sections were added to describe methods for different cubes, like Redux for big cubes and CLL for 2x2. Or possibly a retitle to 3x3 Speedsolving Methods. Still life with noodles (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The methods for 2x2 and all "big cubes" are just to turn it into a 3x3 and solve it like that. Redux, its called. CookingWithNitroglycerin (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ronan Finke" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ronan Finke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Ronan Finke until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of ZZ as one of the primary methods

Hey, ZZ isn't really used much competitively anymore, and is considered suboptimal, much like petrus, should we cite CFOP and Roux as the primary methods> CookingWithNitroglycerin (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 1 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brayzn (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jazaam02 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Bum

I got a new world record 2.98 sexond I’m 7 82.16.188.39 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)