Talk:Rubik's Cube/Archive 2

message: This sentence: "The puzzle consists of the 26 unique miniature cubes ("cubies") on the surface" should probably have the number 27 instead as mentioned in the section above. Sir48-DK.
:What you are referring to is,
::This gives the impression that the cube is made up of 27 smaller cubes (3 × 3 × 3).
:But there is no 27th cube in the center of Rubik's Cube. —Sean κ. + 00:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. Its made up of 3*3*3 - 1 smaller cubies. The right number is 26. Rubik123 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typing error? 

message: This article doesn't mention the cheap imitation Rubik's Cubes. Whenever I try to work with those cheap things, all of the colorful stickers fall off. :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It's very hard to find real Rubik's cubes nowadays. -- Eagleamn 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "Rubik's" the so called official Rubik's cube maker? --- Acdx 23:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try buying them online from www.rubiks.com Calculusfreak 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual rubik's standard can be bought at Walmart for $10-15 CAN. Now these are more expensve because of the sticker duration, it turns better (does not get stuck), has the nice little sticker in the middle of the white cube, and can be taken apart easier. The Professor cube, or the 5X5X5 is more expensive at about $35, and is harder to turn because of the amount of cubes on one layer, but once you get used to it, it turns fairly well. Androo123 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheap imitations 

message: Someone with a better understanding than mine might want to write about higher-dimensional analogs such as Rubik's Tesseract Archola 08:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you might be interested in this which lets you actually play with a (simulated) 4D cube. Have fun!—Tetracube 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The GabbaSoft cube is the best that i have found. a free demo is available here 218.186.9.1 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, 4d in the Cartesian Coordinate system would mean that there is an extra variable added. Thus, in 3d, (3,4,5) and (3,4,5) would be the same point. However, if the latter point moved +4 in the fourth dimension, (3,4,5,0) and (3,4,5,4) would not be the same point. I like to think of tetraspace as an infinite number of three-dimensional "realms" that a 4d person could move through.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubie Newbie (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubik's Tesseract

message: I read somewhere that Rubik ogininally devised the cube as a an exercise for his students, to help them think logically and geometrically. Anyone know more about this?
:As I recall, Professor Rubik was a professor in industrial design and wanted his students to see that it was possible to create highly complex structures from simple concepts. Unfortunately I have no official source. --Blonkm 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that on rubiks.com there is a section that says that he built it to challenge the students with 3-d geometry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.105.160 (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally posed as a problem for students 

message: i used to have one of these, it was mechanically identical to the cube but each corner piece was sliced at a 45 degree angle to create a new face, this intersected the adjacent cubies so that the original faces were now smaller sqares at a 45 degree angle to the grid and there were now 8 additional triangular faces
the effect was somthing similar to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Truncatedhexahedron.jpg
edit: sig 
213.249.159.244 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative (imitation) "cube" dodecahedron 

message: There needs to be more of an explanation of the mathematical formula in the section called "Permutations" that illustrates step-by-step.
I agree.
I think some of the information is actually altogether incorrect.  For instance, "261 light years" and "256 times around the earth."  I'm not a professional by any means, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't take more than a year for light to go the same distance as the circumfrence of the earth at it's equator.
Tekemperor 06:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permutations section 

message: The article says: "The 3×3×3 version, which is the version usually meant by the term "Rubik's Cube," has nine square faces on each side, for a total area of fifty-four faces, and occupies the volume of twenty-six unit cubes (not counting the invisible cube in the center)." (bolding added by me). 
What is meant by this? I want to just remove that, but is what is meant that there is conceptually a space for a twenty-seventh cube? In an actual Rubik's Cube, there is no cube in the center (there is just the central axis) -- this makes it sound like there is. Any thoughts? --Twilightsojourn 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conceptually, if you cut the cube into sub-cubes, the center of the cube is the 27th "sub-cube" or "cubie". But it is not really relevant here, since the Rubik's Cube isn't actually made of 27 sub-cubes, but with a central axis, as you said. I vote to remove the bolded statement.—Tetracube 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also vote to remove the bolded section -- and perhaps reword the entire sentence, to make it a bit clearer (maybe saying that there are 26 cubies, instead of that it "occupies the volume of twenty-six unit cubes"?). --Twilightsojourn 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible cube? 

message: The introduction to this page suggests that it is possible to make one (I've only read the introduction so far). I've played with a virtual one on a website, but I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that it was impossible to physicaly make one.  The same article said that it was possible to make a 7x7x7 one but nothing larger. (wik@def.me.uk)
See this.  It claimed, a few years ago, that 6x6x6 cubes would be available to the public within a few months.  They still aren't available, but some prototypes (such as the one in the video at the bottom of the page) exist.  I haven't heard of any "limited edition" 7x7x7 cubes.  I'll change the introduction accordingly.  --Ravi12346 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a picture of a 7x7x7 on a fansite. it had curved sides. 218.186.9.1 05:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize that this is a rather late comment on the issue, but the 6³ and 7³ cubes do exist. The 6³ cube also has its own article. I'll write an article on the 7³ cube when I get a hold of one, if someone else doesn't do it first. Hellbus (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has a 6x6x6 cube really been made? 

message: I know its important to mention that the cube won an award for best puzzle, however I don't think that it belongs under the pop culture section.65.100.48.231 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game award in Pop Culture 

message: As of Feb 22, 2007 Tony Fisher released some details of his non-spherical 9x9x9 cube at .
It's worth noting that 7x7x7 and larger cubes by Panagiotis Verdes are all somewhat spherical as shown at  which makes this 9x9x9 even more special.
Could someone add this information to the article. I'm not good enough in writing to do that by myself. 80.248.242.86 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was a hoax, which is now mentioned in that thread. This section can be deleted. 80.248.242.86 09:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First non-spherical 9x9x9 cube 

message: I have a problem with this lines: "In 2007, the first electronic Rubik's Cube was created-- the Rubik's Revolution. The Rubik's Revolution is a traditional cube with six different ways to play. Each game features light, sound and voice effects and multiple levels to unlock, each challenging your mind and dexterity. The Rubik's Revolution offers not only individual play, but also multi-player gaming. The Rubik's Revolution will be in stores summer of 2007."
I am afraid it's not an information, but more like an advertisment, and it should not be here. What do you think?
Mozaik 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is true, maybe it just needs a rewrite. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: its actually quoted as something someone else said  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.105.160 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is true but utterly irrelevant to this article.  It definitely does not belong here.  There has even been some dispute in the past on whether it should be mentioned in the template (which appears at the bottom of all Rubik articles).  It is not a Rubik cube, it is not a derivative of the Rubik's cube, it is not even a sequential move puzzle.  It is just one more item in a very large collection of products that try to sell tnemselves by using the Rubik name or using coloured cubes as a motif. SpinningSpark 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "Rubik's Revolution" 

message: Should the External links section be subdivided? Just giving it a brief look, seems there is three categories (though I can't rightly define the third) those being Official Links, Solution Links and other types. At the moment there seems to be chaos as they're all mixed up in a hodge podge. Anyone up to sorting them out? -Gohst 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's actually quoted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.105.160 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links section

message: There are many solutions and algorithms out there, however most of them are extremely complicated
but i have found very simple solutions on youtube from a guy called RobH0629
And he can do every single rubik's cube. 
The References that are used are:
T = Top face clockwise a quater turn
F = Front face clockwise a quater turn
R = Right face clockwise a quater turn
L = Left face clockwise a quater turn
B = Back face clockwise a quater turn
When a lower case 'i' is added, it means
that you have to rotate it counter-clock
wise a quater turn.
When '180' is added, it means that you
have to rotate it a 180°.
He does a step by step vidio guide 
So have fun solving the cube!!
13thDiZiPLE 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions

message: The words colour en centre have been changed back and forth to color and center a couple of times in this article now.
Why are they changed all the time in this article? Perhaps we can settle on one or the other. Personally I have a preference for colour and centre, but I can live with either. The original article uses colour and center. Any opinions? Sander123 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a standard guideline (WP:ENGVAR) about this sort of thing: go back in the history to the first instance where either American or English spelling was used, and use that same spelling for all subsequent editing.  It isn't perfect, but at least it is an objective tie breaker.  CMummert · talk 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case, the very first edit used "colour". CMummert · talk 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An even earlier edit ( probably not the first) used both! --Henrygb 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave the wrong link - how did that happen? The first edit I see now is from 2001-11-21 . You're right - it does use both. And you're right that, based on the edit summary, it was probably not actually the first edit. Were the very old histories lost in a crash or something? CMummert · talk 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a cut-and-paste move from Rubiks Cube so I just merged the page histories.  Not your error. --Henrygb 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is the the longer we discuss it the less work we get done.  Almost any English speaker will be able to read both versions, so it makes little difference which one we use.  So the British spellings are fine with me. CMummert · talk 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has been on the discussion page for a while now. As no others have expressed an opinion, I take it that everybody agrees with British spelling. I've updated the article accordingly. Thanks to all for participating. Sander123 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Color versus Colour

message: A recent edit changed the date of invention from 1974 to 1978. A quick google search reveals many sources that state that the cube was invented in 1974. This could be vandalism, but I thought I would bring the issue up on the talk page first before the date is changed again. Vvitor 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could, find the best (most authoratative) reference to the creation date and add a footnote to the article with that link. This would help make it clear what the correct date is. CMummert · talk 12:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this, and the source I used was the official website of the cube (as listed in the "External Links" section). Thank you for your help in the matter. Vvitor 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Invention 

message: I undid your change to inlude the comment "including Homer's classic (... use your main finger) in the article Rubik's Cube. I feel that it did not add to the article in an encyclopaedic manner in the context of Rubik's Cubes. Feel free to argue against my action on my Talk page User A1 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Simpsons quote 

message: What's up with the Centre faces section. All the cubes in the pictures have colored center faces. --Apoc2400 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your question. Do mean that there should be a picture added with a cube with marked centre faces? Sander123 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre faces 

message: Does anybody know who Massimiliano Iseppon is? He was added as a fellow inventor of the cube. Can anybody confirm/source it? I removed it for now. Sander123 07:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massimiliano Iseppon 

message: The article says that Will Smith's ability to complete a Rubik's cube is still under speculation, but he did solve a cube while appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show to advertise "The Pursuit of Happyness". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.18.117 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Smith 

message: "In addition, informal alternative competitions have been held, challenging participants to solve the cube under unusual situations. These include:"
This whole section needs to be reworded. As a speedcuber, I can tell you a few of these things (specifically one handed and blindfold) are not informal, but just as competitive as the standard 3x3 cube. There are also various other things that speedcubers do that are much less competetive; see http://www.speedcubing.com/records for a full list.
Blasphemized 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Competitions 

message: Continued from the previous subject. When trying to search for it on Google I couldn't even find a reference to this anniversary cube at all. Can somebody confirm that? Sander123 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubik's Cube 1980-2005 

message: I'd like to add "Using mathmatical group theory, scientists from Northeastern Univeristy have proved that the maximum amount of necessary permutations is 26." to the article, but i dont know how to refrence it to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531131326.htm, could someone else do that for me? --207.179.172.220 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest amount of moves needed 

message: I've never heard this term and a Google search of "supercubing" and "rubik's" gives nothing appreciable. There's one mention of bigger cubes, but nothing else. Does anyone have the courage to remove it? Hyperneural 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a very common thing among speedcubers and nothing special. It means the cube is solved with the centres in the original orientation. --Blonkm 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supercubing"? 

message: I seem to remember someone solving a four-sided Rubik's 'cube' many years ago. Does anyone else recall seing them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.17.98 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A four-side pyramid? 

message: I added a section on software. Now without having it loaded with external links soon, maybe we can have a List of Rubik's cube software puzzle.
--Blonkm 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubik's cube software 

message: Given that the world record for the 5x5x5 is listed on the speedcubing page as 1hr 38 mins, I find it hard to reconcile that with the claims made here:
"In May 2005, the Greek inventor Panagiotis Verdes constructed a 6×6×6 Rubik's Cube; on May 23, 2006, Frank Morris, a world champion Rubik's Cube solver, tested this version. He had previously solved the 3×3×3 in 15 seconds, the 4×4×4 in 1 minute and 10 seconds, and the 5×5×5 in 1 minute and 46.1 seconds. The 6×6×6 took him 5 minutes and 37 seconds to solve. "
The figure for the basic cube seems reasonable, all the others sound fictional. 121.45.53.42 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The world record for the 5x5x5 is 1 minute 29 seconds at the moment. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistent figures 

message: The dates given in the Conception and Development section are all screwed up. Almost all of them seem to be a decade later than they should be. I'd fix it, but I'd be assuming that the only thing incorrect would be the decade, and I could very well be wrong about that. But I know Rubik's cube was around well before I was in high school (1990).
:I've been on a few bad dates myself... Oh wait, that's not what you mean.  heh..
:Seriously though, good spot.  Earlier today, somebody came in and shifted all the dates in that section by a decade, and nobody spotted it.  I undid their edit, so it should be good now.  Thanks for the tip! ---- Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Dates 

message: I have noted over the last two or three days that somebody has been visiting the Rubik's Cube article and making small, inaccurate changes to the text. For instance, when I visited a day or two ago, somebody had changed the original name "Magic Cube" to "Logic Cube" in the opening paragraphs. I corrected this.
Today, somebody had altered several of the dates. I have corrected this, but it might be an idea if we keep an eye on the article for a while.
(Dorgan65 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Possible Vandalism to article 

message: I visited the Cube article this evening to find that somebody had altered the name of the Cube's inventor in the opening paragraph from Erno Rubik to a name I didn't recognise. I have changed it back to Erno Rubik.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorgan65 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor's name altered - possible prank/vandalism? 

message: I noticed that this section was removed with the rationale that it is nn trivia with no value to the article, and that references of this kind could fill 20 pages or more. I have a few qualms with this:
*The two trivia references left in the article have no rationale as to why they are more notable than the others. 
*Trivia sections should not simply be removed if you follow WP:TRIVIA but rather incorporated into the article somehow. If it could not be incorporated, it could always be moved into another page.
*No discussion before removing the section.
I do not think that the section should be removed entirely. Of course, it's not suitable in its present state, but it does provide an indicator of the cube's status in popular culture, and in this case something is better than nothing, in my opinion. Paiev (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I like trivia, there are those who don't and think that such sections have no place here on Wikipedia.  To accomplish what you want to do, just go back in the history to the revision with the trivia then integrate the information that you think belongs in this article. — Val42 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the bullets in that section seemed to have any references. The prize, which is good to include, is already mentioned in the lede. The rest seem just like passing appearances. I would be more convinced they are worth mentioning here if any source that describes them as important appearances of the cube could be found. I don't see the encyclopedic benefit of listing apparently random movies (etc.) in which the cube has appeared. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubik's Cube in Popular Culture 

message: In the permutations section the article claims: "If they were laid side by side, it would cover the Earth approximately 256 times". I may be wrong but isn't it approximately 276 times:
*Surface area of the Earth (see Earth) = 510,072,000 square km = 510072000000000 square metres.
*Surface area covered by one cube = 57 mm * 57 mm = 0.003249 square metres.
*Surface area covered by all permutations = 0.003249 * 43252003274489856000 = 140525758638817542.144 square metres.
*Number of Earth's covered = 140525758638817542.144/510072000000000 = 275.501
Reply if you come to a different answer. --Bucephalus (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  calculation correction 

message: :In the film Hellboy (2004), the character Abe Sapien says of his Rubik's Cube "Listen, I'm not much of a problem solver. Three decades... and I've only completed two sides." 
I removed the above line here as it seems to me to be irrelevant trivia. I was reading the article and suddenly came across this and it definitely seems out of place. The world fair cube for example seems a lot more relevant. The fact that it was lost probably isn't so important but it's continouing on so I suppose it's okay. However the above hardly seems to be particularly relevant to me. I'm sure it's not the first nor will it be the last time the Rubik's Cube is mentioned in a film Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your edit.  The fact that the Rubik's Cube makes a brief albeit telling appearance in a major feature film more than two decades after it was a major fad speaks to its iconic status as a puzzle.  As a prop, it speaks volumes, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline aside, it was a striking cameo of the Cube as a virtually intractable puzzle –it definitely has staying power! kencf0618 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have a trivia section, it lets readers know how popular and well known the cube is- 70.237.139.129 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections are now discouraged in Wikipedia - see WP:TRIV.  If it is relevant, it should be in the main article, if it is not, then it goes to another article or gets deleted altogether. Spinningspark (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: This part of the article seems contradictory:
:In 1982, David Singmaster and Alexander Frey hypothesized that the number of moves needed to solve the Rubik's Cube, given an ideal algorithm, might be in "the low twenties". In 2007, Daniel Kunkle and Gene Cooperman used computer search methods to demonstrate that any 3×3×3 Rubik's Cube configuration can be solved in a maximum of 26 moves. [12] [13] Work continues to try to reduce the upper bound on optimal solutions to 25 moves, or even lower. The arrangement known as the super-flip (U R2 F B R B2 R U2 L B2 R U' D' R2 F R' L B2 U2 F2), where every edge is in its correct position but flipped, requires 20 moves to be solved. No arrangement of the Rubik's Cube has been discovered so far that requires more than 20 moves to solve.
So, is it a maximum of 20, or 26?  Jenglish02 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a computer found that the theoretical maximum SHOULD be 26, but in practice nobody has found one that takes more than 20... That's what i got out of that anyway, but someone please correct if I'm wrong. Brainmouse (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make sense... Contradictory section? 

message: How does the new logo on a rubik's cube look like now? (Master King (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubik's Logo 

message: The "Conception and development" section had been removed without any explanation when I logged on this morning. I have replaced it. There is no reason for its removal - the information about the development and release of Rubik's Cube simply echoes the Rubik's Online "Cube History" and is absolutely correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorgan65 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either a test edit or straightforward mistake I would say.  I have left a warning on the users talk page. SpinningSpark 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: No arrangement of the Rubik's Cube has been discovered so far that requires more than 20 moves to solve
Won't a superflip plus a pair of corner twists do it?
SpinningSpark 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The search for optimal solutions 

message: please check this link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3435
M.zdila (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More coverage about that here:  The Seventh Taylor (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTR Singmaster's Notes said 20 or 22.  Also that a hypothetical algorithm to actually solve it in this number of moves is half-jokingly termed "God's Algorithm". -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty-Five Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube 

message: I have removed this piece of information from the article which I know to be in error:
"In the countries of the former Soviet Union, the cube was sold with the colors embedded onto the individual cube sides, instead of stickers."
I have an extensive collection of early Hungarian Magic Cubes and Rubik's Cubes and all early models were manufactured with stickers. Special "deluxe" editions were released later with "embedded" colours, but these were available worldwide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorgan65 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error corrected 

message: Cool article, my best friend loves rubiks cube! She is actually an expert. But My other 2 classmates really are in to it and I think they could solve it more or less a minute.
Though, arent rubiks cube also made up of tiles?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesnicole (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubiks 

message: I have discovered that accurate, verifiable information was removed from the "conception and development" section today. This relates to the Magic Cube making its toy fair debut in the West in January/February 1980. This information is verifiable and is included in the official Cube History on Rubiks.com.
I have reinstated the information with a citation.
(Dorgan65 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conception And Development: Accurate Information Recently Removed And Now Reinstated With Citation 

message: I have just discovered that the wonderful in-depth Rubik's Online Cube History has been replaced by a brief summary  - http://www.rubiks.com/World/Rubiks%20history.aspx
It's a bit of a sad day for Cube scholars!
(Dorgan65 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-depth Rubik's Online History Changed To A Brief Summary 

message: I removed this sentence from the end of the competition times section due to the weasel-word ("many") and the uncited nature.  If it can be verified in some way (and made more specific?) it can be added back, I suppose.
:"Many individuals have recorded shorter times, but these records are not accepted due to possible lack of compliance with standards."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainmouse (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea well many athletes break records in training but no one makes a song and dance about that because it doesn't count.  I don't see why cube times should be any different.  Official records are broken at official events under the oversight of officials.  That's what makes them official records.  I would not particularly be in favour of putting that text back even if someone does find a citeable quote of people claiming to have done it (which in all probability has happened).  It's not relevant, official is official. SpinningSpark 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys had spent a few minutes looking it up, you would have found a huge list of unofficial records at speecubing.com, the definitive source for unofficial records. I'm not saying that it should go back in or it should stay out of the article, but it is true. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitions & record times 

message: :I think that we should add a section talking about how to spot a fake rubik's cube.
Hintss   talk 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need reliable sources that provide this information. — Val42 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mean fake cube?  Like non-rubik's brand? Masterwiki (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that if someone wants to add such a section (that was suggested by another user), we'd have to have a reliable source for this information. — Val42 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to spot a fake cube 

message: ISTR (from Singmaster's Notes) that in group theory the accepted term for one of the 12 sets of Cube configuration is "orbit"; I don't know where "universe" came from.  And after all, cube literature often (IME) uses terms from group theory, such as "conjugate" or "commutator". -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Configurations

message: Who keeps removing the links to good rubik's cube website and replaces them with youtube video lessons?
As far as I'm concerned, video lessons only cover the beginner methods, and more advanced methods like the Friedrich method which was explained in other sites is omited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.239.122 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: How can "neither of these alternative colourings has ever been produced commercially" be verified?  Moreover, I'm sure I've seen a photo of an edge-coloured cube.  Possibly in Don Taylor's book Cube Games.  Though needless to say, this doesn't prove that it was ever a commercial product.
Moreover, I've just had a few more thoughts on these styles of cubes, though I'm not sure how much can be said here within WP:NOR. -- Smjg (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edge-coloured or corner-coloured cubes 

message: An editor has just added a large number of items to the references section with an annoyingly misleading edit summary of "alphabetizing".  Since no new material has been added to the article at the same time, I find it hard to believe that all these new books really are the source of information in the article.  I do not recognise any of the authors so propose to delete them unless someone thinks they really are sources.  We could start a "Further reading" section but references should be reserved for the actual source material for the article.  Even "Further reading" is a bit dubious, it is likely to attract a monster list of every book ever written on the cube. SpinningSpark 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New references 

message: The 'sequence of movements' comment in the 'algorithms' section isn't clear. How would i perform the movements 116655224433, or whatever the sequence is? I don't think this is explained in the following section, either. 128.243.220.41 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually seems clear to me. Could you explain which part you don't understand: how to label the sides, or, given that you know a side is labeled 1, you don't know what the movement "1" means? Brainmouse (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that we should stick to the official notation 70.237.212.73 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with how you changed the notation. I added the rest of the paragraph back in though - was there a reason you removed it? It explained the whole point of the "algorithm" subsection and why that example was there to begin with.Brainmouse (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequence of movements..