Template:Vital article

	Rubik's Cube was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 21, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hungary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Toys High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Toys To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More... Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles. Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles. Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner. Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention Games (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Invention High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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