Talk:Sudoku Cube

Untitled

"Is it possible to link searches of "sudoku cube, sudoku kube, and sudocube onto this page? This new toy is known by many names as of late." -Kyle

Someone gave me a Rubik's Cube and an electronic Sudoku game for Christmas and I wondered if anyone had ever combined them. I was thinking that a 9x9x9 'Sudokube' would be a little hard to solve.  :-) 69.141.232.16 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All the name variations now link to this page, and yes, a 9x9x9 would be brutal. I don't think anyone have ever created above a 4x4x4 though! It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Orientation?

"This makes solving the cube slightly more difficult than a conventional Rubik's Cube because each number must be in the right place and in the correct orientation."

I'm not sure I follow. I thought that the Rubik's Cube was designed in such a way that there is only one possible combination that corresponds to a correctly solved cube - i.e. the orientation of the squares is always the same on a solved cube. 217.155.20.163 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What you say is in fact true, except for the centre cubies. Effectively, the cube is equivalent to those Rubik's cubes you sometimess see that have a picture in each face in the solved state instead of colours. I have ammended the text to reflect this. Swap 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The center square of each of the faces cannot actually be moved. It may be rotated in place when one of the faces move, but each center square always stays the same in relation to the other centers. For example, if a 7 is in the center square on one side and on the side directly opposite there is a 4 for the center square, no matter how the cube is rotated, the 7 and 4 will always remain opposite. The same holds true for any of the adjacent faces. They can rotate, but all four adjacent centers rotate together, and thus the relation between any one face's center and the four adjacent centers will always remain unchanged as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.52.253 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah; it's the rotation of the centre squares that's the additional thing. On a sudoku cube, there's at least one solution in which on each face all the numbers are the same way up. Sabik (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I placed a cleanup tag on this article. The description of the cube makes very little sense. Is the orientation of the numbers significant or not? What's a "cubie"? Jargon and slang should be avoided. Who produces this cube? It says it's harder than a Rubik's Cube, but why -- and says who? Oh yeah, the whole thing is completely unsourced. 67.168.67.136 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been cleaned up It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Article move notes

This article was once located at Sudokube. I moved the article because during the AfD it was discovered that the Sudoku Cube is the better represented product while the Sudokube appears to be a minor copy (based on sources found). Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good decision, I took this a step further, and removed Sudokube from the lede. Sudokube was the name of a replica product released shortly after the original Sudoku Cube. While the name Sudokube is used on some online blogs, there are no products that are still sold using that name. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

sudocube

Anybody? :) http://mspaintadventures.com/?s=4&p=001087 .froth. (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sudoku Cube/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject, with enough news coverage to appear at least superficially notable, and detailed article content. I am however worried by the amount and reliability of sourcing, so that's where I will start this GA review. I strongly suspect that the article is very far from meeting the Good Article sourcing requirements, and that this nomination should be quick failed (WP:QF #1 and WP:GACR #2b) but before doing so I want to give the nominator a chance to respond.

In more detail:

Many sections and paragraphs are completely unsourced. All paragraphs (that do not summarize later material) are required to have a reliably published source. In the version I reviewed, the five subsections of "Objectives" are entirely unsourced. In "Variations", the paragraph with "Horowitz created two more Sudoku products" is unsourced. Most of the paragraph "Computer simulations" is unsourced.

Overall assessment of reference reliability:

• [1],[2],[8],[9],[10],[15],[16],[17],[19],[20],[21] (International Herald Tribune; The Repository; Finanz Nachtrichten; Pravda (misspelled); The Review; Telegraph India; News24; WTVG; Taipei Times; Speigel, Russia) are all duplicates of the same story. We can use it as a source, but as ONE source. It should not be used to create the appearance of having multiple sources when it is really only a single story published multiple times. Choose one and use only that one.
• [4],[22] (Pawlyna) are also the same source as each other and should be merged.
• [5],[23],[29],[30],[31] American Classic Toy / Sudokucube.net we cannot use materials from the company that made this puzzle as sources about the puzzle
• [6],[7],[12],[14],[28],[38],[42],[45] (Collectibles Blog; CoolHunters; TrendHunter; Techopolis; Dragonsudoku Blog; Terence Eden's Blog; jdaymude blog; tilde club) appear to be unreliable web sites and blogs, unusable as sources
• [11] Paradisi: of unclear reliability and too little content to be usable as a source
• [13],[20] Reader's Digest; Boston Globe: reliable but too little content to be usable as a source
• [24],[25],[26],[27], video clips of TV commercials, unusable as sources.
• [32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[39],[40],[41] (The Cubicle, Amazon, Crux Puzzles, Abergamepark): we cannot use online stores as sources.
• [43],[44]: Web site that does not provide any indication of who publishes it or what level of editorial control it provides on its content. Reliability unclear.
• [46] YouTube video by an unknown and non-notable YouTuber: not reliable.

That leaves only two usable sources, the 2007 Associated Press story and the 2008 Pawlyna story.

Lead section and general:

• AP Used to source lead claim of creation by Horowitz in 2006: ok.

Production section:

• AP source "On the same plane ride, Horowitz had the idea of combining it with the Rubik's cube": source does not state that he got the idea while still on the plane. "with help from toy buyer Ken Moe": not found in source. "already owned molds to produce Rubik's Cubes": true but apparently misleading as the puzzle was not manufactured using those molds. "which had produced them in the past": not in source.
• "a price chosen because each number appears once": almost identical wording to the reference. All material in the article must be rewritten in your own words, not copied from sources.

Marketing section:

• Heavy citation overkill, using primary unreliable promotional sources to source the claim that this puzzle was promoted. We need sources about the promotion not sources that are themselves promotion. Online sources are generally unreliable and cannot be used at all. Magazine articles promoting the puzzle are not sources about Horowitz promoting his work in magazines. Newspaper articles promoting the puzzle are not sources about Horowitz promoting his work in newspaper articles, etc.
• "Several imitator products": the source states that they are also sudoku cubes, but does not source the claim that they are imitators of Horowitz's sudoku cube. They could be independent inventions for all we know.
• After eliminating bad sources the only sourced claims we have left are the two toy fair appearances, the Citrin quote, and the existence of similar products.

Objectives section:

• Entirely unsourced after removing bad sources from the manufacturer.

Variations section:

• Entirely unsourced after removing bad sources.

Solving technique:

• Entirely unsourced after removing bad sources.

Computer simulations:

• Entirely unsourced after removing bad sources.

Do you think it is possible to turn up enough reliably published sources (for instance, in-depth coverage of this puzzle in puzzle books from major publishers) to rescue this article, within the normal time frame of a GA review (nominally one week)? Otherwise, if it has to be stubbed down to only the content that can be sourced to the two good sources, I don't think it is going to pass WP:GACR #4, and maybe we should just close the GA review now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed review. I was clearly not rigorous enough when referencing, by a long shot. In the future, while I am still very new to writing, I will consult WP:RS for every new source I add to ensure I don't make the same mistakes.

It is clear that the first step is to remove all unreliable sources and more rigorously check the reliable sources to ensure that they back up the content of the article, so I have removed them all, and all the content that cannot be referenced by reliable sources.

I have a few questions relating to your feedback:

Presuming no more reliable sources exist on the subject, is it possible that the subject does not meet the notability requirements for an article? WP:GNG states that the article "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does two good sources count as significant? Perhaps the subject should be included as one of the puzzles listed in Combination puzzle or a separate List of combination puzzles.

Is it possible for an article to meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article, but not have enough reliable sources to be a good article? I assume not, because I cannot find any specific notability requirements for good articles.

Thank you once again for your very detailed feedback. By far my main priority is to improve my writing skills which you have helped me with. In retrospect, I should have chosen a more clearly notable topic to start with.

Over the next few days, I will search as comprehensively as possible for some more reliable sources, starting with your suggestion to look for in-depth coverage of the puzzle in puzzle books by major publishers. If none can be found, does this GAN fail due to Criteria 3: "Broad in it's coverage"? It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It might be the case that it is not notable and would be better included as an entry in a longer list of twisty puzzles. There is differing opinion on whether GA's requirements of broad coverage and sourcing allow an article to be GA when a dearth of sources prevents us from saying much about the subject that could and should otherwise be said. I guess one way one answer this would be: does the resulting article nevertheless present a comprehensive resource about everything that is known about the subject? For instance, we have very little original sourcing on Hypatia (although much has been written about her since), but nevertheless we have a good article on her. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a look for a few hours today, to try and find any more reliable sources and couldn't find any. Since we only have two sources and a patent, I think that the subject does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and should not have its own article. It should instead be included in a longer list of twisty puzzles. For now, I think it would fit nicely in the Combination puzzle article, though that article also needs a lot of work.

I don't think the resulting article presents a comprehensive resource about everything that is known about the subject at all, it doesn't even include the objective of the puzzle which in my opinion is pretty important. Most of the knowledge about the puzzle is contained in small blogs and YouTube videos, which are not reliable sources.

I believe the next step is to list the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and see if consensus is reached on moving the content to another article? It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If you just want to include it in a list, and redirect it to that list, an AfD is unnecessary; see WP:BLAR. A discussion can happen after someone else objects. In any case, I am going to close out this nomination, and let you decide what you think the future of the article should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Thank you for your help. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)