Talk:V-Cube 6

This is an advertisement not an article

I'm not too familiar with all of Wikipedia's rules, but is it OK for a company to make a page about their product and to structure the article in the format of an advertisement? If so, then that's fine. Otherwise, this article needs to be removed. It's just that all the problems and issues with this model aren't mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.52.43 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I added this article. I don't work for the company. Instead of making a paranoid post like the one above, you could edit the article to reflect these (unnamed) "problems and issues." Hellbus (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cuber here, use a V6, can confirm that it does have issues. Essentially, the mechanism uses internal tracks that lock the cube into positions where it is not turned, which increases stability but makes it harder to turn by adding a ton of friction. This so-called "click mech" is disliked by speedcubers, who want the maximum speed and smoothness possible. In addition, the mechanism is known for coming out of alignment, which only allows the cube to be turned around one axis until it is fixed. The "Pi mod" used by many cubers sands off the tracks and adds pins to the centres to prevent misalignment. Also, the competing Shengshou 6x6, a technically illegal but widely available Chinese knockoff, has a modified mechanism that is superior to an unmodded V6, though inferior to a modded one. I'm not sure whether to add all this to the article - I have a great deal of cubing expertise myself but there are few sources on any of this outside a couple of youtube videos and the Speedsolving.com forum. Specs112 t c 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)'

I feel that the title of this particular page should be changed from "V-Cube 6" to "6x6x6 Rubik's Cube" or "6x6x6 Magic Cube", correct? Jacobright23 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Permutations

The permutations section is heavy on math claims. Certainly, some of this product's notability must arise from its difficulty. For this reason, we need to see non-primary and reliable sources publishing this information on the the product. Asking the reader to trust the information on the manufacturer's site alone, without ability to verify via a secondary source, is not encyclopedic. This, per WP:PRIMARY. I have tagged the section as such. At first glance, it looks like other parts of the article may need similar scrutiny. --Ds13 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the ref; should be more satisfactory now. Hellbus (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in the permutations section

I think there is a mistake or at least a invalid simplification in the permutations section: The sentence "An odd permutation of the corner cubelets implies an odd permutation of the center cubelets, and vice versa; however, even and odd permutations are indistinguishable because of identically colored center cubelets." is not really correct because when you turn one of the inner layers you get an even permutation on the corner cubelets and an odd permutation of the center cubelets which do not lie on the diagonal of the cube's face! --88.130.216.153 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Come again? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Hellbus (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I should explain it a bit more detailed: There are four distinct sets of center cubelets. One of these sets conatins the cubelets which are close to the corner cubelets, one contains those which are close to the center of the cube's face and two of the sets lie against the inner edge cubelets. If you turn one of the inner slices by ninety degrees, an even permutation on the corner cubelets is caused, but on both of the two center cubelet sets lying against the inner edge cubelets it causes a 4-cycle i.e. an even permutation. So the proposition that an even corner cubelet permutation implies an even permutation on the center cubelet sets is wrong for those sets which do not lie on the diagonal of the cube's face. --88.130.199.213 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Richfife (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean regarding the diagonals. However, I think that something similar happens with the edge-adjacent center pieces as well. If one set is oddly permuted, the other must be as well, so the number ends up the same even if the explanation is different. Ultimately, this is a consequence of me adapting the text of the Rubik's Revenge article, and that cube only has one set of center pieces to worry about. Hellbus (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your number is correct. But it would not be correct if you assumed the cubelets to be optically distinguishable. --88.130.210.168 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The calculation mentions specifically that they're indistinguishable. The permutations of each set are divided by 4!⁶ for that reason. Hellbus (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's another mistake here. The article states that any permutation of the corners is possible, including odd permutations. However, the only move that will change the relative position of the corners is rotating a face slice (an outer layer), and in this respect the corner pieces should be equivalent to a mini-cube—thus there should be only 8!x3^7 positions for them, not 8!x3^8. If you see a way to change the "polarity" of the corners in a V-6 (or ANY size) cube, please explain. Mathematically I don't see it. (Sorry if I'm not signing this edit correctly.) 24 Oct 2013

The total is divided by 24 at the end due to the lack of face centers, which covers your concern. The Pocket Cube has the same divisor for the same reason. Hellbus (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

not enough blue links

This article looks like it needs more blue links

Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that an instinctual reaction or are there links you have in mind? Much of the article is mathematics that doesn't lend itself to linking. - Richfife (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs more links. Remember WP:Overlink. Not everything needs to be linked. Are there specific parts of the article that needs more links? A quick glance over it didn't turn up anything obvious. This tag seems spurious. I'm inclined to remove the tag unless something more specific can be pointed out.—Tetracube (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this as well. Saying the article "needs more blue links" really doesn't say anything. Untagged. Hellbus (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename to 6x6x6 cube

Nowadays, it's not just V-Cube that makes 6x6s. Chinese manufacturers such as ShengShou, YuXin, MoYu and QiYi have their own 6x6 speedcubes. Pickaxe24 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of companies make 4-layer cubes now, but that article is named Rubik's Revenge because that was the first one. This article follows that pattern. Hellbus (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The question is: should we have that pattern? Rubik's is slowly loosing its trademarks anyway. I agree that we should keep using it for 3x3, but I don't think we should for the others. Judith Sunrise (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree; V-Cube is a brand. Just call it a 6x6 Rubik's Cube.

This article should be less biased to the V-Cube 6, it is okay to make a article about a company without sponsoring anything, but the article v-cube should exist, along with the seperated 6x6, 7x7 etc.