3
$\begingroup$

As there are plenty of Rubik's cubes variation, should we have a tag for each puzzle?

3x3x3 / 3x3 4x4x4 / 4x4 3x3x7 2x2x2 / 2x2 5x5x5 / 5x5

Pyramid / 5 etc. etc..

Or just have a general Rubik's cube?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Questions about any Rubik's-cube-like puzzle should be be tagged with the general category of . I think 3x3s are common enough that they should never need a specific tag. If a question can only apply to a specific and nonstandard style of cube, I think the question should also be tagged with that one, e.g. , but that should be used sparingly.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'd make it "rubiks-cube-3x3x7" instead, but I agree. $\endgroup$
    – Xynariz
    May 29 '14 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Xynariz The problem with including "cube" is that they're not all cubes. $\endgroup$
    – Kevin
    May 29 '14 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough point. $\endgroup$
    – Xynariz
    May 29 '14 at 21:40
2
$\begingroup$

This is actually an interesting question as a whole. There are thousands of puzzles that fall into the category of "twisty puzzles" (this is actually what it's canonically known by in the community I've been a part of) - I could name at least a hundred off the top of my head.

3x3x5, 3x3x7, FF3x3x5, 3x4x5, 2x2x2, 2x2x3, 2x2x4, 2x2x6, 3x3x3, 3x3x4, 4x4x4, 4x4x5, 4x5x5, Olidjus, Teraminx, Petaminx, Fracture-10, Pyraminx, Pyraminx Crystal, Square-One, Square-Two, Floppy Cube, Latch Cube, Ghost Cube, Eitan's Star, Starminx I, II, and III, Bahunia Dodecahedron, Mixup Cube, Geared Mixup, Mosaic Cube, Professor Pyramix, Helicopter Cube, Rex Cube, Skewb, Megaminx, Gear Cube, Gear Cube Extreme, Dayan Gems I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, Axis Cube, Gear Shift, Hexaminx, Vulcano

...well, you get the point. I don't actually need to go and do this, do I?

So, here are the questions we need to ask:

  • What level of notoriety is required for a twisty puzzle to justify its own tag?
  • Is the use of the tag (or similar) appropriate for these puzzles?

I'm leaning towards allowing specific tags for every puzzle the community comes across. The reason for this is pretty simple: there's no reason not to. More tags don't bother anyone, and they really don't get in the way in the long term. They just allow things to become more heavily categorized, which, in the end, helps the community.

Now there's the question as to whether a broader categorization could be helpful. There are a few advantages to keeping a tag like , but a few downsides (which I'll admit could probably be explored a bit more).

  • Pro: It helps people keep track of the question content in a more general way. This allows for more specific tag wikis, and more helpful tag filters.
  • Con: It's not an intuitive tag to use. Most people don't think of it on the whole when they're looking for a specific puzzle.

This is a point I'm not sure on, but I'm actually leaning towards removing the tag entirely, primarily because its usefulness is mitigated by its lack of intuitive use.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would personally opt to call them mechanical puzzles, instead of twisty puzzles. $\endgroup$
    – user88
    May 29 '14 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ @JoeZ No objections! Though we'll probably want to synonymize them - a lot of people know them as twisty puzzles, though yours sounds more professional. $\endgroup$
    – user20
    May 29 '14 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ I would personally keep this tag, it might help some vivid users like yourself to follow all kinds of twisty puzzles or mechanical puzzles instead of following every single one it might even help to get more clicks from google. to your con, the other users (or moderators) can always add those tags after the user created the question. $\endgroup$
    – Tartori
    Jun 3 '14 at 13:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .