Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetris/archive1: Difference between revisions

Tetris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 7 November 2025, 20:34 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let’s do this. Tetris is a game that needs no introduction. You know it. I know it. If there’s any game article worth being a featured article, this would be one of them. I have been working on this article for almost a year now, and now, I think it’s ready for WP:FAC. Any comments and feedback would be appreciated. Lazman321 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GA reviewer 3df; peer reviewers Vacant0, Shapeyness, and ImaginesTigers; and copyeditors MaddieLeQuire and Dhtwiki for feedback. Lazman321 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• P vs pp errors:
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 300–301.
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 304–305.
  • Ackerman 2016, p. 118–119
  • Sheff & Eddy 1999, p. 307–308.
  • Kent 2001, p. 379–380
  • Ackerman 2016, p. 226–227

Fixed Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to clarify this: “… (clearing lines with multiple pieces in a row)” .. I cannot picture what action that is trying to describe.

How about “clearing lines consecutively”? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording “After a press advertisement campaign, Tengen released …” is not as smooth as it could be: at first I thought it meant “pressed for time” or stressful. May be simple to simply say “After a marketing campaign … “?

Revised accordingly. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite uniformity: It is customary to use the same style of capitalization for the titles of all sources. This article has a mixture of styles: e.g.
  • “A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental methods for modulating intrusive memories following lab-analogue trauma exposure in non-clinical populations”
  • “Video Game History Falls into Place in Tetris Forever”

First example is cap only for first word; 2nd example is all words cap’d. Suggest use one convention or the the other. The WP MOS guidelines do not require the source/cite to use the exact capitalization that the original source uses for itself.

Fixed. All titles should be title cap now. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to include a link in “External Links” section pointing readers to a web site that summarizes the history/progression of the Tetris world record? I see https://www.speedrun.com/tetrisnes but that appears to be fixed-score speed runs. It would be interesting to see the historical dates & scores in a list format within an external web site (not in body text).
  • If not in the External LInks, the same link (if it exists) could instead go in the NavBox at the bottom of the article.

Such a link would perhaps be best reserved for the article on the NES version. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ambiguous: ” JAMDAT acquired Blue Lava Wireless in April 2005, granting them a …” who is “them”? JAMDAT or Blue Lava?

JAMDAT Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grammar? ” …HoloByte and Mirrorsoft started licensing the game to other companies for platforms beyond what Stein and Elorg had agreed to… not sure if “beyond what” is correct there, but I’m not a grammar expert. Maybe make entire sentence simpler? such as ” …HoloByte and Mirrorsoft started licensing the game for platforms that were not covered by the contract that Stein and Elorg had agreed to … “ or something like that.

Revised accordingly Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify: ” … the Tetris Company started to standardize features that were not in the original versions …” Not sure what “standardize” means in this context? To implement features (that were in some versions/platforms) into other versions/platforms? So the goal was that all versions/platforms had a similar feature set? or similar look/feel? In any case, can the article explain “standardize” a bit more in this sentence?

Revised to be clearer. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a WP article for the full Tetris franchise? I’m looking in the Tetris NavBox at Template:Tetris and it looks like this Tetris article is doing double-duty as covering both the orig game and the franchise. Within WP, other games with families such as Halo (franchise) or Doom (franchise) have separate articles for the franchise and the original game. If this Tetris article is doing double-duty as covering both the orig game and the franchise, that is fine, but extra care is required to help readers.

This article is essentially the franchise article, and I think it covers the original versions just fine. The “original” original game is the Elektronica 60 version, which isn’t notable enough for its own article separate from this one, and I believe it’s properly summarized here. Do you disagree? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If “Tetris” is both the original game (as implemented on several platforms, and slightly updated over time) and is also used to mean the brand/franchise … then those two meanings must be explicitly stated at the start of the article: certainly in the lead, maybe in the first paragraph.

I’ve revised the first paragraph to explicitly state this meaning as part of the article’s scope. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Uniform terminology: The word “Tetris” by itself is a bit ambiguous: it is an umbrella term in some usages. The article uses different approaches to identifying the different aspects or components of the Tetris family, e.g.
  • “..across its numerous versions. …”
  • “… among Tetris variants include …”
  • “Tetris is a puzzle video game with a …” – Singular. The entire family is one gamee?
  • “Another game on the Nintendo 64, the Japan-exclusive Tetris 64 (1998), allowed for four players..” – Here, a variant of Tetris is its own game.

Clearly the sources use a mixture of terminology, which is to be expected. But here in this article, the terms should be clear, consistent and uniform. I’m not a tetris expert, but let me toss out a suggestion for uniform terminology:

• Tetris – is both the original game, and also a term to identify the brand/franchise, which includes the entire family of variants, sequels, and spin-offs.
• Variant – Any of the various spinoffs or sequels of the original game. Shares the same essences as the original game, but is a new game.
• Version – I would recommend not using “version” as a synonym of “variant”, because “version” has a very specific meaning in the software world. I suggest that “version” only be used to mean an one of series of updates or enhancements, often identified by increasing numbers. E.g. the original base game might have versions as it is slightly enhanced; or perhaps a new version for a new platform. Again, I realize that sources may say “version” to mean variant, but that does not mean WP must follow, especially if it confuses readers. And it confused me.

I’ve updated the terminology accordingly, such as replacing most instances of “version” with “variant”. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When the word “Tetris” is used by itself, in some contexts the reader may understand that the usage is “original game” and in other uses is the “brand, franchise, or family of games”. But when the context does not make it crystal clear, the the word “Tetris” should be qualified as:
  • “.. Tetris game …” or
  • “… Tetris brand…” or
  • “… Tetris franchise…” or
  • “… Tetris family of games …”

this is no different from how “The Tetris Company ” or “Tetris Holding” are currently (and helpfully) qualified.

Tried to address this suggestion as best I can. How is it? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Tetris navbox at Template:Tetris is a bit confusing: it uses the word “Version” in the left side to designate distinct games or variants. Compare with Template:Halo series or Template:Doom series which avoid the word “version” to designate variants or entirely distinct games. Suggest updating Template:Tetris and change “version” to another term that is more consistent with other WP game franchise navboxes.

Changed to “Variants”. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m getting more and more confused. In the Tetris navbox Template:Tetris this Tetris article is used for both
  • The top title bar (for the full franchise) as well as for
  • The “Handheld” subgroup, which is a collection of about seven games; but there are a also couple dozen games that are outside that “Handheld” family, underneath the NavBox title bar. Does the Tetris article include all those non-handheld games also?

I’m not sure what this means? The article, encompassing the variants of Tetris as a whole, would of course include non-handheld games, especially since Tetris was originally a computer game. Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose. It is not clear if this article is supposed to include the full franchise or not. You could solve this dilemma by creating a small, new article called Tetris (Franchise) (maybe just a stub); and change the NavBox title bar to point to that stub; and then redefine this Tetris article to be focused only on the original handheld game (and a few variants).

@Noleander: I’ve tried to address your comments above as best as I can. For some clarification, this article is the “franchise” article. However, it is unique in that most of the entries within the franchise are treated as variants of the same game. As a result, per an RFC earlier this year, Tetris is primarily defined as a video game, one that happens to have multiple variants. Do you have any further concerns? Lazman321 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can your provide a link to the RfC? Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris. Lazman321 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has 5 !votes for “a series of games” and 7 or 8 !votes for “a game”. That is not a slam dunk one way or another. The closing editor wrote “The conclusion to this is a bit mixed. ”

Looking in the NavBox, I pick a random link: Tetris: The Grand Master, that article has “The basic gameplay of Tetris: The Grand Master is similar to that of other Tetris games.” Which tells me there are multiple games in this series/brand/franchise.

The Tetris article starts with “Tetris is a puzzle video game created in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov, a Soviet software engineer” Is that 1985 game the same as Tetris: The Grand Master? or is it not? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the first sentence of Tetris to say something like “Tetris is a puzzle video game series [or franchise] originated in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov, a Soviet software engineer”

I’m not trying to be a nuisance. I’ve played hundreds of video games in my life (tho not Tetris), yet I’m genuinely confused about the scope of the article. The first sentence of the article tells me that this article is about a “game” singular. Then the NavBox tells me there are dozens of games (well, it uses the word “Variant” but the individual articles call them games”).

I respect the RfC process, but the consensus of 13 editors in the RfC does not overrule the simple FA requirement of a clear scope for the article. I think the scope of article is not sufficiently clear for FA.

I think a solution is to improve the article’s first sentence to say something like Tetris is a series of games… or Tetris is a game franchise… or Tetris is a 1985 game and its numerous variants … . And to carry that notion through the article (as you’ve already started to do by adding qualifiers to the word “Tetris”, as discussed above). Noleander (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most reliable secondary and tertiary sources refer to Tetris as a video game, even when discussing multiple variants. I’ve edited the first paragraph, including the first sentence, of the lead to help address the scope. How does it look? Lazman321 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many sources say:

1) “Tetris is a game” or “Tetris is a game with variants”.

But there are also many sources that say:

2) “Tetris is a series of games” or “Tetris is a series of variants of a game” and “{Variant X] is a game …”.

The latest incarnation of the first sentence is emphasizing sources of type (1) and de-emphasizing soruces of type (2). My point is that emphasizing (1) will confuse most readers, whereas emphasizing (2) will benefit readers.

The NavBox has about 30 games listed in it. Nearly every one of those articles begins with the sentence: “ABC is a video game …”. So the Tetris “game” contains 30 other games? Readers will not understand that. Readers will understand “The Tetris series of games contains 30 games” I’m running out of ways to tell you that the current Tetris article’s lead is very confusing. Noleander (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. I don’t think the lead will confuse most readers. I think many will understand that games listed in the navigation box are variants of the Tetris game. Furthermore, there are articles on game remasters such as Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered and ports such as Pac-Man (Atari 2600 video game) and Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) do introduce themselves with “[X] is a video game” despite being variants of pre-existing games themselves. The same precedent applies to the variants of Tetris.

Like I said, most reliable sources refer to Tetris as a game, not as a series, even when discussing multiple variants. Just look at the number of publications used to source Tetris‘s inclusion in List of video games considered the best, or the encyclopedia entries, which are meant summarize secondary sources, from reputable publishers that call Tetris a video game: [1][2][3][4]. In keeping with the spirit of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, I would prefer to emphasize the majority view for this article, which is that Tetris is a video game with hundreds of variants. Lazman321 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the article is FA quality, because the scope of the article is not clearly defined (for lay readers) in the lead. So I cannot Support it, but I won’t Oppose it either. Noleander (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve briefly had a look at the article when it was nominated for PR but I’ll do a thorough review now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Just to let you know, it’s been a week since you posted here. Understanding that you might be busy right now, when should I expect your review? Lazman321 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually writing a review while your comment popped up. I’ll post it now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on implementing your suggestions. You are the second reviewer who has asked me to redefine the article in this way, so I guess I might as well, barring any opposition. What’s your opinion on Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris, as well as the propensity of sources that refer to Tetris in general as a game rather than a series? Lazman321 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’d have to agree with Noleander on the first sentence. It reads kind of weird. From what I’ve gathered, this article is about the franchise, yet the lede is somewhat confusing. Let’s start from the beginning and resolve this issue. The infobox has only the DOS release listed listed, suggesting that Tetris was only released for one platform. Therefore, we have to make this less confusing. If we are talking about the franchise, then I’d suggest doing the following things:
  • Change “List of Tetris variants” to “Various” with the same wikilink
  • Explain to the user that the DOS release is the original release (e.g., “DOS” → “First version/variant (DOS)”) and that Tetris was released over 220 times
• These changes should make the infobox less confusing and explain to the readers that this article is about the franchise which was released on many platforms.
• The next thing that made me more confused is the short description. As of writing this, it states that Tetris is a 1985 video game. Again, this article seems to be about the franchise, not a single video game. I’d suggest changing it to: “Franchise (or brand or series) of video games”.
• Let’s take a look at the prose now. The first sentence suggests that Tetris is a video game but that there also 220 variants of the original video game. Considering that this article is about the franchise, the first sentence should be formatted differently:
  • Tetris is a brand (or franchise or series) of video games created by Alexey Pajitnov, a Soviet software engineer. The original video game was created in 1985, while its gameplay has since been reused in over 220 variants (or games) that were released for over 70 platforms.
• This change should make the first (two) sentence(s) clearer. We are talking about the franchise, not a single video game. Readers should know that and the first sentence should state first that it is a franchise rather than a single video game. Looking at other franchises, such as Call of Duty (which has many games under its belt, while the gameplay seems to be always the same with some minor changes, like for Tetris), it is worded similarly (it referes to CoD as a video game series and media franchise). Same goes for FIFA and so on.
• I might be nitpicky, but the lede does not explain how Robert Stein of Andromeda Software obtained the license.
• “Its success popularized both the console and the game overall” again, this is confusing. It should say that the success of the Game Boy variant popularized the franchise/series.
• The lede also does not explain how Pajitnov lost the rights.
• “Tetris is frequently cited as one of the greatest and most influential games ever made” is also confusing. Are these publications citing the 1985 game or what? Are they citing the franchise as a whole? This should be clarified.
• The rest of the article reads well and does not appear confusing. Therefore, the problem with this article, for now, is the lede. After all, it’s what most readers actually only read (according to the statistics). So, we do really need a good lede that will explain to the users that this article is about the franchise, not a single video game.